WHY health care needed reform

[Bern80]

I can believe anyone could watch that interview and not see that the for profit insurance cartels are the root of our problems.

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.

BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.

I'm in no way defending the insurance companies, Bf. In fact if you read back you will see where I addressed the actual conversation above and the beneficial steps that some insurance companies are taking. I can give you a perfect example of how when financies directly impact the actual consumer costs go down and quality goes up. Our employer provided insurace plan is providing not just free health screenings at our offices for the next couple weeks they are actually giving people $100 to attend them. How many people do you suppose started taking a real interest in their overall health for a moment? Why do suppose an insurance company would offer something like that? Perhaps to improve that medical loss ratio Potter talks about? Now I agree that not all insurance companies are saints, but fact that we agree insurance companies are part of the problem make it all the more bewildering that we disagree on the solution. We need some type of system other than we have now, but you immediately rule out any type of solution that is free market based (principles that have shown to reduce costs wherever else tried) and you are anti any solution that gives the consumer of the service any more control/responsibility over their health care decisions and finances.

Getting back to our hypothetical it is again important to know why the person was denied coverage. Again there is no health insurance plan that covers everything. Believe it or not some claims are legitimately denied and if your complaint is the isurance companies should never deny anything and that everything ought to be covered, that is a bit of a different conversation. Insurance claims can legitimately be denied Bf. To believe that your insurance plan is supposed to cover any and every medical expense is to live in a fairy tale land. Getting back to reality you need to stop being consumer with the 'evil' insurance companies and start tackling this issue from purely a financial perspective. There will always be cases where sometimes the financia responsibility of some health care service will fall to the consumer. Maybe their denied coverage for certain treatment, maybe there insurance has run out, who knows. The real question is what should a person and/or we as a society do when health care costs exceed what a person can reasonably expect to pay. Isn't that the real question here?

The problem with insurance cartels is much greater and much more anti-patient outcome than you either realize or acknowledge.

Wall Street investors whose ONLY concern is profit margins should not be controlling that industry.


Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind

“Pre-Existing Conditions” Affect Millions of Americans

A large proportion of Americans have health conditions that insurance companies can qualify as “pre-existing conditions.”

A pre-existing condition is a medical condition that existed before someone applies for or enrolls in a new health insurance policy. It can be something as prevalent as heart disease – which affects one in three adults1 – or something as life-changing as cancer, which affects 11 million Americans.2

But a pre-existing condition does not have to be a serious disease like cancer or heart disease. Even relatively minor conditions like hay fever, asthma, or previous sports injuries can trigger high premiums or denials of coverage.3

Unattainable Health Coverage

Insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions makes adequate health insurance unavailable to millions of Americans.

In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market.4 Insurers can deny them coverage, charge higher premiums, and/or refuse to cover that particular medical condition.

A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults5 – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.6

In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease.7

It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.8

Even when offering coverage, insurers can exclude whole categories of illnesses related to a pre-existing condition. For example, someone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease – such as bronchitis or pneumonia – excluded from coverage.9

Losing Coverage When You Need It Most

Thousands of Americans also lose health insurance each year through a practice called rescission.

When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire. In most states’ individual insurance market, insurance companies can retroactively cancel the entire policy if any condition was missed – even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time. Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition.10

A recent Congressional investigation into this practice found nearly 20,000 rescissions from three large insurers over five years, saving them $300 million in medical claims11 – $300 million that instead had to come out of the pockets of people who thought they were insured, or became bad debt for health care providers.

At least one insurance company has been found to evaluate employee performance based in part on the amount of money an employee saved the company through rescissions.12 Simply put, these insurance company employees are encouraged to revoke sick people’s health coverage.

More

The above is why we can't solve the problem, Bf. You are so consumed with some rage at insurance companies you can't see the real problem, much less how to solve it. You have to stop looking at the issue from the perspective that having an insurance plan is the only way to deal with medical expenses.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm in no way defending the insurance companies, Bf. In fact if you read back you will see where I addressed the actual conversation above and the beneficial steps that some insurance companies are taking. I can give you a perfect example of how when financies directly impact the actual consumer costs go down and quality goes up. Our employer provided insurace plan is providing not just free health screenings at our offices for the next couple weeks they are actually giving people $100 to attend them. How many people do you suppose started taking a real interest in their overall health for a moment? Why do suppose an insurance company would offer something like that? Perhaps to improve that medical loss ratio Potter talks about? Now I agree that not all insurance companies are saints, but fact that we agree insurance companies are part of the problem make it all the more bewildering that we disagree on the solution. We need some type of system other than we have now, but you immediately rule out any type of solution that is free market based (principles that have shown to reduce costs wherever else tried) and you are anti any solution that gives the consumer of the service any more control/responsibility over their health care decisions and finances.

Getting back to our hypothetical it is again important to know why the person was denied coverage. Again there is no health insurance plan that covers everything. Believe it or not some claims are legitimately denied and if your complaint is the isurance companies should never deny anything and that everything ought to be covered, that is a bit of a different conversation. Insurance claims can legitimately be denied Bf. To believe that your insurance plan is supposed to cover any and every medical expense is to live in a fairy tale land. Getting back to reality you need to stop being consumer with the 'evil' insurance companies and start tackling this issue from purely a financial perspective. There will always be cases where sometimes the financia responsibility of some health care service will fall to the consumer. Maybe their denied coverage for certain treatment, maybe there insurance has run out, who knows. The real question is what should a person and/or we as a society do when health care costs exceed what a person can reasonably expect to pay. Isn't that the real question here?

The problem with insurance cartels is much greater and much more anti-patient outcome than you either realize or acknowledge.

Wall Street investors whose ONLY concern is profit margins should not be controlling that industry.


Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind

“Pre-Existing Conditions” Affect Millions of Americans

A large proportion of Americans have health conditions that insurance companies can qualify as “pre-existing conditions.”

A pre-existing condition is a medical condition that existed before someone applies for or enrolls in a new health insurance policy. It can be something as prevalent as heart disease – which affects one in three adults1 – or something as life-changing as cancer, which affects 11 million Americans.2

But a pre-existing condition does not have to be a serious disease like cancer or heart disease. Even relatively minor conditions like hay fever, asthma, or previous sports injuries can trigger high premiums or denials of coverage.3

Unattainable Health Coverage

Insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions makes adequate health insurance unavailable to millions of Americans.

In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market.4 Insurers can deny them coverage, charge higher premiums, and/or refuse to cover that particular medical condition.

A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults5 – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.6

In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease.7

It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.8

Even when offering coverage, insurers can exclude whole categories of illnesses related to a pre-existing condition. For example, someone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease – such as bronchitis or pneumonia – excluded from coverage.9

Losing Coverage When You Need It Most

Thousands of Americans also lose health insurance each year through a practice called rescission.

When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire. In most states’ individual insurance market, insurance companies can retroactively cancel the entire policy if any condition was missed – even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time. Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition.10

A recent Congressional investigation into this practice found nearly 20,000 rescissions from three large insurers over five years, saving them $300 million in medical claims11 – $300 million that instead had to come out of the pockets of people who thought they were insured, or became bad debt for health care providers.

At least one insurance company has been found to evaluate employee performance based in part on the amount of money an employee saved the company through rescissions.12 Simply put, these insurance company employees are encouraged to revoke sick people’s health coverage.

More

The above is why we can't solve the problem, Bf. You are so consumed with some rage at insurance companies you can't see the real problem, much less how to solve it. You have to stop looking at the issue from the perspective that having an insurance plan is the only way to deal with medical expenses.

I have a perfect solution. It is what our founding fathers did. They pulled the corporate charter and shut down any corporation that caused harm to We, the People. And they held the owners and stockholders personally liable for that harm.

America’s Health Care System at the Bottom of the Heap

Mortality Rates

Mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74).

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the study ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

Ireland
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Austria
Australia
Italy
Finland
Japan
Spain
Sweden
Canada
Netherlands
France
Norway
Greece
Germany
USA
Portugal
Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

 

[saveliberty]

Why was healthcare reform needed? Because Democrats want another area of life to control people. It is all about grabbing power. The resulting law clearly demonstrates healthcare is no better, but there is more control.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why was healthcare reform needed? Because Democrats want another area of life to control people. It is all about grabbing power. The resulting law clearly demonstrates healthcare is no better, but there is more control.

The Cost of Doing Nothing
Why the Cost of Failing to Fix Our Health System Is Greater than the Cost of Reform

2008

The U.S. health care system is in crisis. Health care costs too much; we often get too little in exchange for our health care dollar; and tens of millions of Americans are uninsured.

Our economy loses hundreds of billions of dollars every year because of the diminished health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Rising health care costs undermine the ability of U.S. firms to compete internationally, threaten the stability of American jobs, and place increasing strain on local, state, and federal budgets. As health care costs continue to rise faster than wages, health insurance becomes more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day.

Yet, the recent financial services meltdown has led some people to suggest that we cannot afford health reform and that fixing our broken health care system will have to wait once again. But waiting comes with a price. The crisis worsens every day that we do not act. Premiums will continue to rise; Americans will continue to pay more for less-generous health coverage; and fewer employers will offer health insurance to their workers.

We must reform our struggling health system not in spite of our economic crisis, but rather because of the impact health care has on the American economy. The economic and social impact of inaction is high and it will only rise over time.

Economic Cost

The economic cost of failing to fix our broken health care system is greater than the upfront expense of comprehensive health reform. In 2006, our economy lost as much as $200 billion because of the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. This is by most estimates as much as, if not greater than, the public costs of ensuring all Americans have quality, affordable, health coverage. The economies in California, Texas, and Florida suffer most from productivity loses stemming from the uninsured. Yet, Delaware’s economy loses more per uninsured person -- over $6,800 per uninsured resident.

Affordability

As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.

More

 

[saveliberty]

I see your resorting to the same incorrect thinking that is applied to Obama's jobs and economic recovery plans. It would have been so much worse, if Obama hadn't done this ir that. Well it will come as a shock to you, but healthcare costs are STILL RISING at a high level. He didn't do a thing with healthcare. It DID cause uncertainty in the business community though. That slowed job recovery.

 

[Bern80]

The problem with insurance cartels is much greater and much more anti-patient outcome than you either realize or acknowledge. ...

The cartelization of the insurance industry IS the problem. The health insurance cartel is built on government regulation. Which is why it's so painful to watch our leaders selling people on the idea that the solution is even more.

Please provide the government 'regulations' that have cartelization of the insurance industry.

Are you saying that if the government just leaves the cartels alone, they will will become good actors and no longer put profits before patients?

And here is another reason we can't solve this problem. It essentially amounts to the 'evil corporate america' excuse. Is GM a bad actor in your opinon? How about Microsoft? Are those companies worse or better actors than the 'evil' health insurance companies? Oh by the way, which of those three is the most heavily regulated?

 

[Bfgrn]

I see your resorting to the same incorrect thinking that is applied to Obama's jobs and economic recovery plans. It would have been so much worse, if Obama hadn't done this ir that. Well it will come as a shock to you, but healthcare costs are STILL RISING at a high level. He didn't do a thing with healthcare. It DID cause uncertainty in the business community though. That slowed job recovery.

Don't worry, Republicans are busy working for Wall Street investors and against the people.

GOP Backs Insurance Industry-Friendly, Anti-Consumer Bills

House Republicans, unable to repeal President Obama's health care reform law outright, have decided to go after it piece by piece. If they are successful, what's likely to remain is the kind of reform the insurance industry dreamed of, but never really thought could be the law of the land.

Although the Republican-controlled House passed legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act several months ago, the Senate, controlled by Democrats, rejected it. Bills are now being considered in the House that would strip some of the most important consumer protections from the new law. If the bills' sponsors are successful, health insurers would be free to spend as little of our premium dollars on our health care as they want, and they would be able to continue setting lifetime limits on policies and cancel our coverage at the time we need it most -- when we get sick. Other important benefits to consumers would also disappear.

One of the bills would eliminate a provision of the reform law that requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of what we pay in premiums on actual medical care. The insurance industry tried, without success, to keep that provision out of the final bill, so they are solidly behind the effort to do away with it.

As I am explaining to the lawmakers, there is a single-minded focus among the big for-profit insurers on being able to show Wall Street and investors two things every three months: that the companies made more money during the most recent three months than during the same period a year earlier, and that the portion of each policyholder's premium devoted to covering medical expenses was less than it was the previous year.

When insurers release their quarterly earnings reports, investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share, which is common to all companies; and the medical loss-ratio (MLR), which is unique to the health insurance industry. The MLR is the ratio between what an insurer actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover executive pay, underwriting, lobbying, sales, marketing, public relations, other administrative expenses, and, of course, profits.

More...

Wendell Potter is former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, one of the United States' largest health insurance companies. In June 2009, he testified against the HMO industry in the U.S. Senate.

 

[saveliberty]

Careful Bfgrn, you might start asking nonHuffo approved questions. Stick to the script.

 

[Bern80]

The problem with insurance cartels is much greater and much more anti-patient outcome than you either realize or acknowledge.

Wall Street investors whose ONLY concern is profit margins should not be controlling that industry.


Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind

“Pre-Existing Conditions” Affect Millions of Americans

A large proportion of Americans have health conditions that insurance companies can qualify as “pre-existing conditions.”

A pre-existing condition is a medical condition that existed before someone applies for or enrolls in a new health insurance policy. It can be something as prevalent as heart disease – which affects one in three adults1 – or something as life-changing as cancer, which affects 11 million Americans.2

But a pre-existing condition does not have to be a serious disease like cancer or heart disease. Even relatively minor conditions like hay fever, asthma, or previous sports injuries can trigger high premiums or denials of coverage.3

Unattainable Health Coverage

Insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions makes adequate health insurance unavailable to millions of Americans.

In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market.4 Insurers can deny them coverage, charge higher premiums, and/or refuse to cover that particular medical condition.

A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults5 – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.6

In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease.7

It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.8

Even when offering coverage, insurers can exclude whole categories of illnesses related to a pre-existing condition. For example, someone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease – such as bronchitis or pneumonia – excluded from coverage.9

Losing Coverage When You Need It Most

Thousands of Americans also lose health insurance each year through a practice called rescission.

When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire. In most states’ individual insurance market, insurance companies can retroactively cancel the entire policy if any condition was missed – even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time. Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition.10

A recent Congressional investigation into this practice found nearly 20,000 rescissions from three large insurers over five years, saving them $300 million in medical claims11 – $300 million that instead had to come out of the pockets of people who thought they were insured, or became bad debt for health care providers.

At least one insurance company has been found to evaluate employee performance based in part on the amount of money an employee saved the company through rescissions.12 Simply put, these insurance company employees are encouraged to revoke sick people’s health coverage.

More

The above is why we can't solve the problem, Bf. You are so consumed with some rage at insurance companies you can't see the real problem, much less how to solve it. You have to stop looking at the issue from the perspective that having an insurance plan is the only way to deal with medical expenses.

I have a perfect solution. It is what our founding fathers did. They pulled the corporate charter and shut down any corporation that caused harm to We, the People. And they held the owners and stockholders personally liable for that harm.

America’s Health Care System at the Bottom of the Heap

Mortality Rates

Mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74).

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the study ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

Ireland
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Austria
Australia
Italy
Finland
Japan
Spain
Sweden
Canada
Netherlands
France
Norway
Greece
Germany
USA
Portugal
Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

I wouldn't be terribly opposed to something like that to be honest. If two parties have an agreement over services, (i.e. an insurance company agrees to cover x expenses under x conditions in exchange for premiums from the insured) and the insurance company breaks said agreement then, yes, it should be the role of government to hold the insurance company responsible in some way for that breach of contract. But your last paragraph also reveals yet another reason we can't solve this problem. You can't be honest about what you want. All you really seem to care about is making it dirt cheap for consumer. Yeah technically we can do that if you just say 'here gov't, take my money and deal with it', just know you aren't going to address the issues really causing the problem and will likely get worse.

 

[saveliberty]

Obama is the one who bailed out Wall Street Bfgrn. Facts can hurt huh?

 

[Bfgrn]

The cartelization of the insurance industry IS the problem. The health insurance cartel is built on government regulation. Which is why it's so painful to watch our leaders selling people on the idea that the solution is even more.

Please provide the government 'regulations' that have cartelization of the insurance industry.

Are you saying that if the government just leaves the cartels alone, they will will become good actors and no longer put profits before patients?

And here is another reason we can't solve this problem. It essentially amounts to the 'evil corporate america' excuse. Is GM a bad actor in your opinon? How about Microsoft? Are those companies worse or better actors than the 'evil' health insurance companies? Oh by the way, which of those three is the most heavily regulated?

Corporations are not 'evil', they are amoral. They don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits. Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature.

They should NOT be allowed to run our health care...

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama is the one who bailed out Wall Street Bfgrn. Facts can hurt huh?

TARP

Troubled Asset Relief Program

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Oh hell, did I accidentally go to Salon.com or the HuffingtonPost.com again? I am reading these posts from Bfgrn and obviously they were written by someone from the Obama administration. Talking poiints straight from the mouth of an administration parrot.

2,600 pages that almost NOBODY read. No one knows what it is going to do to businesses and no one knows what is going to happen when its fully implemented. You want to know why small business is sitting on it's capital. Look to this monstrosity sitting out there like King Kong and no one knows how its going to affect them.

It's a crap sandwich and hopefully it will get to the Supreme Court soon so we won't have to take a bite.

 

[bill5]

The cartelization of the insurance industry IS the problem. The health insurance cartel is built on government regulation.

I doubt it, since I seriously doubt any such thing exists. Insurance companies are independent of each other and very much in competition ie effectively opposed to each other. There is no "cartel."

I see your resorting to the same incorrect thinking that is applied to Obama's jobs and economic recovery plans. It would have been so much worse, if Obama hadn't done this ir that. Well it will come as a shock to you, but healthcare costs are STILL RISING at a high level. He didn't do a thing with healthcare. It DID cause uncertainty in the business community though. That slowed job recovery.

YAAAAAAAAAYYYY FINALLY! Someone finally got back to what this site is all about: digressing all threads into a wingnut cat fight! The left sucks! No wait the right sucks! Bush! Obama! Tea Party! It's all the other side's fault! blah! etc! blah!

 

[bill5]

Corporations are not 'evil', they are amoral. They don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits. Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature.

They should NOT be allowed to run our health care...

Ultimately it's not much of a choice is it?

Private/corporate driven health care means soul-sucking, anything-to-save-a-buck health care that screws those paying into it at every opportunity, by its very nature.

Gov't driven health care means gross inefficiency and ultimately lower quality, also by its very nature, to say nothing of a severe additional tax burden.

sigh

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fatal flaw of logic in the OP is the assumption that health care and insurance are the same thing.

 

[saveliberty]

Corporations are not 'evil', they are amoral. They don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits. Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature.

They should NOT be allowed to run our health care...

Corporations are a shell. It is the people running that give it a moral or immoral leaning. A corporation WANTS a democratic REPUBLIC. It is the best environment to pursue a profit. A corporation wants a free market when they are starting to compete, maybe not so much when they produce a new product or are well established. Corporations seek to reduce production costs, but not necessarily by passing costs on to a third party. Of course, reductions in production costs can be passed on to consumers in many cases.

More healthcare producers can lower costs. Removing innovation and research by these corporations will slow the progress of medicine. In this regard corporations have been moral. Removing the profit incentive, which seems to be your goal, has negative consequences too.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh hell, did I accidentally go to Salon.com or the HuffingtonPost.com again? I am reading these posts from Bfgrn and obviously they were written by someone from the Obama administration. Talking poiints straight from the mouth of an administration parrot.

2,600 pages that almost NOBODY read. No one knows what it is going to do to businesses and no one knows what is going to happen when its fully implemented. You want to know why small business is sitting on it's capital. Look to this monstrosity sitting out there like King Kong and no one knows how its going to affect them.

It's a crap sandwich and hopefully it will get to the Supreme Court soon so we won't have to take a bite.

Oh hell, did I accidentally go to Faux News or the Drudge Report again? I am reading these posts from USAFSniper and obviously they were written by someone from the corporate owned right wing echo chamber. Talking points straight from the mouth of Frank Luntz, the modern day Goebbels.

 

[Bfgrn]

Corporations are not 'evil', they are amoral. They don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits. Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature.

They should NOT be allowed to run our health care...

Corporations are a shell. It is the people running that give it a moral or immoral leaning. A corporation WANTS a democratic REPUBLIC. It is the best environment to pursue a profit. A corporation wants a free market when they are starting to compete, maybe not so much when they produce a new product or are well established. Corporations seek to reduce production costs, but not necessarily by passing costs on to a third party. Of course, reductions in production costs can be passed on to consumers in many cases.

More healthcare producers can lower costs. Removing innovation and research by these corporations will slow the progress of medicine. In this regard corporations have been moral. Removing the profit incentive, which seems to be your goal, has negative consequences too.

A corporation wants profits...period. AND, if the corporation does anything that lowers profits, they can be sued by their shareholders.

 

[Bern80]

Corporations are not 'evil', they are amoral. They don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits. Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature.

They are whatever their customers demand them to be. Yes, they are profit driven. Again you make it sound as if that is an evil thing. Profits are what allow a business to provide jobs, and continue to provide a service to their customers. Of course they want profits, and the truly successful corporations, the one's that stand the test of time, know and have shown that the best way to be profitable is to DO WHAT YOUR CUSTOMERS WANT. This industry your griping about, the health insurance industry. They can't do that. They are regulated to the hilt such that what customers want has no bearing on their business. That is the issue Bf. The insurance cartel has no incentive to change how they do things beased on what their customers want because what they want doesn't matter. The demands and actions of the insured have no positive or negative impact on them. THAT is what has to change.

They should NOT be allowed to run our health care...

So I was right. We really can't address the issue because we're not even on the same page. You don't want to problem solve how we improve affordability and access. You are blinded by your hate of corproatism and all you want is for government to take it over and are stupid enough to believe that's gonna make everything all better.