Can Public Option Work?

[Oldandtired]

Public option CAN work.
Socialism CAN work as well.
Communism CAN work as well.
Democracy CAN work as well.
Nationalization of all industries CAN work as well.

None of this has EVER been in question.

The question is....is there a way to reform healthcare WITHOUT a public option...is there a way we can reform healthcare WITHOUT having to rely on the government to run it.

Interestingly, the current administration and the current congress majority do not want to find a way to do it WITHOUT government control.

THAT is what we are complaining about.

But yes...a public option CAN work....but it will change America forever.

SO maybe we can do something a little less radical?

 

[AVG-JOE]

SS was suppose to go in the red by 2000 also, but tweeking of it extended it 40 plus years.

SS is a problem but not that big of a problem...if it were not tweaked again at all, in 2041 it will still be collecting enough to pay everyone on it, at least 75% of what they were promised....with tweaking, this can be overcome....

medicare....that's a whole nuther story! the pill bill could be addressed and save some of the deficits perhaps?

Medicare part D, GW's silver platter gift to the pharmaceutical lobby, will break the back of not only Medicare but the general budget if it is not addressed soon.

I'm usually not a doom & gloom kind of guy, but Part D will break this country as boomers age if it is not addressed and addressed soon.

 

[toomuchtime_]

i have had 2 instances where i needed to use my health care insurance...

once in 1992 when i had surgery, the bill was almost $20k when all added up...my insurance company refused to pay it.

the second time was 2 years ago, a different insurance company, the bill was $2,000, and my insurance refused to pay it.

the best health care (insurance) i ever had, was Fallon Plus....in massachusetts.... which only operates there or perhaps in a couple of other new england states...the clinic the member doctors operate in was open 24 hours, my doctor and all of her associated doctors, was AN AMERICAN who actually spoke english as a first language!!!! so i could understand her.... she was extremely thorough with testing and in explaining things.

i don't even know what kind of insurance it really was...like an hmo? or non profit of some sort???

whatever it was, it was a good, solid plan, with excellent coverage, in or out of the system.

According to the AMA, Medicare denies a larger percentage of claims than private insurers do, so whatever your experience has been with private insurers denying claims, it is reasonable to expect it would have been worse had you been on a public plan.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

See metric 12.

The facts simply do not support the arguments that private insurers, with uncommon exceptions, do not pay the claims they should or unfairly cancel policies. The AMA report shows the argument that private insurers unfairly deny claims is bogus, and if you paid careful attention to Obama's speech before the joint session of Congress, you know the President demonstrated that the argument that private insurers unfairly cancel policies when you get sick is also bogus, although that was clearly not his intention.

The President gave two examples intended to show that private insurers unfairly deny claims and and cancel policies when people become sick, but he had to lie to do this because the facts in both cases simply did not support his argument.

To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."

Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."

The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."

The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.

Scott Harrington: Fact-Checking the President on Health Insurance - WSJ.com

If with all the resources at the command of the WH the President believed he had to lie to make his case about abusive practices of private health insurers, clearly he believes all the trash talk about private insurers we've been hearing from him and Pelosi is bogus and entirely without foundation in fact as far as the WH researchers were able to discover.

So why have Obama and Pelosi been lying to us about private insurers denying claims and unfairly canceling policies, and since the CBO has told us the public option in the current House bill will have higher premiums than private insurers,

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (page 6)

why do Obama and Pelosi want to establish a public plan that will cost us more than private insurance and, like Medicare, be more likely than private insurance to refuse to pay our medical bills when we become sick?

 

[Oldandtired]

That sir, is is a question that you must decide in the privacy of your own mind for yourself.

But isn't it nice to have options?​

It sure is but if we allow the public option to pass we will no longer have options....according to those in government who support it at least.

If the public option drives ALL other insurance bureaucracies completely out of business in your lifetime it will have done something incredibly right; you and I will be paying less than we are now and our children will have a much smaller mess to face than we do.

If it doesn't, you and I will be paying less than we do today and our children will face a smaller mess than we do today.

I don't see the down-side.

Seems like a sound plan.

So lets do it with others that profit on life necessities as well.

Let us drive those grocery stores out of business and have a public option food bank and make food costs less as well.

Let us get rid of those manufacturers ands retailers of winter coats...and have a public option coat store and it will be cheaper to buy coats.

And...oh my...those evil landlords that charge rent. Lets have the government pass legislation for a "public option residency" and rent will be cheaper.

Oh wait...and I forgot...Those funeral homes...how dare they profit on death....lets have a public option burial service so we do not need to spend so much money burying our dead.

You just dont get it.

 

[The Rabbi]

'Insurance' can NOT make things more affordable - it is a pool of funds used to spread risk over a group of people or a span of time.

If you can't afford something in the first place, how can hiring a million dollar insurance executive to do the paperwork for you possibly make it more affordable?

Hiring a bureaucracy to track health care payments will only work if everyone understands that it is an additional expenditure that is worth the cost because it helps spread the cost of an unexpected bad day over time (pay premiums starting when you're 20 so there is medical money available when you're 70) or over a group (I'll help cover your broken leg today, 'cause I know your premiums will help cover my ulcer next summer).

You clearly do not understand what insurance is and how it operates. I'd suggest some basic research on the topic before you go blundering off again.

Clearly.

Yes because you continue to post idiotic class-envy statements that show me your undestanding of the entire capitalist system is poor at best.
Would you rather have profit-motivated executives who can be fired or replaced or gov't bureaucrats answerable to no one making life and death decisions for you?

 

[Care4all]

The only thing I can think of is regulation that CAPS prices...and that is so repulsive to so many....

but it is the better alternative to a windfall tax of any kind imo....

A windfall Tax, discourages making a profit....that is not so good....imo.

HOWEVER, a reasonable, with EMPHASIS ON REASONABLE cap on procedures and products for every procedure and everyone, including medicare recipients, at LEAST gives the company a chance to modify their budget to come in profitably...

A cap on prices is like a cap on ones budget in the free market...where the corporation tells you that you only have X amount of money to achieve X amount in your sales goal....and you sit there and say WTF? they want me to have a 20% increase in sales over last year with 20% less in inventory to accomplish this?????????? They've GOT to be kidding????

THEN, the rubber hits the road, and you figure every way possible to cut corners while not cutting sales, to come in to that figure..."When the going gets tough, the tough get going" is a model that can not be discounted, in my humble opinion.

So putting a cap on what insurance companies are charged for your procedures done by doctors and and hospitals and labs, is like what i explained above.....IT FORCES EFFICIENCIES....it forces these various portions of the health care businesses to give themselves another look, on becoming more productive or more efficient in order to still be profitable with the limited money or...caps.

having only medicare prices caps, defeats the purpose, because businesses then calculate their losses from the medicare caps in to the prices of those with regular insurance or those without Medicare....it even forces doctors to stop taking in medicare patients etc.....

HOWEVER, if the caps were on the entire field, and not just for medicare patients, then there would be NO ONE for the health care industry to pass these prices on to, and if this were the case, then I can assure you they would have to become more efficient, and they would become more efficient and they would change their business model to accommodate such...they WILL NOT let their companies/corporations fall.... "when the going gets tough, the tough WILL GET GOING"...trust me on this....they will not just throw in their hands and fold.

care

 

[toomuchtime_]

Public option CAN work.
Socialism CAN work as well.
Communism CAN work as well.
Democracy CAN work as well.
Nationalization of all industries CAN work as well.

None of this has EVER been in question.

The question is....is there a way to reform healthcare WITHOUT a public option...is there a way we can reform healthcare WITHOUT having to rely on the government to run it.

Interestingly, the current administration and the current congress majority do not want to find a way to do it WITHOUT government control.

THAT is what we are complaining about.

But yes...a public option CAN work....but it will change America forever.

SO maybe we can do something a little less radical?

The public option is entirely irrelevant to achieving any of the goals of health care/insurance reform and is no more than an expression of an ideological bias in favor of government run health care; it is without merit or value in any other way. From the CBO report on the current House bill, we know that the public option in that bill will charge higher premiums than private insurers and we know from an AMA report that like Medicare it will be more likely to deny our claims than private insurance, so it's clear the public option would bring benefits to no one other than some left wing politicians who are trying to deceive voters into believing they are doing something worthwhile.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (page 6)

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf (See metric 12.)

 

[AVG-JOE]

It sure is but if we allow the public option to pass we will no longer have options....according to those in government who support it at least.

If the public option drives ALL other insurance bureaucracies completely out of business in your lifetime it will have done something incredibly right; you and I will be paying less than we are now and our children will have a much smaller mess to face than we do.

If it doesn't, you and I will be paying less than we do today and our children will face a smaller mess than we do today.

I don't see the down-side.

Seems like a sound plan.

So lets do it with others that profit on life necessities as well.

Let us drive those grocery stores out of business and have a public option food bank and make food costs less as well.

Let us get rid of those manufacturers ands retailers of winter coats...and have a public option coat store and it will be cheaper to buy coats.

And...oh my...those evil landlords that charge rent. Lets have the government pass legislation for a "public option residency" and rent will be cheaper.

Oh wait...and I forgot...Those funeral homes...how dare they profit on death....lets have a public option burial service so we do not need to spend so much money burying our dead.

You just dont get it.

Oh, I get it. There is a huge difference between manufacturing or retail and insurance. Insurance "Industry" is an oxymoron - there is nothing 'industrious' about it - Insurance companies do not incur risk by making anything or even take a risk buying wholesale and selling retail. All you need to run an insurance data base is money, a computer and a shit load of middle-class clerks, things the federal government has in spades.

The last thing I want the government doing is managing a manufacturing or retail operation - there is way too much risk there to be effectively managed at the speed of government.

'Insurance' is different. We, The People are already the final source of 'insurance' in this nation via FEMA, why not expand the concept?

 

[Oldandtired]

The problem is our government is not being truly honest with us.
They talk about the "trillions" of dollars in profit by the insurance companies.

However, they do not talk about what ANYONE KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT BUSINESS talks about.....profit margin.

Last year, those "trillions of dollars" in profit amounted to a 4% profit.

Now you tell me......do you believe the government has a proven track record to operate at a 0% profit?

Their track record is a LOSS of well more than 4%....

So anyone who thinks it will LOWER premiums nd not increase the deficit...or increase taxes above the proposed taxc increase is someone who does not know of the governments track record of running industry.

Social Security?
Medicare?

How about this....do a google search on "armored plating".......now THERE was a great business move by government....ended up costing us millions of dollars to find out that it cost us twice as much to make armored pating than it did to simply buy it from the free market....and government shut it down after 3 months...AFTER MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS TO SET IT UP.

 

[Oldandtired]

If the public option drives ALL other insurance bureaucracies completely out of business in your lifetime it will have done something incredibly right; you and I will be paying less than we are now and our children will have a much smaller mess to face than we do.

If it doesn't, you and I will be paying less than we do today and our children will face a smaller mess than we do today.

I don't see the down-side.

Seems like a sound plan.

So lets do it with others that profit on life necessities as well.

Let us drive those grocery stores out of business and have a public option food bank and make food costs less as well.

Let us get rid of those manufacturers ands retailers of winter coats...and have a public option coat store and it will be cheaper to buy coats.

And...oh my...those evil landlords that charge rent. Lets have the government pass legislation for a "public option residency" and rent will be cheaper.

Oh wait...and I forgot...Those funeral homes...how dare they profit on death....lets have a public option burial service so we do not need to spend so much money burying our dead.

You just dont get it.

Oh, I get it. There is a huge difference between manufacturing or retail and insurance. Insurance "Industry" is an oxymoron - there is nothing 'industrious' about it - Insurance companies do not incur risk by making anything or even take a risk buying wholesale and selling retail. All you need to run an insurance data base is money, a computer and a shit load of middle-class clerks, things the federal government has in spades.

The last thing I want the government doing is managing a manufacturing or retail operation - there is way too much risk there to be effectively managed at the speed of government.

'Insurance' is different. We, The People are already the final source of 'insurance' in this nation via FEMA, why not expand the concept?

Spoken by an individual who obviously knows nothing about business.
Insurance is a service...and has just as much "risk" as manuufacturing.
Employee law suits.
Errors and omissions
discrimination claims.
corruption
accounting irregulartities
real estate requirements
INSURANCE fraud
technology issues.
I can go on.....but I am beating a dead horse

 

[Oldandtired]

If the public option drives ALL other insurance bureaucracies completely out of business in your lifetime it will have done something incredibly right; you and I will be paying less than we are now and our children will have a much smaller mess to face than we do.

If it doesn't, you and I will be paying less than we do today and our children will face a smaller mess than we do today.

I don't see the down-side.

Seems like a sound plan.

So lets do it with others that profit on life necessities as well.

Let us drive those grocery stores out of business and have a public option food bank and make food costs less as well.

Let us get rid of those manufacturers ands retailers of winter coats...and have a public option coat store and it will be cheaper to buy coats.

And...oh my...those evil landlords that charge rent. Lets have the government pass legislation for a "public option residency" and rent will be cheaper.

Oh wait...and I forgot...Those funeral homes...how dare they profit on death....lets have a public option burial service so we do not need to spend so much money burying our dead.

You just dont get it.

Oh, I get it. There is a huge difference between manufacturing or retail and insurance. Insurance "Industry" is an oxymoron - there is nothing 'industrious' about it - Insurance companies do not incur risk by making anything or even take a risk buying wholesale and selling retail. All you need to run an insurance data base is money, a computer and a shit load of middle-class clerks, things the federal government has in spades.

The last thing I want the government doing is managing a manufacturing or retail operation - there is way too much risk there to be effectively managed at the speed of government.

'Insurance' is different. We, The People are already the final source of 'insurance' in this nation via FEMA, why not expand the concept?

I noticed you did not respond to:

Housing...a need for all....NOT manufacturing
Mortuary services....not manufacturing but a need for all

There are others as well......and ALL are expensive....and ALL result in the 4% profit for those industries...so why not them as well?

 

[Care4all]

I would never recommend true universal health care, like medicare for all, UNLESS the health care industry's double digit increases in prices or costs could be put under some kind of control...

health care insurance is going up each year primarily because health care costs have gone up each year....yes, there is the money in the multi millions being handed out to ceo's but i think they probably pale in comparison to just health care prices that they negotiate with the hospitals/doctors/labs are going up.

There are some reforms that the health insurance industry could use, I am not personally negating such, as much as 25% saving could be done with streamlining the paperwork...which is the relationship between insurance companies and the billing departments.

I had heard on C-span that John Hopkins Medical Center has 700 DIFFERENT payment plans to the various insurance companies and people without insurance on their books....

That is just AMAZING to me and HAS TO BE HIGHLY INEFFICIENT, just has to be...ya know?

But the bulk of the savings can come to us through finding a way to lower prescription drug prices for us americans...we should not have to fund the entire R & D in our prices while the entire rest of the world gets to negotiate and not pay these expenses while they get to enjoy the medicines....and at a much lower price....that's just one thing that irks me...

 

[Care4all]

we just need a kazillion more doctors, hospitals, nurses, med schools and labs...the increase in the SUPPLY of such should bring on competition and lower prices at the hospitals and doctors offices

 

[AVG-JOE]

Seems like a sound plan.

So lets do it with others that profit on life necessities as well.

Let us drive those grocery stores out of business and have a public option food bank and make food costs less as well.

Let us get rid of those manufacturers ands retailers of winter coats...and have a public option coat store and it will be cheaper to buy coats.

And...oh my...those evil landlords that charge rent. Lets have the government pass legislation for a "public option residency" and rent will be cheaper.

Oh wait...and I forgot...Those funeral homes...how dare they profit on death....lets have a public option burial service so we do not need to spend so much money burying our dead.

You just dont get it.

Oh, I get it. There is a huge difference between manufacturing or retail and insurance. Insurance "Industry" is an oxymoron - there is nothing 'industrious' about it - Insurance companies do not incur risk by making anything or even take a risk buying wholesale and selling retail. All you need to run an insurance data base is money, a computer and a shit load of middle-class clerks, things the federal government has in spades.

The last thing I want the government doing is managing a manufacturing or retail operation - there is way too much risk there to be effectively managed at the speed of government.

'Insurance' is different. We, The People are already the final source of 'insurance' in this nation via FEMA, why not expand the concept?

I noticed you did not respond to:

Housing...a need for all....NOT manufacturing
Mortuary services....not manufacturing but a need for all

There are others as well......and ALL are expensive....and ALL result in the 4% profit for those industries...so why not them as well?

Housing is both manufacturing and retail and the mortuary business was so corporately corrupt in the 80's and 90's that it remains the most paperwork intensive industry in the country, worse than medicine to hear some tell.

People should be free to purchase as much house or as nice a casket as their means will allow, but what do you want from your insurance company other than fair premiums and the bills paid on time?

I stand by my thesis that 'Insurance' is different, it is just a bureaucracy and we don't need to pay individuals millions to run the damn thing. They are not worth what they charge and they should be fired.

 

[AVG-JOE]

we just need a kazillion more doctors, hospitals, nurses, med schools and labs...the increase in the SUPPLY of such should bring on competition and lower prices at the hospitals and doctors offices

I am going to respectfully disagree Care. I believe that the current level of health-care providers could easily handle the work load if they didn't have to spend 1/3 to 1/2 of their working hours filling out paperwork out of fear of being sued.

What we need is not a different healthcare system, we need a more efficient way to track the health and financial data of the nation.

When 22 to 25 pennies out of every dollar we spend on coverage is used to feed the private bureaucracy that we currently hire to track the financial side of health data in this country, and a similar bureaucracy is humming along right under our noses since 1935, serving almost every American born in the last 100 years, at an efficiency of just over 1 penny for every dollar collected, we look stupid to our neighbors.

Oh, sure... they're not likely to laugh in our faces or say anything 'cause we have guns and we are not afraid to use them, but behind our backs, they're laughing at us.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I would never recommend true universal health care, like medicare for all, UNLESS the health care industry's double digit increases in prices or costs could be put under some kind of control...

health care insurance is going up each year primarily because health care costs have gone up each year....yes, there is the money in the multi millions being handed out to ceo's but i think they probably pale in comparison to just health care prices that they negotiate with the hospitals/doctors/labs are going up.

There are some reforms that the health insurance industry could use, I am not personally negating such, as much as 25% saving could be done with streamlining the paperwork...which is the relationship between insurance companies and the billing departments.

I had heard on C-span that John Hopkins Medical Center has 700 DIFFERENT payment plans to the various insurance companies and people without insurance on their books....

That is just AMAZING to me and HAS TO BE HIGHLY INEFFICIENT, just has to be...ya know?

But the bulk of the savings can come to us through finding a way to lower prescription drug prices for us americans...we should not have to fund the entire R & D in our prices while the entire rest of the world gets to negotiate and not pay these expenses while they get to enjoy the medicines....and at a much lower price....that's just one thing that irks me...

Health care providers and insurers all use the same billing codes for the same procedures and nearly all of this work is done electronically, so the only difference between billing one insurer and 700 is using different company codes at the top of the (electronic) page, and how much time can it take to look up a company code?

Moreover, if we limit the discussion to health insurance for those under 65, since all the reform proposals would effect only those, and eliminate all those Medigap insurance plans and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, that 700 number you cited would be much smaller, and if we can believe Obama and Pelosi, a big if, most insurance markets are dominated by only a few insurers, so the vast majority of the billing goes to only a few companies. So from 700 companies we're down to 3 or 4, if we can believe Obama and Pelosi, along with occasional billings to some smaller companies, and since this is all electronic with standardized billing codes, the number of companies doesn't matter anyway. Clearly all this stuff about the cost of inefficiency and paperwork is just a phony argument invented by those who would try to justify a public plan in spite of the fact that we know from the CBO and the AMA that a public plan would charge us higher premiums than a private insurer would while refusing to pay for a higher percentage of our medical bills than a private insurer would.

I do agree that the rest of the world should start paying its fair share of drug R&D costs. Although I'm uncertain of what the legal mechanism would be to put this into effect, I think the fairest solution would be for the US to refuse to pay more for a drug than the average paid by the other wealthy countries. Of course, if we did this, Canada would probably declare war on us, since drug companies would rather lose the entire Canadian market than have to substantially raise US prices, so Canadian prices would go up to compensate for any lowering of US prices, increasing health care costs in Canada, hitherto partly financed by high US prices, and probably higher Canadian taxes to subsidize this cost increase and sending Canadian resentment of the US off the charts, but hey, after hockey, being angry at the US is the leading entertainment in Canada anyway.

 

[Oldandtired]

Oh, I get it. There is a huge difference between manufacturing or retail and insurance. Insurance "Industry" is an oxymoron - there is nothing 'industrious' about it - Insurance companies do not incur risk by making anything or even take a risk buying wholesale and selling retail. All you need to run an insurance data base is money, a computer and a shit load of middle-class clerks, things the federal government has in spades.

The last thing I want the government doing is managing a manufacturing or retail operation - there is way too much risk there to be effectively managed at the speed of government.

'Insurance' is different. We, The People are already the final source of 'insurance' in this nation via FEMA, why not expand the concept?

I noticed you did not respond to:

Housing...a need for all....NOT manufacturing
Mortuary services....not manufacturing but a need for all

There are others as well......and ALL are expensive....and ALL result in the 4% profit for those industries...so why not them as well?

Housing is both manufacturing and retail and the mortuary business was so corporately corrupt in the 80's and 90's that it remains the most paperwork intensive industry in the country, worse than medicine to hear some tell.

People should be free to purchase as much house or as nice a casket as their means will allow, but what do you want from your insurance company other than fair premiums and the bills paid on time?

I stand by my thesis that 'Insurance' is different, it is just a bureaucracy and we don't need to pay individuals millions to run the damn thing. They are not worth what they charge and they should be fired.

Insurance profits were 4% last year....less than most service industries
Furthermore, they employed millions.
Finally, such is capitalism....it works you know.

Housing is NOT any more manufacturing than insurance. Once the owner has a built structure, what he offers the consumers is a service...you pay him X amount of dollars, he gives you a roof over your head. Not only a service, but no less essential to life as insurance. And before you say "there are many that survive without a roof over their head", lets make it an equal playing field....there are probably more that survive without health insurance.

The real question that has yet to be answered and is a basic business question I have...

Insuracne premiums go up dramatically every year. However, their profits dont.

What needs to be analyzed AND fixed is "what is causing such increases in costs to insure?".....becuase it is not profits that are driving the rates...it is operating costs.

Now many, myself included believe frivilous law suits are a main reason.

But put that aside for a minute....

If insurance companies that are skilled at maximizing profits can not control the costs to operate...what makes ANY OF US think that governemtn can?

 

[ThePickledPunk]

I noticed you did not respond to:

Housing...a need for all....NOT manufacturing
Mortuary services....not manufacturing but a need for all

There are others as well......and ALL are expensive....and ALL result in the 4% profit for those industries...so why not them as well?

Housing is both manufacturing and retail and the mortuary business was so corporately corrupt in the 80's and 90's that it remains the most paperwork intensive industry in the country, worse than medicine to hear some tell.

People should be free to purchase as much house or as nice a casket as their means will allow, but what do you want from your insurance company other than fair premiums and the bills paid on time?

I stand by my thesis that 'Insurance' is different, it is just a bureaucracy and we don't need to pay individuals millions to run the damn thing. They are not worth what they charge and they should be fired.

Insurance profits were 4% last year....less than most service industries
Furthermore, they employed millions.
Finally, such is capitalism....it works you know.

Housing is NOT any more manufacturing than insurance. Once the owner has a built structure, what he offers the consumers is a service...you pay him X amount of dollars, he gives you a roof over your head. Not only a service, but no less essential to life as insurance. And before you say "there are many that survive without a roof over their head", lets make it an equal playing field....there are probably more that survive without health insurance.

The real question that has yet to be answered and is a basic business question I have...

Insuracne premiums go up dramatically every year. However, their profits dont.

What needs to be analyzed AND fixed is "what is causing such increases in costs to insure?".....becuase it is not profits that are driving the rates...it is operating costs.

Now many, myself included believe frivilous law suits are a main reason.

But put that aside for a minute....

If insurance companies that are skilled at maximizing profits can not control the costs to operate...what makes ANY OF US think that governemtn can?

Imagine what will happen to costs, and to taxes, when insurance is run by the least efficient business model known to mankind with no concern for a bottom-line....

 

[Oldandtired]

Housing is both manufacturing and retail and the mortuary business was so corporately corrupt in the 80's and 90's that it remains the most paperwork intensive industry in the country, worse than medicine to hear some tell.

People should be free to purchase as much house or as nice a casket as their means will allow, but what do you want from your insurance company other than fair premiums and the bills paid on time?

I stand by my thesis that 'Insurance' is different, it is just a bureaucracy and we don't need to pay individuals millions to run the damn thing. They are not worth what they charge and they should be fired.

Insurance profits were 4% last year....less than most service industries
Furthermore, they employed millions.
Finally, such is capitalism....it works you know.

Housing is NOT any more manufacturing than insurance. Once the owner has a built structure, what he offers the consumers is a service...you pay him X amount of dollars, he gives you a roof over your head. Not only a service, but no less essential to life as insurance. And before you say "there are many that survive without a roof over their head", lets make it an equal playing field....there are probably more that survive without health insurance.

The real question that has yet to be answered and is a basic business question I have...

Insuracne premiums go up dramatically every year. However, their profits dont.

What needs to be analyzed AND fixed is "what is causing such increases in costs to insure?".....becuase it is not profits that are driving the rates...it is operating costs.

Now many, myself included believe frivilous law suits are a main reason.

But put that aside for a minute....

If insurance companies that are skilled at maximizing profits can not control the costs to operate...what makes ANY OF US think that governemtn can?

Imagine what will happen to costs, and to taxes, when insurance is run by the least efficient business model known to mankind with no concern for a bottom-line....

My exact point and thanks for the elaboration.

Read about the industry. Contrary to what the blogs say, 4% profit is not a monumnetal profit rate....and it has been stagnent at that number for years.
However, the premiums increase by double digits a year.

If the government knows the formula to keep the rates down without putting the companies out of buisiness, why dont they simply tell the industry the formula?

Obviously, they do not have the formula.

So can ANYONE here tell me that the authors of the bill are being genuine when they say it will not oncrease the deficit, and the premiums will no longer go up dramatically every year?

It is not logical.

Time to apply your own intelligence folks...and stop simply hearing the key words they want you to hear.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Insurance profits were 4% last year....less than most service industries
Furthermore, they employed millions.
Finally, such is capitalism....it works you know.

Housing is NOT any more manufacturing than insurance. Once the owner has a built structure, what he offers the consumers is a service...you pay him X amount of dollars, he gives you a roof over your head. Not only a service, but no less essential to life as insurance. And before you say "there are many that survive without a roof over their head", lets make it an equal playing field....there are probably more that survive without health insurance.

The real question that has yet to be answered and is a basic business question I have...

Insuracne premiums go up dramatically every year. However, their profits dont.

What needs to be analyzed AND fixed is "what is causing such increases in costs to insure?".....becuase it is not profits that are driving the rates...it is operating costs.

Now many, myself included believe frivilous law suits are a main reason.

But put that aside for a minute....

If insurance companies that are skilled at maximizing profits can not control the costs to operate...what makes ANY OF US think that governemtn can?

Imagine what will happen to costs, and to taxes, when insurance is run by the least efficient business model known to mankind with no concern for a bottom-line....

My exact point and thanks for the elaboration.

Read about the industry. Contrary to what the blogs say, 4% profit is not a monumnetal profit rate....and it has been stagnent at that number for years.
However, the premiums increase by double digits a year.

If the government knows the formula to keep the rates down without putting the companies out of buisiness, why dont they simply tell the industry the formula?

Obviously, they do not have the formula.

So can ANYONE here tell me that the authors of the bill are being genuine when they say it will not oncrease the deficit, and the premiums will no longer go up dramatically every year?

It is not logical.

Time to apply your own intelligence folks...and stop simply hearing the key words they want you to hear.

They are not being genuine. There will be a myriad of unintended consequences that this bill will produce that will cause the actual costs of its implementation to explode beyond anyone's wildest imaginings.