Health Care

[loserbob 11]

Bamablond1, dont take offense to anything i say on the political boards please. I understaand what you mean about unwed couples. I had a friend years ago who got a woman pregnant and they wouldnt marry because she could collect welfare and his income didnt affect it. (Hes a gunhugger and hates blacks,probably rep,not sure haha)I dont think there are to many moral people in politics,dems or rep. or any other. I think theyre all out to serve their own agendas. If the citizens benefit in the meantime its a plus and the party in control looks good. I dont understand rep. though, on the radio they where talking about Brown like he was going to do something wrong because he was a model in the past.(it was a caller to Beck)It was a big victory like i already said,rep., just enjoy it now.Like i explained before im an independant who votes for the candidate who i believe helps me the most. I was mainly concerned with healthcare during the election and am very upset because i know there will be no change now. There are also alot of issues i disagree with ,biggest being diplomacy towards iran. I dont agree with obama at all.( just letting you know i am not an obama worshiper). I liked Mcain as a person(of course i dont know him personally)but i knew healthcare wasnt in the future with a rep. I do wish we could have joined Mcain and Obama in some magical way, i would be happy.

[loserbob 11]

Im not asking nor do i want free healthcare(ie free handouts). I would just like to come out ahead for all the time i invest into my business. People who never ran a business have no idea. Even at home im working on office etc. The current healthcare system does not "afford" me the opportunity. When the begining of every month rolls around and there is an $1800.00 a month healthcare bill,before any other business expenses(gas alone costs 50 a day). Im not asking anyone to read this and say"now i see your point i feel bad for you". I chose to do thus. Im just giving my point of view to let you know why i feel so strongly about it.Im sure we all have our own problems.

[Bamablondie1 0]

Im not asking nor do i want free healthcare(ie free handouts). I would just like to come out ahead for all the time i invest into my business. People who never ran a business have no idea. Even at home im working on office etc. The current healthcare system does not "afford" me the opportunity. When the begining of every month rolls around and there is an $1800.00 a month healthcare bill,before any other business expenses(gas alone costs 50 a day). Im not asking anyone to read this and say"now i see your point i feel bad for you". I chose to do thus. Im just giving my point of view to let you know why i feel so strongly about it.Im sure we all have our own problems.

I hear you and I do empathize with a lot of ... actually most of... what you say. Again, I can not stress enough that we do need changes to our insurance system so that it is more affordable for people in such situations as yours. The small business people have no good options right now. However, I feel like the reform is all wrong. If they would just open the competition and allow people to cross state lines when buying insurance and do it much like the auto insurance system we have.

Perfect example, I have friends with an autistic child and they can't find a good insurance in our state that covers any part of (what some might deem) exploratory therapy to treat such child. Some other states have much more available to a family in such situation.

Also, I have a friend that is a diabetic and can't find a full-time job to get coverage through an employer. She works part-time and in many other states could get Medicaid, but not here.

These are perfect examples of people that are doing all the right things and not asking for a handout but can't get adequate coverage and at least one of them probably still wouldn't under the proposed reform.

Then there's the self-employed and small business owner.

It really does just bite huh?

[BJean 16]

Well my goodness, you don't have any problem straightening people out who have differeing views from yours, eh? And here I thought I had a monopoly on that. You seem to think you know a thing or two also. Amazing. (I'm kidding.)

Of course you have every right to your own thoughts on the issues. I merely voiced my own opinion. You don't have to get so defensive. I'm sure you read stuff and have exposure to medical treatment just like everybody else. And of course you've read the proposed legislation and know why it would be so bad for all Americans.

But the last thing I think I can do, or want to do, is crawl inside your head. It is quite enough to read your big, blue emphasized print.

You say you understand the need for changing the health care system. I believe you have elsewhere even given some examples of people you know who would like to cross state lines to get better insurance. But you don't want THIS particular change. So enlighten me. Tell me exactly what your team proposes to improve things. Yeah, I know. Whatever it is, don't touch the insurance industry except for possibly allowing people to go across state lines to get it.

Why do so many people think that it is quite acceptable for the insurance industry to manage their health care down to the very last pill they need?

Blondie: It really does just bite huh?

Yeah, well that's enlightening. What do you want congress to do?

Edited January 21, 2010 by BJean

[Bamablondie1 0]

Well my goodness, you don't have any problem straightening people out who have differeing views from yours, eh? And here I thought I had a monopoly on that. You seem to think you know a thing or two also. Amazing. (I'm kidding.)

Of course you have every right to your own thoughts on the issues. I merely voiced my own opinion. You don't have to get so defensive. I'm sure you read stuff and have exposure to medical treatment just like everybody else. And of course you've read the proposed legislation and know why it would be so bad for all Americans.

But the last thing I think I can do, or want to do, is crawl inside your head. It is quite enough to read your big, blue emphasized print.

It's not blue, it's purple.

You say you understand the need for changing the health care system. I believe you have elsewhere even given some examples of people you know who would like to cross state lines to get better insurance. But you don't want THIS particular change. So enlighten me. Tell me exactly what your team proposes to improve things. Yeah, I know. Whatever it is, don't touch the insurance industry except for possibly allowing people to go across state lines to get it.

Team? I don't have a team. Do you have a 'team'? Sadly, I've honestly yet to hear a plan outline from a single political (or otherwise) person that I liked from A-Z, I'm sure most of us can agree with that. Is it b/c we are so distracted by the looming bad-to-worse scenario that we are facing now? Ultimately I think options are best for everyone. What is great for me may really suck for you. Ten people can easily need 10 different plans.

Why do so many people think that it is quite acceptable for the insurance industry to manage their health care down to the very last pill they need?

I view the insurance companies as a big portion of the issue for most of us. Speaking of a monopoly, I think that they surely have us all cornered. Perhaps (again) competition would alleviate that part of the problem. Holy heck we agree on something!!! )

Blondie: It really does just bite huh?

Yeah, well that's enlightening. What do you want congress to do?

That's it, I don't want congress to do anything except allow for interstate competition. Imagine the lobbyist wars over that!

Please, let me GO AHEAD and acknowledge that I DO realize this won't solve everything but I think it's a darn good start!

There also needs to be a better system for dealing with illegals and people who choose not to have insurance.

So... now that we've (sorta) covered that... how do you feel about a flat tax?!?! Bwahahaha Anybody else?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This is why selling health insurance across state lines is a bad idea: Sellers would flock to the state with the fewest regulations to the detriment of consumers:

Basically, what health insurance companies can and can't do right now is restricted by state (and sometimes local, but that usually only happens in large market cities) regulation. Now, insurance (and health care in general) is a business. Business needs to make money. The problem is that it's also something people need, and economically, it just doesn't make sense to pour millions/billions into small, rural, low-pop states. To encourage companies to provide services in these areas, states give them all sorts of handouts - either out and out grants, tax abatements, or friendly malpractice etc laws. Those monopolies in state medical insurance the Right likes to complain about? Those are usually what is called "natural monopolies", because usually the legal/economic climate does not justify a lot of competition.

The problem with allowing these companies to sell to whomever is twofold. One, it allows health insurance companies to short-circuit the legal environment of the "foreign" state. For example, most states have laws against usury. Usury is painted as bad going all the way back to the Bible. It's defined as charging too much interest on loans. However, since you can now get a credit card (for example) across state lines, all of the credit card companies have moved to the state with the laxest regulation - North Dakota. This is why you are lucky to get 1.5% on a savings account, but can be charged 30% APR on your credit card. That would probably be illegal in your state but WELP CROSS STATE CREDIT.

Two, it essentially short circuits the legislative process for the entire country. If the only laws that matter are those in the home state, then other states can't do anything to solve it, and since the federal government will have basically said "no" to fixing it, that leaves only those host states with any clout. Since the host state is probably not going to want to lose the jobs etc the now-captive industry gives, you get stuck with it.

When this sort of stuff happens, essentially it's a race to the bottom as far as regulation goes, which is NOT good for consumers. In North Dakota's case, .2% of the US population gets to decide the credit card rates of the entire nation. Which isn't exactly democratic.

It's bad enough when it's just money on the line; health care is people's lives.

Also, most conservatives & republicans are states rights advocates. Each state sets medicaid guidelines. If you want the federal government to determine medicaid eligibility for all 50 states, then write your congressman and senator to give this power to the federal government and take it away from the states.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

News Flash: Death Panels are real!!!

But they have nothing to do with the government, they are brought to you courtesy of the health insurance industry.

A family discovered that their 2 year old son had cancer and he received treatment for which his health insurance company, Health America, paid for.

He did well and it went into remission but returned. When it returned it was suggested by his doctor that he receive a certain medication. Health America refused.

Other medical professionals provided evidence that this drug could help this little boy but the committee from Health America refused and said their decision was final and the only recourse was for the family to sue.

So, they did. So now, in additonal to the stress and difficulties of taking care of a critically ill little boy, this family must now use their limited resources of both time and money and deal with a lawsuit. This is time & money they could be using for their family and son.

So, the INSURANCE COMPANY CAME BETWEEN THE DOCTOR AND HIS PATIENT AND BECAME THE REAL DEATH PANEL IN DENYING WHAT COULD BE A LIFE SAVING DRUG.

NOT THE GOVERNMENT - THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[BJean 16]

If someone doesn't have a problem like this family, they usually are skeptical that this kind of story really happens. They happen all too frequently. And people lose everything sometimes, when they're trying to take care of a critically ill loved one.

When you hear criticism of countries that have universal health care, it boggles the mind. By comparison, we seem absolutely barbaric.

[pattygreen 5]

News Flash: Death Panels are real!!!

But they have nothing to do with the government, they are brought to you courtesy of the health insurance industry.

A family discovered that their 2 year old son had cancer and he received treatment for which his health insurance company, Health America, paid for.

He did well and it went into remission but returned. When it returned it was suggested by his doctor that he receive a certain medication. Health America refused.

Other medical professionals provided evidence that this drug could help this little boy but the committee from Health America refused and said their decision was final and the only recourse was for the family to sue.

So, they did. So now, in additonal to the stress and difficulties of taking care of a critically ill little boy, this family must now use their limited resources of both time and money and deal with a lawsuit. This is time & money they could be using for their family and son.

So, the INSURANCE COMPANY CAME BETWEEN THE DOCTOR AND HIS PATIENT AND BECAME THE REAL DEATH PANEL IN DENYING WHAT COULD BE A LIFE SAVING DRUG.

NOT THE GOVERNMENT - THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

So, your answer to that would have been to let the government be the one to come between him and the patient instead? Did you really think that the government is going to be any different at insuring you? There is no doubt problems with insurance companies occur all the time. That is not the reason people were opposed to gov. public option ins. We don't want the government having full control of All the ins., cause that is where it would have went in the end. I know you don't like to look down the road and see the future, you are like a lot of liberals who just live in the here and now, but eventually with the public option, ALL people, EVERYONE, would be on the plan, and there would have been no other options. Then the only way to afford it would be to cut benefits, cause we certainly can't afford to raise taxes anymore. We would then be in the same situation as the boy with the ins. company. The gov. would deny his medication as well. No. The answer to the ins. problems was not to let the government run things. That's why they're NOT going to. The people knew better and let them know that they were not going to tolerate such an idea. Now, let's let that President of ours scratch that one and start over right this time, with many of the ideas that were put forth, that he denies were put forth, by the republicans. Tort reform, (which he would not even consider because the lawyers funded his campaign and he owes them), purchasing ins. across the borders, regulations for ins. companies to follow, etc. Real reform, not socialism, or a government take of all the insurance companies.

[loserbob 11]

This is from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review Today 2-12-10. This paper known as a "right wing paper". Report: 5 insurers profits jump 56%. Liberal group finds 12.2B leap as 2.7m lose health coverage! Combined profits of 5 leading insurers up 56% from 2008!(Well Point inc.,Unitedhealth,Cigna, Etna, Humana)." 3 of the 5 cut the proportion of premiums spent on their customers medical care, committing more to salaries, admin. expenses, and profi"! Anthem Blue Cross in Calif. raising premiums 39% this year (Well Point, Anthem BC said more like 20%)how generous! Well Point made 4.7b profit last year! Growing numbers of companies dropping healthcare for employees! 3 out of 4 people think we need reform! Another poll in rep. paper. National security,Approve Obama,52%,disapprove 42%, Whom do you trust, Obama 37%, Reps. 33% dont know 30%(margin for error 3.5%). 920 people polled, 767 registered voters. Rep. or dem. its black and white, we need change lets get it done. These polls wont be found on Beck, Hannity, Rush.

[loserbob 11]

Why do you throw the word "socialism" around so freely, Ill tell you why, To scare people. True socialism is complete takeover by government. They havent taken over GM, AIG, etc. like you reps. say they did. They gave them money to help them succeed. Because they recemend these compnies change what wasnt working doesnt constitute takeover. Banks dont give out loans to everyone who wants one, (supposedly) to people who are responsible enough to pay them. Obamas not running these companies, hes asking them to be more responsible so we dont go through this again, big difference! Reps. used these words to scare. Theyre like salesmen, i took a sales class when i worked for Roto Rooter, they tell you to use certain words used to work off peoples emotions. thats exactly what the reps., actually ill be fair here, all politicians do. Learn what socialism means before youy use it so freely, this country isnt close to socialism!

[loserbob 11]

Ya patty, you can see into the future. You should work in the oil or energy industry, you would be a good at rasing prices now by speculating the future costs. Dems. are such bad , evil people who just want to hurt this country. This kind of talk just sounds so rediculous, to say dems. only think of the now. Again you give opinions of yours like they are the facts. Why are these polls still in favor of Obama? Why did he get voted as pres. because most people agree with his views and ideas. It just cracks me up how you guys are so sure you have the answers when they havent worked over the last 8 years and now its Obamas fault. Well you should shift your tactics because they havent worked and as much as you spew hatred towards Obama and dems. it isnt working. Im seeing a theme here when it comes to reps., status quo on everything. I dont understand, if it doesnt work(Bush, rep. policies), then try something else.

[loserbob 11]

I heard on the radio today,(Duquesne Light, I believe a local power co.) Talking about a totally different topic than economy, While on another subject, saying the economy is picking up, and is better than last year. Also the jobs grew and the unemployment rate fell(Which goes hand in hand)biggest jump in awhile. Something is working. It just takes time which reps. arent willing to give because they are about politics first. Think about it, if Obama gets us out of this mess, what would it do for the dem. party and to the rep. party? Well the reps. will try at every turn to make sure it doesnt happen!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

So, your answer to that would have been to let the government be the one to come between him and the patient instead? The government runs medicare and medicaid, two hugely popular programs. If they were denying coverage like the private insurance industry does, why would it be so popular? It's because they don't and the recipients support these programs. Did you really think that the government is going to be any different at insuring you? Yes, again, medicare is popular. There is no doubt problems with insurance companies occur all the time.You call denying a sick child a drug that might save his life a "problem" - that's not a problem that's murder!!! That is not the reason people were opposed to gov. public option ins. We don't want the government having full control of All the ins., cause that is where it would have went in the end. You keep saying this despite all evidence I have posted to the contrary. Saying it doesn't make it true and it isn't. The public supports the public option knowing that it is the only way to keep health insurance costs down.I know you don't like to look down the road and see the future, you are like a lot of liberals who just live in the here and now, but eventually with the public option, ALL people, EVERYONE, would be on the plan, and there would have been no other options.Once again, even if that were to happen (which it wouldn't) that would be GREAT! Did you read about the HUGE profits made by the health insurance industry last year and how they are spending less on each customer's health care and more on administrative? The government program would be non-profit and spend more on the person. Then the only way to afford it would be to cut benefits, cause we certainly can't afford to raise taxes anymore. The public option wouldn't be free. People would pay premiums. We would then be in the same situation as the boy with the ins. company. The gov. would deny his medication as well. No. The answer to the ins. problems was not to let the government run things. That's why they're NOT going to. The people knew better and let them know that they were not going to tolerate such an idea.Wrong again. The public option was always a popular part of the healthcare reform. People objected when it was taken out and to other parts of the bill that favored the insurance industry. Now, let's let that President of ours scratch that one and start over right this time, with many of the ideas that were put forth, that he denies were put forth, by the republicans. Tort reform, (which he would not even consider because the lawyers funded his campaign and he owes them),Wrong! Tort reform was in the senate bill. purchasing ins. across the borders, Wrong again! It was in the senate bill. regulations for ins. companies to follow, etc. Real reform, not socialism, or a government take of all the insurance companies.

You can only post your opinions, I however post facts.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Top health insurers turned big profit in '09

Industry criticizes report's approach

Friday, February 12, 2010

By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- As the nation struggled last year with rising health care costs and a recession, the five largest health insurance companies racked up combined profits of $12.2 billion -- up 56 percent over 2008, according to a new report by liberal health care activists.

Based on company financial reports for 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the report said insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Cigna Corp., Aetna and Humana Inc. covered 2.7 million fewer people than they did the year before.

The report Thursday also said three of the five insurers cut the proportion of premiums they spent on their customers' medical care, committing relatively more to salaries, administrative expenses and profits.

Prepared by Heath Care for America Now, a coalition of liberal advocacy groups and labor unions, the report was aimed at bolstering the drive by Democrats to complete work on a health care overhaul, which insurers have opposed.

Industry representatives on Thursday criticized the report's approach, pointing out that 2008 was a bad year financially across many industries, skewing the 2009 comparison.

"It is disingenuous to look at the profits at one company today compared to where it was in the depth of a recession," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm.

The company 2009 profits are nonetheless intensifying pressure on an industry already under attack for raising premiums and denying coverage to millions of Americans.

"That's why we need health insurance reform today in this country, and why we are going to continue in the Congress to work on this until we see it through," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a leading advocate of the health legislation being pushed by Capitol Hill Democrats.

In California, Anthem Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint, is facing growing scrutiny over its decision to raise premiums for individual health insurance policies by as much as 39 percent this year for some consumers.

WellPoint defended the rate increase in a letter Thursday to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, saying the rising rates reflect soaring medical costs and will average closer to 20 percent for most customers.

WellPoint also said Anthem's individual business in California lost money in 2009, as the weak economy prompted many customers to switch to lower-cost options. The company did not say how much Anthem lost.

Indianapolis-based WellPoint as a whole posted a profit, recording net income of more than $4.7 billion in 2009, thanks in part to the sale of its NextRx pharmacy benefit management business, which accounted for roughly half the company's profit. That put WellPoint's profit margin at 7.3 percent, the highest of the five big insurers. Margins at the other four ranged from 3.4 percent for Louisville, Ky.-based Humana to 7.1 percent for Philadelphia-based Cigna.

Other sectors of the health care industry, including pharmaceutical companies and device makers, typically are more profitable. But the insurance industry's improving financial fortunes is drawing more criticism because all but one of the companies achieved the better results at the same time they lost customers.

WellPoint shed nearly 1.4 million customers, a 3.9 percent drop over 2008, according to its filings. And Cigna lost 5.5 percent of its customers, or 639,000 people. Only Aetna, which also was the only company whose profits decreased from 2008, gained new customers, picking up an additional 1.2 million people, an increase of 6.9 percent.

Soaring profits, fewer customers, less spent on customers and more on administrative cost.

You wouldn't see these headlines or articles about a government run healthcare program because it wouldn't happen. And that's why we need one.

But of course there are those who advocate for big corporations and the insurance industry who will defend these obscene profits.

I advocate for the patients and for people.