I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

SundaySilence · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

how efficiently does Wellpoint run?

How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?

I don't know. do you have hard numbers to look at?

"In 1999 administration consumed 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending, at least
$294.3 billion... Trimming U.S. administrative costs to Canadian
levels would save at least $209 billion annually, enough to cover the uninsured and
improve coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured."

http://www.pnhp.org/news/IJHS_US_v_Canada_Paper.pdf

decides2dream · July 2009

SundaySilence wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

how efficiently does Wellpoint run?

How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?

I don't know. do you have hard numbers to look at?

In 1999 administration consumed 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending, at least
$294.3 billion. Our data help explain why Canadians spend 40 percent less on
health care, yet receive more hospital care and make more doctor’s visits (28) and
enjoy better access to care (29). Trimming U.S. administrative costs to Canadian
levels would save at least $209 billion annually, enough to cover the uninsured and
improve coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/IJHS_US_v_Canada_Paper.pdf

i love posts with such sources at the ready.

honestly, could just bold the whole thing.......;)

and 1999 levels...imagine what those costs are now...10 yeard later? :shock:
seriously, the cost savings of simply doing away with the 'for profit' nature of healthcare.....would be IMMENSE. and as to failures or shortcomings of other government programs, in and of itself...does not doom healthcare. medicare is operating in a for profit environment, perhaps with UHC...while being unnecessary at that point, but w/o profit.....it would function far better. interesting too, that patients in the medicare program, overall, have a higher rating of satisifaction of care than those in the private, for-profit center. so medicare may not be doing everything right, but it ain't all wrong either....there Is hope that it is doable.

jlew24asu · July 2009

cutting admin costs are nice. but the government is NOT going to eliminate administration expenses. will the be lower? probably. but they will still exist and by a tax payer expense.

second of all, everyone keep treating "profit" like some swear word. profit for the insurance industry isn't very necessary but it is a great motivator in the healthcare industry.

jlew24asu · July 2009

SundaySilence wrote:

"In 1999 administration consumed 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending, at least
$294.3 billion... Trimming U.S. administrative costs to Canadian
levels would save at least $209 billion annually, enough to cover the uninsured and
improve coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured."

http://www.pnhp.org/news/IJHS_US_v_Canada_Paper.pdf

can the US trim admin costs to Canadian levels? we are 10 times the size of them. again, is there anyway to force the private sector to trim admin costs without going to UHC? I bet there is.

this doesnt address this however...

How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?

decides2dream · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

cutting admin costs are nice. but the government is NOT going to eliminate administration expenses. will the be lower? probably. but they will still exist and by a tax payer expense.

second of all, everyone keep treating "profit" like some swear word. profit for the insurance industry isn't very necessary but it is a great motivator in the healthcare industry.

of course there still will be SOME administrative costs....but vastly less. and of course we'll still pay for it, we pay for it now, and then some.

what is the motivator for all the scientists who every year, on government grants, do innovative research?profit is not necessary for motivation. absolutely, those doing the work need to be well-paid, but we don't need CEOs and stockholders for that. so you bet, i do think profit is a very dirty word in the instance of healthcare.

why are you motivated to take photographs? b/c you gleen satisfaction from it, enjoy it....like learning, doing more, etc. this holds true for so many, no matter their occupation. i am sure for a great many researchers...sure....they want to make a good living...bu it also comes down to satisfaction in doing something good, improving the world. again, we don't need CEOs for that.

and idk why i even ask.....we've gone round and round this in the past. glutton for punishment? perhaps...;)

and....we may be 10x the size of canada....all that means is we would then have 10x the taxbase. i do not understand how you continually miss this point. it';s all relative/proportional.

decides2dream · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

this doesnt address this however...

How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?

hasn't that at least been somewhat addressed:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=103572

very first post.
wouldn't ALL of that $$$ be coming from healthcare premiums? isn't that how health insurance companies derive their profits?

jlew24asu · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

of course there still will be SOME administrative costs....but vastly less. and of course we'll still pay for it, we pay for it now, and then some.

wrong. not everyone pays for it. we have choices whether we want health insurance. its not a expense some see. but with UHC, we'll be billed for it.

again, 2/3 of workers in this country receive some form of assistance with their healthcare premiums from their employers. take that away, and peoples taxes go way up. for example, I pay $80 a month. I would most certainly pay in the hundreds per month.

decides2dream wrote:

what is the motivator for all the scientists who every year, on government grants, do innovative research?profit is not necessary for motivation. absolutely, those doing the work need to be well-paid, but we don't need CEOs and stockholders for that. so you bet, i do think profit is a very dirty word in the instance of healthcare.

why are you motivated to take photographs? b/c you gleen satisfaction from it, enjoy it....like learning, doing more, etc. this holds true for so many, no matter their occupation. i am sure for a great many researchers...sure....they want to make a good living...bu it also comes down to satisfaction in doing something good, improving the world. again, we don't need CEOs for that.

and idk why i even ask.....we've gone round and round this in the past. glutton for punishment? perhaps...;)

I'm talking about healthcare specifically. doctors, nurses, scientists, etc..not CEOs and stockholders. they are motivated, in part, by the money they make. yes of course they are motivated to help people, thats probably their top motivation. but this continually gets ignored from the link I posted in the other thread..

"Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency."

decides2dream wrote:

and....we may be 10x the size of canada....all that means is we would then have 10x the taxbase. i do not understand how you continually miss this point. it';s all relative/proportional.

Mo money Mo problems. its not relative. 10x the amount of money leaves much more room for waste, mismanagement, and rising costs.

jlew24asu · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

this doesnt address this however...

How many millions in premiums go toward lobbying and CEO bonuses? How many people do they ween off their insurance rolls by increasing premiums because they are no longer "profitable" clients?

hasn't that at least been somewhat addressed:

http://community.pearljam.com/viewtopic ... 3&t=103572

very first post.
wouldn't ALL of that $$$ be coming from healthcare premiums? isn't that how health insurance companies derive their profits?

no, that money comes from outside investors via stock purchases and part ownership in the company.

decides2dream · July 2009

jlew....we will never agree, and i will never convince you, and honestly....i don't feel the need to convince you. yes, i do debate points you make, when i feel they are false....but your beliefs are just so counter to mine...i HAVe countered just about every point you have made a few times over, to no avail...so yea.....the impasse....

as to the insurance comapnies and their profits...healthcare premiums have to play some role, a rather large one i'd imagine, in the PROFIT area of that equation. i think the last page conor summed it up rather nicely. you didn't have much of a retort for his comments...b/c yea...it makes sense.

just looking at one CEO:

Williams earned $24,300,112 in total compensation for 2008, with more than half of that ($13,537,365) coming from option awards. He also received an additional $6,456,630 in stock awards to go along with his base salary of $1,091,764.

Personal use of a corporate aircraft and vehicle, as well as financial planning and 401(k) company matches added up to $101,487 for Williams.

forget even all the bells and whistles....just looking at SALARY. over 1 million dollars. one CEO for one health insurance company. what is that about? PROFIT. he is not making tht salary b/c he is doing so much for the betterment of HEALTH, he is making that salary b/c he is doing so for the betterment of the corporations BOTTOMLINE.

you may be ok with that...i am not. think of all the health insurance companies....all the CEOs...their salaries....think of all the stockholders and their profits.....WHY do we want a system of healthcare based on making profits for stockholders? it should be about HEALTH ALONE. again, you may not think so...but i do.

and even when given the we have 10x the people thus 10x the taxbase, you just greet that with....yea, we'll have much more waste too.

you are just so utterly convinved in your own mind that it can't work - or don't want it to work - so yea......enjoy.........

as i've said often eough, i am hoping more and more of our fellow citizens DO see the positives of UHC far outweigh the negatives, and so worth it, long-term, for the *health* of this country, of all forms.

profit and healthcare should not even be uttered in the same sentence.....but hey, we all see the world thru our own lens.

soulsinging wrote:

To the best of my understanding, single payer health care does not convey any government control of health care. It just means that all health insurance companies are gone and the government writes the check when you get sick with the premiums being your taxes.

The inevitable end of for-profit health care is exactly what this poster describes. You cannot set rate limits and maintain the for-profit health care industry. It is built upon the premise that, no matter what, the insurance company turns a profit. This means that whenever someone gets cancer, the insurance company does not bear the cost (which is what you contracted for)... YOU do through rate increases. In addition, you pay double because not only do you pay for the procedures others have through your rates increases, you pay for the uninsured because costs skyrocket when doctors and hospitals have to increase the charges to compensate for people with no health care that can't pay at all.

Rate caps and subsidies are bandaids and are going to impact the quality of care just as much as you fear a national program would. You'll quickly find that your insurance will cover essentially nothing, and only then through one day who will charge you whatever the insurance company says he should, because protecting their profit is priority number one, and they WILL find ways to skirt any rate caps or whatever you want to place upon them. And in the end, isn't comprehensive legislation setting limits on all aspects of the insurance industry going to entail a helluva lot more government interference in the health care industry than just having a uniform government plan that covers everything and everyone?

exactly.

and...

soulsinging wrote:

That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.

exactly.

cincybearcat · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.

I gotta say, that is a good argument.

Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?

decides2dream · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.

I gotta say, that is a good argument.

Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?

you do realize, our government....governments throughout the world, ya know...in countries with UHC.....spend vast sums of money in government grants, annually, for medical research, yes? in fact, many, many leading researchers right here at home depend far more heavily on government grants for their research.

also, doctors and nurses and the like...in all these countries with UHC, aren't exactly poor either. they still make very good living according to those who live in said countries.

and again, i do believe often enough you see england and france and canada...and their many medical studies/breakthroughs...all in an environment of UHC.

end of profits for some corproation does not equate the end of innovation for medicine. not at all...

also, do you not think that even in a UHC environment, there is no profit in the medical field whatsoever? i am sure corporations still exist in the UK, canada and the like...developing drugs and devices and the like.....and then sell em to the government for use. thing is, they don't make them prohibitively expensive to buy...and yet...still turn a profit. we alone, as a private insurer country, do not make all the medical breakthroughs in the world.....they are made also in many UHC countries as well. i do not believe it would change the quality or pace of research, at all. in fact, perhaps more government $$4 would make it towards research if we have a better/stronger taxbase funding our healthcare/medicine. it is possible...

soulsinging · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

"Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay MAY dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you MAY discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency."

I capitalized the two key words in that little blurb... which is all pure speculation. I can speak to the legal profession... most of our best students have NO interest in private practice. Financially, it is infinitely more desirable, but even though government work pays far less, competition is MUCH higher for those jobs because they are infinitely more rewarding in terms of the value of the work and the lifestyle. This means a lot to people, even doctors. Hell, I would have gone into public interest, but my grades are nowhere near good enough. Isn't that odd that it's easier to get a 6-figure corporate gig than a miniscule government job? That those with the best qualifications and talent are going into the public sector, NOT the private?

In addition, you're still operating under the assumption that doctors would operate like public school teachers. Single-payer doesn't necessarily dictate that. The doctors are not employed by the government, they can be self employed, they're just paid by the government instead of an insurance company. It's not that dramatic a difference. And top doctors will have full waiting rooms and lists to get in just as they do now, while bad doctors will have trouble attracting patients, period. You don't get paid if you provide no services.

jlew24asu · July 2009

edit: soul replied.

cincybearcat · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.

I gotta say, that is a good argument.

Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?

you do realize, our government....governments throughout the world, ya know...in countries with UHC.....spend vast sums of money in government grants, annually, for medical research, yes? in fact, many, many leading researchers right here at home depend far more heavily on government grants for their research.

also, doctors and nurses and the like...in all these countries with UHC, aren't exactly poor either. they still make very good living according to those who live in said countries.

and again, i do believe often enough you see england and france and canada...and their many medical studies/breakthroughs...all in an environment of UHC.

end of profits for some corproation does not equate the end of innovation for medicine. not at all...

You do realize how patronizing you are being for me asking a question? You do realize it, right?

I think it is something to think about, and I admit I don't know enough to know what the effect may or may not be, hence the question. But profit is the reason for many of the great and wonderful advancements we enjoy today so I believe it's a fair question.

soulsinging · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.

I gotta say, that is a good argument.

Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?

Absolutely. There is still plenty of room for profit. Much medical research is government funded anyway, and those creating innovations are doing it on the industry side anyway, not the direct services side. If you design an excellent MRI machine, doctors will buy it, just as they do now. If you find a life-saving drug, you still make money selling it to consumers. All we're talking about here is cutting out the middleman... the insurers. Rather than them setting prices and either forcing the developers to conform or denying patients access to that drug, it would be based on drug effectiveness and consumer desire, NOT how well you can sweet talk an insurance company into promoting and including your drug on their plan.

jlew24asu · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

I capitalized the two key words in that little blurb... which is all pure speculation. I can speak to the legal profession... most of our best students have NO interest in private practice. Financially, it is infinitely more desirable, but even though government work pays far less, competition is MUCH higher for those jobs because they are infinitely more rewarding in terms of the value of the work and the lifestyle. This means a lot to people, even doctors. Hell, I would have gone into public interest, but my grades are nowhere near good enough. Isn't that odd that it's easier to get a 6-figure corporate gig than a miniscule government job? That those with the best qualifications and talent are going into the public sector, NOT the private?

thats an interesting point. I did not know that.

soulsinging wrote:

In addition, you're still operating under the assumption that doctors would operate like public school teachers. Single-payer doesn't necessarily dictate that. The doctors are not employed by the government, they can be self employed, they're just paid by the government instead of an insurance company. It's not that dramatic a difference. And top doctors will have full waiting rooms and lists to get in just as they do now, while bad doctors will have trouble attracting patients, period. You don't get paid if you provide no services.

sounds promising. but I'm not that quick to trust the government just yet.

jlew24asu · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

You do realize how patronizing you are being for me asking a question? You do realize it, right?

no, I don't believe she does. its makes debating this really difficult sometimes.

decides2dream · July 2009

cincybearcat wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I gotta say, that is a good argument.

Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?

you do realize, our government....governments throughout the world, ya know...in countries with UHC.....spend vast sums of money in government grants, annually, for medical research, yes? in fact, many, many leading researchers right here at home depend far more heavily on government grants for their research.

also, doctors and nurses and the like...in all these countries with UHC, aren't exactly poor either. they still make very good living according to those who live in said countries.

and again, i do believe often enough you see england and france and canada...and their many medical studies/breakthroughs...all in an environment of UHC.

end of profits for some corproation does not equate the end of innovation for medicine. not at all...

You do realize how patronizing you are being for me asking a question? You do realize it, right?

I think it is something to think about, and I admit I don't know enough to know what the effect may or may not be, hence the question. But profit is the reason for many of the great and wonderful advancements we enjoy today so I believe it's a fair question.

you do realize...that is your inference and not my intent?
you asked, i was merely providing some insight. mea culpa if that is not what you were requesting or if my delivery in someway was subpar in your opinion. i was merely pointing out just how much our government, and governemetns within UHC environments DO already fund the ground-breaking, innovative research.

it IS a fair question, of course...i was not discounting that. however, if you think of the bulk of the great discoveries, most were motivated firstly by desire to do something more.....not merely money. profit has been a great side benefit of innovation, but most of the great minds who actually DO the innovators do so for the actual satisfaction of the discovery, it's implications, etc. not to say i 'know' why people do what they do...but history does illustrate that it is more likely for the that than merely the financial rewards. most nobel laureates seem to illustrate that pretty well.

jlew....you're very amusing.

if that's the case, all i can say is pot meet kettle. and i shall leave it at that.

decides2dream · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

I capitalized the two key words in that little blurb... which is all pure speculation. I can speak to the legal profession... most of our best students have NO interest in private practice. Financially, it is infinitely more desirable, but even though government work pays far less, competition is MUCH higher for those jobs because they are infinitely more rewarding in terms of the value of the work and the lifestyle. This means a lot to people, even doctors. Hell, I would have gone into public interest, but my grades are nowhere near good enough. Isn't that odd that it's easier to get a 6-figure corporate gig than a miniscule government job? That those with the best qualifications and talent are going into the public sector, NOT the private?

thats an interesting point. I did not know that.

i do recall the last healthcare thread, that soulsinging actually provided this very same information for you, to your very same response.

money is absolutely a motivator, but if you think the vast nmajority of our doctors and nurses and all medical staff would just poof disappear with UHC, i think you may well be pleasantly surprised. and again, they still would be well paid. i know redrock pointed out that doctors in france are quite well paid, live good lifestyles, etc....so it's not all doom and gloom for the prospects of still persuing becoming a doctor.

jlew24asu · July 2009

I'm far from perfect but just look at the way you answered his valid question. he's just telling you the way it came across, and I agree.

I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

Comments

Categories