Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...day-halleluja/

    I hope this is correct, I hope it does come to pass. It has to get past the notoriously biased political Republican supreme court and it can probably be undone with a repeal vote by Congress, but if it holds Americans might actually get the level of medical security that the people of every other industrialized nation in the world have enjoyed for decades.

  • #2
    Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

    And another thing. The statistics. The private insurance companies are abandoning the market because they can't make a profit at a 20 % overhead rate, if the writer is correct. Wow, and Social Security and Medicare run at about 1.5 % overhead. What an incredible lie the American people have been fed about private industry always "doing it cheaper and better". In some cases, sure, no doubt about it, but health care is clearly not one of those cases. You do not need profit margins built into the cost of health care for parasitic paper shufflers who do NOTHING related to health care.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

      Interesting, but AFAIK, the only difference between for-profit and non-profit organizations is that for-profit pays stock holders.

      So what we'll be seeing is investors going somewhere else.

      As far as I can tell with a few minutes of searching, HMSA is a non-profit organization. So this will change the face of health care how?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

        Heading toward single payer. Much lower overhead, a lot fewer exclusions, lower premiums.

        I am suspicious of the TV ads for "free" diabetes blood test devices and power wheel chairs. Free if covered by medicare. Knowing that Congress (Republican) denied medicare the right to bargain for lower prices from the pharmaceutical industry as a result of pharmaceutical industry lobbying (bribes actually) I would be surprised if medicare is getting a good price on these 'free' devices. Maybe it is but that is not how our system works.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

          Originally posted by Kalalau View Post
          Heading toward single payer.

          The operative word is "heading". Maybe. I re-read that article and the comments by the author. It's clear that in the author's opinion, this law won't create single payer systems, but rather just thin out the for-profit insurance companies. But if HMSA is a non-profit, how does this change anything? What percentage does HMSA currently spend?


          Originally posted by Kalalau View Post
          Much lower overhead, a lot fewer exclusions, lower premiums.
          In theory, the most efficient business is a monopoly. The problem is that monopolies rarely have any incentive to be efficient. I don't see single payer as any guarantee of low rates.


          Originally posted by Kalalau View Post
          I am suspicious of the TV ads for "free" diabetes blood test devices and power wheel chairs. Free if covered by medicare. Knowing that Congress (Republican) denied medicare the right to bargain for lower prices from the pharmaceutical industry as a result of pharmaceutical industry lobbying (bribes actually) I would be surprised if medicare is getting a good price on these 'free' devices. Maybe it is but that is not how our system works.
          Huh? You say you want single payer, but dislike how the government is running the "insurance" practice they currently control. How will single-payer be any different?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

            Actually I like the gvt. running its insurance @ 1 1/2 % overhead, I do not like companies marketing what I suspect to be overpriced equipment with expensive TV campaigns and telling people its "free". Its not. No free lunches, no free diabetes monitors, no free motorized wheel chairs. If a person really needs it, no problem, but the whole purpose of TV advertising is to create demand. No other reason to advertise. Are the products over priced to Medicare? Maybe, maybe not, it just kind of smells. You have to be making a substantial profit to afford that much advertising. Money Medicare spends on overpriced equipment that people don't actually need is money that is not available for something more needed but not as glamorized with expensive glitzy advertising campaigns. Medicare can work but it needs to be protected from being ripped off.

            If HMSA is not for profit it probably is running at under 20 % overhead already. It is not an unreasonable regulation to require 80 % of fees paid for something to actually pay for that thing. Kind of like expecting a charity you donate money to to actually spend it helping save those babies or those whales or puppies or whatever cause you donated for, not build lavish estates for executives.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

              Trying to implement health care exploded in the Clinton lap some time ago.
              The business of sickness is very profitable.
              One is tempted to say that "one can't fight city hall".
              Tammany Hall.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

                Originally posted by Kalalau View Post
                I do not like companies marketing what I suspect to be overpriced equipment with expensive TV campaigns and telling people its "free". Its not. [...] Are the products over priced to Medicare? Maybe, maybe not, it just kind of smells. You have to be making a substantial profit to afford that much advertising.
                I get that you don't like it. But what would you propose to do to change it?

                I suspect that the government at some point sets a price for those devices and the manufacturers discovered that they could produce it for less, thus a sizable profit.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

                  Exactly! If you factor in the fraud, waste and abuse, I doubt the government's 'overhead' would come out to less than 30%. Also, those 'paper shufflers' are not 'doing nothing' to earn their cut - they're accepting the risk of losing money - that's what insurance is and it's not nothing. The government doesn't concern itself with risk of capital or profitability, so its 'overhead' can appear amazingly small when it is actually unsustainably large.
                  Last edited by salmoned; December 5, 2011, 09:12 AM.
                  May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

                    Paper shufflers = insurance form coding, it runs on at least 2 levels, 2 levels of employees, profits, costs, all added in to the cost of an insurance claim and all unnecessary. Some of the big shots of the insurance companies have drawn compensation over $500 million. Like those charities you donate to, where the honchos live in luxurious mansions and the starving kids get a hell of a lot less than they should be. The stat I have repeatedly heard is Social Security and Medicare run at 1.5 % overhead. No big shot execs to pay, no stockholders, standardized forms mean you do not need levels of claim form coding. I can believe 1.5% but even if its 10 times that much its still running cheaper than private insurance.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

                      Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                      Exactly! If you factor in the fraud, waste and abuse, I doubt the government's 'overhead' would come out to less than 30%. Also, those 'paper shufflers' are not 'doing nothing' to earn their cut - they're accepting the risk of losing money - that's what insurance is and it's not nothing. The government doesn't concern itself with risk of capital or profitability, so its 'overhead' can appear amazingly small when it is actually unsustainably large.

                      What is your source for this "information", other than opinion?
                      Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                      People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

                        Originally posted by Kalalau View Post
                        The stat I have repeatedly heard is Social Security and Medicare run at 1.5 % overhead.
                        While initially impressive, describing it as a percentage hides what the cost of the whole program is. The overhead could be low because they do little to look for fraud and simply cut a check. Isn't that what encourages the "free for medicare" scooters?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

                          Originally posted by matapule View Post
                          What is your source for this "information", other than opinion?
                          To what information are you exactly referring? The definition of insurance, my low-ball estimate of actual government 'overhead' or some other aspect of the post you have chosen to quote? I know you can source information as well as any of us, why not just do it and save the banter? I've given my viewpoint and that's all I'm interested in offering here and now. You can set the terms of my further involvement in this thread during salary negotiations.
                          May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

                            administrative cost is what we are talking about, ~ 1.5 % for the gvt. agencies, over 20 % for the private ones. Gvt. does not bundle layers of bill coders with multiple layers of profit, rent, insurance, etc, a motorized wheel chair or diabetes meter would not count in administrative cost for either a private or public insurance company. If a gvt. agency works out of a gvt. building it doesn't even pay business rent. Of course you do not have top hot shot execs with their mansions, their yachts, their private islands, their corporate jets, you have gvt. employees drawing salaries you or I or other ordinary human beings might get. Lets get over standing up for the billionaires, we are not they, they are not us, they have too much money now anyway, that is one of the biggest reasons the economy is so bad now, its way overtime to bring the economy back into balance.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: An Interesting Take On "Obamacare"

                              Originally posted by Kalalau View Post
                              over 20 % for the private ones.
                              Have you seen a source for that one? Again, the thing that started this thread was for-profit insurance companies.

                              And the percentage may not be a valid comparison. Since Medicare is for the over 65 and the under-65 that is permanently disabled, I would expect them to pay out much more per person covered then general private insurance which is more likely working class families with normal health issues.

                              Do you have a overhead figure for Medicaid? It seems like that would be a more comparable program.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X