Originally Posted by djplong

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/ezr...nce_indus.html

Originally Posted by cashman

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/...ers/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?

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

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

Originally Posted by zcaveman

...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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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/...ers/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.

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

No struggle no progress.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

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...

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!

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.

...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]