The Cellar - Impeding changes to our Health Care system

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Impeding changes to our Health Care system (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16747)

Vaccines aren't big pharma? Did you miss that whole swine flu nonsense?

Yeah, I got the vaccine, didn't get the flu -- like most of my family and co-workers. What of it?

Here is a very interesting article:10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

And no... Health Insurers are not Profitable... there margin is below 3%

Here is another facinating article on that topic: How profitable are health insurance companies?
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...companies.html

Opening the "pool" to include everyone regardless of pre-existing condition is going to bankrupt these companies. They balance the risk and raise rates based on demographics including, but not limited to age, gender and overall health of the population sharing the risk ... or the "pool" if we are all in it... well...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie (Post 642436)

Yeah, I got the vaccine, didn't get the flu -- like most of my family and co-workers. What of it?

I didn't get the vaccine, and I didn't get the flu either.-- like most of my family and co-workers. That's what.

Same here. I personally was not about to allow myself and family to be a "test subject" in effect. We practice common sense and good hygine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie (Post 642436)

Yeah, I got the vaccine, didn't get the flu -- like most of my family and co-workers. What of it?

What of it? It's big pharma.
Ever take kids that skip vaccines to a well-visit at a main stream pediatrician? I have. They just kinda look at you funny and ask why you're there. Preventative care my ass, they are pharmacologists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 642427)

Vaccines aren't big pharma? Did you miss that whole swine flu nonsense?

Sorry - missed that one in there - I was referring to the preventative and common stuff like aspirin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka (Post 642441)

And no... Health Insurers are not Profitable... there margin is below 3%

Here is another facinating article on that topic: How profitable are health insurance companies?
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...companies.html

Opening the "pool" to include everyone regardless of pre-existing condition is going to bankrupt these companies. They balance the risk and raise rates based on demographics including, but not limited to age, gender and overall health of the population sharing the risk ... or the "pool" if we are all in it... well...

Maybe you're cool with accepting some blogger's estimate as to what the numbers mean, but I'm not. The person whom you quote above even admits that he is just doing a rif.

And if insurance companies are so terribly unprofitable, why do they still exist? Somebody out there is filling up their pockets.:eyebrow:

Poor little insurance company - there, there, there. Would ums like a golden parachute?

I was laid off by a large insurance carrier.... it had to cut about 1/3 of its work force. It was the second large insurrer that had laid me off.

They won't exist much longer... then what...

Interesting Links Pooka - found this on the first one.

Quote:

In a time of economic tension, this plan will displace millions of workers and push more people into becoming contract employees, resulting in increased instability for working families. One of the many original stated goals of the White House's health care reforms was the promise that you can keep your health plan if you like it. However, the White House wanted to give businesses much-needed relief from burdensome health costs. Like the desire to create a new entitlement while reducing the budget deficit, these aims are nearly impossible to reconcile, so Obama chose a path that accomplishes neither, says Domenech:

* The president's plan penalizes an employer for not providing insurance, but the government will subsidize the health care of workers without employer-provided insurance.
* This effectively allows workers to receive the same compensation package they get today, but with government footing the health benefits part of the bill, so employers have no need to make up the difference in cash.
* The economic benefits of that subsidy far outweigh the penalties -- for low-income workers, it can result in an enormous difference of more than $17,000 a year.

It's obvious what will happen under this plan, says Domenech:

* No small business that employs lower-income workers will find it makes economic sense to offer health insurance.
* Any small business that does so will almost certainly fail, burdened by higher costs than their competitors'.

This dilemma could be solved by making the penalties more draconian, but that too would cause business failures. Moreover, as with the individual insurance mandate, too steep a penalty would make the plan even more coercive and unpopular.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka (Post 642452)

I was laid off by a large insurance carrier.... it had to cut about 1/3 of its work force. It was the second large insurrer that had laid me off.

They won't exist much longer... then what...

It sucks being laid off. I wish you the best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka (Post 642441)

Here is a very interesting article:10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

Here are 2 more

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...h-care-reform/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-health-care/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka (Post 642441)

And no... Health Insurers are not Profitable... there margin is below 3%

I guess it depends who you believe...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/09/zirkelbach-profits/

Quote:

But the argument that insurers run a tight ship is misleading, on several counts, not least of which is the fact that insurers are planning to spend “more than $1 million” not on health care claims — as their justification for the premium hikes would suggest — but “to run television ads on cable stations nationwide beginning in the next few days to push back on the attacks on insurers.”

That $1 million ad fund will presumably come from the one penny that goes towards health care profits. But this too is misleading. Zirkelbach is clever enough to compare the private insurance industry’s administrative spending to national health care expenditures — 45 percent of which includes spending in Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs. In the context of total spending, insurers administrative costs may look small, but compared to the revenues of private insurers, administrative spending is seen as far more substantial. Insurers skim off 15-20 percent of premium dollars for administrative costs and profits which fund TV ad campaigns, Washington lobbyists, lavish company retreats and outlandish CEO salaries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka (Post 642441)

Opening the "pool" to include everyone regardless of pre-existing condition is going to bankrupt these companies. They balance the risk and raise rates based on demographics including, but not limited to age, gender and overall health of the population sharing the risk ... or the "pool" if we are all in it... well...

Except that the pool will include healthy people, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie (Post 642406)

Hear, hear! This is something no one wants to talk about. The real reason no one was interested in cost-controls for Pharma? They've bought enough congress people to keep that from happening.

And with all the fear-mongering about 'death panels' and 'cost benefit analysis' there will never be a way to convince the American public of any sort of rationality in this respect.

Preventative medicine. Vaccinations. Screening. Smoking cessation. Nutrition and weight management. Birth control. Generic, old-fashioned medications (like statins, aspirin, beta-blockers, ace inhibitors) to control the lion's share of age-related cardiac issues. This is where the money should be spent.

And get ready to be screwed by uncontrolled increases in Co-pays and out of pocket insurance costs within the next 6 months and again in about 3.5 years. This was quite a telling interview and confirms what I have said all along. The insurance companies are going to jack up the rates and pass the costs on to the consumers.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=125072294

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka (Post 642441)

And no... Health Insurers are not Profitable... there margin is below 3%

If my company only makes $100,000 a year, yea 3% is not much. But if my company makes $100,000,000,000 a year 3% can be a chunk of change given that gives them quite a bit of leeway to do what they want with it. Take this example:

Quote:

Cigna's profits rose seven percent last year, you had more than $18 billion in revenue, your predecessor left with $110 million retirement package....

If states sue on the illegality of mandated health care how would that benefit the consumer other than being able to opt out?