WHY health care needed reform

[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.

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

Hmmm...and what about nonprofit corporations?

I own an S corporation. I want my labor paid. I also want the company to continue beyond the short term, so I am willing to reduce profits to do that. What about green companies? They in it purely for the profit?

 

[Bern80]

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

Correct. They can't seem to separate the two. To them no insurance = death.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here is a well written article. Maybe some of you will 'get it'

Insurance Company Savings

We understand completely the idea of incentives in the workplace. If an employee does his job particularly well, we think a reward system of some kind makes perfect sense. Such a system is good for both the employee and the employer, as it encourages the employee to work harder while the employer reaps the benefits of those labors.

Performance based initiatives are great if you happen to be selling cars, or making donuts or tires. But we have a real problem with the idea of rewarding employees for denying crucial and needed services. And this is exactly what is happening with health care in California, and possibly all over the country.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times details the inner workings of Blue Cross of California, in which employees are rewarded not for providing medical care, but rather for denying it.

“The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.”

Bear in mind that this employee was not rewarded for selling more policies, or cutting delays of payment, or even having a sunny disposition with customers. This employee was rewarded for cutting policyholders who might have actually cost Blue Cross money. This employee was rewarded for denying insurance claims. This employee was rewarded for leaving sick people in serious financial trouble.

This is the inherent flaw in a for-profit health care system. In any business, profits are maximized by improving efficiency and cutting costs. In the health insurance business, the only way to cut costs is to cut the health care itself. This means that sick people are culled from the rosters of insurance companies, as their illnesses might actually end up costing the insurers money. They do this by systematically targeting anyone with breast cancer, leukemia, and up to 1,400 other illnesses. They also scour medical and pharmacy records to see if there are any discrepancies between what they have been told by the policy holder and what these records could tell them. For instance, if a policyholder gets cancer, and the insurance company finds out that five years ago the policyholder got a prescription for an anti-smoking drug, the insurance company could then drop the policyholder for not telling them about the smoking. And if that doesn’t work, insurers can simply partially deny claims, often using the excuse that a certain test or procedure was medically unnecessary or voluntary on the part of the patient, even if it wasn’t.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

 

[Bern80]

Here is a well written article. Maybe some of you will 'get it'

Insurance Company Savings

We understand completely the idea of incentives in the workplace. If an employee does his job particularly well, we think a reward system of some kind makes perfect sense. Such a system is good for both the employee and the employer, as it encourages the employee to work harder while the employer reaps the benefits of those labors.

Performance based initiatives are great if you happen to be selling cars, or making donuts or tires. But we have a real problem with the idea of rewarding employees for denying crucial and needed services. And this is exactly what is happening with health care in California, and possibly all over the country.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times details the inner workings of Blue Cross of California, in which employees are rewarded not for providing medical care, but rather for denying it.

“The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.”

Bear in mind that this employee was not rewarded for selling more policies, or cutting delays of payment, or even having a sunny disposition with customers. This employee was rewarded for cutting policyholders who might have actually cost Blue Cross money. This employee was rewarded for denying insurance claims. This employee was rewarded for leaving sick people in serious financial trouble.

This is the inherent flaw in a for-profit health care system. In any business, profits are maximized by improving efficiency and cutting costs. In the health insurance business, the only way to cut costs is to cut the health care itself. This means that sick people are culled from the rosters of insurance companies, as their illnesses might actually end up costing the insurers money. They do this by systematically targeting anyone with breast cancer, leukemia, and up to 1,400 other illnesses. They also scour medical and pharmacy records to see if there are any discrepancies between what they have been told by the policy holder and what these records could tell them. For instance, if a policyholder gets cancer, and the insurance company finds out that five years ago the policyholder got a prescription for an anti-smoking drug, the insurance company could then drop the policyholder for not telling them about the smoking. And if that doesn’t work, insurers can simply partially deny claims, often using the excuse that a certain test or procedure was medically unnecessary or voluntary on the part of the patient, even if it wasn’t.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I get it. Have gotten and will continue to get it. It isn't that I don't get it. I understand what IS going on. WHY it is and how to change it is what YOU don't get and you continue to ignore my responses and questions. You complain about giving these corrupt corporations money yet are at the same time advocating that we give our money to an even more corrupt organization (the government) and let them take care of it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here is a well written article. Maybe some of you will 'get it'

Insurance Company Savings

We understand completely the idea of incentives in the workplace. If an employee does his job particularly well, we think a reward system of some kind makes perfect sense. Such a system is good for both the employee and the employer, as it encourages the employee to work harder while the employer reaps the benefits of those labors.

Performance based initiatives are great if you happen to be selling cars, or making donuts or tires. But we have a real problem with the idea of rewarding employees for denying crucial and needed services. And this is exactly what is happening with health care in California, and possibly all over the country.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times details the inner workings of Blue Cross of California, in which employees are rewarded not for providing medical care, but rather for denying it.

“The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.”

Bear in mind that this employee was not rewarded for selling more policies, or cutting delays of payment, or even having a sunny disposition with customers. This employee was rewarded for cutting policyholders who might have actually cost Blue Cross money. This employee was rewarded for denying insurance claims. This employee was rewarded for leaving sick people in serious financial trouble.

This is the inherent flaw in a for-profit health care system. In any business, profits are maximized by improving efficiency and cutting costs. In the health insurance business, the only way to cut costs is to cut the health care itself. This means that sick people are culled from the rosters of insurance companies, as their illnesses might actually end up costing the insurers money. They do this by systematically targeting anyone with breast cancer, leukemia, and up to 1,400 other illnesses. They also scour medical and pharmacy records to see if there are any discrepancies between what they have been told by the policy holder and what these records could tell them. For instance, if a policyholder gets cancer, and the insurance company finds out that five years ago the policyholder got a prescription for an anti-smoking drug, the insurance company could then drop the policyholder for not telling them about the smoking. And if that doesn’t work, insurers can simply partially deny claims, often using the excuse that a certain test or procedure was medically unnecessary or voluntary on the part of the patient, even if it wasn’t.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I get it. Have gotten and will continue to get it. It isn't that I don't get it. I understand what IS going on. WHY it is and how to change it is what YOU don't get and you continue to ignore my responses and questions. You complain about giving these corrupt corporations money yet are at the same time advocating that we give our money to an even more corrupt organization (the government) and let them take care of it.

Is corruption 'evil' Bern? Because you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. The truth: America's health care is the most expensive on the planet, yet we are ranked 37th in patient outcomes. Our system under-performs all other industrialized nations...and what do we know about ALL those nations who out perform us:

"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."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4165416-post109.html

 

[Bern80]

Here is a well written article. Maybe some of you will 'get it'

Insurance Company Savings

We understand completely the idea of incentives in the workplace. If an employee does his job particularly well, we think a reward system of some kind makes perfect sense. Such a system is good for both the employee and the employer, as it encourages the employee to work harder while the employer reaps the benefits of those labors.

Performance based initiatives are great if you happen to be selling cars, or making donuts or tires. But we have a real problem with the idea of rewarding employees for denying crucial and needed services. And this is exactly what is happening with health care in California, and possibly all over the country.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times details the inner workings of Blue Cross of California, in which employees are rewarded not for providing medical care, but rather for denying it.

“The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.”

Bear in mind that this employee was not rewarded for selling more policies, or cutting delays of payment, or even having a sunny disposition with customers. This employee was rewarded for cutting policyholders who might have actually cost Blue Cross money. This employee was rewarded for denying insurance claims. This employee was rewarded for leaving sick people in serious financial trouble.

This is the inherent flaw in a for-profit health care system. In any business, profits are maximized by improving efficiency and cutting costs. In the health insurance business, the only way to cut costs is to cut the health care itself. This means that sick people are culled from the rosters of insurance companies, as their illnesses might actually end up costing the insurers money. They do this by systematically targeting anyone with breast cancer, leukemia, and up to 1,400 other illnesses. They also scour medical and pharmacy records to see if there are any discrepancies between what they have been told by the policy holder and what these records could tell them. For instance, if a policyholder gets cancer, and the insurance company finds out that five years ago the policyholder got a prescription for an anti-smoking drug, the insurance company could then drop the policyholder for not telling them about the smoking. And if that doesn’t work, insurers can simply partially deny claims, often using the excuse that a certain test or procedure was medically unnecessary or voluntary on the part of the patient, even if it wasn’t.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

I get it. Have gotten and will continue to get it. It isn't that I don't get it. I understand what IS going on. WHY it is and how to change it is what YOU don't get and you continue to ignore my responses and questions. You complain about giving these corrupt corporations money yet are at the same time advocating that we give our money to an even more corrupt organization (the government) and let them take care of it.

Is corruption 'evil' Bern? Because you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. The truth: America's health care is the most expensive on the planet, yet we are ranked 37th in patient outcomes. Our system under-performs all other industrialized nations...and what do we know about ALL those nations who out perform us:

"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."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4165416-post109.html

Now you're gonna cite that WHO report? A report that heavily weights what people pay in defining our rank. I have been over that report with a fine tooth comb. if you actually dig into it you would see that they essentialy grade the individual paying little for health care as a 'good' thing which contributes to a higher rank. The reality of that report is that in terms out comes, research, quality of facilities, we are nearly the best in the world, but because it's expensive and our health habits are relatively UNhealty, we are ranked lower.

Grow a set and admit it, Bf. You would rather have government just babysit your healthcare needs for you instead of YOU having to take any responsibility for them. No fucking wonder this conversation isn't going anywhere. You STILL can't admit what it is you want. Which is why we can't even beging to discuss how to get there.

 

[Bfgrn]

I get it. Have gotten and will continue to get it. It isn't that I don't get it. I understand what IS going on. WHY it is and how to change it is what YOU don't get and you continue to ignore my responses and questions. You complain about giving these corrupt corporations money yet are at the same time advocating that we give our money to an even more corrupt organization (the government) and let them take care of it.

Is corruption 'evil' Bern? Because you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. The truth: America's health care is the most expensive on the planet, yet we are ranked 37th in patient outcomes. Our system under-performs all other industrialized nations...and what do we know about ALL those nations who out perform us:

"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."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4165416-post109.html

Now you're gonna cite that WHO report? A report that heavily weights what people pay in defining our rank. I have been over that report with a fine tooth comb. if you actually dig into it you would see that they essentialy grade the individual paying little for health care as a 'good' thing which contributes to a higher rank. The reality of that report is that in terms out comes, research, quality of facilities, we are nearly the best in the world, but because it's expensive and our health habits are relatively UNhealty, we are ranked lower.

Grow a set and admit it, Bf. You would rather have government just babysit your healthcare needs for you instead of YOU having to take any responsibility for them. No fucking wonder this conversation isn't going anywhere. You STILL can't admit what it is you want. Which is why we can't even beging to discuss how to get there.

The 37 ranking is from the WHO, but our ranking against other industrial nations comes from the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Then there is the Commonwealth Fund study...

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study

So Bern, I guess that leaves you to parrot Frank Luntz talking point LIES like Republicans during the health care debate...

Say it Bern:

Government takeover of health care...
Death Panels...
Pulling the plug on grandma...

 

[saveliberty]

Here is a well written article. Maybe some of you will 'get it'

Insurance Company Savings

We understand completely the idea of incentives in the workplace. If an employee does his job particularly well, we think a reward system of some kind makes perfect sense. Such a system is good for both the employee and the employer, as it encourages the employee to work harder while the employer reaps the benefits of those labors.

Performance based initiatives are great if you happen to be selling cars, or making donuts or tires. But we have a real problem with the idea of rewarding employees for denying crucial and needed services. And this is exactly what is happening with health care in California, and possibly all over the country.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times details the inner workings of Blue Cross of California, in which employees are rewarded not for providing medical care, but rather for denying it.

“The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.”

Bear in mind that this employee was not rewarded for selling more policies, or cutting delays of payment, or even having a sunny disposition with customers. This employee was rewarded for cutting policyholders who might have actually cost Blue Cross money. This employee was rewarded for denying insurance claims. This employee was rewarded for leaving sick people in serious financial trouble.

This is the inherent flaw in a for-profit health care system. In any business, profits are maximized by improving efficiency and cutting costs. In the health insurance business, the only way to cut costs is to cut the health care itself. This means that sick people are culled from the rosters of insurance companies, as their illnesses might actually end up costing the insurers money. They do this by systematically targeting anyone with breast cancer, leukemia, and up to 1,400 other illnesses. They also scour medical and pharmacy records to see if there are any discrepancies between what they have been told by the policy holder and what these records could tell them. For instance, if a policyholder gets cancer, and the insurance company finds out that five years ago the policyholder got a prescription for an anti-smoking drug, the insurance company could then drop the policyholder for not telling them about the smoking. And if that doesn’t work, insurers can simply partially deny claims, often using the excuse that a certain test or procedure was medically unnecessary or voluntary on the part of the patient, even if it wasn’t.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Your argument makes absolutely no sense for several reasons:

1. Health care is so expensive because too many tests are run in an effort to CYA.
2. Every health care professional I have ever met wants to help people.
3. Critical care is not withheld from ANY patient in the US.
4. Why would you give too much care to one person and not enough or none to another?
5. What is wrong with premiums based on actual risks presented by the customer?

This just fails on so many levels.

 

[Bern80]

So Bern, I guess that leaves you to parrot Frank Luntz talking point LIES like Republicans during the health care debate...

Say it Bern:

Government takeover of health care...
Death Panels...
Pulling the plug on grandma...

I don't know who you're referring to, but I don't know who Frank Lutz is and I certainly haven't been quoting him. I dont have to parrot it. It's what YOU said YOU wanted. You said 'for profit corporations should not be running health care'. Well that just leaves government doesn't it? This is why I keep asking what is your goal? Mine is improve quality and access to it. Government running the show is not going to achieve those ends. It's the solution to 'I would just rather not have to deal with the costs of my health care'. You are either really after the later, or are too stupid to see it won't accomplish the former. Pick one.

 

[Bfgrn]

So Bern, I guess that leaves you to parrot Frank Luntz talking point LIES like Republicans during the health care debate...

Say it Bern:

Government takeover of health care...
Death Panels...
Pulling the plug on grandma...

I don't know who you're referring to, but I don't know who Frank Lutz is and I certainly haven't been quoting him. I dont have to parrot it. It's what YOU said YOU wanted. You said 'for profit corporations should not be running health care'. Well that just leaves government doesn't it? This is why I keep asking what is your goal? Mine is improve quality and access to it. Government running the show is not going to achieve those ends. It's the solution to 'I would just rather not have to deal with the costs of my health care'. You are either really after the later, or are too stupid to see it won't accomplish the former. Pick one.

Well Bern, you say you don't know who Frank Luntz is, BUT, you claim you watched the interview with Wendell Potter...

My personal choice is Medicare for all. If anyone under the age of 65 wants to buy Medicare, they should be able to. Everything is in place, it has been an extremely sucessful program, it is more cost effective than private insurance, and it would take care of many of our problems. Medicare could even add a small percentage to the premium to help cover the costs the baby boomers will add.

 

[dblack]

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?

No, I'm saying that the cartels are built on government regulation. It's how they limit competition and achieve effective collusion. Those who have thrived in the regulated environment are those that have learned to control it. That's why health care reform turned out the way it did. This is a point Wendell Potter makes repeatedly.

The ACA is designed from the outset as a bailout of the insurance industry. Its a deliberate ploy on the part of the established interests to set themselves up as, essentially, 'public utilities'. The insurance industry has known for some time that their business model is defunct which is why they finally acquiesced on 'reform'. They're now using their control over regulation to ensure that the product they're selling is, quite literally, our only choice.

 

[bill5]

Here is a well written article. Maybe some of you will 'get it'

Some of us do. Already did. But guess who that doesn't include

"You are so stupid blah blah blah"

 

[Bern80]

So Bern, I guess that leaves you to parrot Frank Luntz talking point LIES like Republicans during the health care debate...

Say it Bern:

Government takeover of health care...
Death Panels...
Pulling the plug on grandma...

I don't know who you're referring to, but I don't know who Frank Lutz is and I certainly haven't been quoting him. I dont have to parrot it. It's what YOU said YOU wanted. You said 'for profit corporations should not be running health care'. Well that just leaves government doesn't it? This is why I keep asking what is your goal? Mine is improve quality and access to it. Government running the show is not going to achieve those ends. It's the solution to 'I would just rather not have to deal with the costs of my health care'. You are either really after the later, or are too stupid to see it won't accomplish the former. Pick one.

Well Bern, you say you don't know who Frank Luntz is, BUT, you claim you watched the interview with Wendell Potter...

My personal choice is Medicare for all. If anyone under the age of 65 wants to buy Medicare, they should be able to. Everything is in place, it has been an extremely sucessful program, it is more cost effective than private insurance, and it would take care of many of our problems. Medicare could even add a small percentage to the premium to help cover the costs the baby boomers will add.

And I don't think you do a country any long term good by disincentivizing personal responsibility. And medicare successful? By what measure? Would it survive in the world world as a business if government weren't propping it up? You have pretty bizarre narrow definition of the word successful. As noted before apparently successful to you means cheap for the consumer and nevermind the inefficiencies of the organization running things or whether it's fiscally sound. As long as at the end of the day it doesn't cost the person that needs care anything, that's all that really matters to you it seems.

That said I don't have a problem expanding medicare to people under 65. My only caveat would be that it be used for those that can show a financial need or an inability to obtain coverage elsewhere. There isn't any reason that if capable you should not be responsible for financially planning for your health care needs. You can not expect to achieve the outcome of healthier country while at the same time absolving them of the responsibility of maintaining and planning for their health care.

 

[dcbl]

WHY health care needed reform

Because the gub-mint does such a good job with everything else they've been entrusted with? Why not turn it over to them!

 

[Brutus]

My personal choice is Medicare for all.... it has been an extremely sucessful program, it is more cost effective than private insurance, .

liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism; in fact that is the definition of a liberal. Medicare is not successful for those who pay for it, obviously. How could it be successful when people are not shopping with their own money?

Would you want the liberals to supply us cars that way too??

See how far a little thinking will get you?

 

[Brutus]

WHY health care needed reform

Because the gub-mint does such a good job with everything else they've been entrusted with? Why not turn it over to them!

Yes, exactly!! We have more government involvement in health care than anywhere and, surprise, it is our least efficient industry.

Insanely, the liberal solution is more government involvement.

 

[saveliberty]

WHY health care needed reform

Because the gub-mint does such a good job with everything else they've been entrusted with? Why not turn it over to them!

Yes, exactly!! We have more government involvement in health care than anywhere and, surprise, it is our least efficient industry.

Insanely, the liberal solution is more government involvement.

Education is a close second. Government has pretty much made that an overly expensive and under achieving industry.

 

[bill5]

My personal choice is Medicare for all.... it has been an extremely sucessful program, it is more cost effective than private insurance, .

liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism; in fact that is the definition of a liberal. Medicare is not successful for those who pay for it, obviously. How could it be successful when people are not shopping with their own money?

Would you want the liberals to supply us cars that way too??

See how far a little thinking will get you?

Clearly that's not on your agenda.

About time we got back to trying to digress yet another thread here into a wingnut cat fight! YAAAAAAAAAYYYY The left sucks! No wait the right sucks! Bush! Obama! Tea Party! There's my opinion and the wrong one! My side is always right! Yours is always wrong! blah! etc! blah!

 

[Brutus]

Because the gub-mint does such a good job with everything else they've been entrusted with? Why not turn it over to them!

Yes, exactly!! We have more government involvement in health care than anywhere and, surprise, it is our least efficient industry.

Insanely, the liberal solution is more government involvement.

Education is a close second. Government has pretty much made that an overly expensive and under achieving industry.

Yes the liberal unions have made our kids the dumbest in the industrialized world. Competition made our universities the best in the world, but the liberal unions care about their jobs most so they block all reform while our nation declines.

 

[saveliberty]

Is your position that there is no right or wrong approach bill5? A middle ground approach is nothing more than half wrong.