Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[glatt]

But even when there was a job market, there wasn't much motivation for 20 somethings to buy insurance. If their job gave it to them or their parents covered them, they would have it. But nobody would buy it on their own at that age. I didn't.

[skysidhe]

Thank you for that slide show pierce. It cleared up some questions I had.

[Pie]

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

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Pie

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.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Pie

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.

[Pooka]

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...

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Pooka

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.

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

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Pooka

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/

Originally Posted by Pooka

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/

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.

Originally Posted by Pooka

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Pooka

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:

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

[Pooka]

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.

[Pooka]

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...

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Pooka

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.

[classicman]

Interesting Links Pooka - found this on the first one.

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.

[skysidhe]

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

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

I don't think it will help. I think the states are just pushing the issue based upon the general electorate.