Fiscal Cliff ... Here it comes!

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

But gas prices fluctuate and do come down as often as often as they go up. Is gas too expensive? Maybe, but drive across the street or down the road in search of a better deal. I don't really have a practical alternative to health insurance through my employer. Fuck you, pay me.

So, then why are you comparing it to other industries?

And, BTW, if you are healthy young up to middle aged man, you are subsidizing everyone else. But, that's ok. They'll all be paying for us in the few years.

(And it could be worse - you could be thrown into the Obama high risk pool and begin paying 10 times what you do under your employer's plan. So, be thankful for what you have).

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

But gas prices fluctuate and do come down as often as often as they go up. Is gas too expensive? Maybe, but drive across the street or down the road in search of a better deal. I don't really have a practical alternative to health insurance through my employer. Fuck you, pay me.

So, then why are you comparing it to other industries?

And, BTW, if you are healthy young up to middle aged man, you are subsidizing everyone else. But, that's ok. They'll all be paying for us in the few years.

(And it could be worse - you could be thrown into the Obama high risk pool and begin paying 10 times what you do under your employer's plan. So, be thankful for what you have).

Because I don't know of a better comparison. And pointing that out helps support my earlier point - many of us have no alternative and the health insurance company knows it. So they raise their prices and we have no choice but to pay them.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

But gas prices fluctuate and do come down as often as often as they go up. Is gas too expensive? Maybe, but drive across the street or down the road in search of a better deal. I don't really have a practical alternative to health insurance through my employer. Fuck you, pay me.

So, then why are you comparing it to other industries?

And, BTW, if you are healthy young up to middle aged man, you are subsidizing everyone else. But, that's ok. They'll all be paying for us in the few years.

(And it could be worse - you could be thrown into the Obama high risk pool and begin paying 10 times what you do under your employer's plan. So, be thankful for what you have).

Because I don't know of a better comparison. And pointing that out helps support my earlier point - many of us have no alternative and the health insurance company knows it. So they raise their prices and we have no choice but to pay them.

But, your employer has alternatives and unless it's one of the rarities pays far more of the cost of your insurance than you do. So, simply raising prices in a free market would lose the carrier business. Unless, of course, you're with a large employer that self insures. In which case, their costs are their costs and all they are negotiating with the carrier is the administrative expense which is still a competitive bidding process.

So, I'm still not quite sure where you're getting health insurance companies can raise prices with impunity.

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Because I don't know of a better comparison. And pointing that out helps support my earlier point - many of us have no alternative and the health insurance company knows it. So they raise their prices and we have no choice but to pay them.

But, your employer has alternatives and unless it's one of the rarities pays far more of the cost of your insurance than you do. So, simply raising prices in a free market would lose the carrier business. Unless, of course, you're with a large employer that self insures. In which case, their costs are their costs and all they are negotiating with the carrier is the administrative expense which is still a competitive bidding process.

So, I'm still not quite sure where you're getting health insurance companies can raise prices with impunity.

My employer might have alternatives. I do not, short of looking for a new job.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Because I don't know of a better comparison. And pointing that out helps support my earlier point - many of us have no alternative and the health insurance company knows it. So they raise their prices and we have no choice but to pay them.

But, your employer has alternatives and unless it's one of the rarities pays far more of the cost of your insurance than you do. So, simply raising prices in a free market would lose the carrier business. Unless, of course, you're with a large employer that self insures. In which case, their costs are their costs and all they are negotiating with the carrier is the administrative expense which is still a competitive bidding process.

So, I'm still not quite sure where you're getting health insurance companies can raise prices with impunity.

My employer might have alternatives. I do not, short of looking for a new job.

Of course. But, your hypothesis seemed to be that the health insurance companies can charge whatever they want. If so, your hypothesis is wrong.

Now, the Federal Gov't can charge whatever they'd like. So, your mob reference would seem more properly placed there as everyone's paycheck will attest this or next Friday.

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Of course. But, your hypothesis seemed to be that the health insurance companies can charge whatever they want. If so, your hypothesis is wrong.

My belief is that a health insurance company can increase its rates anywhere between 6% and 20% a year, regardless of whether or not their costs have risen to match, and pretty much get away it. I could not get away with that in my industry and I doubt you could in yours, provided you are not in the health insurance racket.

JC29856

EdsonNascimento wrote:

?

And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.

is this your belief or is this factual? if factual please provide point(s) of reference...

JC29856

2.7 trillion dollars of annual health care costs

REGULATION!!!!!

International Journal of Health Services, a group of policy experts, including Dr. Woolhandler, it was determined that the amount of tax dollars that Medicare has “overpaid private insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage program and its predecessors over the past 27 years is a startling figure of $282.6 billion in excess payments, most of them over the past eight years.”

Health care bills come with hefty levels of fraud. From the historic study twenty years ago by the then General Accounting Office of the Congress to the present estimates by the nation’s leading expert in this field, Professor Malcolm Sparrow at Harvard University, fully ten percent of all health care expenditures are the result of computerized billing fraud and abuse. That will be $270 billion this year.

COSTS!!!!!!
Private insurance companies squander around 31 percent of their budget on non-treatment related administrative costs.



“Why does an appendectomy in Germany cost roughly a quarter what it costs in the United States? ($3,285 compared to $13,123). Or an MRI scan cost less than a third as much, on average, in Canada? ($304 compared to $1,009).

“Americans continue to spend more on health care than patients anywhere else. In 2009, we spent $7,960 per person, twice as much as France, which is known for providing very good health services. And for all that spending, we get very mixed results—some superb, some average, some inferior—compared with other advanced nations.”

Moreover, France and Germany, Italy, England, Canada, Belgium, Sweden and all other western countries plus Japan and Taiwan cover almost all their citizens, unlike the U.S. where 50,000,000 people are uninsured.

Boffey, who wrote a book on the National Academy of Sciences, (The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science), goes on to cite the comparative price report of the International Federation of Health Plans in 2010. They are stunning! For Britain, Canada, France, Germany and the U.S. respectively, the average cost in dollars for bypass surgery is $13,998, $22,212, $16,325, $27,237 and in the U.S. $59,770!!!!!!!. For cataract surgery the bill is $1,299, $927, $3,352, N.A. and in the U.S. $14,764!!!!!!.

EdsonNascimento

JC29856 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

?

And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.

is this your belief or is this factual? if factual please provide point(s) of reference...

It is factual. Not a belief.

Pregnancy covered same as non-pregnancy is a regulatory requirement. It's not even an insurable coverage by definition as the cause is known and 100% prevented. It is purely discretionary even if it happens by "accident," the cause does not happen by accident. The result does.

I'm not saying it should not be covered. But, you asked for a point of reference.

If you'd like for me to take that one step further, non-Medically necessary C-Sections are at an alarmingly high rate. If they were not covered by insurance or allowed to go through more stringent medical necessity tests, they would not be so high.

Again, not advocating one way or another. Just trying to make simple points. However, If these coverages were not mandatory (i.e. you could select or not select such coverage), your health insurance would be cheaper.

There are a ton of these examples.

EdsonNascimento

JC29856 wrote:

2.7 trillion dollars of annual health care costs

REGULATION!!!!!

International Journal of Health Services, a group of policy experts, including Dr. Woolhandler, it was determined that the amount of tax dollars that Medicare has “overpaid private insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage program and its predecessors over the past 27 years is a startling figure of $282.6 billion in excess payments, most of them over the past eight years.”

Health care bills come with hefty levels of fraud. From the historic study twenty years ago by the then General Accounting Office of the Congress to the present estimates by the nation’s leading expert in this field, Professor Malcolm Sparrow at Harvard University, fully ten percent of all health care expenditures are the result of computerized billing fraud and abuse. That will be $270 billion this year.

COSTS!!!!!!
Private insurance companies squander around 31 percent of their budget on non-treatment related administrative costs.



“Why does an appendectomy in Germany cost roughly a quarter what it costs in the United States? ($3,285 compared to $13,123). Or an MRI scan cost less than a third as much, on average, in Canada? ($304 compared to $1,009).

“Americans continue to spend more on health care than patients anywhere else. In 2009, we spent $7,960 per person, twice as much as France, which is known for providing very good health services. And for all that spending, we get very mixed results—some superb, some average, some inferior—compared with other advanced nations.”

Moreover, France and Germany, Italy, England, Canada, Belgium, Sweden and all other western countries plus Japan and Taiwan cover almost all their citizens, unlike the U.S. where 50,000,000 people are uninsured.

Boffey, who wrote a book on the National Academy of Sciences, (The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science), goes on to cite the comparative price report of the International Federation of Health Plans in 2010. They are stunning! For Britain, Canada, France, Germany and the U.S. respectively, the average cost in dollars for bypass surgery is $13,998, $22,212, $16,325, $27,237 and in the U.S. $59,770!!!!!!!. For cataract surgery the bill is $1,299, $927, $3,352, N.A. and in the U.S. $14,764!!!!!!.

There's an agenda there.

I'm not pretending there's not waste. But to state simply - it's Administration for no purpose!!! Is silly. And, again, you must be insisting there's price fixing, as there's a competive bid process for Medicare. Government FFS Medicare patients cost more than those covered by Managed Care/Insurance. So, even if you want to argue the administrative expense point, they are still saving you and me money.

Now, to your latter question - our doctors like to be paid more. I don't begrudge them that. But, if you do, have at it. There's also obscene malpractice insuranse costs b/c of our broken litigation system.

There's also fraud, etc.

To lay this all or even remotely mostly on the insurance industry is naive.

EDIT: The solution is Managed Care. As the Democratic Governor of NY has noted via the Mandated Managed Care for Medicaid. If the Democratic Presidents would stop fighting it, they might see it, too instead of trying to kill the Golden Goose.

EdsonNascimento

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Now, the Federal Gov't can charge whatever they'd like. So, your mob reference would seem more properly placed there as everyone's paycheck will attest this or next Friday.

And, I apologize. I re-quote myself to get this thread back on its original track.

JC29856

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

?

And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.

is this your belief or is this factual? if factual please provide point(s) of reference...

It is factual. Not a belief.

Pregnancy covered same as non-pregnancy is a regulatory requirement. It's not even an insurable coverage by definition as the cause is known and 100% prevented. It is purely discretionary even if it happens by "accident," the cause does not happen by accident. The result does.

I'm not saying it should not be covered. But, you asked for a point of reference.

If you'd like for me to take that one step further, non-Medically necessary C-Sections are at an alarmingly high rate. If they were not covered by insurance or allowed to go through more stringent medical necessity tests, they would not be so high.

Again, not advocating one way or another. Just trying to make simple points. However, If these coverages were not mandatory (i.e. you could select or not select such coverage), your health insurance would be cheaper.

There are a ton of these examples.

wait are you saying we should have our baby born in the car delivered by the husband?
wait are you saying the patient should play doctor?? the preggo should price shop for the best "birth rate"? they should demand a natural birth over c-sect?

question: which is more profitable to hospitals and doctors? natural births (no drugs) or intervention and eventual c-sect?
question: which is "more convenient" to all involved, soon to be parents and doctors, natural birth or scheduled c-sect?

JC29856

There's also obscene malpractice "insurance" costs b/c of our broken "litigation system".

1. theres the insurance word again
2. the facts contradict your belief...


http://www.justice.org/clips/five_myths ... igence.pdf

JC29856

Government FFS Medicare patients cost more than those covered by Managed Care/Insurance.

facts again contradict your belief...

Cosmo

The funny thing about cliffs... they don't move. Leastwise, at a rapid pace.
That means, the cliff isn't racing towards us... WE are hurtling towards it. In that case, if you ever find yourself driving towards a cliff with you foot to the floor... easy fix... get off the accelerator, apply the brakes and steer away from the cliff.
...
If we have shit was can't pay for... but already bought it... we need to get another form of income and quit spending on shit we don't need. Let's start with the military hardware we appropriated in the 1980s and are still buying today... to stop Soviet armoured divisions from overrunning our NATO allies in Western Europe.

EdsonNascimento

JC29856 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

is this your belief or is this factual? if factual please provide point(s) of reference...

It is factual. Not a belief.

Pregnancy covered same as non-pregnancy is a regulatory requirement. It's not even an insurable coverage by definition as the cause is known and 100% prevented. It is purely discretionary even if it happens by "accident," the cause does not happen by accident. The result does.

I'm not saying it should not be covered. But, you asked for a point of reference.

If you'd like for me to take that one step further, non-Medically necessary C-Sections are at an alarmingly high rate. If they were not covered by insurance or allowed to go through more stringent medical necessity tests, they would not be so high.

Again, not advocating one way or another. Just trying to make simple points. However, If these coverages were not mandatory (i.e. you could select or not select such coverage), your health insurance would be cheaper.

There are a ton of these examples.

wait are you saying we should have our baby born in the car delivered by the husband?
wait are you saying the patient should play doctor?? the preggo should price shop for the best "birth rate"? they should demand a natural birth over c-sect?

question: which is more profitable to hospitals and doctors? natural births (no drugs) or intervention and eventual c-sect?
question: which is "more convenient" to all involved, soon to be parents and doctors, natural birth or scheduled c-sect?

You are clearly confusing Health INSURANCE and Health CARE. Your responses make no sense.

JC29856 wrote:

There's also obscene malpractice "insurance" costs b/c of our broken "litigation system".

1. theres the insurance word again
2. the facts contradict your belief...


http://www.justice.org/clips/five_myths ... igence.pdf

Different kind of insurance. We were talking about HEALTH insurance, this is in reference to MALPRACTICE insurance. Are you now lumping all insurance together?

And, you can read whatever slanted "journalism" (using that word VERY loosely here), but there are OB/Gyn's (for example) that have stopped working b/c they were spending 75% of their year paying for malpractice insurance due to the litigiousness (and stupidity of juries) of our society. We need to have tort reform. All these things add unnecessary costs to the system.

JC29856

yeah sorry i thought you mentioned malpractice insurance as a reason for increased health care costs above...yes its me im very confused.

JC29856

who typed this nonsense... obscene malpractice insuranse costs b/c of our broken litigation system.

JC29856

JC29856 wrote:

off topic but....
just one question for perspective if you would? please rank the following in order of greatest to least effecting current housing prices. there are no right or wrong sequences

mortgage deduction
current underwater mortgages
fed interest rates
current foreclosures or in process foreclosures
shadow inventory held by banks
fed foreclosure to rental program
bank bulk sales to investors

still waiting on this....

JC29856

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

The US currently spends almost as much on its military and on paying for current and past wars in terms of interest on war debt and care for wounded and aging soldiers as the entire rest of the world spends on arms and war. Approximately $1.3 trillion gets spent each year in taxpayer’s dollars and in more borrowed funds (50 cents of every federal tax dollar goes to pay for the US military, the intelligence apparatus, veterans’ benefits and other related military costs). It is simply ludicrous, given this situation, to imagine that the US can significantly reduce its budget deficit either by raising taxes or by cutting social spending.