A glimpse into your future courtesy of RomneyCare

[Capitalist]

(Boston Herald)- The state’s health insurance connector — the highly touted agency that aims to bring cheap medical care to the masses — has turned into a legal pit bull by aggressively going after a growing number of Bay Staters who say they can’t afford mandated insurance — or the penalties imposed for not having it.
The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is cracking down on more than 3,000 residents who are fighting state fines, and has even hired a private law firm to force the health insurance scofflaws to pay penalties of up to $2,000 a year.
All told, more than 7,700 people have appealed state fines for not having health insurance, according to connector spokesman Richard Powers. The agency has hired several private attorneys at $50 an hour to hear many of the appeals, and some 3,150 of them have been denied — and the losers told to pay up.
The connector has also hired the Hub law firm Bowman & Penski — at $125 an hour — to defend itself against 13 lawsuits filed by fed-up taxpayers who insist they can’t afford state required insurance premiums or the escalating fines.
National watchdogs say the Bay State’s battles with cash-strapped taxpayers foreshadow troubles on the horizon for the Obama administration’s health-care plan.
“Every problem that Massachusetts is running into right now, the federal government will confront in 2014,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the conservative Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.
​

 

[Foxfyre]

Just a small version of what we're facing when Obamacare fully kicks in. Already state after state after state is preparing to file suit against the Federal government and demanding to be exempt.

The idea that the government has power to demand that the citizen buy ANYTHING against his/her will is just mind boggling to anybody who values the Constitution and liberty.

 

[Common Sense]

i wonder how much money each of these individuals is spending on lawyers while at the same time complaining that they dont have enough $ to afford health care...

 

[Foxfyre]

You're missing the point. The history of ALL entitlements is that they start out small and affordable, but government, being the inefficient and ineffective agent that it is, will invariably fail to contain costs as effectively as the private sector will. And before long that small and affordable program is no longer affordable, but the private options have been destroyed and the people are stuck.

We need to head this one off before that happens.

 

[Common Sense]

You're missing the point. The history of ALL entitlements is that they start out small and affordable, but government, being the inefficient and ineffective agent that it is, will invariably fail to contain costs as effectively as the private sector will. And before long that small and affordable program is no longer affordable, but the private options have been destroyed and the people are stuck.

We need to head this one off before that happens.

do you have any suggestions on how to fix the system? we can all agree the system is broke, but what is your idea for fixing and improving upon the system? everyone seems to bitch and moan about the new HC law, but just like the republicans proposed spending cuts, no one is able to give any specifics.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're missing the point. The history of ALL entitlements is that they start out small and affordable, but government, being the inefficient and ineffective agent that it is, will invariably fail to contain costs as effectively as the private sector will. And before long that small and affordable program is no longer affordable, but the private options have been destroyed and the people are stuck.

We need to head this one off before that happens.

do you have any suggestions on how to fix the system? we can all agree the system is broke, but what is your idea for fixing and improving upon the system? everyone seems to bitch and moan about the new HC law, but just like the republicans proposed spending cuts, no one is able to give any specifics.

You fix the system by securing the rights of the people and then government get out of it. There isn't ANY major industry in the country that is 'broke' except those the government has involved itself in. Get government out of healthcare altogether and we'll see immediate improvement.

 

[Capitalist]

You're missing the point. The history of ALL entitlements is that they start out small and affordable, but government, being the inefficient and ineffective agent that it is, will invariably fail to contain costs as effectively as the private sector will. And before long that small and affordable program is no longer affordable, but the private options have been destroyed and the people are stuck.

We need to head this one off before that happens.

do you have any suggestions on how to fix the system? we can all agree the system is broke, but what is your idea for fixing and improving upon the system? everyone seems to bitch and moan about the new HC law, but just like the republicans proposed spending cuts, no one is able to give any specifics.

That would be a good thread for you to start, go ahead.

 

[Common Sense]

That would be a good thread for you to start, go ahead.

actually i have already given this argument:

Idea 1:

shouldnt all HC providers be required to be either non-profits or not-for-profits? this would then require them to reinvest every dollar not used on patient care or administrative costs? this should be an easy way to drive down current costs. I would also recommend that they be unable to issue shares as public companies. when a company goes public, its first loyalty is to share holders and increasing their stock value. why would we want this? i have nothing against companies making a profit outside of health care. when a health care company makes a decision to deny coverage, most often the reasoning is that its too expensive to do, they stand to profit by taking your premium dollars and not having to pay out any patient care expenses.

now we can argue the logistics about exactly how health care companies profit, but i believe that they shouldnt be able make these huge profits. HC is one of the most profitable industry in the US.

the only true Non profit HC provider is Kaiser Permanente, and they tend to have some of the lower premiums out there for an HMO. (quote for a single 30 year old male, los angeles are, $40 co pay, $3,000 deductible is $132 / month - the same plan with blue shield costs almost $350 / month) these numbers directly off their website by putting in the same exact information. (try it if youd like) now kaiser (whether you like or dislike kaiser is irrelevant for this argument as we are solely looking at costs) has to reinvest all of its profits back into the company, this is one reason they have much much lower premiums then other for profit companies.

you do realize that insurance companies profit from taking in premiums and not paying out expenses. accounting 101. money in less money out = profit. (or for a more technical answer - The positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses. opposite of loss) now, when HC providers are deemed to be for profit enterprises, they are allowed to mark up their product to create profits which benefit owners, shareholders or the value of the company.

A non-profit organization, is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals. hence, they must reinvest all profits (that are not paid out in the way of salaries, bonuses, business expenses) back into the company. hence the term "non profit". health care insurers and providers are some of the most profitable companies in america. and they are allowed to be publicly traded. (AETNA, CIGNA etc) thus they have to show a profit to investors otherwise their share price plummets and the company loses money. this one is counterintuitive to providing health care. when you have a fixed amount of dollars coming in, because you provide a contract services, there are only 3 ways to increase profits. 1) cut your costs 2) reduce your liabilities. 3)increase your contacts. lets throw out #3 for arguments sake and say you are not able to increase the number of contracts for a given period of time. that leaves you with 2 options, cut costs or reduce liabilities. well the biggest liability a HC provider has the cost of patient care. so in order to reduce your liability there you have to cut services or deny services. its basic math. this if insurance and health care providers had to pump billions of dollars back into the system for patient care and cost reduction. wow, i just single handedly lower out of pocket costs for everyone........... (not that this will ever happen tho)


Proof about the amount of money Health Care Providers Profit:


here are the profits that were recorded in 2009 for health care providers:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/industries/223/index.html

you will notice that most of their profit levels have been falling since 2007, as they are being required to spends more $ on patient care, but that level is only a percentage. United Health Group still profited $2.9 billion dollars in 2009. Well Point posted a $2.49 billion profit and Aetna profited $1.38 billion. All top Fortune 1000 companies. If thats not a record, i dont know what is. 3% on $81 billion dollars is a ton of money considering that this is after paying out all expenses. You man think that 3% profit levels are low, but they are actually not when it comes to big business. And you forget that we are not talking about profit margins. Those are completely different than profit dollars. Typical businesses mark up their product 25-40% depending the industry. They then take the money that is brought in and it is applied towards overhead, salaries and everything else that it costs to do business (ie rent, insurance, taxes.....) what is left over is the profits. if you look at the link below about health care providers being #14, you will see that even the highest profit level is only 19.8%, and that is for mining and crude oil production. Pharmaceuticals are a close 2nd at 19.1 and then Tobacco at 12.3. No one pulls down a profit of 25% like people assume. just think about if Health care providers has to reinvest all that money back into the system (say like being required to become a non profit), that would be $6.77 billion dollars put towards patient care and not into the pocket books of investors and executive. (for the 2009 year alone) do you think this would drive down costs? reduce premiums? it absolutely would, but there is not public outrage about this. only about the health care bill.

for your edification:

2007 United Health Group profited $4.65 billion, Well Point - $3.35 billion and Aetna - $1.83 billion

current 2010 numbers just released:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/full_list/

United Health care was #21 over all in 2010.
United Health Group Revenues - $87,138,000,000 Profits $3,822,000,000. (an increase of 28% over 2008, Well Point was #31 at revenues of $65,028,1000,000 and profits of $4,745,900,000 they increased their profits 90.5% since 2008)

here more information about them #2 in terms of dollars per employee (thats $3 million per employee of profit btw)

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/performers/industries/bangbuck/employees.html



they are #14 overall

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

 

[auditor0007]

You're missing the point. The history of ALL entitlements is that they start out small and affordable, but government, being the inefficient and ineffective agent that it is, will invariably fail to contain costs as effectively as the private sector will. And before long that small and affordable program is no longer affordable, but the private options have been destroyed and the people are stuck.

We need to head this one off before that happens.

do you have any suggestions on how to fix the system? we can all agree the system is broke, but what is your idea for fixing and improving upon the system? everyone seems to bitch and moan about the new HC law, but just like the republicans proposed spending cuts, no one is able to give any specifics.

First off, there is a big problem with forcing people to buy insurance. However, there is also a big problem with allowing them to go without insurance. If people are not required to purchase insurance, but we allow them to buy it when they get sick, then it is no longer insurance. It's a stacked deck against insurance providers. So let's make it simple. If you don't want it, you don't have to buy it, but at the same time, providers do not have to treat you unless you can pay at least 50% upfront and have the ability to pay the rest in a reasonable amount of time. If you are truly sick and can't pay, too bad. It was your choice not to purchase coverage, so if you die, it's on you.

What I find hilarious is that people who are against forcing people to purchase insurance will usually be the first to say that you cannot deny someone care if they cannot pay. Well, who does everyone think pays for those who can't pay? If you own a car, you are required to purchase auto insurance. If you don't, you will end up paying fines and possibly do jail time if something bad happens. Why is health insurance any different? Providers are forced to provide services to everyone, regardless of whether they are covered or not. So why not require everyone to purchase insurance or have the means to self insure?

But none of this addresses costs. Requiring people to purchase insurance will not reduce costs. Leaving things as they are will not reduce costs. In my opinion, there is only one thing that will reduce costs, and that is to get employers out of the business of providing health insurance. Make people purchase it on their own so they understand the true costs. Believe me, when most people find out how expensive it really is, the market will adjust and become more competitive, and prices will come down.

Here is the truth about insurance and the companies that provide the insurance. For the most part, they are not the reason rates continue to climb. The reason is that providers are not competetive. They have no need to be competitive or to find ways to be competitive. And the insurance companies really don't want them to be competitive either, because the more providers charge, the more the insurance companies can charge, and with their small profit margins, the only way to increase profits is by increasing volume. So in the end, the insurance companies don't want providers to reduce costs. Get the employers out of the picture, and get health insurance coverage back to being major medical type of coverage where basic medical care is paid out of pocket. Then you would see real competition among providers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Everybody can pay something. If you get the government out of it, everybody will be paying a whole lot less both for insurance and for basic healthcare services. Before government decided to get involved, every hospital administered necessary medical care. But the person receiving it then paid for it, provided an insurance policy, or he signed a note agreeing to pay $5/month or $10/month or $25/month or whatever he could afford to pay his bill. This provided dignity to the patient and pretty well eliminated most abuse of the system. Yes the hospitals ate a lot of those costs, but when the system is not abused, that was manageable.

States or communities who wanted to set up a charity ward were certainly free to do so, and there was nothing wrong with the private hospitals sending indigent patients to such places rather than overloading their own system or having to cover such costs.

Get the Federal Government out of it and we'll see more affordable and more personalized health care very soon thereafter.

 

[Common Sense]

Everybody can pay something. If you get the government out of it, everybody will be paying a whole lot less both for insurance and for basic healthcare services. Before government decided to get involved, every hospital administered necessary medical care. But the person receiving it then paid for it, provided an insurance policy, or he signed a note agreeing to pay $5/month or $10/month or $25/month or whatever he could afford to pay his bill. This provided dignity to the patient and pretty well eliminated most abuse of the system. Yes the hospitals ate a lot of those costs, but when the system is not abused, that was manageable.

States or communities who wanted to set up a charity ward were certainly free to do so, and there was nothing wrong with the private hospitals sending indigent patients to such places rather than overloading their own system or having to cover such costs.

Get the Federal Government out of it and we'll see more affordable and more personalized health care very soon thereafter.

so why have costs not gone down in the past 10 years?

(Health Insurance Premiums Up 131% in Last Ten Years - It's Your Money - TIME.com)

they increased 131% over that time frame, and there was no health care bill. it was simply free market driven. this is what led to the government getting involved. the government has only stepped in in the last year or so and the majority of the provisions in the new health care bill wont even go into affect until 2014. simply saying everyone should pay $5 or $10 or $25 per month will not cover costs. The average family pays almost $14,000 in health care premiums per year. an individual its close to $5,000.

Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com

these are the real costs. look at the charts, these numbers do not lie. and all of this went on while it a free market program that republicans say make things more competitive and drive prices down. this is completely untrue, we have not seen a cost decrease in health care premiums in over a decade.

you use the car insurance argument, well when you purchase your car insurance (which is a privilege btw not a right like HC), you also have to purchase uninsured motorist insurance. this is to cover you should someone hit you and they arent carrying insurance. why are you not complaining about having to pay this costs to cover those who arent insured? think about how much the overall cost of your plan would go do if everyone actually has car insurance, and you didnt have to cover that extra cost.

i also think you are confusing profit margins with actual profits. profit margins are the percentage that you mark a product up to cover your costs. (materials, services, insurance, overhead, taxes, salaries etc etc) products are usually marked up a minimum of 25%, typically 40% in small businesses in order to cover these costs. profits, are all the monies left over after paying all of your costs. these in the big business world dont ever exceed 20%.

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

this means that for every dollar in revenue that they bring in, after paying out all costs, they are still making approx 20 cents. in terms of managed health care, a company like United Health Care profited $3.8 billion last year. thats just one company, and how much they made after paying out all of their expenses. thats a huge amount of money.

 

[Foxfyre]

Everybody can pay something. If you get the government out of it, everybody will be paying a whole lot less both for insurance and for basic healthcare services. Before government decided to get involved, every hospital administered necessary medical care. But the person receiving it then paid for it, provided an insurance policy, or he signed a note agreeing to pay $5/month or $10/month or $25/month or whatever he could afford to pay his bill. This provided dignity to the patient and pretty well eliminated most abuse of the system. Yes the hospitals ate a lot of those costs, but when the system is not abused, that was manageable.

States or communities who wanted to set up a charity ward were certainly free to do so, and there was nothing wrong with the private hospitals sending indigent patients to such places rather than overloading their own system or having to cover such costs.

Get the Federal Government out of it and we'll see more affordable and more personalized health care very soon thereafter.

so why have costs not gone down in the past 10 years?

(Health Insurance Premiums Up 131% in Last Ten Years - It's Your Money - TIME.com)

they increased 131% over that time frame, and there was no health care bill. it was simply free market driven. this is what led to the government getting involved. the government has only stepped in in the last year or so and the majority of the provisions in the new health care bill wont even go into affect until 2014. simply saying everyone should pay $5 or $10 or $25 per month will not cover costs. The average family pays almost $14,000 in health care premiums per year. an individual its close to $5,000.

Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com

these are the real costs. look at the charts, these numbers do not lie. and all of this went on while it a free market program that republicans say make things more competitive and drive prices down. this is completely untrue, we have not seen a cost decrease in health care premiums in over a decade.

you use the car insurance argument, well when you purchase your car insurance (which is a privilege btw not a right like HC), you also have to purchase uninsured motorist insurance. this is to cover you should someone hit you and they arent carrying insurance. why are you not complaining about having to pay this costs to cover those who arent insured? think about how much the overall cost of your plan would go do if everyone actually has car insurance, and you didnt have to cover that extra cost.

i also think you are confusing profit margins with actual profits. profit margins are the percentage that you mark a product up to cover your costs. (materials, services, insurance, overhead, taxes, salaries etc etc) products are usually marked up a minimum of 25%, typically 40% in small businesses in order to cover these costs. profits, are all the monies left over after paying all of your costs. these in the big business world dont ever exceed 20%.

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

this means that for every dollar in revenue that they bring in, after paying out all costs, they are still making approx 20 cents. in terms of managed health care, a company like United Health Care profited $3.8 billion last year. thats just one company, and how much they made after paying out all of their expenses. thats a huge amount of money.

Costs have not gone down in the last 10 years because the Federal government has been heavily involved in national healthcare now for more than 40 years. I think Medicare and Medicaid went into effect in 1965 and they plus the VA have been regularly expanded in increments since that time not even counting all the corruptions and fraud that was immediately built into the system. And with government controlling, managing, and regulating healthcare costs, that forced more and more pressure on insurance companies and non government healthcare until the entire system has been distorted and thrown out of balance.

The government simply is not going to do ANYTHING as efficiently and effectively as it can be done in the private sector.

 

[Common Sense]

Costs have not gone down in the last 10 years because the Federal government has been heavily involved in national healthcare now for more than 40 years. I think Medicare and Medicaid went into effect in 1965 and they plus the VA have been regularly expanded in increments since that time not even counting all the corruptions and fraud that was immediately built into the system. And with government controlling, managing, and regulating healthcare costs, that forced more and more pressure on insurance companies and non government healthcare until the entire system has been distorted and thrown out of balance.

The government simply is not going to do ANYTHING as efficiently and effectively as it can be done in the private sector.

Medicare and Medicaid costs come directly out of the federal budget and do not have near the affect on the rates of private insurance as you claim. Medicare is coverage for the elderly and Medicaid is coverage for the extremely poor. Medicaid is actually managed by the state as well, it funded jointly through the state and federal government. These programs use the private health care system as services providers only. The government acts at the insurance providers through our taxes. they pay the doctors for their services on a predetermined scale. so you cant say that they arent getting paid.
so how are these government programs affecting the private insurance markets? not all health care providers service medicare and medicaid patients. some provide insurance to cover the gaps left from medicare and medicaid, but not all service providers actually provide services.

also, when in the last 65 years has the government "regulated" health care before this bill passed? they havent. the FDA has regulated drug safety, but the federal government has never been involved in costs or patient care. they have now given us a patients bills of rights, and overall rules that must be followed. (covering people with pre-existing conditions, no more lifetime caps, not being able to drop you because of a error on an application) they are even creating exchanges to offer consumers more option to choose from (more competition drives down cost per your argument right?) and where in the new health care law does it say that insurers and providers can only charge $XX and can charge no more? it simply doesnt. however it does say that 80% of all premium dollars must be spend on patient care as opposed to administrative services. your argument is based on a lot of speculation, and an assumption that the system is not broken, and will simply right the ship in its own way. well we can see that over the last 10 years as costs have risen 131%, that it is no happening.

dont even dare talk about the VA a negative government program. the reason the VA has had to be expanded in recent years is because we fought 2 wars. they treat the soliders who protect our freedoms and sacrifice their lives so we can have this argument freely. if you disagree with the VA, then you should go put your life on the line for these freedoms we enjoy. plus i believe (you can correct me on this) the VA falls under defense spending, and VA hospitals are private, they do not service anyone outside of the military. thus again have no affect on the rates of private insurers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry friend. I've been in the business. I have close friends who are in the business now. The U.S. Healthcare system was one of the most affordable and best in the world BEFORE government got involved. Get government out of it altogether and it has a fighting chance to be that again.

 

[Common Sense]

Sorry friend. I've been in the business. I have close friends who are in the business now. The U.S. Healthcare system was one of the most affordable and best in the world BEFORE government got involved. Get government out of it altogether and it has a fighting chance to be that again.

Define affordable. Do you think paying $400 / month for your own healthcare is affordable? how about paying $1000 / month for your families health care. These are the average costs per USA today and Kaiser.

Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com

(obviously this does not take into account any employer subsidies) most people dont have a car payment of $400 let along $1000.

so what youre also saying is that prior to 1965 you and your friends were in the business and you can tell us what health care cost back then, they you have stayed in the business for 45 years, then adjusting for inflation, have been able to then track the affect that the government has had on health care and thus readjust that number back down to what costs should have been? (can you post some statistical information to support your claim as I have?)

here are some statistics to refute that the US health care system is one of the most affordable in the world:

Average Health Insurance Cost by Country - Financial Web

Healthcare Costs Around the World - VisualEconomics.com

sorry, but without any statistics are facts to back up your claim, your simply have no basis for an argument.

you keep saying "was" one of the most affordable systems. when are you claiming that things changed? and what exact government program is the reason for this change? the truth of the matter is that we are only the industrialized nation without Universal Health Care, and because of the we have one of the lowest life expectancies and well as highest infant mortality rates.

 

[McDowell's]

Everybody can pay something. If you get the government out of it, everybody will be paying a whole lot less both for insurance and for basic healthcare services. Before government decided to get involved, every hospital administered necessary medical care. But the person receiving it then paid for it, provided an insurance policy, or he signed a note agreeing to pay $5/month or $10/month or $25/month or whatever he could afford to pay his bill. This provided dignity to the patient and pretty well eliminated most abuse of the system. Yes the hospitals ate a lot of those costs, but when the system is not abused, that was manageable.

States or communities who wanted to set up a charity ward were certainly free to do so, and there was nothing wrong with the private hospitals sending indigent patients to such places rather than overloading their own system or having to cover such costs.

Get the Federal Government out of it and we'll see more affordable and more personalized health care very soon thereafter.

so why have costs not gone down in the past 10 years?

(Health Insurance Premiums Up 131% in Last Ten Years - It's Your Money - TIME.com)

they increased 131% over that time frame, and there was no health care bill. it was simply free market driven. this is what led to the government getting involved. the government has only stepped in in the last year or so and the majority of the provisions in the new health care bill wont even go into affect until 2014. simply saying everyone should pay $5 or $10 or $25 per month will not cover costs. The average family pays almost $14,000 in health care premiums per year. an individual its close to $5,000.

Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com

these are the real costs. look at the charts, these numbers do not lie. and all of this went on while it a free market program that republicans say make things more competitive and drive prices down. this is completely untrue, we have not seen a cost decrease in health care premiums in over a decade.

you use the car insurance argument, well when you purchase your car insurance (which is a privilege btw not a right like HC), you also have to purchase uninsured motorist insurance. this is to cover you should someone hit you and they arent carrying insurance. why are you not complaining about having to pay this costs to cover those who arent insured? think about how much the overall cost of your plan would go do if everyone actually has car insurance, and you didnt have to cover that extra cost.

i also think you are confusing profit margins with actual profits. profit margins are the percentage that you mark a product up to cover your costs. (materials, services, insurance, overhead, taxes, salaries etc etc) products are usually marked up a minimum of 25%, typically 40% in small businesses in order to cover these costs. profits, are all the monies left over after paying all of your costs. these in the big business world dont ever exceed 20%.

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

this means that for every dollar in revenue that they bring in, after paying out all costs, they are still making approx 20 cents. in terms of managed health care, a company like United Health Care profited $3.8 billion last year. thats just one company, and how much they made after paying out all of their expenses. thats a huge amount of money.

Simply free market driven? The healthcare bill is the only time the government has stepped in? You're nuts or naive. I don't know much but I do know the government has been tinkering with the health insurance industry for a long time. A simple google search produced the paper below which lists quite a few government interventions and regulations on both the federal and state level.

http://www.allhealth.org/briefingmaterials/HealthInsuranceReportKofmanandPollitz-95.pdf

 

[antagon]

Sorry friend. I've been in the business. I have close friends who are in the business now. The U.S. Healthcare system was one of the most affordable and best in the world BEFORE government got involved. Get government out of it altogether and it has a fighting chance to be that again.

you've earlier established that abuse of hippocratic care would result in unreconciled costs which providers would have to eat. can you explain how medicare hasn't functioned to significantly displace the extent of this un-paid treatment, or how mandates would not go further in this way?

on the basis of that paradox, it is apparent, despite yours and your friends involvement in healthcare, that you've all failed to make a logical attribution to the sources of cost increases in our system.

 

[Common Sense]

Everybody can pay something. If you get the government out of it, everybody will be paying a whole lot less both for insurance and for basic healthcare services. Before government decided to get involved, every hospital administered necessary medical care. But the person receiving it then paid for it, provided an insurance policy, or he signed a note agreeing to pay $5/month or $10/month or $25/month or whatever he could afford to pay his bill. This provided dignity to the patient and pretty well eliminated most abuse of the system. Yes the hospitals ate a lot of those costs, but when the system is not abused, that was manageable.

States or communities who wanted to set up a charity ward were certainly free to do so, and there was nothing wrong with the private hospitals sending indigent patients to such places rather than overloading their own system or having to cover such costs.

Get the Federal Government out of it and we'll see more affordable and more personalized health care very soon thereafter.

so why have costs not gone down in the past 10 years?

(Health Insurance Premiums Up 131% in Last Ten Years - It's Your Money - TIME.com)

they increased 131% over that time frame, and there was no health care bill. it was simply free market driven. this is what led to the government getting involved. the government has only stepped in in the last year or so and the majority of the provisions in the new health care bill wont even go into affect until 2014. simply saying everyone should pay $5 or $10 or $25 per month will not cover costs. The average family pays almost $14,000 in health care premiums per year. an individual its close to $5,000.

Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com

these are the real costs. look at the charts, these numbers do not lie. and all of this went on while it a free market program that republicans say make things more competitive and drive prices down. this is completely untrue, we have not seen a cost decrease in health care premiums in over a decade.

you use the car insurance argument, well when you purchase your car insurance (which is a privilege btw not a right like HC), you also have to purchase uninsured motorist insurance. this is to cover you should someone hit you and they arent carrying insurance. why are you not complaining about having to pay this costs to cover those who arent insured? think about how much the overall cost of your plan would go do if everyone actually has car insurance, and you didnt have to cover that extra cost.

i also think you are confusing profit margins with actual profits. profit margins are the percentage that you mark a product up to cover your costs. (materials, services, insurance, overhead, taxes, salaries etc etc) products are usually marked up a minimum of 25%, typically 40% in small businesses in order to cover these costs. profits, are all the monies left over after paying all of your costs. these in the big business world dont ever exceed 20%.

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

this means that for every dollar in revenue that they bring in, after paying out all costs, they are still making approx 20 cents. in terms of managed health care, a company like United Health Care profited $3.8 billion last year. thats just one company, and how much they made after paying out all of their expenses. thats a huge amount of money.

Simply free market driven? The healthcare bill is the only time the government has stepped in? You're nuts or naive. I don't know much but I do know the government has been tinkering with the health insurance industry for a long time. A simple google search produced the paper below which lists quite a few government interventions and regulations on both the federal and state level.

http://www.allhealth.org/briefingmaterials/HealthInsuranceReportKofmanandPollitz-95.pdf

ok, did you read the document you posted? so since 1996 the federal government has proposed (proposed, not passed) the following: (i will talk about the Federal government, not the states since the overall argument here is about the federal government power not the states)

HR 525 - Allows small businesses to band together, through associations, to negotiate for better options with insurers (good for small business)

HR 2355 - Allow health insurers licensed in one state to do business in other states without having to comply with the other states insurance laws (deregulation)

S 1955 - (basically the same as HR 525) plus it would set a standard rating system across the board

these were all ideas proposed by either House (HR) for the Senate (S). that actually did not become law. (this is all based on the document you posted a link to)


ACTUAL LAWS PASSED:

COBRA (1986) - allows you to continue your insurance (provided you pay the required premium) under certain events for a period of 18-36 months. this is for say if you get laid off. basically you can continue your coverage on your ex-employers plan as long as you pay for it.


HIPAA (1996) - established national standards for health insurance. basically a minimum guideline for what plans must include to be sold as insurance. prohibited insurers from denying coverage to small businesses, prohibited discrimination based on health, and provided guaranteed renewability. applies to both individual and group plans

ERISA (1974) - health benefits offered by employers are not regulated by the states. (not a whole lot of information on this one, so i can not comment much more than that)


none of these is a major regulation aimed at access or cost control. the most regulation put on the insurance industries was HIPAA from the link you posted.

do any of these 3 laws passed since 1974 have any major issues that you see as detrimental to the insurance industry? or a clear cut reason as to why they continue to raise their rates?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry friend. I've been in the business. I have close friends who are in the business now. The U.S. Healthcare system was one of the most affordable and best in the world BEFORE government got involved. Get government out of it altogether and it has a fighting chance to be that again.

you've earlier established that abuse of hippocratic care would result in unreconciled costs which providers would have to eat. can you explain how medicare hasn't functioned to significantly displace the extent of this un-paid treatment, or how mandates would not go further in this way?

on the basis of that paradox, it is apparent, despite yours and your friends involvement in healthcare, that you've all failed to make a logical attribution to the sources of cost increases in our system.

And perhaps we haven't failed at all. Government's role should be to secure the rights of the people which would include application of Ricco and Anti Trust laws, requirements for a free market--no monopolies unless there is a compelling need for there to be one. Requirements that rates be posted and applied uniformly. A medical provider can reduce or waive fees but cannot charge more simply because somebody is perceived to be able to pay more. The government would do a huge service by making it possible to cap malpractice claims in all but gross negligence and making it much more difficult to file frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits. The government absolutely should test and verify credentials and then license medical professionals.

What the government should not do is organize or administer or mandate healthcare in any way or otherwise interject itself into a free market. It should not set rates, fees, or other costs.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some more fuel for the ant-Obamacare argument:

How ObamaCare Burdens Already Strained State Budgets:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) puts cash-strapped states in a tenuous position, forcing them into one or more unattractive policy choices: cut spending in crucial areas (such as public safety and education) to compensate for the additional health care costs, raise taxes to fund the new spending, or borrow money to pay the bill and sink further into debt. Given the political and economic challenges associated with higher taxes and more debt, it is likely that states will choose the least of three evils and make even deeper budget cuts, says Lanhee Chen, a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies.

Several states have initiated their own estimates of PPACA's impact.

• Texas recently concluded that the Medicaid expansion may add more than two million people to the program and cost the state up to $27 billion in a single decade.

• The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration estimated in April 2010 that PPACA's Medicaid expansion would require an additional $5.2 billion in spending between 2013 and 2019, and more than $1 billion a year beginning in 2017.

• In California, the Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that PPACA's Medicaid expansion will likely add annual costs to the state budget in "the low billions of dollars."
In every crisis there is opportunity -- state policymakers should act quickly to seize it, says Chen.

• First, state lawmakers should focus on cutting or holding constant all discretionary spending.

• Second, states should proactively enact their own health care reforms that focus on controlling costs, improving quality, and expanding consumer choice and market-based competition.

• Finally, state lawmakers should demand that federal officials be held accountable for dumping billions in unfunded liabilities onto states.

Source: Lanhee Chen, "How ObamaCare Burdens Already Strained State Budgets," Heritage Foundation, November 10, 2010.

How ObamaCare Burdens Already Strained State Budgets