I could live without healthcare reform! How about you?

There is a lot more sympathy for people who lose their insurance because they got too sick to stay at their job (which provided the insurance), or who's coverage is yanked because they failed to disclose something minor, than people who choose not to have insurance and get indignant when something happens. 

There is a lot more sympathy for people who lose their insurance because they got too sick to stay at their job (which provided the insurance), or who's coverage is yanked because they failed to disclose something minor, than people who choose not to have insurance and get indignant when something happens.

Of course. But that is a very small minority.

Again, in 75% of bankruptcies, where medical costs was the cause, the person filing *had* insurance.

Of the remaining 25% I'll leave it to you to break down how many lost their insurance do to layoffs, how many had no way to afford it, and how many simply chose to roll the dice.

Ben

However, I'm very concerned about what it might do to the affordability of health-care.

Personally, I see health care for profit as fundamentally immoral. A good portion of the money that should be going to a person’s health care is siphoned off by a massive yet legal skimming operation that adds absolutely zero value. The skimmed money is divided up between stockholders, absurd salaries, extravagant junkets and colossal marketing budgets. The skimmers maximize profits by cherry picking clients, and by arbitrarily rejecting claims and coverage. All of the supposed evils of a public option claimed by opponents are today actively and often practiced by the private insurance.

Opponents of the public option seem to be living in a completely theoretic world where real competition exists and simplistic economic theory succeeds. Nothing could be further from the truth.

By Matthew Artz
The Argus
Posted: 09/10/2009 04:02:54 PM PDT
Updated: 09/11/2009 06:23:59 AM PDT



FREMONT — The East Bay's highest-paid public employee is in line for a nearly 10 percent raise in base salary — an increase of $59,000 a year, according to a consultant's report.

Washington Township health care district CEO Nancy Farber last year earned $876,831 in salary and performance bonuses — a 53 percent increase over her salary just two years earlier.

Farber made more than twice as much as any other local government employee last year in the East Bay, San Francisco, San Mateo County and San Joaquin County, a recent survey of salary data by the Bay Area Newsgroup found.

Again, in 75% of bankruptcies, where medical costs was the cause, the person filing *had* insurance.

These numbers come from Professor Elizabeth Warren from Harvard.  She is heading the Congressional taskforce for implementation of the stimulus act.  She was a lead opponent of the 2005 changes to the bankruptcy code.  Her politics are far left.  Her methodology is questionable, and she has a clear bias.  That said, she is an incredibly bright and capable woman.  I think that her numbers are inflated, but there is certainly some truth to the notion that a high percentage of bankruptcies include medical debt (not that the debt was the catalyst for the bankruptcy - notice the subtle distinction - generally over-extension of credit, job loss and divorce are the catalysts, and loss of medical insurance is a result of job loss).

Personally, I see health care for profit as fundamentally immoral. A good portion of the money that should be going to a person’s health care is siphoned off by a massive yet legal skimming operation that adds absolutely zero value. The skimmed money is divided up between stockholders, absurd salaries, extravagant junkets and colossal marketing budgets. The skimmers maximize profits by cherry picking clients, and by arbitrarily rejecting claims and coverage. All of the supposed evils of a public option claimed by opponents are today actively and often practiced by the private insurance.

This is the natural conclusion when you hold the view that health care in a 1st world country is a natural right.  It is also frightening.

However, I'm very concerned about what it might do to the affordability of health-care.

Personally, I see health care for profit as fundamentally immoral. A good portion of the money that should be going to a person’s health care is siphoned off by a massive yet legal skimming operation that adds absolutely zero value. The skimmed money is divided up between stockholders, absurd salaries, extravagant junkets and colossal marketing budgets. The skimmers maximize profits by cherry picking clients, and by arbitrarily rejecting claims and coverage. All of the supposed evils of a public option claimed by opponents are today actively and often practiced by the private insurance.

Opponents of the public option seem to be living in a completely theoretic world where real competition exists and simplistic economic theory succeeds. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I encourage debate on the subject and will not take responses personally.

I work for Blue Shield of California, which is unique in that we are a not-for-profit. We don't pay out to share holders and trust me the salaries are not absurd. Marketing budgets are required to be competitive in the marketplace. I agree that profits should not be made off health insurance. The system does not work the way it is today. I personally support universal healthcare and my company supports universal healthcare. I think there is hope that we could be an administrator for benefits. Just like Medicare there will be supplement plans and government contracts to process claims and so forth.



Currently there are 5 categories for insurance and I will post pros/cons as I see them ( when I get some free time later today):

Self Funded/Administrative Services Only -

Large Groups -

Small Groups -

Individual/Families -

Goverment Paid/Supplement/GI plans -


-Brian G

I agree that profits should not be made off health insurance.

Could this possibly lead to a reduced level of care (e.g., crappier facilities/medicine/providers/physicians/etc)?
I have generally been in favor of universal healthcare, but I also admit to being naive of the facts. I am not informed but I have learned a few things from this discussion--thanks guys.

I agree that profits should not be made off health insurance.

Could this possibly lead to a reduced level of care (e.g., crappier facilities/medicine/providers/physicians/etc)?
I have generally been in favor of universal healthcare, but I also admit to being naive of the facts. I am not informed but I have learned a few things from this discussion--thanks guys.

Hopefully whether or not the insurance company makes a profit has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of care received in a hospital.  That would imply that somehow the insurance company has control over the medical professional's decision making process and the ability to determine the level of care and perhaps even the identity of the care provider.  Not to mention the implicit implication of potential preferential treatment, kickbacks to providers and the like.  This is exactly the evil that most people who are against universal healthcare fear the most, whether that fear is rational or not.  If it already exists, and I am aware of the criticisms that it does, then that should be a focus of reform.  It does not rationally follow that universal health care would end this practice if it does exist, nor does it suggest that universal care is necessary. 

This is the natural conclusion when you hold the view that health care in a 1st world country is a natural right.  It is also frightening.

I believe this was pointed out earlier in the thread.

As a society we provide heath care automatically for the incarcerated, the feeble, the rescued, and the indigent. Morally, and traditionally this society does see it as a right. Makes sense to me to stop screwing around and get everybody on board. End the subsidies to private insurers and force them to do what they claim makes them best: Actually compete.

It’s been pointed out before, if government is so inefficient, what the hell do the private insurers have to worry about? I can tell you what they worry about most: They can’t compete and line their pockets at the same time.

Again, in 75% of bankruptcies, where medical costs was the cause, the person filing *had* insurance.

These numbers come from Professor Elizabeth Warren from Harvard.

http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

David U. Himmelstein, MD, Deborah Thorne, PhD, Elizabeth Warren, JD, Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH

"RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001."

So, if I read this right, a "medical bankruptcy" indeed has medical expenses as the catalyst for the bankruptcy.

Personally, I see health care for profit as fundamentally immoral.

...This is the natural conclusion when you hold the view that health care in a 1st world country is a natural right...

I don't think a moral view is necessarily the extension of a political one  

Ben

Where the hell is Joe the Plumber?  He could solve this for us.

An overly simplified example:

You have 5000 people paying 20k each per year.
5000 people x $20,000 = 10 Million net income
10 Million income - 8 Million paid out on services and adminstration costs= 2 Million residual

The 2 Million in residual funds can now paid out to share holders.

Now here is the cavet...90% of the 8 million was paid out of 500 of those 5000. If you could eliminate that 10% of your insured you could suddenly make some very happy share holders.

-Brian G

Yeah, that 3.3% profit margin is a travesty.    While we're at it, we shouldn't make money selling food, clothing, housing or other essentials to life....  Hunger is just a chronic illness that needs daily doses of food to treat.    

Yeah, that 3.3% profit margin is a travesty.    While we're at it, we shouldn't make money selling food, clothing, housing or other essentials to life....  Hunger is just a chronic illness that needs daily doses of food to treat.   

Ding!

Yeah, that 3.3% profit margin is a travesty.    While we're at it, we shouldn't make money selling food, clothing, housing or other essentials to life....  Hunger is just a chronic illness that needs daily doses of food to treat.    

And there's the difference.

Some see health as nothing more than a commodity. No different than a bag of nails.