Why won't a company switch to government health care? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 06-23-2009, 08:08 PM

If you watched Obama's news conference today, he didn't really answer this question. And I'm wondering why? Is it because they want most people to go to a government program?

Here is the transcript of the question:

Quote:

QUESTION: And, while I appreciate your Spock-like language about the logic of the health care plan and the public plan, it does seem logical to a lot of people that if the government is offering a cheaper health care plan, then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for-profit, unlike private plans, and may, possibly, benefit from some government subsidies, who knows.

And then their employees would be signed up for this public plan, which would violate what you're promising the American people, that they will not have to change health care plans if they like the plan they have.

So...

PRES. OBAMA: OK. You're pitching; I'm catching.

QUESTION: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

PRES. OBAMA: I got the question.

First of all, was the reference to Spock, is that a crack on my ears?

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: No.

PRES. OBAMA: All right. I just wanted to make sure. No?

QUESTION: Never make fun of you (inaudible).

PRES. OBAMA: In answer to David's question, which you co-opted, we are still early in this process. So, you know, we have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are under-insured. You know, those are the broad parameters that we've discussed.

There are a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion, and I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early to say that.

Right now, I will say that our position is that a public plan makes sense.

Now, let me go to the -- the broader question you made about the public plan. As I said before, I think that there is a legitimate concern, if the public plan was simply eating off the taxpayer trough, that it would be hard for private insurers to compete.

If, on the other hand, the public plan is structure in such a way where they've got to collect premiums and they've got to provide good services, then, if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they're doing their best to serve their customers, that they're in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete.

Now, if it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly, then you know what, I'd like the insurance companies to take note and say, hey, if the public plan can do that, why can't we?

And that's good for everybody in the system. And I don't think there should be any objection to that.

Now, by the way, I should point out that part of the reform that we've suggested is that, if you want to be a private insurer as part of the exchange, as part of this marketplace, this menu of options that people can choose from, we're going to have some different rules for all insurance companies, one of them being that you can't preclude people from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. You can't cherry-pick and just take the healthiest people.

So there are going to be some ground rules that are going to apply to all insurance companies. Because I think the American people understand that, too often, insurance companies have been spending more time thinking about how to take premiums and then avoid providing people coverage than they have been thinking about how can we make sure that insurance is there; health care is there when families need it.

But, you know, I'm confident that, if -- you know, I take those advocates of the free market to heart when they say that, you know, the free market is innovative and is going to compete on service and is going to compete on, you know, their ability to deliver good care to families.

And if that's the case, then this just becomes one more option. If it's not the case, then I think that that's something that the American people should know.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, but what about keeping your promise to the American people that they won't have to change plans even if employers...

(CROSSTALK)

PRES. OBAMA: Well, all right -- when I say if you have your plan and you like it, and your doctor has a plan -- or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.

Now, are there going to be employers right now, assuming we don't do anything -- let's say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, "Oh, this is not the time to do health care. We can't afford it. It's too complicated. Let's take our time," et cetera.

So let's assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there's the possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they're not going to end up having the same health care they have. Because what's going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions. We've got to raise premiums on our employees. In some cases, we can't provide health insurance at all.

And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That's exactly why health reform is so important.

While he kind of answered the question with the fact that employers could drop coverage to reduce costs and let people figure out what to do on their own (and pay the full cost), but I'm wondering how many companies would switch to a nationalized health care system if they have to pay nothing (or could pass the amount off in higher prices)? President Obama kind of skirted this important question. Why would my company pay $350/month (I pay $80/month) to cover myself (I'm healthy)? If the non-profit government plan came along, how much would that be? Even if they did treat everyone? Is that the plan? To take the same amount of money that is going to the private for-profit insurers and use it to treat everybody? Is this going to add needed competition to compete against the insurance cartel (they monitor each other to 'set' prices and won't undercut their competition)

Would the government be able to run a non-profit healthcare agency better than the for-profit insurance companies? Do you think Obama needs to work on his answer a little?

I'll be watching the healthcare infomercial tomorrow, but I'm worried that they aren't going to do it right. I wonder if it will eventually be like the FICA tax. I pay 6%, my employer pays 6%. It is capped at $92k or something. I could also see it being 2% if your are under 20, 4% 20-40, 6% 40-60, 8% 60+.

And yes, it is a 'new tax', but I am already being 'taxed' by my health insurance company, and my quality of care isn't all that good if I am sick. (If I really get hurt it is good)

Seaver · 06-23-2009, 08:54 PM

Employers would drop their own healthcare costs the day government healthcare goes into affect. I'm a bit jaded, but I honestly doubt they would then turn that "profit" back to the employee with a pay raise to overcome the increased tax burden the government would impose on them.

So the 80% or whatever Americans actually have healthcare will take it from both sides as a result.

tisonlyi · 06-24-2009, 04:12 AM

Err... How is this different from the employer chosing to change healthcare supplier in any other way? If it's cheaper and supplies a comparable or better service, then keep it?

If it turns out to be awful, then scrap it and go back to the for-profit service.

Right?

Or will black helicopters be over the hospital everytime someone enters a hosptal under a govt plan and then follow them everywhere, making sure they get shitty healthcare and die... so they can't complain?

Really, folks... the "Socialised Medicine!" scare in the US looks utterly ridiculous to the rest of the world, and considering your healthcare is ranked below Cuba's.... Maybe you need a little of the rest of the world's solution.

biznatch · 06-24-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

Err... How is this different from the employer chosing to change healthcare supplier in any other way? If it's cheaper and supplies a comparable or better service, then keep it?

If it turns out to be awful, then scrap it and go back to the for-profit service.

Right?

Or will black helicopters be over the hospital everytime someone enters a hosptal under a govt plan and then follow them everywhere, making sure they get shitty healthcare and die... so they can't complain?

Really, folks... the "Socialised Medicine!" scare in the US looks utterly ridiculous to the rest of the world, and considering your healthcare is ranked below Cuba's.... Maybe you need a little of the rest of the world's solution.

Really, I live in the US, and you can't blame Americans for being terrified of healthcare. I understand why Obama is getting so much heat over this; for the people that are paying a lot of money for healthcare, or are getting good healthcare from their employer, why wouldn't they be scared that their healthcare provided is run by the government? I mean, the government also runs education, and that's pretty hit and miss depending on where you live.
But private healthcare costs are kept artificially high, and, like any good business, are built on a system of maximized profits/minimized costs. For something like health, I don't think it's the best solution. I think it should be legal to have such a solution, and that if people wanna pay for it, go ahead. But the companies are using your money to make profits, not to provide you with the best coverage possible.

Personally, I think he's doing something right, and I always have believed that government healthcare is something a nation should do. It just makes sense to me, but then again, I've lived in different countries and experienced it firsthand, and I've seen the advantages.
I think America is lagging behind in terms of a few issues, and healthcare is a big one. Education, too. You're right, tisonlyi, USA could learn a few good things from other countries.

Rekna · 06-24-2009, 09:15 AM

So far the argument against a public health care option seems to be that certain people will not be able to extort the public anymore....

Seriously I'm hearing people say "Government health care would be bad because it would be cheaper than private health care".

Baraka_Guru · 06-24-2009, 09:32 AM

As an outsider....to me it seems that the bottom line is this:

Too many areas of the U.S. have access to health care that resembles Third World standards.
The U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation who has yet to implement some form of universal health care.
What is the function of health care? To provide for the well-being as it relates to human health. Inadequate access to health care is harmful and can lead to poverty and, at worst, unnecessary death.

I understand the financial and logistic concerns, but the net effect is most likely worthwhile.

People should not have to choose between food & shelter and the most basic health care, especially not in the wealthiest nation on the planet.

The Obama administration needs to make the plan accessible, sensible, and the plan needs to be easy to follow. There are many models to borrow from. Look around.

flstf · 06-24-2009, 09:42 AM

It seems to me that healthcare reform without a government option will mean that insurance company premiums have to go up. One way or another we are all going to pay to cover pre-conditions, the uninsured and also insure that people do not go broke when they get seriously injured or sick. It's either higher taxes, higher premiums or both.

I guess the government could give stipends to those who cannot afford to buy private insurance if there is no government plan. If the government is going to pick up the costs whether private plan or public plan one has to wonder why pay for insurance company profits as well. Maybe it would make sense if we are convinced that the (for profit) insurance companies are providing better quality coverage even with their profits than the government can.

I believe the only way to stick with private plans is if there is some way to get healthcare costs down via free market competition. As it stands now there is little or no competition in healthcare providers and costs are out of control. Maybe the Libertarians are right and if the government got completely out of healthcare there would be more competition and the costs would come down but I doubt it. Without competitive pricing for healthcare the government will probably have to control it somehow.

I wish President Obama would discuss this in greater detail but I think he is trying to keep all interested parties at the table and avoid what happened to Hillarycare in the 90s.

Derwood · 06-24-2009, 10:55 AM

perhaps the system will be such that employers can't use the government plan as their company's plan. In other words, the companies still do business as usual (bidding for private insurance plans for their employees), but now the employees can opt out of the company plan and use the public option instead.

ASU2003 · 06-24-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

perhaps the system will be such that employers can't use the government plan as their company's plan. In other words, the companies still do business as usual (bidding for private insurance plans for their employees), but now the employees can opt out of the company plan and use the public option instead.

I was going to suggest this. I am thinking that I would rather government step in and try and fix the corruption and greed in the private system, while insuring the uninsurable once the health insurance company says they have gone over a certain amount. The government would be able to charge/tax the company a small amount to cover the premium. They should also come up with a very low/no income plan, but it wouldn't be really desirable compared to a non-monopolistic private plan.

It will be interesting to see what the Obama Plan is tonight...

Telluride · 07-26-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

perhaps the system will be such that employers can't use the government plan as their company's plan. In other words, the companies still do business as usual (bidding for private insurance plans for their employees), but now the employees can opt out of the company plan and use the public option instead.

Would those who choose to keep the company plan be exempted from paying for the public plan?

ASU2003 · 07-26-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Would those who choose to keep the company plan be exempted from paying for the public plan?

Only if you make under $1 million dollars (or $290,000), or maybe your donations will be reimbursed at 25% instead of 36% if you make over $1 million. Who knows which one will be in the final bill.

It does sound like this public plan is going to only be for those too poor, or too sick to have any other insurance company want them. (Or at least that is what I hope it would be used for)

If all of the small business people, self-employed, early retirees, and in-between job unemployed were able to form one big risk pool, their rates would be reasonable for the basics and catastrophic coverage.

Paq · 07-26-2009, 05:07 PM

asu, i've often thought about that...what if like 20 people who are either unemployed or self employed pooled together..it's larger than a lot of small businesses and anything is better than teh quotes i'm getting for being self employed and the only person employed....

Gebbinn · 07-26-2009, 08:23 PM

I dont even know where to begin. I will keep it as short as I can.

The government health plan will cost billions of dollars, if not trillions.

Thats, 500,000,000,000... or 1,000,000,000,000. That money has to come from somewhere. There is no such thing as a government program taking less money, it doesn't happen. Obama's saying they are going to cut the fat from all these programs already in place to pay for socialized health care is just political haranguing. They will make it look like they are taking money, but they will just turn around and give it right back to the same people under a different name. So the net tax revenue to pay for all this is going to be astronomical. That money will come from "the rich" in the form of new taxes. "The Rich" are those people who pay the wages to 95% of all working Americans. So, they will have to pay more money to pay for socialized health care. To keep to the point... Employers will dump their private insurance plans, because it makes absolutely no fiscal sense for them to pay for two different health care systems, which is what the end result will be.

aceventura3 · 07-27-2009, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

As an outsider....to me it seems that the bottom line is this:
[LIST][*]Too many areas of the U.S. have access to health care that resembles Third World standards.

Unfortunately too many people believe this. Some in the media have been reporting a breakdown of the commonly reported 47 million uninsured Americans. About 18 million could purchase it but have made a choice not to. About 8 million are actually cover, like children that have not been added to their family policy, about 3.5 million are eligible for current subsidized plans but have not signed up, 9.4 million are transitionally uninsured because of employment changes, 8.4 million are between the ages of 18 and 25, and 12.6 million are illegal aliens. All of these people could go to see a doctor, purchase medication, or get treatment in a emergency room. In some cases there are neighborhood clinics promoting preventative health care to the poor, like well baby care for pregnant women, blood work testing, cancer screening tests, vision, hearing, dental, subsidized or free medication. Personally, I would rather live with American heath care than most other heath care systems in the world.

Derwood · 07-27-2009, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Would those who choose to keep the company plan be exempted from paying for the public plan?

Are those who never get arrested or whose house never catches on fire exempted from paying for police and firefighters?

Are those without kids exempted from school taxes?

Are those without automobiles exempted from paying for public roads?

Telluride · 07-27-2009, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Are those who never get arrested or whose house never catches on fire exempted from paying for police and firefighters?

Are those without kids exempted from school taxes?

Are those without automobiles exempted from paying for public roads?

In your post that I was responding to, you seemed to be acting like you wanted to give Americans a choice. If they are forced to pay for public healthcare they don't use, then they don't have much of a choice, do they?

Those without kids SHOULD be exempted from school taxes. As for roads and emergency services, I'd definitely be willing to work on a plan to exempt people from paying for them so long as they are barred from using them.

Baraka_Guru · 07-27-2009, 08:16 AM

Ace, while that may be so, things are getting worse, not better. Companies are dropping their healthcare plans because of premium costs and many workers cannot afford their premiums even if they are available where they work.

How easy is it to visit a doctor, get medication, and go to the emergency room if you can't pay for it? How much of this is subsidized by the government if you are uninsured?

---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Those without kids SHOULD be exempted from school taxes. As for roads and emergency services, I'd definitely be willing to work on a plan to exempt people from paying for them so long as they are barred from using them.

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it assumes people with no children don't benefit from an educated public. How would you enjoy life if there were fewer people who could go to school? It would be more difficult to get a doctor, a lawyer, etc. Everything would be more expensive because of a lack of skilled and educated workers, or less money to pay for infrastructure. Some things would be outright unavailable due to a lack of supply or feasible distribution.

aceventura3 · 07-27-2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Ace, while that may be so, things are getting worse, not better. Companies are dropping their healthcare plans because of premium costs and many workers cannot afford their premiums even if they are available where they work.

How easy is it to visit a doctor, get medication, and go to the emergency room if you can't pay for it? How much of this is subsidized by the government if you are uninsured?

When you write "things are getting worse", that is difficult to challenge because a time frame has not been defined. However, over the long-term things are getting better by some measurements.

Quote:

Americans' life expectancy reached a record high of 78.1 years in 2006, with disparities among ethnic groups and between the sexes generally narrowing, according to government data released yesterday.

The death rates from most diseases went down, with influenza mortality falling steeply and AIDS mortality marking its 10th straight year of decline. Infant mortality in 2006 also fell from the previous year, continuing a trend stretching back nearly 50 years.

Life Expectancy Hits Record High in United States - washingtonpost.com

Baraka_Guru · 07-27-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When you write "things are getting worse", that is difficult to challenge because a time frame has not been defined. However, over the long-term things are getting better by some measurements.

That's a good point.

I was referring to the number of people who have access to or who can afford health insurance. Consider the number of companies who are opting to not have it available as one aspect.

aceventura3 · 07-27-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

That's a good point.

I was referring to the number of people who have access to or who can afford health insurance. Consider the number of companies who are opting to not have it available as one aspect.

A couple of areas in US heath care that needs to be fixed is mandating conversion of group coverage to individual coverage when an employer cancels a group plan or when an employee looses their job under the same terms and conditions beyond what is mandated by COBRA. Another is having heath care insurance regulated on a national basis rather than by state to allow for national plans rather than state by state plans. We should not have to be subject to re-applying for individual medical coverage based on moving from one state to another. I think if a person obtains medical coverage from birth they should never have to be subject to exclusions for preexisting conditions or up-charged for being a "substandard" risk or other factors.

In auto insurance, every person is able to obtain coverage regardless of their record. Extreme substandard risks are pooled and assigned to insurance companies based on a percent of premium written or market share. People place in these pools are subjected to much higher premiums, which I do not think has to be the case with medical insurance. The point is I think we can make some changes in our existing system to get everyone covered with reasonable premiums - and there is always the possibility to subsidize those at certain low income levels. I would much rather do things like the above rather than the government for all practical purposes, take over the entire system.

ASU2003 · 07-28-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gebbinn

I dont even know where to begin. I will keep it as short as I can.

The government health plan will cost billions of dollars, if not trillions.

Thats, 500,000,000,000... or 1,000,000,000,000. That money has to come from somewhere. There is no such thing as a government program taking less money, it doesn't happen. Obama's saying they are going to cut the fat from all these programs already in place to pay for socialized health care is just political haranguing. They will make it look like they are taking money, but they will just turn around and give it right back to the same people under a different name. So the net tax revenue to pay for all this is going to be astronomical. That money will come from "the rich" in the form of new taxes. "The Rich" are those people who pay the wages to 95% of all working Americans. So, they will have to pay more money to pay for socialized health care. To keep to the point... Employers will dump their private insurance plans, because it makes absolutely no fiscal sense for them to pay for two different health care systems, which is what the end result will be.

And under Bush it was called 'the debt'. Instead of raising taxes or stabilizing unsustainable growth, the costs were just tacked onto the national debt. I'm not saying Obama is doing any better, but at least that 1 trillion is paid for today instead of putting it on future generations so we can live it up currently.

And the 1 trillion is just an estimate based on the assumption that anybody could sign up for the government plan I think. Why wouldn't the government plan raise it's rates to cover expenses year after year just like the health insurance companies do? The government doesn't need to have growth or profits though, and that's what scares the insurance companies and the Friedman/Rand capitalists.

There are cheap things we can do to lower health care costs, they just aren't politically popular. (Like having kids exercise 3-5 times a week at school in PE class, which would do more for their life/self esteem than any other class). Or even separating the overweight kids and putting them through a 'Biggest Loser TV Show' type of thing for 6 months. Other adults can do things to reduce the amount of health care they will use as well like monitoring blood pressure and getting simple blood tests, limit drug use, eat healthier food, exercise more, breathe cleaner air, be safe, etc...

I do think that the CDC should be able to provide vaccinations to the poor in the face of a general health emergency (like if the H1N1 virus had started to kill tens of thousands and there was a vaccine, but people couldn't pay for it). And there should be some insurance reform to make sure everyone can get it at a reasonable rate.

It is a complicated system and some things need to change, but I think they need to work on getting it right. Even if it means the insurance companies will have to lose some money.

boink · 07-28-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

"The Rich" are those people who pay the wages to 95% of all working Americans.

oh boo fucking hoo. "The Rich" are too fucking rich.

"The Rich" are those people who get richer off the backs of 95% of all working Humans.

I've never had any kind of health care, I checked into it, it'd cost me near 1/4 of my wage. screw that, I'm not going to be a slave to an insurance company. my car insurance costs me under $50ish a month, they take the risk that I could put an entire family in the hospital, disable them for life, for $50 a month. I've needed a Dr. maybe 5-6 times since I got off moms family insurance probably 25-30 years ago. just a simple urine test and a 5 minuet chat (where the Dr. questioning was totally on the wrong path) cost $1300.00. that's ridiculous. I mean $1300.00, near 2 weeks hard labour and I learn nothing from their test and questions ? robbery plain and simple.

supersix2 · 07-29-2009, 05:17 AM

I think the other thing you have to look at here is that the medical industry has been well established in this country under the current system we have since...well since the beginning.

What will a sudden change do to this established system? It's quite possible it could throw the whole thing into chaos. I hear that government health care is "cheaper." But it's only really cheaper for those who have to pay for their own health insurance and don't work for a company that provides it. The rest of us end up paying more since our taxes will go up to pay for everyone else. Plus now that more people can "afford" health care what will that do to the health care system? Will hospitals be more overcrowded? Will it be even more difficult to schedule an appointment with a doctor? Will the government not reimburse the hospitals and clinics enough because the government feels they are charging too much anyway and what would be the results of that?

You can't just propose a drastic change in the way people pay for health care and expect the system itself to just seamlessly transition. There could be major impacts that no one has ever thought of. Plus those of us with health care are most likely going to have to change to the government policy (unless their company likes wasting money) so that could be a big change in to the type of care we receive and what we are covered for. Honestly the last thing I want to worry about is the type of health care I am going to have. I'm happy with what I have no and would rather not change anything. And I would rather not pay more taxes than I already do.

I do not feel it is the government's responsibility to provide medical care for the populace, at least not this government's responsibility. It's not in our Nation's charter to do such. The only thing a national health care system will do is to increase the power of the federal government and increase it's influence on your daily life.

aceventura3 · 07-29-2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boink

I've never had any kind of health care, I checked into it, it'd cost me near 1/4 of my wage. screw that, I'm not going to be a slave to an insurance company.

I am curious. How much would you be willing to pay for health care insurance, let's say an HMO with prescription drug benefits and some preventive care?

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

There are cheap things we can do to lower health care costs, they just aren't politically popular. (Like having kids exercise 3-5 times a week at school in PE class, which would do more for their life/self esteem than any other class). Or even separating the overweight kids and putting them through a 'Biggest Loser TV Show' type of thing for 6 months. Other adults can do things to reduce the amount of health care they will use as well like monitoring blood pressure and getting simple blood tests, limit drug use, eat healthier food, exercise more, breathe cleaner air, be safe, etc...

The above is the #1 reason why I don't want government in heath care! I have nothing against exercise, proper diet, preventative measures to reduce health risks, etc., I just don't want you or any government bureaucrat telling me I have to do it. If I want to eat a dozen freshly baked, warm cinnamon rolls, with icing, every day and chug down a half gallon of ice cold whole milk (from a real cow), I am going to do it.

ASU2003 · 07-29-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The above is the #1 reason why I don't want government in heath care! I have nothing against exercise, proper diet, preventative measures to reduce health risks, etc., I just don't want you or any government bureaucrat telling me I have to do it. If I want to eat a dozen freshly baked, warm cinnamon rolls, with icing, every day and chug down a half gallon of ice cold whole milk (from a real cow), I am going to do it.

And it's people that don't care about their health that are causing the health insurance expenses to rise so quickly.

Why does this scene from Full Metal Jacket seem appropriate.

YouTube - Full Metal Jacket - Jelly Doughnut (HD)

Every person making money has to work harder or pay more in premiums, medicare/medicaid taxes, and any possible new health co-op taxes because people want to do whatever they want, but also want the best high class health care.

Yes, some basic health care, medical research should be paid for by taxes because it is better if we prevent spreadable diseases from infecting everyone. But, I'm thinking the real healthcare reform would be to have the health insurance companies(or non-profit co-op, or government) have the equivalent of liability coverage.

aceventura3 · 07-30-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Why does this scene from Full Metal Jacket seem appropriate.

Yea, and do you know what Private Pyle does to that Sargent? Don't "F" with a man's jelly donuts, or in my case my cinnamon rolls.

Getting back on topic.

If I ran a health care insurance company and there is a non-profit government plan on the table, I would set my rates so I could cherry pick the healthiest classes of people. To the contrary of making me honest, the government plan would encourage me to game the system.

If I sell some employer group plans that are not profitable, I would go to those groups and say your premiums are X% higher than the government plan, you should switch. With the profitable group plans, I would lower premiums or make sure I offered something marginally better than the government plan to keep the business. In the end the government plan will end up with the least profitable risks. The government plan would have to raise premiums accordingly. And then for the profitable plans I kept could raise premiums, maintaining as small an advantage over the government plan as possible to keep the profitable business. I love it when a plan comes together. If any health care insurance companies come out in support of a government option, you should wonder why.

Derwood · 07-30-2009, 10:12 AM

Why not propose a hybrid plan, where your taxes "buy" base coverage for everyone in the country (yearly physical, a high deductible ER/hospital coverage, prescription coverage), and then allow people to supplement that with private insurance?

Also, is anyone in favor of divorcing health benefits from employment? (In other words, keep private insurance, but have it so everyone purchases it individually, thus removing the issues of losing your benefits when you lose your job and/or not leaving a bad job because you can't afford to lose the insurance)

Cimarron29414 · 08-03-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yea, and do you know what Private Pyle does to that Sargent? Don't "F" with a man's jelly donuts, or in my case my cinnamon rolls.

Getting back on topic.

If I ran a health care insurance company and there is a non-profit government plan on the table, I would set my rates so I could cherry pick the healthiest classes of people. To the contrary of making me honest, the government plan would encourage me to game the system.

If I sell some employer group plans that are not profitable, I would go to those groups and say your premiums are X% higher than the government plan, you should switch. With the profitable group plans, I would lower premiums or make sure I offered something marginally better than the government plan to keep the business. In the end the government plan will end up with the least profitable risks. The government plan would have to raise premiums accordingly. And then for the profitable plans I kept could raise premiums, maintaining as small an advantage over the government plan as possible to keep the profitable business. I love it when a plan comes together. If any health care insurance companies come out in support of a government option, you should wonder why.

This would not work because:

1) The government will not raise premiums to control cost. They will eliminate care or raise taxes.
2) You can not cherry pick the healthest. Companies have a set fee for all employees. A non-smoking, 22 year-old pays the same rate as a 400 lb., 58 year-old smoker. This, my friend, is the real problem with the high cost of health insurance.

It should work like car insurance - the higher the risk, the higher the premium. Don't like your premium? Drop 200 lbs and quit smoking.

aceventura3 · 08-03-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

This would not work because:

1) The government will not raise premiums to control cost. They will eliminate care or raise taxes.

If what Obama said is true, the public option will set premiums based on costs so that the plan is self-sustaining. If the public option is subsidized, then private companies will at some level not be able to compete at all. Currently for profit insurers do compete with non-profit insurers but the profit margins are small with for profit insurers relying on time and large premium volumes. If the government wants competition, they will have to minimize subsidies.

Quote:

2) You can not cherry pick the healthest. Companies have a set fee for all employees. A non-smoking, 22 year-old pays the same rate as a 400 lb., 58 year-old smoker. This, my friend, is the real problem with the high cost of health insurance.

There are known group plans that are more profitable than others. Just as an example using sports: One group plan could include NFL active and retired players, one group could be golf active and retired pros, one group could be current and past professional boxers, and another group could be young healthy female professional basketball players. Each group would have unique characteristics, and could be rated (premiums) differently. An insurer's experience could result in some of these groups generating a profit or a loss depending on what they need to do to get the business. It is possible that a company could not rate professional boxers in a manner were they could charge reasonable premiums and earn a profit. If that were true the group of boxers would end up in the public plan because no private company would touch it, but the public plan may be forced to take it. If the NFL players include mostly old retired players with lots and lots of joint problems, heart problems, brain problems, compared to the WNBA with an average age of 26, companies may really want the WNBA and not the NFL. The same logic could apply to, lets say the video game industry compared to auto workers.

Quote:

It should work like car insurance - the higher the risk, the higher the premium. Don't like your premium? Drop 200 lbs and quit smoking.

I agree that every person should have their own personal policy rather than group policies through their employer.

james t kirk · 08-03-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gebbinn

I dont even know where to begin. I will keep it as short as I can.

The government health plan will cost billions of dollars, if not trillions.

Thats, 500,000,000,000... or 1,000,000,000,000. That money has to come from somewhere. There is no such thing as a government program taking less money, it doesn't happen. Obama's saying they are going to cut the fat from all these programs already in place to pay for socialized health care is just political haranguing. They will make it look like they are taking money, but they will just turn around and give it right back to the same people under a different name. So the net tax revenue to pay for all this is going to be astronomical. That money will come from "the rich" in the form of new taxes. "The Rich" are those people who pay the wages to 95% of all working Americans. So, they will have to pay more money to pay for socialized health care. To keep to the point... Employers will dump their private insurance plans, because it makes absolutely no fiscal sense for them to pay for two different health care systems, which is what the end result will be.

Yeah, but.....

You Americans are ALREADY paying for health care insurance (and some pretty high rates at that)

All you have to do is implement a gov't run health car system where you eliminate the fat cat middle men (do you know that your average medical bill, only 16% of the bill is for the doctor's time) and your costs will decrease. You get the same health care, just eliminate the parasites who are getting rich off sick people.

Ultimately, there are ALLOT of people in the USA who are profiting on the suffering of others (the insurance companies). They are the ones who don't want to change the status quo.

In the end, it's all about the money. Always has been, always will be.

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Why not propose a hybrid plan, where your taxes "buy" base coverage for everyone in the country (yearly physical, a high deductible ER/hospital coverage, prescription coverage), and then allow people to supplement that with private insurance?

Also, is anyone in favor of divorcing health benefits from employment? (In other words, keep private insurance, but have it so everyone purchases it individually, thus removing the issues of losing your benefits when you lose your job and/or not leaving a bad job because you can't afford to lose the insurance)

The arguement is that it is a slippery slope, who determines what the minimum is?

What heappens when services keep getting moved to the rich health care plan?

What about the doctors who don't want to work with the poor?

Derwood · 08-03-2009, 12:47 PM

if you prorate health insurance so that the healthiest pay the least and the unhealthiest the most, then the second someone gets, say, cancer, their rates shoot up and they're in the poor house. How is that a good system?

flstf · 08-03-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When you write "things are getting worse", that is difficult to challenge because a time frame has not been defined. However, over the long-term things are getting better by some measurements.

Quote:
Americans' life expectancy reached a record high of 78.1 years in 2006, with disparities among ethnic groups and between the sexes generally narrowing, according to government data released yesterday.

The death rates from most diseases went down, with influenza mortality falling steeply and AIDS mortality marking its 10th straight year of decline. Infant mortality in 2006 also fell from the previous year, continuing a trend stretching back nearly 50 years.

Life Expectancy Hits Record High in United States - washingtonpost.com

We are 50th, If we keep improving we may catch up to Canada (8th) and France (9th) in 50 or 60 years. Of course maybe their universal heathcare systems in comparison to ours will cause them to gain or loose ground faster.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

Cimarron29414 · 08-03-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

if you prorate health insurance so that the healthiest pay the least and the unhealthiest the most, then the second someone gets, say, cancer, their rates shoot up and they're in the poor house. How is that a good system?

It isn't a matter of "healthiest". It is a matter of lifestyle. If an otherwise perfectly healthy person gets cancer, rates stay the same. If a 2 pack a day person gets cancer, no shit! This is the same as car insurance: if a good driver gets rear-ended (no fault of theirs) their rates don't go up because they didn't engage in risky behavior. Does that better explain?

70% of all medical bills in America are associated with heart disease, cancer, and obesity related issues (joints, diabetes, circulation, etc.) Heart disease and cancer are in the 70-th percental for preventable and nearly all heart/cancer/obesity illnesses are preventable and can be dramatically reduced through the behavior of the individual. The point is that we should manage costs by making risky choices expensive - just like when you drive recklessly.

aceventura3 · 08-03-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

if you prorate health insurance so that the healthiest pay the least and the unhealthiest the most, then the second someone gets, say, cancer, their rates shoot up and they're in the poor house. How is that a good system?

The system of insurance addresses that issue through pooling risks. If every person was insured from birth with a policy that was not cancelable with premiums based on all the people born in the same year, the premiums for that group would be relatively low for each member in the group but cover the few that have major illnesses each year. The premiums collected in the early years would be excess, to cover the increased costs in the later years.

A single payer plan could work, the only problem is - choice. If at some point I want a better plan than you do, should I have the right to make a sacrifice and pay for it? I say, yes. I also, think that every person should be guaranteed insurable with no pre-existing conditions as long as they participate in the system from birth. People that are hard to place could be randomly assigned to insurance companies based on market share, so the each company gets a fair share of hard to insure risks. In my opinion no child in this country should be without health insurance and when the child becomes an adult they should be required to have some type of minimal coverage that they pay for, unless they are disabled and unable to work. Or, we could have disability waivers of premium, so that those who become disabled and can not work have their premiums waived without the policy being canceled.

---------- Post added at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

We are 50th, If we keep improving we may catch up to Canada (8th) and France (9th) in 50 or 60 years. Of course maybe their universal heathcare systems in comparison to ours will cause them to gain or loose ground faster.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

I think the differences have more to do with lifestyles than health care.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

It isn't a matter of "healthiest". It is a matter of lifestyle. If an otherwise perfectly healthy person gets cancer, rates stay the same. If a 2 pack a day person gets cancer, no shit! This is the same as car insurance: if a good driver gets rear-ended (no fault of theirs) their rates don't go up because they didn't engage in risky behavior. Does that better explain?

70% of all medical bills in America are associated with heart disease, cancer, and obesity related issues (joints, diabetes, circulation, etc.) Heart disease and cancer are in the 70-th percental for preventable and nearly all heart/cancer/obesity illnesses are preventable and can be dramatically reduced through the behavior of the individual. The point is that we should manage costs by making risky choices expensive - just like when you drive recklessly.

I agree. Also included in our "health care" costs are things like cosmetic surgery, people taking depression drugs, ADD/ADHD, etc. Some Americans clearly overspend on some things people in other countries would find laughable.

Sun Tzu · 08-03-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

and considering your healthcare is ranked below Cuba's....

I have started searching, but you could save a little time if you could provide the link or source you got this information from. Thank you.

Derwood · 08-03-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

A single payer plan could work, the only problem is - choice. If at some point I want a better plan than you do, should I have the right to make a sacrifice and pay for it?

Every "single-payer" system in Europe allows you to pay for your own procedures if you wish

aceventura3 · 08-03-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Every "single-payer" system in Europe allows you to pay for your own procedures if you wish

I want more than being able to pay out of pocket for my own procedure. I want to be able to buy a "Cadillac" health plan. If you are satisfied with the "Chevy" health plan, that is your choice. Shouldn't we both be able to decide what level of insurance we want to pay for? That is at the core of the issue to me. If Congress addresses that issue in whatever they propose, they will likely have my support. I do think the system needs some "fixing."

flstf · 08-03-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think the differences have more to do with lifestyles than health care.

Yeah, it must be all those French non-smokers.

dippin · 08-03-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I want more than being able to pay out of pocket for my own procedure. I want to be able to buy a "Cadillac" health plan. If you are satisfied with the "Chevy" health plan, that is your choice. Shouldn't we both be able to decide what level of insurance we want to pay for? That is at the core of the issue to me. If Congress addresses that issue in whatever they propose, they will likely have my support. I do think the system needs some "fixing."

most, if not all, nations with single payer healthcare allow for the purchase of supplemental health insurance.

Rekna · 08-03-2009, 02:19 PM

ace what would stop you from buying that plan if you wanted it? If you want to buy such a plan then clearly there is demand for such a plan and thus the private sector would handle that itself.

I don't see why lowering the cost of health care for everyone is a bad thing....

06-23-2009, 08:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Employers would drop their own healthcare costs the day government healthcare goes into affect. I'm a bit jaded, but I honestly doubt they would then turn that "profit" back to the employee with a pay raise to overcome the increased tax burden the government would impose on them. So the 80% or whatever Americans actually have healthcare will take it from both sides as a result. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

06-24-2009, 04:12 AM	#3 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	Err... How is this different from the employer chosing to change healthcare supplier in any other way? If it's cheaper and supplies a comparable or better service, then keep it? If it turns out to be awful, then scrap it and go back to the for-profit service. Right? Or will black helicopters be over the hospital everytime someone enters a hosptal under a govt plan and then follow them everywhere, making sure they get shitty healthcare and die... so they can't complain? Really, folks... the "Socialised Medicine!" scare in the US looks utterly ridiculous to the rest of the world, and considering your healthcare is ranked below Cuba's.... Maybe you need a little of the rest of the world's solution. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

06-24-2009, 09:32 AM	#6 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	As an outsider....to me it seems that the bottom line is this: Too many areas of the U.S. have access to health care that resembles Third World standards. The U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation who has yet to implement some form of universal health care. What is the function of health care? To provide for the well-being as it relates to human health. Inadequate access to health care is harmful and can lead to poverty and, at worst, unnecessary death. I understand the financial and logistic concerns, but the net effect is most likely worthwhile. People should not have to choose between food & shelter and the most basic health care, especially not in the wealthiest nation on the planet. The Obama administration needs to make the plan accessible, sensible, and the plan needs to be easy to follow. There are many models to borrow from. Look around. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

07-26-2009, 05:07 PM	#12 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	asu, i've often thought about that...what if like 20 people who are either unemployed or self employed pooled together..it's larger than a lot of small businesses and anything is better than teh quotes i'm getting for being self employed and the only person employed.... __________________ Live. Chris

07-26-2009, 08:23 PM	#13 (permalink)
Gebbinn Crazy	I dont even know where to begin. I will keep it as short as I can. The government health plan will cost billions of dollars, if not trillions. Thats, 500,000,000,000... or 1,000,000,000,000. That money has to come from somewhere. There is no such thing as a government program taking less money, it doesn't happen. Obama's saying they are going to cut the fat from all these programs already in place to pay for socialized health care is just political haranguing. They will make it look like they are taking money, but they will just turn around and give it right back to the same people under a different name. So the net tax revenue to pay for all this is going to be astronomical. That money will come from "the rich" in the form of new taxes. "The Rich" are those people who pay the wages to 95% of all working Americans. So, they will have to pay more money to pay for socialized health care. To keep to the point... Employers will dump their private insurance plans, because it makes absolutely no fiscal sense for them to pay for two different health care systems, which is what the end result will be. __________________ There are 10 types of people in this world... Those who understand Binary and those who dont. I aim to please.. to bad for you I am a horrible shot. Every time you open your mouth, stupid comes out.

06-24-2009, 09:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	So far the argument against a public health care option seems to be that certain people will not be able to extort the public anymore.... Seriously I'm hearing people say "Government health care would be bad because it would be cheaper than private health care".

06-24-2009, 09:42 AM	#7 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	It seems to me that healthcare reform without a government option will mean that insurance company premiums have to go up. One way or another we are all going to pay to cover pre-conditions, the uninsured and also insure that people do not go broke when they get seriously injured or sick. It's either higher taxes, higher premiums or both. I guess the government could give stipends to those who cannot afford to buy private insurance if there is no government plan. If the government is going to pick up the costs whether private plan or public plan one has to wonder why pay for insurance company profits as well. Maybe it would make sense if we are convinced that the (for profit) insurance companies are providing better quality coverage even with their profits than the government can. I believe the only way to stick with private plans is if there is some way to get healthcare costs down via free market competition. As it stands now there is little or no competition in healthcare providers and costs are out of control. Maybe the Libertarians are right and if the government got completely out of healthcare there would be more competition and the costs would come down but I doubt it. Without competitive pricing for healthcare the government will probably have to control it somehow. I wish President Obama would discuss this in greater detail but I think he is trying to keep all interested parties at the table and avoid what happened to Hillarycare in the 90s.

06-24-2009, 10:55 AM	#8 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	perhaps the system will be such that employers can't use the government plan as their company's plan. In other words, the companies still do business as usual (bidding for private insurance plans for their employees), but now the employees can opt out of the company plan and use the public option instead.

07-29-2009, 05:17 AM	#23 (permalink)
supersix2 Insane Location: Houston	I think the other thing you have to look at here is that the medical industry has been well established in this country under the current system we have since...well since the beginning. What will a sudden change do to this established system? It's quite possible it could throw the whole thing into chaos. I hear that government health care is "cheaper." But it's only really cheaper for those who have to pay for their own health insurance and don't work for a company that provides it. The rest of us end up paying more since our taxes will go up to pay for everyone else. Plus now that more people can "afford" health care what will that do to the health care system? Will hospitals be more overcrowded? Will it be even more difficult to schedule an appointment with a doctor? Will the government not reimburse the hospitals and clinics enough because the government feels they are charging too much anyway and what would be the results of that? You can't just propose a drastic change in the way people pay for health care and expect the system itself to just seamlessly transition. There could be major impacts that no one has ever thought of. Plus those of us with health care are most likely going to have to change to the government policy (unless their company likes wasting money) so that could be a big change in to the type of care we receive and what we are covered for. Honestly the last thing I want to worry about is the type of health care I am going to have. I'm happy with what I have no and would rather not change anything. And I would rather not pay more taxes than I already do. I do not feel it is the government's responsibility to provide medical care for the populace, at least not this government's responsibility. It's not in our Nation's charter to do such. The only thing a national health care system will do is to increase the power of the federal government and increase it's influence on your daily life.

07-30-2009, 10:12 AM	#27 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Why not propose a hybrid plan, where your taxes "buy" base coverage for everyone in the country (yearly physical, a high deductible ER/hospital coverage, prescription coverage), and then allow people to supplement that with private insurance? Also, is anyone in favor of divorcing health benefits from employment? (In other words, keep private insurance, but have it so everyone purchases it individually, thus removing the issues of losing your benefits when you lose your job and/or not leaving a bad job because you can't afford to lose the insurance)

08-03-2009, 12:47 PM	#31 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	if you prorate health insurance so that the healthiest pay the least and the unhealthiest the most, then the second someone gets, say, cancer, their rates shoot up and they're in the poor house. How is that a good system?

08-03-2009, 02:19 PM	#40 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	ace what would stop you from buying that plan if you wanted it? If you want to buy such a plan then clearly there is demand for such a plan and thus the private sector would handle that itself. I don't see why lowering the cost of health care for everyone is a bad thing....