The Great Healthcare Debate

[rdean]

The problem is as soon as up post CEO compensation and point out that for every million dollars, thousands of people get no hospital treatment. Republicans say, "But this is capitalism". But they are wrong. These guys make nothing, the sell nothing. They just skim money off insurance policies from poor suckers who don't deserve to be treated this way. Then Republicans say, "But it's legal". It's only legal because congress declared it legal. Is it "ethical". Ok, ok, whenever you say, "ethical", Republicans eyes glaze over and they start to yawn. Democrats need to fight this. It's a shame that this is what Republicans support. They truth is, they don't really, They just hate Obama and would see the US brought to it's knees if they thought it would hurt Obama.

Come on Republicans. Tell me how compensation like this is good. And remember, this is only the CEO's. What about all the other executives. Tell us how this is ethical. Come on. We're waiting. Tell us this is what is good for American. Well?

United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil

TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

The nubers may come from a blog, but they are real. I've seen most of these on Forbes and other non partison business sites.

Mad About Medicine: CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis?

 

[Care4all]

Tell you what, If any of my democrat friends can convince me or for that matter, show me where this "public option" can be self sustaining, and there is no mandatory clause as well as converage for people who are here in an illegal manner then you will have my support. While I see that Bf was kind enough to post the statement that it must be self sustaining and I find that encouraging, you will forgive my being a little skeptical as the Govt. does not have a good track record on these sorts of things be they Republicans or Democrats. The other thing here is this, it would seem to me that if the quest to provide this option is one that many think will cure everything, then take out the mandatory part(s) for individuals as well as providers and employers.

ok, on the pdf document of hr3200, it starts on page 116.....it is part of TITLE 2 SUBCHAPTER B


this shows they gotta follow all rules and regs as the private plans on the exchange...

(b) OFFERING AS AN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING
19 HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.—
20 (1) EXCLUSIVE TO THE EXCHANGE.—The pub
21lic health insurance option shall only be made avail22
able through the Health Insurance Exchange.
23 (2) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.—Con24
sistent with this subtitle, the public health insurance
25 option shall comply with requirements that are ap-
plicable under this title to an Exchange-participating
2 health benefits plan, including requirements related
3 to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices,
4 consumer protections, and cost sharing.
5 (3) PROVISION OF BENEFIT LEVELS.—The pub6
lic health insurance option—
7 (A) shall offer basic, enhanced, and pre8
mium plans; and
9 (B) may offer premium-plus plans.

and this covering all costs of the plan through premiums, with a padded margin in case something goes wrong...all from people buying the policies...

23 SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
24 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS.—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
119
•HR 3200 IH
1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish
2 geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public
3 health insurance option in a manner—
4 (A) that complies with the premium rules
5 established by the Commissioner under section
6 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit
7 plans; and
8 (B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the
9 costs of—
10 (i) health benefits provided by the
11 public health insurance option; and
12 (ii) administrative costs related to op13
erating the public health insurance option.
14 (2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN.—In establishing
15 premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary
16 shall include an appropriate amount for a contin17
gency margin.

While I understand where your going with that Care as part of it bein self-sustaining, where does this department get it's budget from? Where does it pay all the much needed employee's to provide the administration for it and all the infrastructure that will be needed to support it? (taxes) or perhaps reducing Medicare payments to Doctors? Further, then you have this section,

NAVY, I expect MORE from your reading abilities than what you have shown....go get some coffee, sip some, and Let's start over....


SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS.—

•HR 3200 IH

(1)IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner—

OK, so the secretary has to ESTABLISH geographically adjusted insurance PREMIUM RATES


(A) that complies with the premium rules
established by the Commissioner under section
113 for Exchange-participating health benefit
plans;


SO, the public insurance plan HAS TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS that all other private insurance plans on the exchange have to meet...this establishes that they will not be exempt from any of the things our government is applying towards the private insurance plans...

and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of—

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option;

SO, the premiums have to FULLY FINANCE ALL of the health benefits provided by the Insurance Policy that they buy.

and

(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

SO, the premiums have to FULLY PAY FOR ALL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS related to this public option AS WELL.


(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN.—In establishing
premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall include an appropriate amount for a contin17
gency margin.

AND FINALLY, not only does the PREMIUM charged to customers have to cover all the costs of your health care, and all the costs of the administration of that health care, it also has to have a CUSHION of Margin in the premium price set, that would be considered profit under normal terms of business, to set aside to pay for any contingency expenses that may come up SO THAT THE COST OF THIS PLAN, WILL NEVER reach the tax payers.

The ''making insurance mandatory'' IS ANOTHER TOPIC and NOT related to the post I was answering of YOURS and we should NOT MIX up the 2 separate issues imo...

NOW TELL me, are you reneging what you said, that you would support a public option if there was legislation that showed it was self sustaining?

Care

 

[Navy1960]

ok, on the pdf document of hr3200, it starts on page 116.....it is part of TITLE 2 SUBCHAPTER B


this shows they gotta follow all rules and regs as the private plans on the exchange...

(b) OFFERING AS AN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING
19 HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.—
20 (1) EXCLUSIVE TO THE EXCHANGE.—The pub
21lic health insurance option shall only be made avail22
able through the Health Insurance Exchange.
23 (2) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.—Con24
sistent with this subtitle, the public health insurance
25 option shall comply with requirements that are ap-
plicable under this title to an Exchange-participating
2 health benefits plan, including requirements related
3 to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices,
4 consumer protections, and cost sharing.
5 (3) PROVISION OF BENEFIT LEVELS.—The pub6
lic health insurance option—
7 (A) shall offer basic, enhanced, and pre8
mium plans; and
9 (B) may offer premium-plus plans.

and this covering all costs of the plan through premiums, with a padded margin in case something goes wrong...all from people buying the policies...

23 SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
24 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS.—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
119
•HR 3200 IH
1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish
2 geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public
3 health insurance option in a manner—
4 (A) that complies with the premium rules
5 established by the Commissioner under section
6 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit
7 plans; and
8 (B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the
9 costs of—
10 (i) health benefits provided by the
11 public health insurance option; and
12 (ii) administrative costs related to op13
erating the public health insurance option.
14 (2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN.—In establishing
15 premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary
16 shall include an appropriate amount for a contin17
gency margin.

While I understand where your going with that Care as part of it bein self-sustaining, where does this department get it's budget from? Where does it pay all the much needed employee's to provide the administration for it and all the infrastructure that will be needed to support it? (taxes) or perhaps reducing Medicare payments to Doctors? Further, then you have this section,

NAVY, I expect MORE from your reading abilities than what you have shown....go get some coffee, sip some, and Let's start over....


SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS.—

•HR 3200 IH

(1)IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner—

OK, so the secretary has to ESTABLISH geographically adjusted insurance PREMIUM RATES


(A) that complies with the premium rules
established by the Commissioner under section
113 for Exchange-participating health benefit
plans;


SO, the public insurance plan HAS TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS that all other private insurance plans on the exchange have to meet...this establishes that they will not be exempt from any of the things our government is applying towards the private insurance plans...

and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of—

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option;

SO, the premiums have to FULLY FINANCE ALL of the health benefits provided by the Insurance Policy that they buy.

and

(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

SO, the premiums have to FULLY PAY FOR ALL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS related to this public option AS WELL.


(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN.—In establishing
premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall include an appropriate amount for a contin17
gency margin.

AND FINALLY, not only does the PREMIUM charged to customers have to cover all the costs of your health care, and all the costs of the administration of that health care, it also has to have a CUSHION of Margin in the premium price set, that would be considered profit under normal terms of business, to set aside to pay for any contingency expenses that may come up SO THAT THE COST OF THIS PLAN, WILL NEVER reach the tax payers.

The ''making insurance mandatory'' IS ANOTHER TOPIC and NOT related to the post I was answering of YOURS and we should NOT MIX up the 2 separate issues imo...

NOW TELL me, are you reneging what you said, that you would support a public option if there was legislation that showed it was self sustaining?

Care

Actually dear I am drinking coffee at this very moment, *laughs* point taken, However you need to read my post too. I said before, get rid of the mandatory part too or did you forget that part? I won't back out on my statement Ms. Care. as for my assesment of the section, while I did read it as to what the Sec. will establish, but where is the Budget section that establishes the working Budget for this Department that congress shall establish? Who pays for the infrastructure to support it? While yes, I believe that the intent is that the permiums collected are to go for the payments of the healthcare costs themselves and thats a good thing, does this actually control the costs themselves? the only way this will work is, this way, is to require Doctors and healthcare providers that participate in Medicare to also take the "public option" see what I mean? So why not do as Howard Dean suggests and you know I'm not a Howard Dean fan *laughs* just lower the or get rid of the age restrictions on Medicare altogether, you accomplish the same thing. Then you can actually go about the business of refoming a Dept. that already exists within the Federal Govt. rather than cutting it?

 

[Navy1960]

The problem is as soon as up post CEO compensation and point out that for every million dollars, thousands of people get no hospital treatment. Republicans say, "But this is capitalism". But they are wrong. These guys make nothing, the sell nothing. They just skim money off insurance policies from poor suckers who don't deserve to be treated this way. Then Republicans say, "But it's legal". It's only legal because congress declared it legal. Is it "ethical". Ok, ok, whenever you say, "ethical", Republicans eyes glaze over and they start to yawn. Democrats need to fight this. It's a shame that this is what Republicans support. They truth is, they don't really, They just hate Obama and would see the US brought to it's knees if they thought it would hurt Obama.

Come on Republicans. Tell me how compensation like this is good. And remember, this is only the CEO's. What about all the other executives. Tell us how this is ethical. Come on. We're waiting. Tell us this is what is good for American. Well?

United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil

TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

The nubers may come from a blog, but they are real. I've seen most of these on Forbes and other non partison business sites.

Mad About Medicine: CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis?

$25 MILLION
TOM HANKS

$25 MILLION
WILL SMITH

$20 MILLION
BRAD PITT

$15 MILLION
REESE WITHERSPOON

$20 MILLION
RUSSELL CROWE

$20 MILLION
BEN STILLER

$17 MILLION
JOHNNY DEPP

An inside look at star salaries | Movie News | Movies | Entertainment Weekly | 1


So let me see if I understand this, directed anger on CEO compensation for healthcare companies makes sense while compensation for other industries is okay? See what happens when you use this type of logic? If you are unhappy with the compensation of these executives then there are a few things that can be done. One is you can become a stock holder in the public one's go to the stock holders meetings and vote for board members who will not approve those salaries. Another thing you can do is to advocate that congress regulate those insurance companies that operate from state to state like public utilities and subject compensation to approval. Still another would be jsut simply not to do business with the company you disagree with.

However, I just wanted to make a point here, that people that dare to make something of themselves, and be successful are not evil people regardless of what others may think and should never be held up for ridicule unless they deserve it though their own dishonorable actions which do not include simply being compenstated for the job they do.

 

[Care4all]

While I understand where your going with that Care as part of it bein self-sustaining, where does this department get it's budget from? Where does it pay all the much needed employee's to provide the administration for it and all the infrastructure that will be needed to support it? (taxes) or perhaps reducing Medicare payments to Doctors? Further, then you have this section,

NAVY, I expect MORE from your reading abilities than what you have shown....go get some coffee, sip some, and Let's start over....


SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS.—

•HR 3200 IH

(1)IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner—

OK, so the secretary has to ESTABLISH geographically adjusted insurance PREMIUM RATES


(A) that complies with the premium rules
established by the Commissioner under section
113 for Exchange-participating health benefit
plans;


SO, the public insurance plan HAS TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS that all other private insurance plans on the exchange have to meet...this establishes that they will not be exempt from any of the things our government is applying towards the private insurance plans...

and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of—

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option;

SO, the premiums have to FULLY FINANCE ALL of the health benefits provided by the Insurance Policy that they buy.

and

(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

SO, the premiums have to FULLY PAY FOR ALL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS related to this public option AS WELL.


(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN.—In establishing
premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall include an appropriate amount for a contin17
gency margin.

AND FINALLY, not only does the PREMIUM charged to customers have to cover all the costs of your health care, and all the costs of the administration of that health care, it also has to have a CUSHION of Margin in the premium price set, that would be considered profit under normal terms of business, to set aside to pay for any contingency expenses that may come up SO THAT THE COST OF THIS PLAN, WILL NEVER reach the tax payers.

The ''making insurance mandatory'' IS ANOTHER TOPIC and NOT related to the post I was answering of YOURS and we should NOT MIX up the 2 separate issues imo...

NOW TELL me, are you reneging what you said, that you would support a public option if there was legislation that showed it was self sustaining?

Care

Actually dear I am drinking coffee at this very moment, *laughs* point taken, However you need to read my post too. I said before, get rid of the mandatory part too or did you forget that part? I won't back out on my statement Ms. Care. as for my assesment of the section, while I did read it as to what the Sec. will establish, but where is the Budget section that establishes the working Budget for this Department that congress shall establish? Who pays for the infrastructure to support it? While yes, I believe that the intent is that the permiums collected are to go for the payments of the healthcare costs themselves and thats a good thing, does this actually control the costs themselves? the only way this will work is, this way, is to require Doctors and healthcare providers that participate in Medicare to also take the "public option" see what I mean? So why not do as Howard Dean suggests and you know I'm not a Howard Dean fan *laughs* just lower the or get rid of the age restrictions on Medicare altogether, you accomplish the same thing. Then you can actually go about the business of refoming a Dept. that already exists within the Federal Govt. rather than cutting it?

just and fyi, i am not pleased with this whole bill being mandatory either....

but i am NOT against there being more competition to the Insurance companies...remember i have one insurance company in my state that provides 85% of all insurance policies in the state...the other 15% insured are insured as matt and me, from his employer that operates with a parent company in another state, but it is a very crappy to say the least, policy, that is offered through his work,

I priced a policy with the ONE insurance company in my state, ANTHEM Blue cross blue shield, and it was $25,000 A YEAR FOR MATT AND ME....for a health insurance policy with them with HUGE deductibles as well, as non smokers, and neither of us on any medication....THAT WAS MY ONLY CHOICE on the private market to buy insurance here in Maine.

Remember, the average person in my county makes 17k a year GROSS.

The premiums will established their start up money...if they have 10,000 people paying their initial premium, and 500 of them end up needing care, the premium of the other 9500 people begins to pay for the coverage of the 500 that need it....besides the fact that they take a good 60-90 days before they begin to pay the hospitals or doctors back....y then they will have a few months of premiums in hand before starting to pay the first bill on the 500.

care

 

[WillowTree]

Won't fly. As long as they plan to cut 500 billion from medicare, deny seniors, and give it to illegals it ain't gonna fly. Write it a million times. It won't fly.

 

[Navy1960]

Here is how Care the program will not be self sustaining, Those that cannot afford the "public option" but tax dollars will be collected to help pay for their permiums. Thats just one little hole in that sort of thing. I'm not anti-reform Care you know that, but I am just completely stunned that the democrats have choosen to go about it in this way when they could do so in a manner that would solve this issue and give everyone what they wish, access to affordable quaility healthcare. The other thing that concerns me is the path our nation is on when it comes to spending, and before anyone injects Bush again here, don't think for one moment I approved of what Bush was doing and you know this too Care, because my postings back then when they proposed TARP , I was totally against that too.

 

[WillowTree]

Hatch offered an amendment to prohibit federal dollars from providing abortion. The demoncrats just shot that down. Lying democrats. Lying democrats. It won't fly.

 

[Navy1960]

Whats interesting about this bill in the Senate is it will present many problems on a political level for many Senators if they do vote for it. That may be a reason why the reform itself is turning into a head-banging exercise rather than actual legislation.

 

[rdean]

The problem is as soon as up post CEO compensation and point out that for every million dollars, thousands of people get no hospital treatment. Republicans say, "But this is capitalism". But they are wrong. These guys make nothing, the sell nothing. They just skim money off insurance policies from poor suckers who don't deserve to be treated this way. Then Republicans say, "But it's legal". It's only legal because congress declared it legal. Is it "ethical". Ok, ok, whenever you say, "ethical", Republicans eyes glaze over and they start to yawn. Democrats need to fight this. It's a shame that this is what Republicans support. They truth is, they don't really, They just hate Obama and would see the US brought to it's knees if they thought it would hurt Obama.

Come on Republicans. Tell me how compensation like this is good. And remember, this is only the CEO's. What about all the other executives. Tell us how this is ethical. Come on. We're waiting. Tell us this is what is good for American. Well?

United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil

TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

The nubers may come from a blog, but they are real. I've seen most of these on Forbes and other non partison business sites.

Mad About Medicine: CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis?

$25 MILLION
TOM HANKS

$25 MILLION
WILL SMITH

$20 MILLION
BRAD PITT

$15 MILLION
REESE WITHERSPOON

$20 MILLION
RUSSELL CROWE

$20 MILLION
BEN STILLER

$17 MILLION
JOHNNY DEPP

An inside look at star salaries | Movie News | Movies | Entertainment Weekly | 1


So let me see if I understand this, directed anger on CEO compensation for healthcare companies makes sense while compensation for other industries is okay? See what happens when you use this type of logic? If you are unhappy with the compensation of these executives then there are a few things that can be done. One is you can become a stock holder in the public one's go to the stock holders meetings and vote for board members who will not approve those salaries. Another thing you can do is to advocate that congress regulate those insurance companies that operate from state to state like public utilities and subject compensation to approval. Still another would be jsut simply not to do business with the company you disagree with.

However, I just wanted to make a point here, that people that dare to make something of themselves, and be successful are not evil people regardless of what others may think and should never be held up for ridicule unless they deserve it though their own dishonorable actions which do not include simply being compenstated for the job they do.

Are your crazy? You compare movie stars salaries to CEO's of health care companies? When was the last time you plopped down ten dollars to watch a CEO? At least Movie Stars MAKE SOMETHING! They make movies.

I'm not going to call names. At least a Republican answered with SOMETHING. Usually, when the subject of the legal scam of average Americans by health care and the congress comes up, they nod off, turn over, and go back to sleep.

Republicans have been indoctrinated into not caring what is good for the average American. It's all about abortion, gays and weapons.

 

[Navy1960]

The problem is as soon as up post CEO compensation and point out that for every million dollars, thousands of people get no hospital treatment. Republicans say, "But this is capitalism". But they are wrong. These guys make nothing, the sell nothing. They just skim money off insurance policies from poor suckers who don't deserve to be treated this way. Then Republicans say, "But it's legal". It's only legal because congress declared it legal. Is it "ethical". Ok, ok, whenever you say, "ethical", Republicans eyes glaze over and they start to yawn. Democrats need to fight this. It's a shame that this is what Republicans support. They truth is, they don't really, They just hate Obama and would see the US brought to it's knees if they thought it would hurt Obama.

Come on Republicans. Tell me how compensation like this is good. And remember, this is only the CEO's. What about all the other executives. Tell us how this is ethical. Come on. We're waiting. Tell us this is what is good for American. Well?

United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil

TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

The nubers may come from a blog, but they are real. I've seen most of these on Forbes and other non partison business sites.

Mad About Medicine: CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis?

$25 MILLION
TOM HANKS

$25 MILLION
WILL SMITH

$20 MILLION
BRAD PITT

$15 MILLION
REESE WITHERSPOON

$20 MILLION
RUSSELL CROWE

$20 MILLION
BEN STILLER

$17 MILLION
JOHNNY DEPP

An inside look at star salaries | Movie News | Movies | Entertainment Weekly | 1


So let me see if I understand this, directed anger on CEO compensation for healthcare companies makes sense while compensation for other industries is okay? See what happens when you use this type of logic? If you are unhappy with the compensation of these executives then there are a few things that can be done. One is you can become a stock holder in the public one's go to the stock holders meetings and vote for board members who will not approve those salaries. Another thing you can do is to advocate that congress regulate those insurance companies that operate from state to state like public utilities and subject compensation to approval. Still another would be jsut simply not to do business with the company you disagree with.

However, I just wanted to make a point here, that people that dare to make something of themselves, and be successful are not evil people regardless of what others may think and should never be held up for ridicule unless they deserve it though their own dishonorable actions which do not include simply being compenstated for the job they do.

Are your crazy? You compare movie stars salaries to CEO's of health care companies? When was the last time you plopped down ten dollars to watch a CEO? At least Movie Stars MAKE SOMETHING! They make movies.

I'm not going to call names. At least a Republican answered with SOMETHING. Usually, when the subject of the legal scam of average Americans by health care and the congress comes up, they nod off, turn over, and go back to sleep.

These healthcare companies don't make anything? next time you take a Tylenol which by the way is made by Johnson & Johnson you may want to reconsider that. One more thing you might want to consider here too how many people does Hollywood empoly vs. say the healthcare industry? I would say the several million people that work in the healthcare industry that represents 1/6th of our economy might tend to think that they produce a little more than hollywood does. All that aside, the point was not to compare the two the point was to show when you single out compensation for one industry as somehoe implied to be evil based on a dollar amount then you must use that same logic for every industry including hollywood. I wonder what your thoughts are on a 40 million dollar signing bonus for a NFL Quarterback? See what I mean?

 

[Luissa]

$25 MILLION
TOM HANKS

$25 MILLION
WILL SMITH

$20 MILLION
BRAD PITT

$15 MILLION
REESE WITHERSPOON

$20 MILLION
RUSSELL CROWE

$20 MILLION
BEN STILLER

$17 MILLION
JOHNNY DEPP

An inside look at star salaries | Movie News | Movies | Entertainment Weekly | 1


So let me see if I understand this, directed anger on CEO compensation for healthcare companies makes sense while compensation for other industries is okay? See what happens when you use this type of logic? If you are unhappy with the compensation of these executives then there are a few things that can be done. One is you can become a stock holder in the public one's go to the stock holders meetings and vote for board members who will not approve those salaries. Another thing you can do is to advocate that congress regulate those insurance companies that operate from state to state like public utilities and subject compensation to approval. Still another would be jsut simply not to do business with the company you disagree with.

However, I just wanted to make a point here, that people that dare to make something of themselves, and be successful are not evil people regardless of what others may think and should never be held up for ridicule unless they deserve it though their own dishonorable actions which do not include simply being compenstated for the job they do.

Are your crazy? You compare movie stars salaries to CEO's of health care companies? When was the last time you plopped down ten dollars to watch a CEO? At least Movie Stars MAKE SOMETHING! They make movies.

I'm not going to call names. At least a Republican answered with SOMETHING. Usually, when the subject of the legal scam of average Americans by health care and the congress comes up, they nod off, turn over, and go back to sleep.

These healthcare companies don't make anything? next time you take a Tylenol which by the way is made by Johnson & Johnson you may want to reconsider that. One more thing you might want to consider here too how many people does Hollywood empoly vs. say the healthcare industry? I would say the several million people that work in the healthcare industry that represents 1/6th of our economy might tend to think that they produce a little more than hollywood does. All that aside, the point was not to compare the two the point was to show when you single out compensation for one industry as somehoe implied to be evil based on a dollar amount then you must use that same logic for every industry including hollywood. I wonder what your thoughts are on a 40 million dollar signing bonus for a NFL Quarterback? See what I mean?

health care is the driving force in our economy right now, it pretty much is the only field that is growing right now. If you look in our paper there is three pages just for health care.

 

[rdean]

$25 MILLION
TOM HANKS

$25 MILLION
WILL SMITH

$20 MILLION
BRAD PITT

$15 MILLION
REESE WITHERSPOON

$20 MILLION
RUSSELL CROWE

$20 MILLION
BEN STILLER

$17 MILLION
JOHNNY DEPP

An inside look at star salaries | Movie News | Movies | Entertainment Weekly | 1


So let me see if I understand this, directed anger on CEO compensation for healthcare companies makes sense while compensation for other industries is okay? See what happens when you use this type of logic? If you are unhappy with the compensation of these executives then there are a few things that can be done. One is you can become a stock holder in the public one's go to the stock holders meetings and vote for board members who will not approve those salaries. Another thing you can do is to advocate that congress regulate those insurance companies that operate from state to state like public utilities and subject compensation to approval. Still another would be jsut simply not to do business with the company you disagree with.

However, I just wanted to make a point here, that people that dare to make something of themselves, and be successful are not evil people regardless of what others may think and should never be held up for ridicule unless they deserve it though their own dishonorable actions which do not include simply being compenstated for the job they do.

Are your crazy? You compare movie stars salaries to CEO's of health care companies? When was the last time you plopped down ten dollars to watch a CEO? At least Movie Stars MAKE SOMETHING! They make movies.

I'm not going to call names. At least a Republican answered with SOMETHING. Usually, when the subject of the legal scam of average Americans by health care and the congress comes up, they nod off, turn over, and go back to sleep.

These healthcare companies don't make anything? next time you take a Tylenol which by the way is made by Johnson & Johnson you may want to reconsider that. One more thing you might want to consider here too how many people does Hollywood empoly vs. say the healthcare industry? I would say the several million people that work in the healthcare industry that represents 1/6th of our economy might tend to think that they produce a little more than hollywood does. All that aside, the point was not to compare the two the point was to show when you single out compensation for one industry as somehoe implied to be evil based on a dollar amount then you must use that same logic for every industry including hollywood. I wonder what your thoughts are on a 40 million dollar signing bonus for a NFL Quarterback? See what I mean?

Movies? Football? I'm guessing you are about 14?

Public Citizen | Congress Watch | Congress Watch - Drug Industry Most Profitable Again

Perhaps do some research? Some of those companies do make drugs, but most of them are health care. That means they have no doctors, no nurses, no hospitals, no medicine.

Everything is "licensed", not owned. How you can justify a 100 million dollar salary from a company that makes NOTHING is beyond me. Think. How many insurance policies do you have to skim to take a million dollars? How many surgeries do you deny? Claims cancelled?

 

[Care4all]

Here is how Care the program will not be self sustaining, Those that cannot afford the "public option" but tax dollars will be collected to help pay for their permiums. Thats just one little hole in that sort of thing. I'm not anti-reform Care you know that, but I am just completely stunned that the democrats have choosen to go about it in this way when they could do so in a manner that would solve this issue and give everyone what they wish, access to affordable quaility healthcare. The other thing that concerns me is the path our nation is on when it comes to spending, and before anyone injects Bush again here, don't think for one moment I approved of what Bush was doing and you know this too Care, because my postings back then when they proposed TARP , I was totally against that too.

god almighty navy....affordability credits FOR THOSE TOO POOR to buy it completely on there own is a separate issue AND these people WOULD HAVE THE CHOICE to buy any insurance plan on the exchange...for goodness sakes, what is it about CHOICE that YOU ARE SO AGAINST?

those affordability credits for the poor that come from our taxes can be used on PRIVATE companies insurance IF THEY WANT and if YOU cut out the public option then ALL OF OUR TAX MONIES given to the poor FOR affordability credit, go to lining the pockets of the insurance companies who absolutely do nothing in giving you the medical care one needs, they ONLY PASS PAPER???

DO YOU have a problem with that as well...giving ALL of our tax monies for the poor to them???

you are making no logical sense navy???????????

care

 

[Care4all]

i was against fannie and freddie and bear sterns and aig and TARP bailouts as well...but i am not against health care reform...but i differ from you, i would take the for profit insurance companies out of it...they either become nonprofit private companies or we all go on a medicare plan with the ability to buy supplemental private insurance if we wish...

i would revamp billing to be unified saving billions as well for the hospitals...

did you know that a single hospital like john hopkins has 770 DIFFERENT billing procedures for all the insurances and other plans?

HOW MUCH WASTE is in that which calculates to billions a year for all hospitals?

but if we are to do a plan with insurance, they should be nonprofits imo, they all should be able to cross state lines to compete, and we should be able to pick our own plan off of the exchange and our company contribution should still pay a predetermined amount for it....in addition we need the public option and a coop option, all on the exchange as well...the more choices the better.

 

[Political Junky]

$25 MILLION
TOM HANKS

$25 MILLION
WILL SMITH

$20 MILLION
BRAD PITT

$15 MILLION
REESE WITHERSPOON

$20 MILLION
RUSSELL CROWE

$20 MILLION
BEN STILLER

$17 MILLION
JOHNNY DEPP

An inside look at star salaries | Movie News | Movies | Entertainment Weekly | 1


So let me see if I understand this, directed anger on CEO compensation for healthcare companies makes sense while compensation for other industries is okay? See what happens when you use this type of logic? If you are unhappy with the compensation of these executives then there are a few things that can be done. One is you can become a stock holder in the public one's go to the stock holders meetings and vote for board members who will not approve those salaries. Another thing you can do is to advocate that congress regulate those insurance companies that operate from state to state like public utilities and subject compensation to approval. Still another would be jsut simply not to do business with the company you disagree with.

However, I just wanted to make a point here, that people that dare to make something of themselves, and be successful are not evil people regardless of what others may think and should never be held up for ridicule unless they deserve it though their own dishonorable actions which do not include simply being compenstated for the job they do.

Are your crazy? You compare movie stars salaries to CEO's of health care companies? When was the last time you plopped down ten dollars to watch a CEO? At least Movie Stars MAKE SOMETHING! They make movies.

I'm not going to call names. At least a Republican answered with SOMETHING. Usually, when the subject of the legal scam of average Americans by health care and the congress comes up, they nod off, turn over, and go back to sleep.

These healthcare companies don't make anything? next time you take a Tylenol which by the way is made by Johnson & Johnson you may want to reconsider that. One more thing you might want to consider here too how many people does Hollywood empoly vs. say the healthcare industry? I would say the several million people that work in the healthcare industry that represents 1/6th of our economy might tend to think that they produce a little more than hollywood does. All that aside, the point was not to compare the two the point was to show when you single out compensation for one industry as somehoe implied to be evil based on a dollar amount then you must use that same logic for every industry including hollywood. I wonder what your thoughts are on a 40 million dollar signing bonus for a NFL Quarterback? See what I mean?

The movie stars salaries are not being earned by cheating patients out of healthcare.

 

[Navy1960]

Are your crazy? You compare movie stars salaries to CEO's of health care companies? When was the last time you plopped down ten dollars to watch a CEO? At least Movie Stars MAKE SOMETHING! They make movies.

I'm not going to call names. At least a Republican answered with SOMETHING. Usually, when the subject of the legal scam of average Americans by health care and the congress comes up, they nod off, turn over, and go back to sleep.

These healthcare companies don't make anything? next time you take a Tylenol which by the way is made by Johnson & Johnson you may want to reconsider that. One more thing you might want to consider here too how many people does Hollywood empoly vs. say the healthcare industry? I would say the several million people that work in the healthcare industry that represents 1/6th of our economy might tend to think that they produce a little more than hollywood does. All that aside, the point was not to compare the two the point was to show when you single out compensation for one industry as somehoe implied to be evil based on a dollar amount then you must use that same logic for every industry including hollywood. I wonder what your thoughts are on a 40 million dollar signing bonus for a NFL Quarterback? See what I mean?

Movies? Football? I'm guessing you are about 14?

Public Citizen | Congress Watch | Congress Watch - Drug Industry Most Profitable Again

Perhaps do some research? Some of those companies do make drugs, but most of them are health care. That means they have no doctors, no nurses, no hospitals, no medicine.

Everything is "licensed", not owned. How you can justify a 100 million dollar salary from a company that makes NOTHING is beyond me. Think. How many insurance policies do you have to skim to take a million dollars? How many surgeries do you deny? Claims cancelled?

Forest Labs;
Forest has well-established franchises in the therapeutic areas of the central nervous and cardiovascular systems, and we are always exploring new product opportunities that address a range of health conditions. Our principal brands include Lexapro®(escitalopram oxalate), Namenda®(memantine HCl), Bystolic® (nebivolol), and Savella® (milnacipran HCl).
Forest Laboratories – Innovative Pharmaceutical Therapies

Abbot Labs;

Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) is a diversified pharmaceuticals health care company. It has 72,000 employees and operates in over 130 countries.[1] The corporate headquarters are in Abbott Park, Illinois, located near North Chicago, Illinois.

Abbott Laboratories was founded by Chicago physician Wallace Calvin Abbott in 1888. In 2008, Abbott had over $29 billion in revenue.
Abbott Laboratories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johnson & Johnson;

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) is a global American pharmaceutical, medical devices and consumer packaged goods manufacturer founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune 500. Johnson & Johnson is known for its corporate reputation, consistently ranking at the top of Harris Interactive's National Corporate Reputation Survey,[2] ranking as the world's most respected company by Barron's Magazine,[3] and was the first corporation awarded the Benjamin Franklin Award for Public Diplomacy by the U.S. State Department for its funding of international education programs
Johnson & Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can keep going if you like, but when you post salaries and then try to make them seem showhow bad because they belong to healthcare companies, then further state that they produce no product I might suggest you read what you post. I might also suggest, you try to understand that compensation is the result of what these companies wish to pay their executives regardless of what you may think. One of the reasons I put salaries of Entertainers, and a Football player up there is to show you that your original posting must apply to everyone that makes a high salary if the implication is that people who dare to make something of themselves are somehow evil for doing so. As for your assertion on Insurance companies,...

Aetna;
Aetna, Inc. (NYSE: AET) is an American diversified health insurance company, providing a range of traditional and consumer directed health care insurance products and related services, including medical, pharmaceutical, dental, behavioral health, group life, long-term care, and disability plans, and medical management capabilities. Aetna is a member of the Fortune 100.

United Heatlh;

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated NYSE: UNH is a managed health care and health insurance company. According to its company literature, UnitedHealth Group is a diversified health and well-being company dedicated to making health care work better. Headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, UnitedHealth Group offers a broad spectrum of products and services through seven operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise, OptumHealth, Ingenix, and Prescription Solutions. Through its family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide. In 2008, the company posted a net income of $3 billion


So lets use your logic then , they produce nothing and therefore because they produce nothing executive compensation is somehow evil...

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. paid its chief executive a package with a current value of $23.3 million, the company said in a regulatory filing late Thursday.

Chief Executive Lee Scott's paychecks, bonuses and perquisites, including use of the company's plane, totaled $6.3 million last year. He also received restricted stock and options grants worth $17 million, but potentially more valuable by the time they vest in the next three to seven years
Wal-Mart CEO pay package exceeds $23 million - MarketWatch

At $74 million a year, Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein may be a Wall Street bargain.

The 53-year-old Blankfein caught a lot of flak when Goldman unveiled it had paid him about $314,894 each working day in fiscal 2007. Investors, quickly forgetting that Blankfein had successfully steered Goldman through the subprime storm, producing profits that were the envy of Wall Street, staged a rebellion of sorts. A proposal that would give shareholders a say in CEO pay captured a stunning 43% of the shareholder vote at the investment bank's recent annual meeting. The usually unflappable Blankfein was forced to go on the offensive. Endearing himself to investors, he said he didn't want anyone "less sophisticated" in the financial industry making decisions on his pay.
A $74 Million Bargain - Forbes.com

So whats your real issue here? the fact your a supporter of "single payer" healthcare? great come out and say it then. You don't have to mince words with me or try to make a "see those mean people make too much" argument with me. If you don't like high compensation for companies that do not produce something then have the courage of your convictions and advocate it across the board rather than just the one industry you don't happen to like.

 

[Navy1960]

Here is how Care the program will not be self sustaining, Those that cannot afford the "public option" but tax dollars will be collected to help pay for their permiums. Thats just one little hole in that sort of thing. I'm not anti-reform Care you know that, but I am just completely stunned that the democrats have choosen to go about it in this way when they could do so in a manner that would solve this issue and give everyone what they wish, access to affordable quaility healthcare. The other thing that concerns me is the path our nation is on when it comes to spending, and before anyone injects Bush again here, don't think for one moment I approved of what Bush was doing and you know this too Care, because my postings back then when they proposed TARP , I was totally against that too.

god almighty navy....affordability credits FOR THOSE TOO POOR to buy it completely on there own is a separate issue AND these people WOULD HAVE THE CHOICE to buy any insurance plan on the exchange...for goodness sakes, what is it about CHOICE that YOU ARE SO AGAINST?

those affordability credits for the poor that come from our taxes can be used on PRIVATE companies insurance IF THEY WANT and if YOU cut out the public option then ALL OF OUR TAX MONIES given to the poor FOR affordability credit, go to lining the pockets of the insurance companies who absolutely do nothing in giving you the medical care one needs, they ONLY PASS PAPER???

DO YOU have a problem with that as well...giving ALL of our tax monies for the poor to them???

you are making no logical sense navy???????????

care

Affordability Credits Care are taxes that shoot a massive hole in the self-sustaining aspect of a "public option", it does not mean as I stated above there is not an already available "public option" that can be used without having to create another massive department within the Federal Govt. Please Care not all our taxes go to help Insurance companies and you know it. The poor deserve access to low cost affordable quality healthcare every bit as much as anyone else that can afford it. In order to get there congress has the ability to make that happen without mandates on Citizens. Let's say for a moment I believe these Insurance companies are the boogy man that some of you think they are, then why not direct this legislation at the Insurance companies and start to regulate them rather than citizens? Further, just by creating another duplicate entity within the Federal Govt. i.e. "Public Option" to compete with the Insurance Companies will not do one thing to actually bring down costs. If you want to fix high Insurance costs regulate the Insurers!!. I don't disagree with you for one second and you know it that healthcare costs are too high and they need to be reformed, but this "public option" along with mandates is just a totally moronic way to go about holding these Insurance companies feet to the fire and get to the point where there are affordable choices for the poor.

 

[veritas]

Affordability credits theoretically even out the income of the providers and remove the collection layer from the formula, thus saving everybody money. Billing is a mess, it should be uniform, computerized and easier to understand and check for errors/fraud.

 

[Navy1960]

Affordability credits theoretically even out the income of the providers and remove the collection layer from the formula, thus saving everybody money. Billing is a mess, it should be uniform, computerized and easier to understand and check for errors/fraud.

If your a provider and do not wish to accept those individuals that are on this "public option" because of this evening out of income and look to accept new individuals that have only private healthcare then that basically throws out the window the idea of quailty healthcare unless you somehow mandate that Doctors somehow be made to accept those individuals. It is why it would seem to me that those reforms applied to Medicare or perhaps, as again Howard Dean has suggested regulating Insurance companies as Public Utlities and then mandating those reforms within the Insurance companies then you accomplish the same thing without having to create an entire Govt. Dept. that will regardless of the talk send the deficit number down.