I could live without healthcare reform! How about you?

as i have decent health insurance through employment i dont want any reform. Ask me in 6 mos and if i am unemployed without health benefits for my family I will say YES to reform!

Wouldn't preparing for the worst be the right thing to do? Especially for those of us who have families. People seem to have no problem protecting their families by having a loaded gun in their homes, backup health insurance is no different. Getting fired or laid off nowadays is no rare occurrence.

Z

One point:

This nation was founded on the idea of democracy, not capitalism.

The irony of listening to a group of strict constitutionalists blatantly misrepresenting the Constitution is most amusing.

Carry on.

Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year

No doubt... If health care executives were foreigners we would have slapped their likenesses on playing cards and launched cruise missiles at their homes.

In case you missed it, this was on Public Radio yesterday. It is Denny Cortese of the Mayo Clinic talking to the National Press Club.

It is a really good and nonpolitical summary of the current healthcare fee for service system.

I urge you to listen to it in its entirety if you can.
 
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/18/midday2/

I just got done with a dive today so my ear are all plugged up. I will listen to the mayo clinic thing tommorrow.

Heres more reading material

Baucus Health Plan Won't Rein in Health Insurer Price Gouging of Middle Class; Consumer Watchdog Calls for 'Prior Approval' Rate Regulation in Health Reform

WASHINGTON, Sept 16, 2009 /PRNewswire - The new health reform plan released today by U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) will charge middle-class families nearly 20% of their annual income for health coverage, while letting insurance companies charge what they please for policies, said Consumer Watchdog. The consumer group, which pioneered the most successful insurance premium regulation law in the nation, today said only the extension of such regulation to health insurance can make insurance affordable -- which it must be, if Americans will be forced to buy it.

The group called on Congress to adopt health insurance rate regulation that requires prior approval of rate increases. Such regulation has saved drivers in California $62 billion on auto insurance rates since 1988, and similar savings would be expected for health insurance rates. Such regulation would control the startling health premium and out of pocket rates illustrated in a chart leaked from the Senate Finance Committee, showing yearly average out-of-pocket costs of $15,300 for a family of four making $78,000. 

Americans who do not purchase insurance policies under the Baucus plan would pay up to $3,800 in penalties.

"Government cannot force families to pay more than their mortgage to purchase coverage from a for-profit insurer," said Jerry Flanagan, health policy director of Consumer Watchdog. "Yet if families paying more than 10% are automatically exempted from the law, they will still be without health care. It's an impossible bind, and tough, transparent regulation is the right start to fixing it."

Download Consumer Watchdog's report, Regulation, Not Deregulation: The Prescription for Lowering Health Costs Without Cutting Coverage (With or Without a Public Option), at: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/resources/Regulate_Not_Deregulate.pdf 

The components of California's landmark property and casualty insurance regulation law, Proposition 103, include:

** A prior approval system for rates requiring insurers to seek permission from government regulators and justify rate increases. Since 1988, California's Proposition 103 has saved drivers $62 billion while fostering a competitive and still profitable insurance market.

** An intervenor system that allows the public to challenge unnecessary premium hikes. Since 2003, Consumer Watchdog has saved $1.7 billion by challenging unnecessary premium increase and insufficient decrease requests using the public intervention process.

** An elected state-level commissioner accountable to the public directly for premium hikes. To ensure that the reforms would be properly enforced, Proposition 103 made the state insurance commissioner an elected position accountable directly to the voters, not a political appointee.

A 2008 Consumer Federation of America report detailing the savings of Proposition 103 can be downloaded at: http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/state_auto_insurance_report.pdf. A related press release is available at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=19888. 

In addition, Consumer Watchdog in its report Regulation, Not Deregulation:

** Calls for legal accountability of health insurance companies and HMOs. The Baucus plan fails to close a loophole in existing law that bars many Americans from holding health insurance companies and HMOs financially accountable. Currently, for patients who receive health coverage through a private employer, HMOs and health insurers face no financial consequences for mishandling claims. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), lawsuits are removed to federal court where victims can only recover the cost of the procedure or service denied in the first place -- no damages or penalties are allowed. As a result, HMOs and insurers are largely free to deny access to care without fear of reprisal or financial consequences.

** Explains why efforts to use health insurance cooperatives ("co-ops") as a vehicle to gut state consumer protection laws would be devastating to consumers and business owners. The Baucus plan would would open the door to deregulation of health insurance by allowing insurance companies that participate in "health care compacts" to choose the weakest state law to govern all their policies, regardless of which state the policies are sold in. The loss of state health benefit requirements could allow exclusion of preventive treatments and exams and prevent early diagnosis of disease, though apparently the state where the consumer lives would retain some authority to address market conduct, unfair trade practices, network adequacy and consumer protection standards.

Consumer Watchdog is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA. Find us on the web at: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org. 

SOURCE Consumer Watchdog

One point:

This nation was founded on the idea of democracy, not capitalism.

The irony of listening to a group of strict constitutionalists blatantly misrepresenting the Constitution is most amusing.

Carry on.

I haven't seen anyone forward a strict constructionist argument in this thread.  Did I miss something?

And more reading for you all.

Employers Put Costs at the Top of Health Care Reform Priority List, According to Towers Perrin Survey

Employers Say They Will Not Absorb Any Additional Costs Resulting From Reform

STAMFORD, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--With health care reform efforts ramping up after the summer break, many of the nation’s employers are focusing on the action in Congress and plan to adjust their benefit strategies based on how final legislation affects their costs, according to a survey of 433 HR and benefit executives from midsize and large organizations conducted by professional services firm Towers Perrin. Employers say they will not absorb any additional costs that result from reform and plan to take actions to avoid doing so, including reducing benefits, raising prices for customers and/or reducing head count.

Although not as outspoken in the reform process as many stakeholders in the health care industry, employers are watching Washington closely, with 80% monitoring developments. Nearly one in four companies (23%) in the survey are currently rethinking benefit changes in light of possible reforms, and nearly all (89%) plan to reexamine their health benefit strategies for active employees in response to the passage of health care reform legislation. And while talent management considerations such as productivity, workforce health, and recruiting and retention remain important even in a tough economy, cost issues will dominate employers’ decision making in a post-reform world, according to the survey.

“With employer health care costs rising more than 150% over the last decade, it’s no surprise that 90% of employers list cost containment as the most important health care reform goal,” said Dave Guilmette, Managing Director of the Towers Perrin Health and Welfare practice. “ Many large employers, however, feel that current reform proposals are focused on other health care issues — such as expanding coverage and reforming certain insurance practices — and they feel they have already addressed these issues within their own workforces.”

In addition, employers do not expect that reform as currently proposed will address some of the fundamental drivers of health care costs. For example, nearly two-thirds of employers (65%) believe that health care reform will have little or no impact on consumer behaviors, an area many leading employers have begun to target as one of their key cost-containment opportunities.

Nevertheless, among health care proposals currently on the table, 53% of employers believe that research on effectiveness of alternative treatments will have a positive impact on their business by, over time, influencing the quality of care, and 44% believe that reforming the health insurance market to ensure guaranteed access to coverage regardless of health status will have a positive impact. However, nearly half (47%) of survey respondents believe that an employer “pay or play” mandate would have a negative impact on businesses.

“The way employers would respond to reform proposals that raise or lower their costs is one of our most telling findings — one that could conceivably impact economic recovery,” said Guilmette. “With companies struggling to manage rapidly escalating health care costs and reclaim profits, only 11% of companies would agree to absorb increased health care costs by reducing their profits. The overwhelming majority of companies would respond to higher costs by reducing the benefits their employees receive.”

(See exhibits for details on how employers said they would respond to higher costs or savings resulting from health care reform.)

Despite the sharp focus on costs, the survey respondents express strong positive views on the importance of workforce health to business success, the role of health benefits in the rewards portfolio and the opportunities benefit programs provide in influencing workforce health. Notably, a majority (61%) say they would stand by their commitments to employee wellness and health promotion programs even if they no longer offered medical benefits (under the “pay” option of a pay-or-play mandate, for example).

“For many companies and in certain industries, health benefits are viewed as critical to the total rewards package,” says Ron Fontanetta, Towers Perrin Principal. “These programs provide important levers in managing talent and supporting other key business objectives.“

Towers Perrin’s Health Care Reform Pulse Survey also examined the experience of employers based in Massachusetts, a state that has imposed a pay-or-play mandate on employers and a coverage mandate on individuals similar to those currently proposed in Congress. Among those employers, most are not sure what, if any, impact the three-year-old Massachusetts mandates have had. Most respondents have seen little or no change in employee or employer health care costs or access to or quality of care. Notably, however, more than two-thirds of these employers report that their administrative burdens have increased.

Among the full survey group, employers expect they would respond to a pay-or-play mandate in the following ways:

•37% of employers would provide company-sponsored health coverage that substantially exceeds the standard.

•29% of employers would discontinue company-sponsored health coverage and pay the assessment if the per-employee costs of payments to the federal government were substantially lower than their current costs.

•26% of employers would provide company-sponsored health coverage at the level of the minimum standard required.

“In some industries, particularly those with low margins and lower-income/high-turnover employee populations, some companies would, under a mandate, choose to write a check to the government and allow employees to purchase coverage in a reformed market for individual health insurance,” noted Fontanetta. “For example, fully 42% of retail companies in the survey said they would close their plans and pay a federal assessment, versus 28% of those in financial services and 24% of those in technology/telecommunications.”

“As the process continues to unfold and specific elements are known, employers will want to model the financial and employee relations impact on their specific organizations,” added Guilmette. “Senior executives also are more likely to engage directly, given the cost and visibility of this important benefit.”

Methodology

The Tower Perrin Health Care Reform Pulse Survey drew responses from 433 HR and benefit executives from a cross section of midsize and large organizations in the U.S. At the time of the survey, 94% of employees at respondents’ companies were eligible to receive health benefits, and 81% were enrolled in company-sponsored benefit programs. The survey was conducted online in July 2009. (See selected exhibits.)

About Towers Perrin

Towers Perrin is a global professional services firm that helps organizations improve performance through effective people, risk and financial management. The firm provides innovative solutions in the areas of human capital strategy, program design and management, and in the areas of risk and capital management, insurance and reinsurance intermediary services, and actuarial consulting. Towers Perrin has offices and alliance partners in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, Latin America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the Middle East. More information about Towers Perrin is available at www.towersperrin.com. 

Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=6051973&lang=en 

Contacts

I haven't seen anyone forward a strict constructionist argument in this thread.  Did I miss something?

Comedy gold!

This explains a lot.

Ocean, you are posting a ton of material that you feel supports your position, but any time someone posts something with a measured, opposing or differing view, you summarily reject it without even looking into it.

how can you possibly feel you have an informed position?

By the way, the CEO of the Mayo Clinic talked about reasons for the high costs, and illegal immigrants somehow didn't make the list. huh...go figure...

I haven't seen anyone forward a strict constructionist argument in this thread.  Did I miss something?

Comedy gold!

This explains a lot.

OK.  I suppose it is much easier to laugh than to admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

This country wasn't founded on the idea of democracy.  Otherwise, the constitution would provide for a democracy instead of a republic.  The overriding theme of the constitution is a distrust of centralized government and a dispersal of power, coupled with a system of checks and balances.

I don't think anyone has complained about the process itself so the constitutional digression seems unnecessary, but since you are lol'ing your self silly I suppose the civics lesson is necessary.

In case you missed it, this was on Public Radio yesterday. It is Denny Cortese of the Mayo Clinic talking to the National Press Club.

It is a really good and nonpolitical summary of the current healthcare fee for service system.

I urge you to listen to it in its entirety if you can.
 
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/18/midday2/

Excellent information.  Thanks for the clarity.

Ocean, you are posting a ton of material that you feel supports your position, but any time someone posts something with a measured, opposing or differing view, you summarily reject it without even looking into it.

how can you possibly feel you have an informed position?

By the way, the CEO of the Mayo Clinic talked about reasons for the high costs, and illegal immigrants somehow didn't make the list. huh...go figure...

I will listen to it after my ears unplug, it was hard to hear. I am using an old laptop for my play computer so its speakers are terrible. I will play in on the business computer tommorrow.

What i am posting is the stuff i get every morning, the people who are publishing this stuff are the best in the country at what they do.  Healthcare and its costs have been an issue for many years. Hosptials have been screaming about the uninsured, Doctors have been screaming about laywers and underfunding of Medicare.  The insurance companies have been screaming about the cost of tecnology and fraud. This is nothing new. But the goverment taking over healthcare and almost everything else in this country is scaring the hell out of a huge portion of this country.
And the denial of the issues and problem of healthcare is scaring those who understand business and medicene to death.

From an earlier post:   "I hired 250 employees and my only motivation for doing all of this was to become rich..nothing else."

I respect your effort and professional ambition, and wish you success, but....


I think your statement underscores why a for profit, market based model does not provide good health care for all:

If your only motivation is getting rich, that works fine if you're making paper clips. Or baseballs. But in the health insurance business, you will naturally find ways of becoming more profitable, at the consumer's expense. Insure only the relatively healthy. Deny claims. Pay doctors as little as possible. Create monopolies, and raise rates.

Look, the question of capitalism vs socialism isn't so cut and dry. Pure capitalism doesn't work, it's an economic engine that needs to be harnessed to prevent abuse. Examples of this abound (Enron quite recently, or the mortgage lending crisis). We have a capitalist economy, but we have a minimum wage, social security, and medicare, because we can't accept how hard life can be without these programs. That doesn't make us socialist, just a nation finding the right balance-it's a mixed economy.

Obviously you disagree, but I think the insurance industry is just too universally important to leave it up to market forces. Basic health care is neither affordable or accessible.

According to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, most physicians agree.

63% support some sort of public option, and another 10% support a single payer system.

OK.  I suppose it is much easier to laugh than to admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh you have to admit, that was funny.

But in regards to your reply, a favorite quote of mine probably says it best:

"Fools act on imagination without knowledge, pedants act on knowledge without imagination"

I will leave it at that.

And the oft repeated idea that the founders feared government is at best, deceitful:

Colonial Americans feared the unrestrained power of all institutions, including the church, the crown and the corporation. In a thoughtful history, the Washington Monthly's contributing editor, Jonathan Rowe, observed:

"The colonists were extremely suspicious of corporations, which were seen as oppressive agents of the crown and potential usurpers of the public will. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, only some 40 business corporations had been chartered in all the colonies. Most of these were for bridges, toll roads and similar public works endeavors. So it's not surprising the founding fathers omitted the corporation from the scheme of checks and balances by which they hoped to keep institutional power under restraint."

I will shorthand the ensuing evolution: For a long while, corporate charters were granted selectively for, as Rowe explained, "ventures that seemed worthy of public promotion and support." Slowly, these institutions grew in number and influence. The most avaricious sought better terms. Individual states found it a handy source of revenue to offer increasingly favorable deals for corporate charters. Incrementally, states reduced the burden of public responsibility.

Delaware finally took the lowest common denominator to zero. Corporations flocked there the way that international shipping companies seek the Liberian flag--a rubber stamp of convenience.
 
Even high-minded industrialists were forced to play down and dirty. The only responsibility that corporations assumed, in a legal sense, was to themselves. Today, we call this the "fiduciary" responsibility to shareholders, and it is worshiped as business gospel. A corporation that has an opportunity to seek triple-digit profits but does not, perhaps to try and keep the lights on in our schools, could be held in breech of this responsibility

More terrifyingly in this instance, they have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, to profits, not to their customer's health.

So now it is because of the corporate form?  It is hard to keep up with the number of villains in this thread.

Given that fluff piece it is pretty ironic that Balzar was sacked after a corporate takeover of the LA Times.  He wrote it during the height of the rolling blackouts, shortly following PG&E's bankruptcy filing and at the beginnings of the Enron scandal.