Why Is This A Good Deal?
 

Did anyone catch the earnings reports today by the five biggest health insurance companies in the U.S.? Their earnings are all at record historic levels, up from 39% to 48% over last year. The health insurers profits were terrific, but the whole healthcare industry has been the top business sector performer in the stock market this year, and not by a small margin. All this in an ecponomy which is stumbling along towards a very fragile recovery.

Now how did this happen, do you think? I don't know about you, but within weeks after the healthcare bill (ObamaCare) was passed last year, my premiums from United Healthcare were increased by 11%, my annual deductible was increased by $500, and my copays for the most common procedures were increased by $5. There was a couple dollar increase in my Medicare premium, but no changes that I could determine in either deductibles or co-pays. If I had a choice of having a Medicare-like secondary policy available, it wouldn't take me long to bail out of United Heathcare.

I can't bail out of course, because the bill called "ObamaCare" doesn't provide for a single-payer public option. Not only was that idea blocked in the final negotiations, but the health insurers were assured that they'd get all the business insuring the 30-40 million people who will now be insured under ObamaCare. I'm pretty sure that President Obama wanted the expansion of healthcare insurance for the uninsured. But I also am quite certain that he was not in favor of steering all that profitable new business into the hands (and pockets) of a handful of large health insurance companies.

I know there are a number of you on this forum who are steadfast believers that the private sector is always the best provider of services which are commonly provided by governments in all of the world's developed countries. Even though the health of the residents of those countries is both better and cheaper than what we have with mostly private sector control here in the U.S.

Yeah, yeah, I know why the Republicans unanimously voted down a public option. It's called massive campaign contributions by the health insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals. So I know the bill was a heckuva good deal for the members of Congress who were instrumental in creating the legislation.

But tell me again, how is our reliance on the private sector for health insurance a good deal for me? Or for you, for that matter. Or the country as a whole?

Yeah, the more I hear about it the better it sounds. (hear sarcastic laughter here)

I'm sick in England; I call my doctor; I now only have to wait 18 weeks for an appointment. What a deal!!!

You want horror stories; stories of people waiting weeks to get a broken arm set. Babies denied urgent care because of lack of hospital beds? Read some of the stories on the 3rd link. You can keep your socialized medicine. Thank you very much.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...g-times-longer

http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rig...g%20times.aspx

http://www.neoperspectives.com/britishhealthcare.htm

Very simple VK....it's not.

The Health Insurance firms listed on the NYSE reported the following earnings for Q1 2011 as compared to Q1 2010.

UnitedHealth Earnings up 10% on a 10% increase in business
WellPoint Earnings up 6%
Aetna Earnings up 3%
Humana Earnings up 22%
Health Net Loss
Cigna Earnings up 52%

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/spe...ealth-insurers

The average earnings increase was 15% if you do not include the losses at Health Net. Including them would reduce this number to closer to 12%. This is quite healthy but not in the 39% to 48% reported in the media.

You can expect to continue to pay more for health care. Obamacare mandated some procedures not normally previously covered and eliminated insurance company’s right to exclude previously existing conditions from coverage. Treatment for PEC’s normally had an exclusion period before coverage would kick in. These may be good ideas, but they cost money. As additional phases of Obamacare come into effect, they will continue to drive up health costs. Insurance premiums and deductibles will, of necessity, rise with the increases in cost. There is no ‘free lunch’.

Blame Me Or Bloomberg Radio
 

Excellent response. I will admit that maybe I should have done more research on earnings. The statistics I stated I heard today in an interview with a market strategist on Bloomberg Radio. I recall listening to the numbers for each of five companies and the low was +39% with a high of +48%. Now it makes me wonder what time periods he was talking about. It might have been year over year.

You're also right about new coverage inclusions in ObamaCare. What seems to be missing is very much that will actually begin to control or cut the costs of healthcare. Many of those inclusions were "lobbied out" of the bill that was finally passed.

What's going to happen, of course, is that instead of Congress designing a bill that would actually work to begin to reduce healthcare costs there will be a fiscal train wreck that will result in cost cutting to all government spending more akin to cutting and slashing with a battle axe rather than an intelligent assessment of priorities. But then, maybe an intelligent approach is and always has been beyond the ability of this Congress or any other Congress to accomplish.

Anecdotes?
 

Richie, I must admit that I went a bit beyond arithmetic in my math studies. I did take a number of courses in statistics, as well.

Honestly, I'm not impressed by your anecdotal references--all negativer of course. There may actually be positive feelings by some Brits about their healthcare system, but we'll never read about them in your posts.

I do wish we base our discussions on the many meaningful statistical studies done of the various healthcare systems in the world. For quite awhile the health of U.S. citizens, as measured by a variety of factors, has ranged from a high of 11th to a low of 34th among the developed countries in the world. Those studies were conducted by legitimate organizations with no axe to grind.

Other statistical studies clearly show that the U.S. spends far more per capita on healthcare than any other developed country. In fact, our spending per capita is double that of the country in second place! Of course, it should be noted that the U.S. is the only country among the developed countries of the world that relies so heavily on for-profit insurers to fund our healthcare costs.

Lastly, there is unanimous consensus that our spending on healthcare is increasing at an unsustainable pace. Some projections that I've seen have healthcare spending consuming a proportion of our GDP that clearly can't be sustained within the next decade or so.

So rather than responding with flip anecdotes, why not a serious discussion on how our spending on healthcare can be reduced without seriously impacting on the good things being accomplished by our system?

"Patients must receive an appointment within 18 weeks" ....18 WEEKS!!
and they fail very often to even that standard. You call that better healthcare?

That's all the statistics I care about, and any sick person would care about.

You want to talk cost numbers to sick people? Good luck.

I have to agree
 

[QUOTE

You're also right about new coverage inclusions in ObamaCare. What seems to be missing is very much that will actually begin to control or cut the costs of healthcare. Many of those inclusions were "lobbied out" of the bill that was finally passed.

What's going to happen, of course, is that instead of Congress designing a bill that would actually work to begin to reduce healthcare costs there will be a fiscal train wreck that will result in cost cutting to all government spending more akin to cutting and slashing with a battle axe rather than an intelligent assessment of priorities. But then, maybe an intelligent approach is and always has been beyond the ability of this Congress or any other Congress to accomplish.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I have to agree. You put it quite well.

I'm just wondering if it's so great for the country, why are they handing out wavers like candy?

Try working in the healthcare field around the Canadian border in the USA (now!). Many Canadians come over here to see a doc..... and for their testing because they don't have to wait forever for their MRI's, CT scans, etc.....& even their surgeries. It would be a wake-up call for many as to what we face in the future with Obamacare.

Richie, I have trouble believing some of that.

A person with a broken arm would head to the hospital or ER to get it set.

When I was in Canada a few years ago and had a flare-up of a problem of mine that required a hospital visit, they saw me IMMEDIATELY and charged my insurance company about ONE FIFTH of what my local (Southern NH) hospitals charged and that included X-Rays, diagnostics, etc.

But to your point of some of the horror stories, why, then, do the Brits outlive us? Why are their health statistics so much better? ...the same for teh French, the Canadians, the Swiss - EVERYONE in the industrialized world - and yet we continue to pay 2-10 times what others pay for services that do not give the same results.

Excellent points, let us see what Richard has to offer. Oh, oh, - probably, "I didn't write it, I'm just the messenger."

Xavier :wave: :wave: :wave:

I can see it already: Richie says "never happened"

Well, there was the whole "Then why does the rest of the world come here for medical treatment" myth that I busted a while ago. I did research on the fast-growing "medical tourism" industry and it showed quite the net OUTFLOW. Far, far more people going overseas from the United States for medical services than were coming here. The most visible example of this is busloads of American retirees going to Canada for their pharmaceuticals. I don't mean that in a metaphorical sense - I mean there really are CHARTER BUS companies that do these trips over the border to Canada.

When it vomes to these worldwide health statistics, sometimes there are differences in the way the data is collected. For example, we look worse on infant mortality because we try to save more preemies and the French don't consider a preemie a 'live birth' as quickly as we do. The British tend to let slower-moving cancers (like prostate cancer) go a bit more to the back of the 'cancer line' when it comes for scheduling treatment regimens and I hear that they DO take into consideration a patient's age. If a VERY old man has prostate cancer, there's an adult discussion as to whether or not to treat it because of the side effects of treatment. In other words, they ask the guy if he'd rather live out the rest of his days HIS way rather than practically living in the hospital.

If England's numbers are better I'd be willing to wager that the numbers are grossly flawed and skewed to promote this socialist agenda.

Read the documents I linked and not just the stories from neglected sick and injured. The health law in England calls for patients to be see within 18 weeks and they fail to hold to that standard at a failure rate of 26%. That means 1 out of 4 patients wait longer than 18 weeks for an appointment.

Screw everything else. That's all I need to know.

Government health care if you will, will fail the general American public. I had some folks in at my hotel last year and told me of the stories in Canada. The man told me and he was 83 of having to wait 12 + months for haert surgery. If he would have waited he would have died but he came to the good old USA paid out of pocket and was fine. This is what will happen here you will see alot of private hospitals open and if you can pay you will play. This government health care will not fly.Any time thegovernment (any government) gets to involved with the day to day of the people it goes wrong. And I am not knocking any party or president I could but I not.

Why am I not surprised?

A number of years ago my son and I were both interested in Lasik surgery. In the States at the time they were charging $2,400 for each eye and they would do one eye at a time with a minimum of 6 weeks in between. That's $4,800 total.

We went to Mississauga, Ontario for the procedures at a cost of $1,000 for both eyes done on the same day. That's $1,000 total. The waiting room was filled with U.S. citizens. It was well worth traveling to Canada for the follow-up visits at that price. The expertise was way ahead of what was offered in the States. The machine they used for mapping the eye in Canada wasn't even approved in the U.S. yet. As it turned out, I had Marginal Degeneration (thin around the edges) and they couldn't map my eyes to the degree of accuracy that was needed. They told me that the machine to do it was already available in Europe and that they'd have it within the year. They said that it wouldn't be approved in the U.S. for at least another 5 years.

Xavier :wave:

... and I'm assuming that you are basing that opinion on the stellar record of health care and it's cost here in the United States? Well, at least you aren't blaming any party or President even though you feel that you certainly could. I thank you for that.

Xavier :wave: :wave: :wave:

Bob Seger!!!
 

Wow, that song "Still the Same" is running through my mind... Richie, do you even know anyone that actually lives in England??? We know several and what you're saying is completely untrue.

When are all the right-wingnuts going to stop strutting around with their chests puffed out, chirping about our excellence and start dealing with the real issues at hand.

Education, Health Care, Environment... we are wayyyyyy down the list in so many important areas. Just because the right-wing yells louder, doesn't make them right. I'm sick and tired of skewed numbers, lies spouted out as facts, closed minds, and people just simply living in denial! Now stop pounding your chest and get to work!

Well, I don't visit often anymore folks, but as always, it's been a slice.... :loco:

Gee, where have you been? Good to see you come out of the dark. The only one yelling here is you. I "spouted" no numbers. I've read and linked articles written by people from England who live with socialized medicine. I've linked the governments own guidelines. They aren't lies just because you're mad at me for revealing them. The only yelling is from the left who cannot tolerate for their bubble to burst and their icons to be discredited.

The fact that I know I'm right is that you call people names and try to diminish out of the frustration of having to defend the indefensible.

Gee, you relate stories of American's going to Canada for elective procedures and other relate stories of Canadians coming to America because they don't want to die waiting for treatment. Interesting, isn't it?

I choose life.

De-Nile...
 

is not a river in Egypt Richie! :) Me? Yelling??? You really are clueless. On the contrary -- I'm amused! You're a very amusing fellow. :girlneener:

The day the right-wing nuts bubble burst, was the day Bin Laden was eliminated. Good Luck in 2012.

Oh gee; if you say so. I can say you're yelling just as easily as you falsely accuse me with the purpose to diminish what I say. It's the same reason you call people names. I don't have to defend. You ruin your own arguments.

Someone I knew, knew someone who knew a guy from Canada who was 83 ... I was just giving a real life example of what I have experienced personally. I'd listen to you if you wanted to tell of your experiences on the ...

See, that's self control! :angel: :wave: Have a great day!

Xavier :wave::wave::wave:

Richie: That's all you need to know? Why not look a little further. If I had to pick ONE statistic for "all I need to know", I would look at life expectancy.

According to THAT metric, Japan is #1, France is #10, Canada is #11, The UK is tied for 20th. The US? TIED FOR 36TH WITH *CUBA*.

Now, maybe you wouldn't like the source because it's from the UN. How about from the CIA World Fact Book?

With *them*, Monaco is #1, Japan #5, Canada is 9th, France 10th, UK 36th and the US is *50th*. (For reference, Cuba is 55th in this ranking, 0.92 years less average life expectancy than the US).

The CIA Fact Book also has many more 'political entities' and is not restricted to "UN Member States" - although both lists separate the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico from the United States in the stats. ...and both of those territories scored higher than the US in both lists.

RomneyCare was the prototype for ObamaCare. While Romney Care was engineered to cut health insurance costs it did so only by reducing health care causing many docotrs to flee the State. This left many patients without a doctor, thus creating a need to find another doctor which prolonged their wait for an appointment and all that follows.

Team Obama used an unfair bias against insurance companies making them the villians so as to push his agenda. I am not saying that insurance companies are saintly but would ask people to stay open and balanced about the issues. The profit numbers you cite just don't make sense. I am not saying you are wrong but whomever is reporting those numbers is playing games. There is more to this story. RomneyCare is a disaster and one Romney won't admit to and a big reason he will never get the nomination. He would have been better off to have admitted it was a test that failed and he learned from it but he didn't do that and now will suffer for it. It is the main reason I won't consider him. People who favor interstate competition have it right. This model will make health insurance more affordable.

What is probably unfortunate is that Obama and his acolytes never bothered to study romneyCare disasterous results and hence "those that ignore history are deemed to repeat it"

Uh oh. Better get ready with another "don't bother me with those left wing skewed statistics designed to make conservative ideas look bad" responses from Richie.

Count On 'Em...Think About It
 

There really aren't any "games" to be played. These are all highly regulated public companies subject to SEC regulations and FASB accounting standards. When the financial media report profits and profit comparisons, you can pretty much count on the reports as accurate.

On the subject of staying "open and balanced", the Paul Ryan proposal if accepted in it's entirety, would pretty much eliminate Medicare as we currently know it. Simply put, the Ryan plan would essentially give Americans of Medicare age a chit worth about $15,000 to buy healthcare insurance. If the cost of such insurance exceeds that amount, the participants would be on their own to pay for their own healthcare or whatever premiums the insurance companies choose to charge.

On it's face, would you accept the assumption that "market forces" would maintain or reduce healthcare costs, which is the fundamental presumption of the Ryan Plan? There's not much doubt that healthcare costs MUST be reduced and that ObamaCare doesn't do much if anything to accomplish that.

So for all you Medicare participants out there, are you willing to give up your Medicare coverage and place the kind of health insurance you will be able to afford in the hands of the big insurance companies? It's a simple question that calls for an equally simple answer.

I'm sorry, I can't believe the statistical results are tied to Health Care. I guess I'll have to see if I can find what parameters they're using to promote these finding. Are they using violence and transportation deaths? Are they counting the deaths from natural disasters in this study? What else are they using or not using to determine national life expectancy?

18 Days to see a doctor by English Health Law. 26 % of the time they fail to meet this standard. Dispute those statistics. Ask people what numbers they care about. I think I'll win this argument easy.

Richie: Thank you for at least having a bit of explanation in disagreeing with me.

As far as the UK NHS is concerned, the people I know that live there don't complain too much. My wife's son was living there for 6 months and will be returning to the UK to continue his studies in a few months. In that time, I've gotten to know the family he's lived with. To make a long story short, I suspect that some of that "26% failure" rate is like my ex-grandmother-in-law who used to call the doctor demanding a penicillin prescription when she had a cold. I *wish* I was making that up.

I'd like to know what kinds of appointments are being shoved out for that kind of failure rate.

I know more about the Canadian system where there have been complaints about long waiting times. But the reason for that is that they don't do a "first come first served" system. The particular case that went to court was over an ex-postal worker, retired, who had a knee problem and wanted surgery. He was put on a waiting list because he was ambulatory and the condition wasn't getting worse because of a brace the man wore. He wanted to pay a private doctor to get his surgery sooner and Quebec sued him (under a law saying you couldn't pay privately for something the national system covered). Ottawa then told Quebec that they were violating this man's human rights.

The point was that he wanted, at his own expense, to have more time in his retirement without the brace. Nothing wrong with that. BUT, it explains why his case was pushed out - because he didn't have as severe a case and that it wasn't going to get worse with time. In other words, he could wait.

That's the kind of adult discussion that, in this country either doesn't happen or becaomes a "death panel" screaming match.

This isn't 'rationing' health care but it certainly *is* "prioritizing" it.

Two patients die in ambulance waiting for service at full hospital. Maybe their ages were taken into account?

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...-hospital-unit

(About your anecdote about your grandmother; Do you think if you tell people their healthcare is "free" that you will have less national demand?)

Richie, I'm sure that I could find the same kind of story in this country. The ones I *was* familiar with had to do with patients dying in hallways, unattended.

So I went to your link. One patient died the next day IN THE HOSPITAL and another THREE DAYS LATER in another hospital. The delays were 7 & 20 minutes for the two individuals, the hospital was full and sending people to other hospitals. On top of that, the WERE screened by a doctor while waiting.

And, oh yeah, they believed to be in their 80s.

THEY DID NOT DIE IN AN AMBULANCE - your first line is misleading at best and a complete lie at worst.

Perhaps most telling is that the families of the two decedents have not filed any complaints.

Here's the direct quote from the article:

I've often said that people shouldn't lie or exaggerate to try and make a point becuase, when they're called on it, it makes their future arguments weaker as they've lost credibility.

"2 patients die after waiting in ambulance outside 'full" hospital unit" Pretty darn close to my headline, I think. It was a current story and pertinent to the thread and not some unresearchable anecdote related to bolster an argument.

Xavier,
 

I know times have changed but 18 years ago, I had lasik surgery in one eye in Charlotte, NC, cost $150....I was fortunate to talk to a patient in waiting room that suggested one eye, so you can still read menu's....Husband had same surgery but with both eyes and he was forced to go to reading glasses 12 years ago....So you see, you can get good prices here in the states also..sorry for hijack... Unfortunately, that isn't the case when hospitalization is necessary...Someone has to pay for patients without insurance that head for the ER..

The only thing I would add....Why is it called Obamacare why not IncompetentCongresscare...Granted he signed it (a shared responsibility) BUT it isn't what he proposed!

Ok Richie, jump all over this....

There is a HUGE difference between:

"Died in ambulance waiting for service"

and:

...died 1 & 3 days later after waiting 7 & 20 minutes for admittance, when doctors and nurses came out to see them IN the ambulance PLUS the fact that they were in their 80s.

Richie, what it tells me is that you didn't fully read the story in the link you posted. You *seemed* to be wanting an anti-UK-NHS story with an inflammatory headline so bad, you didn't bother to fully check what you were sending along.

Quite frankly, I think you're better than that, despite my disagreements with your opinions.

Are there drawbacks to a UK/Canada style system? Hell yes! But the bottom line is that they're getting a LOT more bang for their buck. (And bang for OUR bucks since it seems we're funding the R&D on most of the world's new medicines and then the other countries get it a lot closer to 'cost' - but that's another aspect of the issue)

They live longer, spend less and certainly worry less (medical bankruptcy is unheard of in those countries). Meanwhile, we pay more, get less, get kicked off of plans when we're no longer a 'profit center' and, on top of that, have people leaving this country in DROVES to get foreign care creating a whole new industry of "medical tourism"!

What's wrong with this picture? EVERYTHING!

The Federal Government growing more immense with the total acquisition, and or control, of the health care industry and all health care decisions cannot be in the interest of the public. If I can't get a prompt appointment now, I can call another doctor. I can pick and choose every aspect of my health care needs, and provide for whatever procedure I want, and at the time of my choosing.

Why would I want that to change? It's not in my best interests or the interests of my family. I don't need more unelected bureaucrats without my wants and needs at the forefront of their duties to have any more control of my life; and might I add, the possible end of my life.

We do not need, and people should be frightened, of the all encompassing control of their health, and life and death decisions that the government is scheming to possess. Why you would want the government to have more control over you I cannot fathom.

Interesting. I'm glad YOU can call another doctor if you don't get an appointment when you want. Me? I can't. I get assigned to someone else if I want an appointment before 'my' doctor is available because my primary care physician is actually an association. Normally this is no big deal.

But let me ask you something and, if it's none of my business or you don't want to answer, I'll understand. Who provides your insurance? If you're retired, is it Medicare/Medicaid?

(I'm on a BC/BS Anthem plan myself covering myself, my wife and one of my daughters)

If it matters, I've got Blue Cross/Blue Shield and I choose whoever I want who accepts plan, which is most everyone.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...great-britain/

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272 (The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz1NIDcgY7O(Mother confronts Nick Clegg on 7 month wait for child mental health service)

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/04/s...tain-alarming/(Surgeons: Wait times in socialist Great Britain alarming)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11539533 (3 year wait for mental health services)

http://docs4patientcare.org/_blog/Re...ed_Wait_Times/(British Surgeons raise alarm over increased wait times)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110406/...guish_in_agony(Wait times for orthopedic surgeries in Britain cause patients to languish in agony)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...hours-cut.html(NHS: Waiting lists rise after doctors hours are cut)

I can post scads more stories from the British media.