PDA

View Full Version : Why Obamacare will make US health care more expensive and less effective



Peter1469
12-24-2012, 06:50 AM
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/12/22/healthcare-system.aspx?e_cid=20121222_PRNL_art_2

The author argues that Obamacare will cause costs to rise and does nothing to improve health care.

Red Green
12-24-2012, 07:25 AM
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/12/22/healthcare-system.aspx?e_cid=20121222_PRNL_art_2

The author argues that Obamacare will cause costs to rise and does nothing to improve health care.

One major flaw here and that is the use of the word "will"

Seen as premiums have been RISING STEADILY since the passage I believe that Obamacare has ALREADY raised costs

Despite costs ALREADY RISING I will concede that they WILL continue to rise as the bill is fully enacted

And every passing week till 2014 we will learn more shocking details about disaterous provisions in the bill

But remember they had to pass the bill to find out whats in it but the damage has already begun

Peter1469
12-24-2012, 07:29 AM
True

Red Green
12-24-2012, 07:37 AM
True

But I thought it was about making healthcare more affordable

Gosh they couldve fooled me our premiums have RISEN 35% in the last few years yet no major problems just the normal checkups and perscriptions

I wonder how much higher they will be when Obamacare is fully enacted

Captain Obvious
12-24-2012, 10:10 AM
This is the thing about Obama Care - nobody knows how it's going to work or if it's going to work. There are a lot of opinions out there on what it will do but when you draft legislation that works on the fundamental of future drafted legislation, you basically have nothing but an easel and canvass.

Peter1469
12-24-2012, 10:33 AM
If the law was 2000 pages, how long will the regulations be?

Captain Obvious
12-24-2012, 10:40 AM
Who knows.

And I'm not sure anyone, legislators that is, really knows how to deal with healthcare costs. I think they understand the problems but there is a political aspect of this process that legislators are not in arms length to deal with.

Tort reform for example, considering our legislation is made up of trial attorneys who are backed by bar associations, they will be very hesitant to consider tort reform. This is a clear conflict especially when we consider that states that have undergone tort reform have experienced significant reductions in healthcare costs.

The other agenda driven phenomenon is the single payer system. Commercial payers (the Aetna's and Blue Cross's of the world) are under attack because the process is designed to veer toward single payer.

Peter1469
12-24-2012, 10:48 AM
Another issue is modern American medicine. It is great for acute conditions and trauma but not so good with chronic problems. If American medicine would focus more on preventative care much of the chronic problems could be avoided.

KC
12-24-2012, 11:56 AM
I think one of the big problems with the current system is the incentive for employers to provide insurance. When people get their insurance from an employer they don't shop for what they personally want from a plan. If people shopped for their own plans more, they could choose cheaper plans that only cover risks to their wealth (such as expensive, unexpected costs). Also, loss of employment wouldn't result in loss of insurance, which helps to solve the problem of preexisting conditions.

The idea that health care and health insurance cannot function without the government isn't self evident, so I'm skeptical about Obamacare because it doesn't address the root of the problem.

roadmaster
12-24-2012, 02:04 PM
Looks like we will know soon.

Chris
12-24-2012, 04:03 PM
Many problems but the OP hones in on one, government waste.


A recent review of U.S. healthcare expenses by the Institutes of Medicine1 revealed that 30 cents of every dollar spent on medical care is wasted, adding up to $750 billion annually. To get an understanding of how much money three-quarters of a trillion dollars really is, take a look at the video below.

If you think it's bad now, just wait until the Affordable Health Care Act gets implemented. There's nothing to prevent the wastefulness already inherent in the current Medicare and Medicaid system.

I suspect the more government manages healthcare the worse it will get.

lynn
01-19-2013, 09:15 AM
Healthcare fee schedules are determined by the individual insurance companies. All of the top 5 insurance companies are making billions in profits at the expense of raising premiums and reducing benefits. They also spend millions in lobbying and campaign donations to their favorite senators so they can do what they want. Please do your homework before stating this is not true.

Obamacare will not work and it is already creating an environment for the health insurance companies to capitalize on that is nothing short of being totally unethical and it would have been criminal if they had not paid off our politicians. Everyone wants to blame healthcare for rising costs when that couldn't be farther from the truth. I repeat, how can healthcare be responsible for rising costs when the allowable fees are determined by the contracted insurance company?

Captain Obvious
01-19-2013, 09:36 AM
Healthcare fee schedules are determined by the individual insurance companies. All of the top 5 insurance companies are making billions in profits at the expense of raising premiums and reducing benefits. They also spend millions in lobbying and campaign donations to their favorite senators so they can do what they want. Please do your homework before stating this is not true.

Obamacare will not work and it is already creating an environment for the health insurance companies to capitalize on that is nothing short of being totally unethical and it would have been criminal if they had not paid off our politicians. Everyone wants to blame healthcare for rising costs when that couldn't be farther from the truth. I repeat, how can healthcare be responsible for rising costs when the allowable fees are determined by the contracted insurance company?

Sort of...

Couple of observations though. Commercial insurance companies are going to model their fee schedules on Medicare fee schedules, so essentially Medicare sets the bar in this aspect. Commercial fee schedules are also negotiable. Trust me on that, I'm negotiating several commercial and a Blue Cross contract now.

Another observation is - commercial payers are basically the profit margin for healthcare providers. Providers lose money on Medicaid and breaking even on Medicare is a realistic target.

The biggest observation is profit margin for all payers. If commercial payers are the profit margin for providers - meaning that they pay the highest reimbursement for services which they do, then Care and Caid are making money hand over fist, and assuming that - where is it going?

What is not discussed enough is healthcare costs. A lot of the talk is about who's making what in the market, but why are we among the highest cost in healthcare delivery and also among the lowest in outcomes?

I have several theories on that, but I'll leave it here for now.

Welcome to the forum, btw - glad you're here.

Peter1469
01-19-2013, 09:41 AM
Healthcare fee schedules are determined by the individual insurance companies. All of the top 5 insurance companies are making billions in profits at the expense of raising premiums and reducing benefits. They also spend millions in lobbying and campaign donations to their favorite senators so they can do what they want. Please do your homework before stating this is not true.

Obamacare will not work and it is already creating an environment for the health insurance companies to capitalize on that is nothing short of being totally unethical and it would have been criminal if they had not paid off our politicians. Everyone wants to blame healthcare for rising costs when that couldn't be farther from the truth. I repeat, how can healthcare be responsible for rising costs when the allowable fees are determined by the contracted insurance company?

First, welcome to tPF.


I repeat, how can healthcare be responsible for rising costs when the allowable fees are determined by the contracted insurance company?

Because the cost schedules are not the only reason health care costs are rising. The risk of tort litigation (a mixed issue), the tendency to spend large sums in the last 6 months of life, and the avoidance of preventive care by mainstream health providers all add to costs.

Health care premiums are going up faster than normal because Obamacare implements controls over future increases in costs. So yes, they are trying to get as much profit as possible now, and see how long they can stay in business as regulatory controls start to squeeze more and more. Eventually, the insurers will be forced out of business and the US will get a single payer system.

lynn
01-19-2013, 10:19 AM
Yes you are correct most if not all do model Medicare's fee schedule which do not pay very well. If a healthcare provider wants to have a business they must contract with these insurance companies and while they can negotiate the fee allowable, it is still more in favor of the insurance company. If you look up profits made by the 5 top insurance companies and their activities of how they are doing record profits, it is criminal.

The total charges by healthcare providers, less then half is allowable by the insurance companies and out of that allowable they actually pay very little since most individuals now are subject to high deductibles. This is where we have the lowest in outcomes because people can no longer afford healthcare with insurance from their employers.

For example, my husband's company according to his W-2 paid out in healthcare costs 10,000 for 2012. Our medical expenses for the year totaled $6822.25, the insurance company allowed $3499.54. The insurance company for the year paid $374.74. I am responsible for the balance due to high deductible. My insurance company profited off of us alone for 2012 $9,626.26. We didn't receive any medical care the 4 years prior so the insurance company in total profited for the last 5 years totaling $49,626.26.

The health insurance companies are doing nothing for us anymore and are robbing the economy blind. Get rid of them and you will see a big decrease in costs from the healthcare field.

lynn
01-19-2013, 10:28 AM
What reason does the insurance justify in raising premiums due to the impending Affordable Care Act? Obamacare should really only affect to expand AHCCCS programs and they would now be in a position to make a profit since all must pay mandatory premiums where as before they didn't. Insurance companies will continue to rape the masses in profits as long as they are able to pay lobbyist and senators contributions. Most of them are already working in the global market so if it does come down to a one payor system they will move overseas.

lynn
01-19-2013, 10:30 AM
I have a $1200 laboratory bill and the insurance company allowed $89.00 which the provider had to write the balance off due to contract. They clearly do not pay the highest reimbursement.

Captain Obvious
01-19-2013, 10:32 AM
Yes you are correct most if not all do model Medicare's fee schedule which do not pay very well. If a healthcare provider wants to have a business they must contract with these insurance companies and while they can negotiate the fee allowable, it is still more in favor of the insurance company. If you look up profits made by the 5 top insurance companies and their activities of how they are doing record profits, it is criminal.

Sort of...

Keep in mind insurers want to be in the market also and providers have to agree by contract for insurers members to be in that network.

There was an interesting confrontation with a big commercial payyer and a large hospital system in (I think it was) Mass. The hospital system refused to contract with the commercial and kept their members out of that system. The hospital eventually relented on this one though. A similar standoff happened between Highmark Blue Cross and UPMC in Pittsburgh not too long ago, and it's still going on to a degree. Highmark is now entering into the provider business with an ongoing merger with WPAHS, UPMC's virtually only competitor. It's an interesting and dangerous twist, IMHO.


The total charges by healthcare providers, less then half is allowable by the insurance companies and out of that allowable they actually pay very little since most individuals now are subject to high deductibles. This is where we have the lowest in outcomes because people can no longer afford healthcare with insurance from their employers.

I would question the "half" aspect, I'm not sure that's accurate. Regardless, it's really immaterial when you look at the over-all reimbursement which is pretty good, all things considered.

Keep in mind, virtually no payer pays 100% of charges at face value. They're discounted. Providers typically receive 50% to 75% of billed charges.


For example, my husband's company according to his W-2 paid out in healthcare costs 10,000 for 2012. Our medical expenses for the year totaled $6822.25, the insurance company allowed $3499.54. The insurance company for the year paid $374.74. I am responsible for the balance due to high deductible. My insurance company profited off of us alone for 2012 $9,626.26. We didn't receive any medical care the 4 years prior so the insurance company in total profited for the last 5 years totaling $49,626.26.

The health insurance companies are doing nothing for us anymore and are robbing the economy blind. Get rid of them and you will see a big decrease in costs from the healthcare field.

All plans are different and it sounds like you have a high deductible plan. I don't know what your health situation is (nor am I asking), but it sounds like you are a somewhat high user of healthcare and in many or most plans, high users will often pay a large chunk of the bill. Unless you're lucky enough to work for the gubmint and have one of those rich benefit plans.

My family is a very low-end consumer of healthcare, we have few medical bills. For a while there when I was traveling and doing consulting gigs, I had a family insurance plan with Aetna or someone like that which I paid for out of pocket. Set the deductible at 10 grand or something like that, it was basically a major medical plan.

lynn
01-19-2013, 10:35 AM
Many problems but the OP hones in on one, government waste.



I suspect the more government manages healthcare the worse it will get.

Yes, you are correct on that but it already is with our multi-payer system we have now. The profit margin for all healthcare insurance companies should be law that they can't make over a certain percentage that is reasonable so they are forced to pay more to healthcare providers. This in return will lower healthcare costs in charges billed.

Captain Obvious
01-19-2013, 10:35 AM
I have a $1200 laboratory bill and the insurance company allowed $89.00 which the provider had to write the balance off due to contract. They clearly do not pay the highest reimbursement.

You're extrapolating one encounter to the entire population. Assuming that ALL medical encounters pay the same way is inaccurate.

Lab along with radiology are reimbursed at such that these two areas are basically what keep most hospitals doors open, they pay very well. Unlike inpatient services.

lynn
01-19-2013, 10:38 AM
Sort of...

Keep in mind insurers want to be in the market also and providers have to agree by contract for insurers members to be in that network.

There was an interesting confrontation with a big commercial payyer and a large hospital system in (I think it was) Mass. The hospital system refused to contract with the commercial and kept their members out of that system. The hospital eventually relented on this one though. A similar standoff happened between Highmark Blue Cross and UPMC in Pittsburgh not too long ago, and it's still going on to a degree. Highmark is now entering into the provider business with an ongoing merger with WPAHS, UPMC's virtually only competitor. It's an interesting and dangerous twist, IMHO.



I would question the "half" aspect, I'm not sure that's accurate. Regardless, it's really immaterial when you look at the over-all reimbursement which is pretty good, all things considered.

Keep in mind, virtually no payer pays 100% of charges at face value. They're discounted. Providers typically receive 50% to 75% of billed charges.

I am not a high user of healthcare services, I never used it until this year when I had to get bloodwork, a mammogram, an ultrasound of my uterus and a trip to the emergency room for chest pain which turned out to be nothing. Providers typically receive less then 50% of charges billed. i know I worked in medical claims for the past 25 years.



All plans are different and it sounds like you have a high deductible plan. I don't know what your health situation is (nor am I asking), but it sounds like you are a somewhat high user of healthcare and in many or most plans, high users will often pay a large chunk of the bill. Unless you're lucky enough to work for the gubmint and have one of those rich benefit plans.

My family is a very low-end consumer of healthcare, we have few medical bills. For a while there when I was traveling and doing consulting gigs, I had a family insurance plan with Aetna or someone like that which I paid for out of pocket. Set the deductible at 10 grand or something like that, it was basically a major medical plan.

lynn
01-19-2013, 10:41 AM
I have worked for several different healthcare providers over the years and I can assure you that reimbursement sucks across the board.

lynn
01-19-2013, 10:43 AM
My husband works for Wells Fargo Bank and we have a $3000 annual deductible, we are in our 50's so our premiums cost more.

Captain Obvious
01-19-2013, 10:46 AM
I have worked for several different healthcare providers over the years and I can assure you that reimbursement sucks across the board.

In what capacity?

I disagree with the "across the board" comment. I'm a CFO at a hospital, if I could get my payer mix to be 100% Blue Cross and commercial, I'd have more money than I'd know what to do with.

My payer mix is typical though, maybe 10% Medicaid, 45% Medicare, roughly 8% self pay and the rest Blues and commercial and this mix is just enough for me to barely keep the doors open. So in this respect, reimbursement in general is sucky, but the Blues and commercial are what keep us afloat.

Medicare is always the wildcard and every year us CFO's have stiff sphincters on what Congress will do with Medicare reimbursement. Programs like EHR, sole community, DSH and Medicare dependent are always on the chopping block.

Captain Obvious
01-19-2013, 10:48 AM
DSH (disproportionate share) is technically a Medicaid program but it's federally funded. I lump this into the Medicare Russian roulette game they play every year.

Peter1469
01-19-2013, 12:22 PM
Yes you are correct most if not all do model Medicare's fee schedule which do not pay very well. If a healthcare provider wants to have a business they must contract with these insurance companies and while they can negotiate the fee allowable, it is still more in favor of the insurance company. If you look up profits made by the 5 top insurance companies and their activities of how they are doing record profits, it is criminal.

The total charges by healthcare providers, less then half is allowable by the insurance companies and out of that allowable they actually pay very little since most individuals now are subject to high deductibles. This is where we have the lowest in outcomes because people can no longer afford healthcare with insurance from their employers.

For example, my husband's company according to his W-2 paid out in healthcare costs 10,000 for 2012. Our medical expenses for the year totaled $6822.25, the insurance company allowed $3499.54. The insurance company for the year paid $374.74. I am responsible for the balance due to high deductible. My insurance company profited off of us alone for 2012 $9,626.26. We didn't receive any medical care the 4 years prior so the insurance company in total profited for the last 5 years totaling $49,626.26.

The health insurance companies are doing nothing for us anymore and are robbing the economy blind. Get rid of them and you will see a big decrease in costs from the healthcare field.

Why not dump your current plan for catastrophic coverage?

Peter1469
01-19-2013, 12:24 PM
What reason does the insurance justify in raising premiums due to the impending Affordable Care Act? Obamacare should really only affect to expand AHCCCS programs and they would now be in a position to make a profit since all must pay mandatory premiums where as before they didn't. Insurance companies will continue to rape the masses in profits as long as they are able to pay lobbyist and senators contributions. Most of them are already working in the global market so if it does come down to a one payor system they will move overseas.

Sure they will get more customers, but they also will have to accept people with existing conditions. It is like forcing a home insurer to write a policy after a fire started. Obamacare also phases in limits on increasing premiums. That is why they are going over board now.

Captain Obvious
01-19-2013, 09:48 PM
Why not dump your current plan for catastrophic coverage?

It almost sounds like that's what she has already to some degree - a high deductible plan.

For heavy users of healthcare, a catastrophic plan would be financially catastrophic.

Peter1469
01-19-2013, 09:53 PM
It almost sounds like that's what she has already to some degree - a high deductible plan.

For heavy users of healthcare, a catastrophic plan would be financially catastrophic.

Without going back and looking at her plan, she paid more in premiums than they used by a significant factor. Under a true catastrophic plan, her premiums should have been lower and she would have paid her costs out of pocket. If she got hit by a bus, her insurance would have taken over.

Captain Obvious
01-19-2013, 09:59 PM
Without going back and looking at her plan, she paid more in premiums than they used by a significant factor. Under a true catastrophic plan, her premiums should have been lower and she would have paid her costs out of pocket. If she got hit by a bus, her insurance would have taken over.

OK - gotcha, I'm thinking a catastrophic plan is one with a high deductible.

Peter1469
01-19-2013, 11:53 PM
OK - gotcha, I'm thinking a catastrophic plan is one with a high deductible.

Yes, just higher than hers. Like $10K for a family of 4. Everything above that is gratis.

lynn
01-20-2013, 08:09 AM
In what capacity?

I disagree with the "across the board" comment. I'm a CFO at a hospital, if I could get my payer mix to be 100% Blue Cross and commercial, I'd have more money than I'd know what to do with.

My payer mix is typical though, maybe 10% Medicaid, 45% Medicare, roughly 8% self pay and the rest Blues and commercial and this mix is just enough for me to barely keep the doors open. So in this respect, reimbursement in general is sucky, but the Blues and commercial are what keep us afloat.

Medicare is always the wildcard and every year us CFO's have stiff sphincters on what Congress will do with Medicare reimbursement. Programs like EHR, sole community, DSH and Medicare dependent are always on the chopping block.


When I began working in the Healthcare Field, PPO's and HMO's were brand new and I warned the Physicians then if they did not act, these programs would eventually dictate their practices. I feel sorry for you in your position as a CFO and all of the headaches you have with reimbursement especially Medicare. In Az many practices stay in business are very dependent on Medicare payments and over the years it keeps getting less and then while our government is taking more and more out of these funds and spending it elsewhere.

However, we have AHCCCS in our state and do very little Medicaid and believe or not they are better payers on our codes then most of the insurance companies out there. It is a good idea for all hospitals and Physicians to become actively involved in politics before they are reduced to bankruptcy. I see this coming in the very near future with the increasing corruption in record breaking profits for healthcare insurance companies. The insurance companies will not lose since they are currently expanding to the global market, just as all major corporations have already done.

I believe that Obamacare was actually a response to a large percentage of Americans who lost their jobs due to company downsizing and this also reduce the number of healthy people in that company that were once employed by them that insurance companies make their most profit on. The insurance companies are actively involved in lobbying and making contributions to their very politicians that can create laws for their benefit.

It is not a coincidence that the need for mandatory healthcare is an issue. It is due to the massive number of corporations that took their business to a global market and left most Americans behind. This effected the healthcare insurance companies profits by taking away their gravy premiums. People that are young and rarely have the need for medical services but had worked for a large corporation that paid insurance premiums on them which is all easy profit for insurance companies.

Just like the housing market that manipulated the rules so they could cash in one last time before the impact of massive job loss became evident to the masses, so are the healthcare insurance companies that know this country is heading into a massive economic disaster. This whole system is filled with power hungry greedy parasites that is hell bent on bankrupting America and they are doing a great job right now.

Our taxes are being spent on the latest and greatest medical research so it benefits the wealthy leaving the majority of citizens unable to afford it. If that doesn't piss you off, I don't know what will.

Peter1469
01-20-2013, 02:22 PM
When I began working in the Healthcare Field, PPO's and HMO's were brand new and I warned the Physicians then if they did not act, these programs would eventually dictate their practices. I feel sorry for you in your position as a CFO and all of the headaches you have with reimbursement especially Medicare. In Az many practices stay in business are very dependent on Medicare payments and over the years it keeps getting less and then while our government is taking more and more out of these funds and spending it elsewhere.

However, we have AHCCCS in our state and do very little Medicaid and believe or not they are better payers on our codes then most of the insurance companies out there. It is a good idea for all hospitals and Physicians to become actively involved in politics before they are reduced to bankruptcy. I see this coming in the very near future with the increasing corruption in record breaking profits for healthcare insurance companies. The insurance companies will not lose since they are currently expanding to the global market, just as all major corporations have already done.

I believe that Obamacare was actually a response to a large percentage of Americans who lost their jobs due to company downsizing and this also reduce the number of healthy people in that company that were once employed by them that insurance companies make their most profit on. The insurance companies are actively involved in lobbying and making contributions to their very politicians that can create laws for their benefit.

It is not a coincidence that the need for mandatory healthcare is an issue. It is due to the massive number of corporations that took their business to a global market and left most Americans behind. This effected the healthcare insurance companies profits by taking away their gravy premiums. People that are young and rarely have the need for medical services but had worked for a large corporation that paid insurance premiums on them which is all easy profit for insurance companies.

Just like the housing market that manipulated the rules so they could cash in one last time before the impact of massive job loss became evident to the masses, so are the healthcare insurance companies that know this country is heading into a massive economic disaster. This whole system is filled with power hungry greedy parasites that is hell bent on bankrupting America and they are doing a great job right now.

Our taxes are being spent on the latest and greatest medical research so it benefits the wealthy leaving the majority of citizens unable to afford it. If that doesn't piss you off, I don't know what will.


Just like the housing market that manipulated the rules so they could cash in one last time before the impact of massive job loss became evident to the masses, so are the healthcare insurance companies that know this country is heading into a massive economic disaster. This whole system is filled with power hungry greedy parasites that is hell bent on bankrupting America and they are doing a great job right now.

Bingo, just don't forget that government is either the biggest culprit, or in 2nd place.

lynn
01-21-2013, 11:49 AM
Sure they will get more customers, but they also will have to accept people with existing conditions. It is like forcing a home insurer to write a policy after a fire started. Obamacare also phases in limits on increasing premiums. That is why they are going over board now.


They are going overboard in premiums hikes purely out of greed. They won't have to accept pre-existing conditions, they will cap it, because the government has issued waivers to them so they are exempt from Obamacare's rules. All the healthcare insurance supported Obamacare and they paid lobbyist and paid contributions to politicians so they can make the last big profit out of America.

Peter1469
01-21-2013, 12:32 PM
They are going overboard in premiums hikes purely out of greed. They won't have to accept pre-existing conditions, they will cap it, because the government has issued waivers to them so they are exempt from Obamacare's rules. All the healthcare insurance supported Obamacare and they paid lobbyist and paid contributions to politicians so they can make the last big profit out of America.


That is sort of what I said. They are grabbing everything that they can before they will be capped.

nic34
01-21-2013, 12:47 PM
Like I said before many times, support single payer.... get the insurance co's out of profiting on Americans' health.

Chris
01-21-2013, 12:50 PM
They are going overboard in premiums hikes purely out of greed. They won't have to accept pre-existing conditions, they will cap it, because the government has issued waivers to them so they are exempt from Obamacare's rules. All the healthcare insurance supported Obamacare and they paid lobbyist and paid contributions to politicians so they can make the last big profit out of America.

Ain't our corrupt government just grand?!?!?

Chris
01-21-2013, 12:51 PM
Like I said before many times, support single payer.... get the insurance co's out of profiting on Americans' health.

Because socialist solutions like that don't work.

nic34
01-21-2013, 01:05 PM
Except in most every other industrialized country but here....

Spending per capita on healthcare, which hit $7,960 in 2009, also far exceeded that of even some of the richest countries in Western Europe. France, Belgium and Britain spent less than half what the U.S. did per person.

Unlike all but two other industrialized countries, American healthcare is mostly privately financed, although public spending on health has been growing steadily.

But because the nation’s healthcare tab is so high, government spending per capita is still higher in the U.S. than in every other industrialized country except Norway and the Netherlands.
Even governments in countries with single-payer or socialized systems such as Canada and Britain spent less per-capita on healthcare than government in the US.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/news/la-heb-health-spending-20110630

Chris
01-21-2013, 01:33 PM
Except in most every other industrialized country but here....

Spending per capita on healthcare, which hit $7,960 in 2009, also far exceeded that of even some of the richest countries in Western Europe. France, Belgium and Britain spent less than half what the U.S. did per person.

Unlike all but two other industrialized countries, American healthcare is mostly privately financed, although public spending on health has been growing steadily.

But because the nation’s healthcare tab is so high, government spending per capita is still higher in the U.S. than in every other industrialized country except Norway and the Netherlands.
Even governments in countries with single-payer or socialized systems such as Canada and Britain spent less per-capita on healthcare than government in the US.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/news/la-heb-health-spending-20110630

Doctor shortages, long wait times, etc--why not tell us all the shortcoming of those socialist systems.

We pay more for better healthcare.

Cigar
01-21-2013, 01:36 PM
Doctor shortages, long wait times, etc--why not tell us all the shortcoming of those socialist systems.

We pay more for better healthcare.


I haven't had any problems seeing my Doctor whenever I want ... is this more $6.00 per/gal scare tactics.

nic34
01-21-2013, 03:24 PM
We pay more for better healthcare.

while 30 - 40 million go without... that's BETTER?

lynn
01-21-2013, 04:18 PM
Except in most every other industrialized country but here....

Spending per capita on healthcare, which hit $7,960 in 2009, also far exceeded that of even some of the richest countries in Western Europe. France, Belgium and Britain spent less than half what the U.S. did per person.

Unlike all but two other industrialized countries, American healthcare is mostly privately financed, although public spending on health has been growing steadily.

But because the nation’s healthcare tab is so high, government spending per capita is still higher in the U.S. than in every other industrialized country except Norway and the Netherlands.
Even governments in countries with single-payer or socialized systems such as Canada and Britain spent less per-capita on healthcare than government in the US.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/news/la-heb-health-spending-20110630


They want you to believe the healthcare tab is too high but how could it be since it is the insurance companies that dictate what they pay and for how much per contract. In order for providers of healthcare to have a business they must be contracted with the insurance company. The insurance companies including Medicare don't want the masses to focus on their greedy shortcomings so the media always puts it on healthcare costs.

nic34
01-21-2013, 04:26 PM
Great reasons for getting the insurance co's out the business of "providing healthcare"... if you want hi-dollar care, you are welcome to buy additional insurance...

Peter1469
01-21-2013, 05:42 PM
Like I said before many times, support single payer.... get the insurance co's out of profiting on Americans' health.

Without a profit margin, there is no incentive to get better in service and procedure.

Peter1469
01-21-2013, 05:46 PM
Great reasons for getting the insurance co's out the business of "providing healthcare"... if you want hi-dollar care, you are welcome to buy additional insurance...

That is where we will likely end up. That will be good for those who can (and want) afford the better coverage.

I am thinking about going to catastrophic coverage. Low cost, but I pay out of pocket unless I get cancer, hit by a bus, or something really expensive. I have some pre- existing conditions, but they aren't costly. And under Obamacare, if I do get an expensive illness, I can then buy a traditional policy, no questions asked.

lynn
01-21-2013, 06:04 PM
Without a profit margin, there is no incentive to get better in service and procedure.


Sure a profit margin is reasonable but wouldn't you say paying a CEO of United Healthcare $49 million in salary per year excessive? In 2010 they paid $458,000 in contributions to State Senators and 2.0 million for lobbying in 2009. Just adding up these figures could easily reduce premiums but they won't.

Peter1469
01-21-2013, 06:15 PM
Sure a profit margin is reasonable but wouldn't you say paying a CEO of United Healthcare $49 million in salary per year excessive? In 2010 they paid $458,000 in contributions to State Senators and 2.0 million for lobbying in 2009. Just adding up these figures could easily reduce premiums but they won't.

On the CEO salary: The answer is maybe. How much money did the CEO make for UH? The typical answer in the legal world is your salary should be 1/3 of what you bring in via profits. One third goes to pay your salary, one third goes into the kitty for the partners, and 1/3 goes to expand the business.

So I can't answer your question. If the CEO is losing money, or not bringing in at least ~$150M in profits, then no, his salary is excessive.