View Full Version : This just in: health insurance companies are evil
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/11563
Maybe it was just lousy timing, but many customers of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina are ticked off at the mail they’ve received recently from the state’s largest insurer.
First, they learned their rates will rise by an average of 11 percent next year.
Next, they opened a slick flier from the insurer urging them to send an enclosed pre-printed, postage-paid note to Sen. Kay Hagan denouncing what the company says is unfair competition that would be imposed by a government-backed insurance plan. The so-called public option is likely to be considered by Congress in the health-care overhaul debate.
:wall:
So a healthcare company is shafting customers and encouraging them to shut down the one avenue of respite they have from it.
Can we all agree now that the current US healthcare system is completely ridiculous? And can we please stop with the transparently bogus argument that a government run option would be "unfair competition"?
Nonsense, insurance companies are full of love and peace. (http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2009/10/26/ac360.christina.turner.int.cnn)
You guys just realised this? I could have told you for free over 10 years ago.
Crazed Rabbit
10-30-2009, 17:08
Well, no matter what the hysterical democrats say about 'immoral' profit margins, the profit margins of insurance companies are very typical among many industries:
FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FACT_CHECK_HEALTH_INSURANCE?SITE=WFAA&TEMPLATE=TOPHEADS.html&SECTION=HOME)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."
But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.
Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.
Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.
...
THE CLAIMS
-"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."
...
THE NUMBERS:
Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th of 53 industries on the Fortune 500 list. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.
The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.
HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.
And can we please stop with the transparently bogus argument that a government run option would be "unfair competition"?
How is that bogus? The government option wouldn't have to be profitable, would be subsidized by the government, etc., which would make the competition very unfair.
CR
Gregoshi
10-30-2009, 17:11
The government option wouldn't have to be profitable, would be subsidized by the government, etc., which would make the competition very unfair.
The lower price is offset by the handicap of having to deal with the government - profits aren't required, but neither is competence.
Nonsense, insurance companies are full of love and peace. (http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2009/10/26/ac360.christina.turner.int.cnn)
:wall: I've heard of this before. I still can't believe it flies.
Well, no matter what the hysterical democrats say about 'immoral' profit margins, the profit margins of insurance companies are very typical among many industries:
I don't have my sources handy so I'll take your word on this for the time being, but THIS...
How is that bogus? The government option wouldn't have to be profitable, would be subsidized by the government, etc., which would make the competition very unfair.:
In saying that a public option shouldn't be instituted because it might drive smaller insureres out of business you're essentially proposing corporate welfare.
The lower price is offset by the handicap of having to deal with the government - profits aren't required, but neither is competence.
I might be misreading your post, and I apologize if so, but...you know the government is completely able to efficiently run a public option, right? Hint: we already do it with Medicare.
Also, it is not all about profit either. I mean, dropping some one because they were raped and in a vulnerable condition. The whole idea of that such be not inconcievable.
I wish American Politics quit making everything about the economy and about actual politics.
In saying that a public option shouldn't be instituted because it might drive smaller insureres out of business you're essentially proposing corporate welfare.That's quite a leap there. So, in any industry that there isn't a government-run competitor, the businesses in said industry are on welfare? No, I think not.
I might be misreading your post, and I apologize if so, but...you know the government is completely able to efficiently run a public option, right? Hint: we already do it with Medicare.Ah yes, Medicare, the model of efficiency. Last I heard, it's unfunded liabilities are around $75 trillion. Currently, medicare/medicaid/CHIP account for 20 percent (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258) of the federal budget and it's growing at a breakneck pace.
Simply put, Medicare is bankrupting us. Not the best example. :sweatdrop:
Major Robert Dump
10-31-2009, 01:31
Make no mistake, the issue of mixing people's promise healthcare coverage vs profit is one that stinks, absolutely stinks. I think we all probably know someone who has had to fight with an insurance company over not being covered on something.
However,
This might not be such a bad scenario if it weren't for all the lazy, trashy, human garbage that milks the insurance system dry by pretending to be hurt when they are not. Insurance adjusters have every reason in the world to be paranoid.
This may be not contribute much to the argument but:
I have worked on and off as a private detective for almost 10 years now. Just recently, as in the last 2 months, I have begun contracting out to mortgage insurers and health insurers and the level of fraud is simply astounding. Of the mortgage fraud suspects I have investigated, 35% of the borrowers have been guilty alone, 25% of the loan officers have been guilty of changing facts when transferring data from the written 1003 to the typed 1003, and in about 20% of the cases both parties were in collusion.
As for the health insurance fraud, straight up 50% of my cases are people who are obviously guilty. I'm talking 80% disabled-can't work-riding in a wheelchair-life is ruined one week and building a barn in the back yard the next.
I have no shortage of work here. I could work 7 days a week, 2 cases a day if I had the stomach. My company is turning away business in Oklahoma because there are not enough investigators to handle the case load. They are having to hire people in Texas and Kansas to come into state, and even hiring people with no expereince and paying for ther school so they can get their license.
What's scary is that SSI (the government disability) practically investigates NONE of its disability claims after they have been awarded unless someone turns someone else in. I know a couple in their 50s who work full time pulling in 7k a month in disability, yet they work, hunt, play sports and behave just as they always did. They have been doing this for 10 years. They are family, but I turned them in because they are step-family. Now they are being investigated.
so the question is: will government healthcare crack down on consumer fraud? What about hypochondriacs? What about the guy who drinks too much, can't make it to work in the morning, and decided he better go to the doc and say he has the flu so he can get a doc note for missing work?
Inquiring minds want to know. I think I'll start and insurance fraud thread.
HoreTore
10-31-2009, 01:34
The lower price is offset by the handicap of having to deal with the government - profits aren't required, but neither is competence.
Finally I find an american who agrees that the US army is incompetent :laugh4:
That's quite a leap there. So, in any industry that there isn't a government-run competitor, the businesses in said industry are on welfare? No, I think not.
Of course not. But if your *sole* reason for not introducing a government option is that the insurance companies won't make enough money to stay afloat, well then...
Ah yes, Medicare, the model of efficiency. Last I heard, it's unfunded liabilities are around $75 trillion. Currently, medicare/medicaid/CHIP account for 20 percent (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258) of the federal budget and it's growing at a breakneck pace.
Simply put, Medicare is bankrupting us. Not the best example. :sweatdrop:
The only reason Medicare costs so much is because it only covers a very small, very high risk population. If we extended it to everyone then funding would abound.
6 out of 8 people using the NHS is over the age of 65. (Going into medicare territory)
And that's completely not because when your over 50 you need more doctor visits.
HoreTore
10-31-2009, 23:02
Old people costs us a bunch of money. It makes perfect sense to whack them all.
I mean, what have they done for us lately?
seireikhaan
10-31-2009, 23:31
Old people costs us a bunch of money. It makes perfect sense to whack them all.
I mean, what have they done for us lately?
~:eek:
The RNC is right! See?! See?! All those mean Euro commies that Obama wants us to be like are putting grannies on a death panel. My granny aint goin' on no death panel, ya hear?
HoreTore
10-31-2009, 23:51
~:eek:
The RNC is right! See?! See?! All those mean Euro commies that Obama wants us to be like are putting grannies on a death panel. My granny aint goin' on no death panel, ya hear?
What has she done for you lately??
LittleGrizzly
11-01-2009, 00:03
The old people have property that has some wealth to it but let us not mention this infront of the americans yet
Old people costs us a bunch of money. It makes perfect sense to whack them all.
I mean, what have they done for us lately?
Given us monies on birthdays and X-mas?
HoreTore
11-01-2009, 16:30
Given us money on birthdats and X-mas?
Christmas was 11 months ago.
What have they done for you lately...?
But the next one is in one month. My grand-mother paid for fancy eating and drinking vessels for my sisters wedding.
Don Corleone
11-02-2009, 23:35
Well, no matter what the hysterical democrats say about 'immoral' profit margins, the profit margins of insurance companies are very typical among many industries:
FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FACT_CHECK_HEALTH_INSURANCE?SITE=WFAA&TEMPLATE=TOPHEADS.html&SECTION=HOME) To be fair, salaries paid to corporate officers and employees, including bonuses for reducing covered claims, serve to lower the overall profits and profitability. It may not be the case here, but an eggregiously bloated payroll would serve to lower profits & therefore profitability, no?
How is that bogus? The government option wouldn't have to be profitable, would be subsidized by the government, etc., which would make the competition very unfair.
CR
Here I agree with you. No industry could stand to have the US federal government, with unlimited money printing potential behind it, enter its market as a competitor with the sole aim to drive revenue down.
Unless you're making the argument that private capital in and of itself is a bad thing, I don't think you want to claim that asking the federal government to stay out of the private sector equates to begging for corporate welfare.
What's with the "All or None" approach to Health Care Reform? Why do we immediately have to go frome one (IMHO) dysfunctional system to the diametrically opposed (IMHO) dysfunctional system?
What's so terrible about the health care system in Germany?
What's more, until we solve the fundamental problem of Healthcare in America, something all parties appear to be studiously avoiding, we will continue to shift our GDP into Healthcare, until it bankrupts us and destroys our future.
We incentivize treatement and diagnostics, necessary or not, not wellness.
HoreTore
11-03-2009, 00:15
Here I agree with you. No industry could stand to have the US federal government, with unlimited money printing potential behind it, enter its market as a competitor with the sole aim to drive revenue down.
Actually...
Over here, the government is the primary provider of health services. But we still have a large number of private institutions who are doing quite well...
Here I agree with you. No industry could stand to have the US federal government, with unlimited money printing potential behind it, enter its market as a competitor with the sole aim to drive revenue down.
What HoreTore said. By the way, since you mentioned it, are there any Orgahs here who could enlighten me as to how private insurance works in Holland and Germany? I'm told they work well over there - without devolving into the predatory profit monsters that the ones in the US do.
Unless you're making the argument that private capital in and of itself is a bad thing, I don't think you want to claim that asking the federal government to stay out of the private sector equates to begging for corporate welfare.
Again; how is placing the interests of the corporations over the wellbeing of the people not corporate welfare? The free market has proven itself to be abominable at providing healthcare.
What's with the "All or None" approach to Health Care Reform? Why do we immediately have to go frome one (IMHO) dysfunctional system to the diametrically opposed (IMHO) dysfunctional system?
Because the alternative isn't dysfunctional. It's been screamingly succesful by every conceivable metric in every single country that's ever tried it (i.e, the entire first world except for here). And also because the current situation is so out of control that anything short of a complete upheaval of the system is just a bandage over a gushing artery.
What's more, until we solve the fundamental problem of Healthcare in America, something all parties appear to be studiously avoiding, we will continue to shift our GDP into Healthcare, until it bankrupts us and destroys our future.
I think I can agree with you on this one point. :yes: Of course, I think it goes without saying that UHC would make preventative care much easier.
What's so terrible about the health care system in Germany?
Somehow it always ends up bankrupt while the managers are adjusting their wages to the industry standard(that's usually upwards), the patients pay more and more and the government now wants to pump tax money into it if I'm not mistaken.
You see, there's no problem with having industry standard manager payments if you can afford it.
But when you're whining to the government for more money and raise manager wages at the same time, that seems a bit odd, doesn't it?
Interesting factoid: if you keep everything the same—number of treatments, days in hospital, lawyers suing everybody in sight—and only switch the fees we pay for the fees Canadians pay, our healthcare expenses would drop by 50%. Sobering, no? Here are some pretty charts (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html) to help illustrate the point:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/doctorvisit-thumb-454x317.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/ctprices-thumb-454x324.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Lipitor-thumb-454x314.jpg
You can't factor for the costs of lawsuits like that and I don't think your source supports that part of your assertion either.
As Halvorson explained, and academics and consultancies have repeatedly confirmed, if you leave everything else the same -- the volume of procedures, the days we spend in the hospital, the number of surgeries we need -- but plug in the prices Canadians pay, our health-care spending falls by about 50 percent.Indeed, I'm sure that malpractice lawsuits have to make up some part of the fee difference. Also, "fee range" sounds awfully weasely to me. Why not just use the median price? Probably because it wouldn't make their point as strongly as listing the highest price they can find does.
I do believe that Americans are being gouged on prescription drug prices though. We're essentially subsidizing the negotiated rates that other countries get. The solution? Reimportation. Once a significant portion of Americans import their drugs from Canada, drug makers will have to charge other countries the market rate and we can stop paying inflated prices to make up the difference. :yes:
Indeed, I'm sure that malpractice lawsuits have to make up some part of the fee difference.
"Some" equals, according to the CBO, two percent (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf). I'm all for limiting TORT damages, but here's the thing—forty-eight states already do. The other two can get in line whenever they like. Claiming that TORT reform will cause substantial savings in our bloated healthcare system is just willfully ignorant.
CBO estimates that the direct costs that providers will incur in 2009 for medical malpractice liability—which consist of malpractice insurance premiums together with settlements, awards, and administrative costs not covered by insurance—will total approximately $35 billion, or about 2 percent of total health care expenditures. Therefore, lowering premiums for medical liability insurance by 10 percent would reduce total national health care expenditures by about 0.2 percent.
The Americans are getting fleeced for their health care and they want to do nothing about it.
rory_20_uk
11-03-2009, 17:11
MsKinsey does a lot of research into the disperate costs. Or look up USA healthcare costs on google images for a range of graphs.
~:smoking:
"Some" equals, according to the CBO, two percent (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf). I'm all for limiting TORT damages, but here's the thing—forty-eight states already do. The other two can get in line whenever they like. Claiming that TORT reform will cause substantial savings in our bloated healthcare system is just willfully ignorant.
CBO estimates that the direct costs that providers will incur in 2009 for medical malpractice liability—which consist of malpractice insurance premiums together with settlements, awards, and administrative costs not covered by insurance—will total approximately $35 billion, or about 2 percent of total health care expenditures. Therefore, lowering premiums for medical liability insurance by 10 percent would reduce total national health care expenditures by about 0.2 percent.
I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the 2% is in reference to total health care expenditures, not fees. :wink:
Strike For The South
11-03-2009, 17:31
Interesting factoid: if you keep everything the same—number of treatments, days in hospital, lawyers suing everybody in sight—and only switch the fees we pay for the fees Canadians pay, our healthcare expenses would drop by 50%. Sobering, no? Here are some pretty charts (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html) to help illustrate the point:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/doctorvisit-thumb-454x317.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/ctprices-thumb-454x324.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Lipitor-thumb-454x314.jpg
Why are these so high?
I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the 2% is in reference to total health care expenditures, not fees. :wink:
And I would be remiss if I didn't invite you to provide your own research, preferably from a non-partisan source, that indicates what savings we can expect from TORT reform. Face facts: it's a distraction. Again, 48 states already have caps. CBO estimates a minuscule but measurable impact from federal restrictions. The kinds of savings we need will not come from TORT reform, so bang that theme as hard as you like; you'll be as loud as a drum, and as hollow.
Why are these so high?
Because you employ crooks who have a profitable deal going on.
Strike For The South
11-03-2009, 18:39
Because you employ crooks who have a profitable deal going on.
Intersting. And why haven't we reformed the system?
rory_20_uk
11-03-2009, 20:05
Short answer: lobbyists.
They can afford to pay millions if not billions annually to keep the current system going.
~:smoking:
Major Robert Dump
11-03-2009, 21:40
It's more than just lobbyists. Medicare abuse happens on all levels of the treatment spectrum. Nursing homes send dying, unconscious, stretcher transport patients to the freaking dentist for crissakes. The dentist gets a client. The ambulance company gets to charge 1200 dollars for a stretcher xport. Both dentist and ambulance bill nursing home, who bills medicare. Dentist, nursing home staff and ambulance owner go out for drinks later.
Why are these so high?
Because you have a market system of medical care and not a command system. :clown:
I don't know enough for anything resembling an informed opinion about scans and imaging fees, or physician fees. But I do know something about perscription drug prices. Those are very low here because although our government health plan doesn't cover perscription fees Health Canada makes sure those prices are much lower by rigging the IP protection period on them. It's 5 years (probably less), that's how long a drug company has sole license to produce it's drug. After that Health Canada makes the drug formula available to be manufactured by anyone as generic brand drugs. Which keeps prices low. In the US generic brand drugs are pretty much banned, due to those tricky lobbies. I remember watching a news report about a US border state (Vermont or Montana) trying to buy Canadian generic brand drugs to offset their Medicaid costs. And the FDA kicking up a *poop*storm trying to stop them.
Intersting. And why haven't we reformed the system?
Apart from all the replies saying how the people involved get lots of money, lobbyists and other things, the Media keep kicking up a storm about "Death Panels" and other make-believe things, in order to scare away the American public from Healthcare reform. Obama was attempting to reform healthcare and we all know what happened there.
Apart from all the replies saying how the people involved get lots of money, lobbyists and other things, the Media keep kicking up a storm about "Death Panels" and other make-believe things, in order to scare away the American public from Healthcare reform. Obama was attempting to reform healthcare and we all know what happened there.
It's a little more pervasive than that. It has a lot to do with the steaming pile of crap that is the Protestant work ethic. The majority of the populace is under the mistaken impression that people only fall on hard times because of bad choices or not working hard enough. This, of course, flies in the face of all reality, evidence, and basic human compassion, but people still like to tell themselves that convenient lie because it gives them a sort of moral high horse to sit on.
They also believe that they've earned everything they have (which is pretty transparently false; were it not for chance it could very well be they who are in need) and that a UHC system would be taking their "hard-earned" assets (even though that's exactly what happens now.)
Anyway. The pont I'm trying to make here is that a lot of people honestly feel they'd be rewarding laziness under such a system.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.