We cannot treat people like cars

[The Rabbi]

Fraud in Medicare is probably much more than in private insurance. That is part of the chimera of efficiency. Private insurers hire investigators to get rid of fraud. The government does not.

Ever hear of the Office of the Inspector General?

If they want to investigate you, they can chose to shut you down completely PRIOR to investigating. No courts, no trials.

Wow. There is so much wrong with that post I couldn't even begin. There isn't enough bandwidth to cover all the false ideas, misstatements and non truths there.

 

[ElmerMudd]

You are a complete ignoramus.
Let's start with what insurance is: it is the pricing of risk. A person who has 5 DUIs, is under 25, drives a Corvette, and lives in LA is going to pay a much higher premium (where he can get auto insurance at all) than someone who is 50 with a perfect record driving a 2004 Chevrolet in Idaho. Everyone understands this.

Similarly, a 50 year old man who is grossly overweight and smokes is far more likely to incur medical expense than someone who is 19 and healthy. In an insurance pool the healthy people will subsidize the unhealthy ones. This is spreading the risk of adverse events around and what makes insurance work. The risks are well known through historical data, and therefore can be priced.

The government has forbidden health insurance companies from dropping people because of claims. So the rhetoric about this is simply wrong. They do drop people because of fraudulant applications. And they cannot raise premiums on a single person because of claims either. Premiums go up as claims within that group go up.

But insurance companies do something government cannot: they can subsidize their operating losses (claims paid versus premiums received) with returns on their invested capital. And indeed many insurers do this, especially when markets are good and they want more "float" on their money. Look at something called the "combined ratio".

But risk is risk. It does not matter who is calculating it, government or private companies. And that risk costs something. So the companies that can be most competitive are those that have lower overhead and good underwriting on policies, as well as controls on claims.
The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.
This is why we will end up with 3rd world substandard care under Obamacare, rather than the dynamic innovative system we have now.

Rabbi, Rabbi, Rabbi you are ignorant

RISK is the biggest variable in insurance. Overhead is a small part. Health Insurance companies look to lower risk any way they can. Insurance companies cannot cancel individuals but they can cancel group policies and they do. TRY BEING A SMALL COMPANY AND GET HEALTH INSURANCE. SMALL POOL HIGH RISK MEANS NO COVERAGE OR VERY HIGH RATES. I know because I own a small business.

T.

This paragraph does not answer any argument I made. Risk is not a variable. Risk is what insurance is. Small pools will tend to have excessive claims because risk is not spread wide enough. And since insurers must insure everyone in the pool, and that includes spouses where they have no control over criteria, yes the pool could underperform their risk assumptions to the point that insuring them is no longer profitable.
But the government will have exactly the same problem. Private business deals with it by dropping coverage or increasing rates. How will government deal with it, being unable to drop coverage?

RISK IS VERY MUCH A VARIABLE. do you know what a variable is. Risk varies between individuals and groups. Risk is the one largest variable any insurance trys to control as best they can but risk continually varies. RISK IS NOT A FIXED COST.

Rabbi, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You can't be serious.

Y'ever stop and think about how many more people ad campaigns employ?

Also, administrative costs aren't the only items on the expense side of the ledger. Like 99% of the arguments for Medical Marxism, the administrative costs angle is intellectually dishonest.

Add to that administrative costs. How many people in the insurance industry are employed in processing paperwork between hospitals and patients denying claims?

Medicare is an extremely efficient operation. Too bad so many republicans are trying to prevent us from enjoying the same benefits

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah.....YOU STUPID ****!!!!!!!!!!
1) Medicare is going bankrupt. The Medicare Trustees estimate that the program will run short of money starting in 2017. Medicare will drown in a sea of red ink, with spending over the next 75 years outpacing dedicated revenues by nearly $38 trillion.
2) Private payers are bailing out Medicare. According to Milliman, an independent actuarial firm, Medicare—and to an even greater extent, Medicaid—underpays doctors and hospitals, shifting costs to private insurers. Milliman estimates that the average family in a private PPO health plan pays an additional $1,788 a year to compensate for underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid, representing a "hidden tax" on commercial payers totaling $89 billion a year.
3) Expansion of entitlement programs threatens our economic security. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf broke the bad news in July. Reform legislation before Congress would worsen the federal government's already bleak budget outlook, increase the deficit, and drive the nation more deeply into debt. Instead of bending the cost curve down, Mr. Elmendorf told senators their reform proposal would "significantly increase" costs
4) Low administrative costs are a mirage. The claim that Medicare's administrative costs are only 3% is fantasy. If all Medicare costs—such as revenue collection, personnel and enforcement—were accounted for, its administrative expenses would be at least twice as high. And it still wouldn't be providing services private insurers do, such as nurse hotlines, decision-support tools and fraud detection, or paying the income, property and provider taxes that private plans must pay.
5) Medicare is rife with fraud. According to the FBI, between 3% and 10% of all health spending is lost to health-care fraud. Despite the president's promise this money could be recaptured to pay for his reform agenda, Congress has shown itself to be remarkably incapable of curtailing fraud and abuse in government health programs.

Medicare Is No Model for Health Reform <br>Grace-Marie Turner and Joseph R. Antos<br>The Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2009

There's your model of efficiency you shit for brains "I want I want I want Me Me Me Me Me " ******* socialist pig!

 

[Mike458877]

The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

I pray that your not in business for yourself and if so, only a one person show, with no employees counting on you!

By the way, how is medicare doing these days?

Go get an education, it will be your salvation.

You cannot compare apples to oranges!

Mike

 

[ElmerMudd]

The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

I pray that your not in business for yourself and if so, only a one person show, with no employees counting on you!

By the way, how is medicare doing these days?

Go get an education, it will be your salvation.

You cannot compare apples to oranges!

Mike

Apples and oranges -what are you talking about.
That is what the healthcare debate is all about, comparing government health plans(medicare is a govt plan) and private insurance plans.

Medicare is covering alot of people at a reasonable rate that private insurance do not want to touch.

Telling someone to get an education from someone who is not educated is ridiculous. You are ridiculous.

 

[Ame®icano]

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

I pray that your not in business for yourself and if so, only a one person show, with no employees counting on you!

By the way, how is medicare doing these days?

Go get an education, it will be your salvation.

You cannot compare apples to oranges!

Mike

Apples and oranges -what are you talking about.
That is what the healthcare debate is all about, comparing government health plans(medicare is a govt plan) and private insurance plans.

Medicare is covering alot of people at a reasonable rate that private insurance do not want to touch.

Telling someone to get an education from someone who is not educated is ridiculous. You are ridiculous.

Describe "reasonable rate".

Is reasonable rate determined by the market or decree?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

I pray that your not in business for yourself and if so, only a one person show, with no employees counting on you!

By the way, how is medicare doing these days?

Go get an education, it will be your salvation.

You cannot compare apples to oranges!

Mike

Apples and oranges -what are you talking about.
That is what the healthcare debate is all about, comparing government health plans(medicare is a govt plan) and private insurance plans.

Medicare is covering alot of people at a reasonable rate that private insurance do not want to touch.

Telling someone to get an education from someone who is not educated is ridiculous. You are ridiculous.

He's right...you do need to get an education...first and foremost...you should learn how to read. I posted a linked that refutes your DNC talking point on Medicare.

 

[chanel]

You can't be serious.

Y'ever stop and think about how many more people ad campaigns employ?

Also, administrative costs aren't the only items on the expense side of the ledger. Like 99% of the arguments for Medical Marxism, the administrative costs angle is intellectually dishonest.

When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare's administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year (see Table 1). This is despite the fact that private-sector "administrative" costs include state health insurance premium taxes of up to 4 percent (averaging around 2 percent, depending on the state)--an expense from which Medicare is exempt--as well as the cost of non-claim health care expenses, such as disease management and on-call nurse consultation services.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, Rabbi, Rabbi you are ignorant

RISK is the biggest variable in insurance. Overhead is a small part. Health Insurance companies look to lower risk any way they can. Insurance companies cannot cancel individuals but they can cancel group policies and they do. TRY BEING A SMALL COMPANY AND GET HEALTH INSURANCE. SMALL POOL HIGH RISK MEANS NO COVERAGE OR VERY HIGH RATES. I know because I own a small business.

T.

This paragraph does not answer any argument I made. Risk is not a variable. Risk is what insurance is. Small pools will tend to have excessive claims because risk is not spread wide enough. And since insurers must insure everyone in the pool, and that includes spouses where they have no control over criteria, yes the pool could underperform their risk assumptions to the point that insuring them is no longer profitable.
But the government will have exactly the same problem. Private business deals with it by dropping coverage or increasing rates. How will government deal with it, being unable to drop coverage?

RISK IS VERY MUCH A VARIABLE. do you know what a variable is. Risk varies between individuals and groups. Risk is the one largest variable any insurance trys to control as best they can but risk continually varies. RISK IS NOT A FIXED COST.

Rabbi, you don't know what you are talking about.

Dumshit, risk is a function of historical information. This is what insurance companies do, gather historical information and price the risk of various events. That makes it controllable. That is the entire point of all insurance--the control of risk.
You have obviously confused insurance with Las Vegas gambling.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Insurance companies purpose is to maximize profits?

And government's purpose is to maximize votes.

We can treat people like cars, in fact the government does.
People, like cars, have a registration number (Social security)
People, like cars, have a make and model (Sex and race)
People, like cars, have a manufactured year (Date of Birth)
People, like cars, get taxed

Sounds like your position is pretty weak.
To say nothing of the idiotic idea that government sponsored health care will somehow work, when every other government social program has failed.

 

[ElmerMudd]

This paragraph does not answer any argument I made. Risk is not a variable. Risk is what insurance is. Small pools will tend to have excessive claims because risk is not spread wide enough. And since insurers must insure everyone in the pool, and that includes spouses where they have no control over criteria, yes the pool could underperform their risk assumptions to the point that insuring them is no longer profitable.
But the government will have exactly the same problem. Private business deals with it by dropping coverage or increasing rates. How will government deal with it, being unable to drop coverage?

RISK IS VERY MUCH A VARIABLE. do you know what a variable is. Risk varies between individuals and groups. Risk is the one largest variable any insurance trys to control as best they can but risk continually varies. RISK IS NOT A FIXED COST.

Rabbi, you don't know what you are talking about.

Dumshit, risk is a function of historical information. This is what insurance companies do, gather historical information and price the risk of various events. That makes it controllable. That is the entire point of all insurance--the control of risk.
You have obviously confused insurance with Las Vegas gambling.

Risk ANALYSIS is based on historical data. Actual risk never follows historical data exactly, with individuals or groups.
Real world risk is a variable. That is why profitability in insurance companies varies.

Rabbi, you are an absolute idiot

 

[Contumacious]

Insurance companies purpose is to maximize profits.

?

Mr Dumbass, Sir:

The Politicians purpose is POWER, money and fame.

Stupid and gullible ***** like you make their job so easy.

.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Insurance companies purpose is to maximize profits.

?

Mr Dumbass, Sir:

The Politicians purpose is POWER, money and fame.

Stupid and gullible ***** like you make their job so easy.

.

Are you and the Rabbi living together.
What are you talking about?
You disagree that a private insurance company's purpose is to maximize profits. That is not a criticism, idiot.
I do not totally disagree with your assessment of politicians.
You seem to be arguing with your self, idiot.

I am not for a total government health plan. But government is part of our current plan and will be part of a future plan. Insurance companies do not argue with that but you and Rabbi do.

Absolute idiots.

 

[The Rabbi]

RISK IS VERY MUCH A VARIABLE. do you know what a variable is. Risk varies between individuals and groups. Risk is the one largest variable any insurance trys to control as best they can but risk continually varies. RISK IS NOT A FIXED COST.

Rabbi, you don't know what you are talking about.

Dumshit, risk is a function of historical information. This is what insurance companies do, gather historical information and price the risk of various events. That makes it controllable. That is the entire point of all insurance--the control of risk.
You have obviously confused insurance with Las Vegas gambling.

Risk ANALYSIS is based on historical data. Actual risk never follows historical data exactly, with individuals or groups.
Real world risk is a variable. That is why profitability in insurance companies varies.

Rabbi, you are an absolute idiot

And having government manage this risk instead is going to help, how exactly?

 

[midcan5]

Interesting thread, some time ago America changed from America to this place we now have. I'm not sure what to call it. We seem, as a country, to have lost our moral compass and greed took over. Does prosperity bring selfishness. I was thinking of all the killings recently and wondered what part of our culture causes freedom and individuality to end up in murder!

Bill Maher: When Did Making a Profit Become the Only Reason to Do Anything? | PEEK | AlterNet

'It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Not anymore.'

 

[ElmerMudd]

Dumshit, risk is a function of historical information. This is what insurance companies do, gather historical information and price the risk of various events. That makes it controllable. That is the entire point of all insurance--the control of risk.
You have obviously confused insurance with Las Vegas gambling.

Risk ANALYSIS is based on historical data. Actual risk never follows historical data exactly, with individuals or groups.
Real world risk is a variable. That is why profitability in insurance companies varies.

Rabbi, you are an absolute idiot

And having government manage this risk instead is going to help, how exactly?

The government is not managing risk.

The government is insuring high risk pools that the private insurance companies would prefer not to.
By the govt absorbing the high risk pools, the private insurance companies have less total risk and can charge their clients lower premiums.

 

[The Rabbi]

Risk ANALYSIS is based on historical data. Actual risk never follows historical data exactly, with individuals or groups.
Real world risk is a variable. That is why profitability in insurance companies varies.

Rabbi, you are an absolute idiot

And having government manage this risk instead is going to help, how exactly?

The government is not managing risk.

The government is insuring high risk pools that the private insurance companies would prefer not to.
By the govt absorbing the high risk pools, the private insurance companies have less total risk and can charge their clients lower premiums.

If that were true the insurance companies would be jumping all over this. But it is not. One of them (I forget which) released a study showing that rates would climb dramatically under the plan.
And what is "high risk"?? If what you say were true then the gov't would not be prohibiting exclusions based on prior history or current condition, which they are.
And if the gov't is providing insurance then by definition they are managing risk. Of course they cannot invest the float off their premiums like insurance companioes do so they cannot subsidize premiums with investment return, like insurance companies do.

In all I suspect (know, actually) that you do not understand this bill and what is actually does, nor do you understand how insurance actually works.
I'd suggest reading up on both topics.

 

[Navy1960]

I had the opportunity to read the thread and the title caught my attention. The only thing that comes to mind after reading the the thread authors original post is this, if we cannot treat people like cars and private insurance is bad, why then mandate insurance like a car? Perhaps because you want to spread the Risk around like a private insurance company does to offset the high-risk individuals that will come into the system? I find it interesting to say the least that someone would on the one hand make the case that private insurance is bad and then turn around and try to advocate for a system that treats people EXACTLY LIKE CARS. That being said, I don't think many would disagree that both healthcare itself and the insurance industry can use a little reform, but tell me as no one has yet been able to. How do you reform these two industries by creating another entity that does nothing but put people into them. I made this anology once before, and will make it again, this whole helathcare reform bill is rather like owning a company that is insolvent and going to bank ( i.e. China) and getting a massive L.O.C. Then once approved rather than fix the issues with your company you start a new one that does exactly the same thing as the old one does with more people, and more overhead all in attempt to call yourself successful.

 

[ElmerMudd]

And having government manage this risk instead is going to help, how exactly?

The government is not managing risk.

The government is insuring high risk pools that the private insurance companies would prefer not to.
By the govt absorbing the high risk pools, the private insurance companies have less total risk and can charge their clients lower premiums.

If that were true the insurance companies would be jumping all over this. But it is not. One of them (I forget which) released a study showing that rates would climb dramatically under the plan.
And what is "high risk"?? If what you say were true then the gov't would not be prohibiting exclusions based on prior history or current condition, which they are.
And if the gov't is providing insurance then by definition they are managing risk. Of course they cannot invest the float off their premiums like insurance companioes do so they cannot subsidize premiums with investment return, like insurance companies do.

In all I suspect (know, actually) that you do not understand this bill and what is actually does, nor do you understand how insurance actually works.
I'd suggest reading up on both topics.

Rabbi,

The government is currently insuring the high risk pools. That is before any health reform.
The government insures the high risk pools through medicaid and medicare.
Our tax dollars are subsidizing the private insurance companies right now.
By eliminating the high risk individuals from the private inurance company pools allows the private insurance companies to be more profitable.

Healthcare reform would include bringing lower risk individuals into the government insurance pools.
The private insurance companies want to keep all the low risk individuals but they are all for the government taking all of the high risk individuals.

 

[Oddball]

All of which follows the fallacious premise that the only or best way to pay for medical services is via a third party....Which is sheer bunk.