Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
In contrast to private insurers Medicare doesnt have to spend millions on marketing, advertising, and Washington lobbyists. On top of that, private insurers must generate profits for their shareholders. In 2003, the HMO industry as a whole reported total earnings of $5.5 billionup 83 percent from $3 million in 2002 , according to Weiss Ratings, a firm that assesses the financial strength of banks and insurance companies.
Private/For Profit is worse than Medicare!!!
But its not just the cost of marketing, advertising, lobbying and providing profits for investors that makes a private insurers overhead so much higher. Insurers also have higher administrative costs because they are constantly enrolling and disenrolling customers as people change plans. (The average turnover in an employer-sponsored insurance plan is 20% to 25% a year. By contrast, Medicare patients stay put. Even if they could switch, most prefer Medicares coverage to the coverage they had under a private insurer.)
Whats interesting is that, in the course of interviewing doctors for Money-Driven Medicine, I found that the majority preferred Medicareeven when it paid lessbecause it was so much less hassle. As The New York Times recently pointed out, private insurers make a game out of delaying reimbursement, and designing the forms so that the doctor leaves out one detail, he or she wont be paid.
Do I really need to continue? You're wrong.
The Health Care Blog: POLICY: Why Medicare is More Efficient Than Private Insurers By Maggie Mahar
thats funny Bobo....i hurt my knee on the job.....i went to see MY doc. not theirs....his office as i found out along with many others will not treat any on the job injuries were they have to deal with the govt....ITS A MONSTER HASSELL with them im told.... if i was to use my private Ins., i was told no prob....mmmm?