I'm Curious

[Guest]

Based on the apparent strong feelings on both sides of the political aisle evident in postings in this forum, my curiosity is piqued.

Who are you going to vote for in the coming fall elections?

More importantly, how will you go about making your decision on which candidates to put your 'X' in front of?

I'll start by giving you my answer and how I arrived at my decision. I will vote for who I think the best qualified person is who is not currently a member of the U.S. Congress. Their party affiliation will make no difference to me because I can observe no difference in the conduct of either the conservatives or the liberals in the last decade or so. Actually, if one of the candidates is an independent, I would be drawn to strongly consider his/her candidacy. I've made the mistake of considering what candidates have said more than what they have done and how they have legislated in the past. I refuse to make that mistake again. None of the current incumbents can make an argument that is acceptable to me that they have earned my vote by attempting to govern responsibly--the results are that they have not. None of them has earned the right to my vote to return them to Washington to continue to legislate as they have for however long they have been there.

Now, who will you vote for? More importantly...why?

I will provide only the following forewarning: if you believe that your current representatives in Congress are really OK and represent your wishes, but that the problem is with the other 532 members of the Congress elected by others, then the result will be more of the same. If everyone voted that way, something like 95% of the incumbents would be returned for another term in office. Only those who retire, die or are convicted and sent to jail wouldn't be re-elected.

[Guest]

VK, I agree, both parties are a mess. I will be looking for candidates that are conservative and believe in the constitution. I'm looking for someone who wants smaller government. I want someone who will stand his ground and not cave. Regardless of what you may think I have never voted a "straight" ticket. I doubt if I will start now.

[Guest]

Voting should not be an emotional thing. To blanketly say they are all bad is not an approach I would take. That is silly and purely emotional.

I plan to review their actual voting record before I select a candidate. A smart informed person seeing what is going on today will vote for fiscal conservatives to save our Country.

[Guest]

It is the objective of sending a clear message the tolerance of business as usual is being canceled.

Anyway the worst candidate could be no worse than any incumbent who is or has been fleecing we the people or just going along because...........

the objective is: RE-ELECT NO ONE.

btk

[Guest]

Right now my thinking is that any politician who is voting for Obama's "Health Care Bill" is intent on restricting the freedoms that every American enjoys and plunging the country into an unmanageable debt that will hamper the future prosperity of our country and our position in the world for decades. I will vote against anyone supporting this bill and donate to candidates opposing it, incumbent or not, and hope the vast majority of freedom loving American's do the same.

[Guest]

<boggle>

The freedoms that every American enjoys????

Go ahead - TRY to see a doctor out of your network. IF you have health insurance to begin with. Unless you're on Medicare/Medicaid where you DO have choice...

Go ahead - TRY to get anything other than emergency care if you're uninsured.

Go ahead - TRY and get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition.

What freedoms are you referring to?

[Guest]

djplong, regarding RichieLion's post. I am by no means speaking for him. But, your response "The freedoms that every American enjoys????...What freedoms are you referring to?" struck something inside of me that demands I reply.

As a young 20-something, I lived south of Daytona Beach, FL. I had NO health insurance. I cleaned houses to put myself through college. I voted. I volunteered to read to children in our public schools and was active in a church that feed the indigent and homeless in the 1980s. Eventually, I was a reporter and tried my best to fear God and honor man and to be fair and accurate in my reporting and in my life.

If I was sick, I went to a doctor, explained my situation and paid cash. Like every American can, if they wish, regardless of income, I took advantage of state run health departments for my female exams. Using it for my primary care physician for years.

Sometimes, when my pride didn't get in the way, I used the generous help of the doctors wives I cleaned for to help me get medical attention through their husbands. I made out the best way I could with my upbringing screaming in my ears and heart to not go in debt, work hard and pay your own way.

I now have insurance that allows me to use out-of-network physicians if I wish. I just have to pay an extra co-pay. Why would I want to? They have worked with me to find an in-network physician and even assisted signing up physicians into the network.

You know as well as I do, emergency rooms don't turn people away. There are many state run programs and charity programs to help people without insurance. There are definitely changes that need to be made in our system. One of them being pre-exisiting conditions.

But if you want to know what freedoms American's enjoy, ask people in China, Cuba, Vietnam. Since they can't speak, ask me I'll tell you what freedoms we enjoy.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Guest]

djplong, regarding RichieLion's post. I am by no means speaking for him. But, your response "The freedoms that every American enjoys????...What freedoms are you referring to?" struck something inside of me that demands I reply.

As a young 20-something, I lived south of Daytona Beach, FL. I had NO health insurance. I cleaned houses to put myself through college. I voted. I volunteered to read to children in our public schools and was active in a church that feed the indigent and homeless in the 1980s. Eventually, I was a reporter and tried my best to fear God and honor man and to be fair and accurate in my reporting and in my life.

If I was sick, I went to a doctor, explained my situation and paid cash. Like every American can, if they wish, regardless of income, I took advantage of state run health departments for my female exams. Using it for my primary care physician for years.

Sometimes, when my pride didn't get in the way, I used the generous help of the doctors wives I cleaned for to help me get medical attention through their husbands. I made out the best way I could with my upbringing screaming in my ears and heart to not go in debt, work hard and pay your own way.

I now have insurance that allows me to use out-of-network physicians if I wish. I just have to pay an extra co-pay. Why would I want to? They have worked with me to find an in-network physician and even assisted signing up physicians into the network.

You know as well as I do, emergency rooms don't turn people away. There are many state run programs and charity programs to help people without insurance. There are definitely changes that need to be made in our system. One of them being pre-exisiting conditions.

But if you want to know what freedoms American's enjoy, ask people in China, Cuba, Vietnam. Since they can't speak, ask me I'll tell you what freedoms we enjoy.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


What you say makes all the sense in the world.

This is the best post i have seen.

[Guest]

djplong, regarding RichieLion's post. I am by no means speaking for him. But, your response "The freedoms that every American enjoys????...What freedoms are you referring to?" struck something inside of me that demands I reply.

As a young 20-something, I lived south of Daytona Beach, FL. I had NO health insurance. I cleaned houses to put myself through college. I voted. I volunteered to read to children in our public schools and was active in a church that feed the indigent and homeless in the 1980s. Eventually, I was a reporter and tried my best to fear God and honor man and to be fair and accurate in my reporting and in my life.

If I was sick, I went to a doctor, explained my situation and paid cash. Like every American can, if they wish, regardless of income, I took advantage of state run health departments for my female exams. Using it for my primary care physician for years.

Sometimes, when my pride didn't get in the way, I used the generous help of the doctors wives I cleaned for to help me get medical attention through their husbands. I made out the best way I could with my upbringing screaming in my ears and heart to not go in debt, work hard and pay your own way.

I now have insurance that allows me to use out-of-network physicians if I wish. I just have to pay an extra co-pay. Why would I want to? They have worked with me to find an in-network physician and even assisted signing up physicians into the network.

You know as well as I do, emergency rooms don't turn people away. There are many state run programs and charity programs to help people without insurance. There are definitely changes that need to be made in our system. One of them being pre-exisiting conditions.

But if you want to know what freedoms American's enjoy, ask people in China, Cuba, Vietnam. Since they can't speak, ask me I'll tell you what freedoms we enjoy.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

WOW!! All I can say is: Outstanding Post!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

No need to quote the Constitution at me - I'm VERY well versed in it. If you put a gun to my head and wanted me to name a personal "hero", I'd respond with Thomas Jefferson and I'm glad that John Adams is finally getting his historical due.

You said you paid your own way in the 1980s. You certainly couldn't do that now. If you were in the same situation now as back then, I don't think you would have gotten those exams.

Around that time, my ex-wife and I had to come up with $10/mo for her birth control - as an example. It boggles my mind that my 22-year-old daughter has to pay several times that price now. The CPI says it should cost around $20/mo. But inflation, when it comes to medicine just doesn't follow the CPI in this country.

A night in the emergency room in Montreal 7 years ago had a list price of $500 (of which I had to pay $50). The same services in the hospital here in New Hampshire are more than 5 times that.

Now, if you want to argue that the bill slithering it's way through Congress is unconstitutional, well, you have an argument there. But I had some eye-opening experiences while working for a hospital (back room operations - in what you now call "IT" we called "MIS" back then).

Yes, I will be right up front and admit that I have a hard time reconciling my "you have a right to make as good a living as possible" attitude with my "sick people shouldn't be considered a growth industry" feelings. The two often clash.

[Guest]

No need to quote the Constitution at me - I'm VERY well versed in it. If you put a gun to my head and wanted me to name a personal "hero", I'd respond with Thomas Jefferson and I'm glad that John Adams is finally getting his historical due.

You said you paid your own way in the 1980s. You certainly couldn't do that now. If you were in the same situation now as back then, I don't think you would have gotten those exams.

Around that time, my ex-wife and I had to come up with $10/mo for her birth control - as an example. It boggles my mind that my 22-year-old daughter has to pay several times that price now. The CPI says it should cost around $20/mo. But inflation, when it comes to medicine just doesn't follow the CPI in this country.

A night in the emergency room in Montreal 7 years ago had a list price of $500 (of which I had to pay $50). The same services in the hospital here in New Hampshire are more than 5 times that.

Now, if you want to argue that the bill slithering it's way through Congress is unconstitutional, well, you have an argument there. But I had some eye-opening experiences while working for a hospital (back room operations - in what you now call "IT" we called "MIS" back then).

Yes, I will be right up front and admit that I have a hard time reconciling my "you have a right to make as good a living as possible" attitude with my "sick people shouldn't be considered a growth industry" feelings. The two often clash.

Are you suggesting that it is okay with you that those of us who have taken care of ourselves all our lives must now agree to pay for those who have not.

[Guest]

Exactly Cashman.

The left thinks that the ones who work hard and sacrifice should also put the lazy and unambitious on our backs, too. If you keep beating the industrious down with the whip , they may smarten up and slack-off. Then where will the funds (taxes) come from?
Take the incentives away and the best and brightest will not go into medicine. Many doctors are already threatening to stop practicing.
If the best and brightest in this country "Go Gault", who is going to support the lay a bouts?

[Guest]

Cashman: Not at all. However, there are a lot of things to keep in mind.

That which we could afford in the 1980s has become unaffordable (the same is true for college educations).

Why isn't there an outcry over the same procedures costing 5x as much here in the U.S. as in a first-rate hospital in Canada? the closest we've come is the "we should be able to import cheaper meds from Canada" debate that seems to have faded over the last couple of years.

My first question is WHY do we pay the MOST - and, most importantly NOT GET THE MOST for what we're paying for?

Let's be honest here. If you were going to buy a TV for $500 and the SAME MODEL was LEGALLY priced in the next town for $100, wouldn't you go there? Wouldn't you demand to know why the local company was charging 5x the price? Or would you ignore it just so long as your employer's TV plan meant you only paid $25, regardless of what it cost THEM?

We have a *huge* cost problem in this country. I've heard estimates that say we could cover ALL the uninsured with the profits of the health insurance companies. I'm sorry - but you just can't justify a 39% increase in premiums when you PROFITS are up 20%! This is what I meant by the whole "sick people are a growth industry" thing earlier.

One area I can agree wholeheartedly with you is that you're damn right I'd be mad if a drunk was in front of me in line for a new liver if I needed one - you have to go back more than 10 years to make the count of total drinks I've had be more than the fingers on one hand.

The Democrats seem to be approaching this incorrectly form one side - a political dealmaker's paradise to try and solve the problem from the 'coverage' end.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are approaching it form the other side saying "if we protect the insurance companies, maybe they'll be nice to us and lower costs".

I don't think either way will work.

Maybe a "Truth In Benefits" law exposing what companies pay for insurance would help. Something that was on your paycheck every week or month. Of course, the insurance companies don't want that, citing "confidentiality" concerns. They don't want companies to know what kind of deals they work.

And on top of that, NONE of this deals with the American "Doctors Are God And Can Do Everything And Should Be Perfect Lest They Be Sued" attitude that so many have.

[Guest]

djplong, help me find something out I've been trying to look into. Where did you get the information that insurance companies' profits are up 20 percent? I'm really trying to educate myself on the whole healthcare issue. Your response is appreciated.

[Guest]

Cashman: Not at all. However, there are a lot of things to keep in mind.

That which we could afford in the 1980s has become unaffordable (the same is true for college educations).

Why isn't there an outcry over the same procedures costing 5x as much here in the U.S. as in a first-rate hospital in Canada? the closest we've come is the "we should be able to import cheaper meds from Canada" debate that seems to have faded over the last couple of years.

My first question is WHY do we pay the MOST - and, most importantly NOT GET THE MOST for what we're paying for?

Let's be honest here. If you were going to buy a TV for $500 and the SAME MODEL was LEGALLY priced in the next town for $100, wouldn't you go there? Wouldn't you demand to know why the local company was charging 5x the price? Or would you ignore it just so long as your employer's TV plan meant you only paid $25, regardless of what it cost THEM?

We have a *huge* cost problem in this country. I've heard estimates that say we could cover ALL the uninsured with the profits of the health insurance companies. I'm sorry - but you just can't justify a 39% increase in premiums when you PROFITS are up 20%! This is what I meant by the whole "sick people are a growth industry" thing earlier.

One area I can agree wholeheartedly with you is that you're damn right I'd be mad if a drunk was in front of me in line for a new liver if I needed one - you have to go back more than 10 years to make the count of total drinks I've had be more than the fingers on one hand.

The Democrats seem to be approaching this incorrectly form one side - a political dealmaker's paradise to try and solve the problem from the 'coverage' end.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are approaching it form the other side saying "if we protect the insurance companies, maybe they'll be nice to us and lower costs".

I don't think either way will work.

Maybe a "Truth In Benefits" law exposing what companies pay for insurance would help. Something that was on your paycheck every week or month. Of course, the insurance companies don't want that, citing "confidentiality" concerns. They don't want companies to know what kind of deals they work.

And on top of that, NONE of this deals with the American "Doctors Are God And Can Do Everything And Should Be Perfect Lest They Be Sued" attitude that so many have.

If you cannot afford it you either do without it or you work until you can affored it.

If you cannot earn enough to afford it then you go to school until you can or just forget it.

Healthcare is available to everyone in the USA whether here legally or not so this cost does not apply here.

[Guest]

Cashman: Not at all. However, there are a lot of things to keep in mind.

That which we could afford in the 1980s has become unaffordable (the same is true for college educations).

Why isn't there an outcry over the same procedures costing 5x as much here in the U.S. as in a first-rate hospital in Canada? the closest we've come is the "we should be able to import cheaper meds from Canada" debate that seems to have faded over the last couple of years.

My first question is WHY do we pay the MOST - and, most importantly NOT GET THE MOST for what we're paying for?

Let's be honest here. If you were going to buy a TV for $500 and the SAME MODEL was LEGALLY priced in the next town for $100, wouldn't you go there? Wouldn't you demand to know why the local company was charging 5x the price? Or would you ignore it just so long as your employer's TV plan meant you only paid $25, regardless of what it cost THEM?

We have a *huge* cost problem in this country. I've heard estimates that say we could cover ALL the uninsured with the profits of the health insurance companies. I'm sorry - but you just can't justify a 39% increase in premiums when you PROFITS are up 20%! This is what I meant by the whole "sick people are a growth industry" thing earlier.

One area I can agree wholeheartedly with you is that you're damn right I'd be mad if a drunk was in front of me in line for a new liver if I needed one - you have to go back more than 10 years to make the count of total drinks I've had be more than the fingers on one hand.

The Democrats seem to be approaching this incorrectly form one side - a political dealmaker's paradise to try and solve the problem from the 'coverage' end.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are approaching it form the other side saying "if we protect the insurance companies, maybe they'll be nice to us and lower costs".

I don't think either way will work.

Maybe a "Truth In Benefits" law exposing what companies pay for insurance would help. Something that was on your paycheck every week or month. Of course, the insurance companies don't want that, citing "confidentiality" concerns. They don't want companies to know what kind of deals they work.

And on top of that, NONE of this deals with the American "Doctors Are God And Can Do Everything And Should Be Perfect Lest They Be Sued" attitude that so many have.

You know when you post information like that out there, you should show a little responsibility and at least back it up with a link. That is an outrageous statement.
The insurance industry is not a particularly profitable industry. To be more specific, they're the 86th most profitable industry as measured by profit margins, with an average margin of 3.3 percent. That's lower than drug manufacturers (16.5 percent), health information services (9.3 percent), home health care (8.4 percent), medical labs and research (8.2 percent), medical instruments and supplies (6.8 percent), biotech firms (6.7 percent), generic drug manufacturers (6.6 percent), and much else. That's not to pretend that 3.3 percent is nothing, but it's hard to see how that's a primary driver of health-care spending, much less the growth in health-care spending.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/profit_and_the_insurance_indus.html

[Guest]

If you cannot afford it you either do without it or you work until you can affored it.

If you cannot earn enough to afford it then you go to school until you can or just forget it.

Healthcare is available to everyone in the USA whether here legally or not so this cost does not apply here.

Then you die from appendicitis. You figure you can't afford to go to the doctor so you don't - after all, it's just cramps. Then your appendix bursts and you're history.

You can't afford health care, so you don't get it.

Comprehensive health care is NOT available to everyone. Unless you consider "the ER" to be 'comprehensive'.

When a doctor's visit used to be $10, this wasn't an issue. Now that the CO-PAY is $50, it IS an issue.

Heaven forbid that you're born the way I was in 1962 - with a severe case of bilateral club feet. If born today, I could probably be rejected for insurance as having a 'pre existing condition' (since it would have been pre-natal). I can't imagine what the costs would be compared to what my adoptive mother did to pay for what she could back in the 1960s. I had surgery in 1968 to keep the physical therapy that I'd been though from being wasted (I would be been 're-crippled').

Back in the 80s, I tried to estimate the cost of SOME of what I went through and it was through the roof. It would certainly be even moreso today. Heck, in 1987, my older daughter was born completely 'normal' and it cost about $5,000 - from what I saw of the insurance statements. My younger daughter's costs were well into 6 figures because of defensive medicine when she had a small complication a few hours after she was born. Turned out (thankfully) nothing was wrong with her, but they wanted practically the entire medical staff in Boston on stand-by (and ambulanced her down from New Hampshire to Boston for just that purpose - because they didn't have a neo-natal surgery specialist on stand-by in NH in case a test went wrong).

Again, it all boils down to cost. Donna2 was quoting that health insurers only made a 3.3% margin. She also said that drug makers were at 16.5%.

Think about that - there's a 3.3% margin on top of the 16.5% margin when your treatment is pharmaceutical. It's layer after layer. At least the drug company actually MADE something.

Now, I was asked to back up my profit numbers. While the original report (20% profit hike) was something I saw in passing and cannot remember specifics, I decided to do a little research here. There's an article that summarizes last month's HHS report and links to a lot of supporting figures here: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/30417

Now the links in there seem to come from advocacy groups - that's what Google's giving me back - and I would expect these groups to be shouting the loudest.

Here's what one group going over the public financial records of the 5 largest health insurers said: http://hcfan.3cdn.net/a9ce29d3038ef8a1e1_dhm6b9q0l.pdf

The 2009 financial reports from the nation’s five largest insurance companies reveal that:

The firms made $12.2 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008.

Four out of the five companies saw earnings increases, with CIGNA’s profits jumping 346 percent.

The companies provided private insurance coverage to 2.7 million fewer people than the year before.

Four out of the five companies insured fewer people through private coverage. UnitedHealth alone insured 1.7 million fewer people through employer-based or individual coverage.

All but one of the five companies increased the number of people they covered through public insurance programs (Medicaid, CHIP and Medicare). UnitedHealth added 680,000 people in public plans.

The proportion of premium dollars spent on health care expenses went down for three of the five firms, with higher proportions going to administrative expenses and profits.


Now, granted I expect a slant from a group like this, but the numbers don't lie.

So here's the report from the Department of Health and Human Services:

http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/insuranceprospers/index.html

And from The Daily Press:

Health insurers' profits rise 56%

February 11, 2010|By Noam N. Levey | Tribune Washington BureauWASHINGTON — As the nation struggled last year with rising health-care costs and a recession, the five largest health insurance companies racked up combined profits of $12.2 billion — up 56 percent over 2008, according to a new report by liberal health-care activists.

Based on company financial reports for 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the report said insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Cigna Corp., Aetna and Humana Inc. covered 2.7 million fewer people than they did the year before.

The report Thursday also said three of the five insurers cut the proportion of premiums they spent on their customers' medical care, committing relatively more to salaries, administrative expenses and profits


So I was wrong. Profits weren't up 20%. They were up 56%. In the worst recession we've had since the Great Depression.

Like I've said all along, I wonder where the torch and pitchfork crowd has been. People scream when gas goes up 10 cents a gallon, but keep taking these red-hot pokers all the way up without complaining. I'd love to know how much my company is paying for my fairly decent health insurance - and how much they paid just 5 years ago. How much money am I *not* seeing?

[Guest]

That's funny. My sources are closer to 3.3%.

[Guest]

Getting back to the original question - first of all I do like some of the people in office in Florida. I think they are doing a good job and I will vote for them in the upcoming election. They are Stearns and LeMieux (if he runs). I would never vote for Nelson or Crist who probably will run for LeMieux's seat.

I find it hard to vote all of the incumbents out when some of them are doing a good job. How can you possibly know what the new candidates are going to do? Many will follow in the footsteps of their predecessors. I would rather have tried and tested over them -- especially if I think they are doing a good job.

There is a saying - "better the devil you know that the devil you do not know" or something like that.

However, like RichieLion said, any current representative in the state of Florida that votes for Obamagate is not going to get my vote.

Any more of my posts on Healthcare will be in the Healthcare posting where it belongs.

Z

[Guest]

...I do like some of the people in office in Florida. I think they are doing a good job and I will vote for them in the upcoming election...

Remember, if every voter in America said the same thing--and unfortunately they do--then the entire Congress and the President would be returned to office for another term.

That's why we've experienced a 94% re-election rate in Congress, with the only members leaving being those that die, retire, are convicted and go to jail, or in rare cases are actually voted out of office. Heck, even Larry Craig, the famous "men's room" Senator from Idaho said he was going to resign from the Senate after he was "caught with his pants down", but then when the news cycle blew over, remained in the Senate to complete his term. That's a guy who was elected and re-elected to serve 28 years in the U.S. Senate.

Do you really want another couple of terms of what we've had in recent Congresses? I know I don't. I'll vote to replace all the incumbents and begin over.

[Guest]

So you would elect Crist over LeMieux? We know Crist's record as governor. LeMieux was put in as Martinez's replacement because Crist figured he could get that post at the next election. But LeMieux is doing a good job. I would prefer LeMieux over Crist any day. I think Crist blew it making LeMieux as the senator. He put in a person better than Martinez and much better then himself.

Be careful who you vote for.

I agree with getting rid of the freeloaders and the "all for me" people but unfortunately the "all for me" are also all for the state they run for. Why do you think Ted Kennedy lasted so long?

We have a dilemma on our hands. How do we cull out the "not for the people and the country legislators" from the "for the people and the country legislators"? Do we need a report cart so that all of the people in the country can grade all of the senators (at least - hard to do all of the reps) and can all of the ones that do not do their job. Unfortunately that is what the people in each state is supposed to do.

[Guest]

I have to agree with zcaveman on this one. I think I've tried to read too much into your philosophy Villages Kahuna of just throw them all out. I've really thought about it and read as much as I could find on the Kick Them All Out Project. I mean, yeah I get the contempt for Congress and the sinking poll numbers. But, on the other hand, I don't see it as rational to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do believe we seriously need to be careful who we vote for.

[Guest]

Then you die from appendicitis. You figure you can't afford to go to the doctor so you don't - after all, it's just cramps. Then your appendix bursts and you're history.

You can't afford health care, so you don't get it.

Comprehensive health care is NOT available to everyone. Unless you consider "the ER" to be 'comprehensive'.

When a doctor's visit used to be $10, this wasn't an issue. Now that the CO-PAY is $50, it IS an issue.

Heaven forbid that you're born the way I was in 1962 - with a severe case of bilateral club feet. If born today, I could probably be rejected for insurance as having a 'pre existing condition' (since it would have been pre-natal). I can't imagine what the costs would be compared to what my adoptive mother did to pay for what she could back in the 1960s. I had surgery in 1968 to keep the physical therapy that I'd been though from being wasted (I would be been 're-crippled').

Back in the 80s, I tried to estimate the cost of SOME of what I went through and it was through the roof. It would certainly be even moreso today. Heck, in 1987, my older daughter was born completely 'normal' and it cost about $5,000 - from what I saw of the insurance statements. My younger daughter's costs were well into 6 figures because of defensive medicine when she had a small complication a few hours after she was born. Turned out (thankfully) nothing was wrong with her, but they wanted practically the entire medical staff in Boston on stand-by (and ambulanced her down from New Hampshire to Boston for just that purpose - because they didn't have a neo-natal surgery specialist on stand-by in NH in case a test went wrong).

Again, it all boils down to cost. Donna2 was quoting that health insurers only made a 3.3% margin. She also said that drug makers were at 16.5%.

Think about that - there's a 3.3% margin on top of the 16.5% margin when your treatment is pharmaceutical. It's layer after layer. At least the drug company actually MADE something.

Now, I was asked to back up my profit numbers. While the original report (20% profit hike) was something I saw in passing and cannot remember specifics, I decided to do a little research here. There's an article that summarizes last month's HHS report and links to a lot of supporting figures here: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/30417

Now the links in there seem to come from advocacy groups - that's what Google's giving me back - and I would expect these groups to be shouting the loudest.

Here's what one group going over the public financial records of the 5 largest health insurers said: http://hcfan.3cdn.net/a9ce29d3038ef8a1e1_dhm6b9q0l.pdf


Now, granted I expect a slant from a group like this, but the numbers don't lie.

So here's the report from the Department of Health and Human Services:

http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/insuranceprospers/index.html

And from The Daily Press:


So I was wrong. Profits weren't up 20%. They were up 56%. In the worst recession we've had since the Great Depression.

Like I've said all along, I wonder where the torch and pitchfork crowd has been. People scream when gas goes up 10 cents a gallon, but keep taking these red-hot pokers all the way up without complaining. I'd love to know how much my company is paying for my fairly decent health insurance - and how much they paid just 5 years ago. How much money am I *not* seeing?

You totally miss the point.

Today without Obama healthcare everyone in the USA gets free healthcare if they have no insurance.

[Guest]

And of course there is no tilt in your presentation(s)!

No struggle no progress.

btk

[Guest]

And of course there is no tilt in your presentation(s)!

No struggle no progress.

btk

LOL I just spit coffee all over my screen.

Thanks for the giggles.

[Guest]

Remember, if every voter in America said the same thing--and unfortunately they do--then the entire Congress and the President would be returned to office for another term.

That's why we've experienced a 94% re-election rate in Congress, with the only members leaving being those that die, retire, are convicted and go to jail, or in rare cases are actually voted out of office. Heck, even Larry Craig, the famous "men's room" Senator from Idaho said he was going to resign from the Senate after he was "caught with his pants down", but then when the news cycle blew over, remained in the Senate to complete his term. That's a guy who was elected and re-elected to serve 28 years in the U.S. Senate.

Do you really want another couple of terms of what we've had in recent Congresses? I know I don't. I'll vote to replace all the incumbents and begin over.I agree w/ VK. Congress has developed such a sense of entitlement and complacency that the ONLY war for the electorate to get their attention is to "revolt" at/in the voting booth. A washout of incumbants will be a wake-up call to congress unparrelled in history. I am certain there are intelligent, honest, motivated people on the sidelines who can present to us why they would be viable replacements for the sitting congress. Once they are in the will know they need to keep looking over their shoulders at what we the people want and expect from them.... or they will be out too. Time to change the diaper.

[Guest]

I resolved to be milk-toast and keep a scorecard BUT I think the only way "Throw out the incumbent" will work is IF we shorten the congressional term and keep a scorecard!!!! We may be jumping from the "Frying pan into the Fire" with some of these NEW candidates...

[Guest]

Shorten the congressional term? From 2 years to what, a month? It's already bad enough that they have to start working on their re-election campaigns before they even get sworn in!

[Guest]

For me, and this may sound a little cavalier and maybe a little simple, but I believe we desperately need to reduce the ability of the President to push through his agenda before his (I'm praying and lighting many candles) ouster in 2012.

I will be voting a straight Republican ticket this November, regardless of their incumbency status in gleeful reward to their rock solid stand and reward for their unanimous rejection of Obamacare. If the majority in the Houses are taken away from the Democrat Party, then we have a chance to turn around the destruction of our Country and the erosion of our ideals of individual rights and freedoms.

[Guest]

...by putting in the people who brought us the Patriot Act?

[my own opinion is that we have TWO cancers and choosing between the GOP or the Democrats is like choosing between liver or pancreatic cancer]

[Guest]

...by putting in the people who brought us the Patriot Act?

[my own opinion is that we have TWO cancers and choosing between the GOP or the Democrats is like choosing between liver or pancreatic cancer]

I have no problem with that particular piece of bi-partisan legislation. It seems, in fact, that our current resident of the White House also has no problem with it as his administration seems to want to escalate it's use and provisions.

[Guest]

For me, and this may sound a little cavalier and maybe a little simple, but I believe we desperately need to reduce the ability of the President to push through his agenda before his (I'm praying and lighting many candles) ouster in 2012.

I will be voting a straight Republican ticket this November, regardless of their incumbency status in gleeful reward to their rock solid stand and reward for their unanimous rejection of Obamacare. If the majority in the Houses are taken away from the Democrat Party, then we have a chance to turn around the destruction of our Country and the erosion of our ideals of individual rights and freedoms.

Couldn't have said it better myself.