Why Does Health Care Cost So Much?

[thoughtone]

You seem to think government knows all and government is looking to help non-whites.

When in United States history, has the government EVER passed a law that helped slave descendants without helping honkeys first and foremost?

My 89 year old mom is on Medicare, she has no complaints.

It is reckless and irresponsible to believe government would ever do anything to help slave descendants.

So you have gone to giving comical solutions to playing the race card. I guess your next statement is that when someone needs chemotherapy when they have been laid off from their jobs, the community should take up a collection for their $2000/day drugs. I live in the real world not Ron Paul’s, You Tube’s rant.

For the umpteenth time, I say no government involvement and no corporate involvement in health care.

Again, what is your solution?

Why do you insist on making this issue so complicated? Why are you so determined to have government/corporate involvement? What is your agenda? Do you work for the government?

Do you work for a corporation?

I see you depended on corporate health insurance, so a NANNY STATE solution is just fine by you.

How old are you? Have you ever been sick or injured? Have you ever been to the hospital?

Believe it or not, not everyone is in that situation. But, it sounds like you want to impose this on everyone, whether they like it or not.

So what do you do when you need health care?

 

[Efkie]

 

[Cruise]

My 89 year old mom is on Medicare, she has no complaints.

So, now you're saying the current system is fine.

It would be nice if you would make up your mind.

So you have gone to giving comical solutions to playing the race card. I guess your next statement is that when someone needs chemotherapy when they have been laid off from their jobs, the community should take up a collection for their $2000/day drugs. I live in the real world not Ron Paul’s, You Tube’s rant.

Oh, I get it. You talk about playing cards because you think games are the real world.

Again, what is your solution?



Do you work for a corporation?



How old are you? Have you ever been sick or injured? Have you ever been to the hospital?



So what do you do when you need health care?

It's like arguing with a brick wall. My statements seem to be beyond your comprehension.

You want government interference whether people like it or not. You want to enforce your lifestyle, opinions, and choices on every American against their will.

Sure, that sounds like a winning plan.

 

[thoughtone]

So, now you're saying the current system is fine.

Let me walk you through this again. Medicare works fine for those over 65. No one else qualifies for it. The current system for everyone else cannot be sustained. The best solution is a government Medicare like single payer system for everyone else. You have not suggested any credible solution. This debate has been going on for years. Obama campaigned on it. He won.

You have not answered any of my questions.

Do you live at your parents?

How old are you?

 

[Lamarr]

When in United States history, has the government EVER passed a law that helped slave descendants without helping honkeys first and foremost?

they not hearing you Cruise!

Hypothetical? Same text on HR 3200, I wonder what the dialog would be like on the board if it were called...................CheneyCare?
I'm not expecting any honest replies, just thinkin!

Thought, Does Kucinich's clip make any sense to you? post #22

 

[Cruise]

they not hearing you Cruise!

Hypothetical? Same text on HR 3200, I wonder what the dialog would be like on the board if it were called...................CheneyCare?
I'm not expecting any honest replies, just thinkin!

Thought, Does Kucinich's clip make any sense to you? post #22

Good video but these people are determined to go over the cliff. No amount of warnings will stop them.

It reminds me of the mania surrounding the buildup to the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. I just hope this time, cooler heads prevail.

But, it looks like history may repeat itself.

 

[Lamarr]

Good video but these people are determined to go over the cliff. No amount of warnings will stop them.

It reminds me of the mania surrounding the buildup to the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. I just hope this time, cooler heads prevail.

But, it looks like history may repeat itself.

I introduced the video only because there is still some honest dialog taking place. I wish cooler heads prevail as well, for the benefit of the people directly affected. But lets look at recent history:

Patriot Act / FISA - Driven by fear!
Iraq/Afghanistan: Driven by fear / anger!
Wall Street Bailout: Driven by fear!
The recent stimulus: Driven by fear - "Unemployment could reach 8% if this stimulus is not passed"
Health Care, currently driven by emotion!
with Swine Flu on deck!

One has to be blind, not to see how these corporations are benefiting while citizens are losing liberties. So yeah, history may repeat!

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Family health costs outpace inflation
and wage growth</font size><font size="4">

The average cost of job-based family health insurance
climbed 5 percent to $13,375 in 2008, making this
the 10th straight year that health care premiums
have increased faster than workers' wages
and overall inflation have</font size></center>



McClatchy Newspapers
By Tony Pugh
Tuesday, September 15, 2009


WASHINGTON — The average cost of job-based family health insurance climbed 5 percent to $13,375 in 2008, making this the 10th straight year that health care premiums have increased faster than workers' wages and overall inflation have.


<font size="4">Insurance Cost Up 131% since 1999</font size>

Insurance costs have increased 131 percent since 1999, when a year of family coverage cost about $5,791, according to the 2009 Employer Health Benefits Survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.

That supercharged growth rate far outpaces the 38 percent increase in wages and 28 percent growth of inflation over the same period.


<font size="4">Employers Passing the Costs to Employees</font size>

The inability of consumers and employers to finance that growth in cost is helping to drive the heated debate over how to revamp the nation's heath care system.

At a time when employers are laying off workers, facing revenue declines and looking for ways to cut costs, health insurance is proving a substantial financial burden.

So they're passing the costs to employees, who're paying higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses while often receiving less comprehensive coverage for their money.

Twenty-one percent of firms with insurance coverage reduced benefits or increased employee cost-sharing due to the recession, the survey found. Fifteen percent increased their workers' shares of the monthly premium.

"When health care costs continue to rise so much faster than overall inflation in a bad recession, workers and employers really feel the pain," said Drew Altman, the president and chief executive of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Employers typically pay about $9,860 of the standard $13,375 family policy, the survey found. Workers pick up the rest, about $3,515 or 27 percent. That's the same share as last year.


<font size="4">Single Coverage</font size>

The cost of single coverage increased slightly this year, averaging about $4,824 compared to $4,704 last year. Employees pay about 17 percent of the cost, or $779 toward the coverage.


<font size="4">Family Coverage</font size>

The rising costs mean that a year of family coverage, on average, now costs employers about $15,000, nearly as much as a year of labor from a full-time minimum wage worker, Altman said.

Consumers also pay more, on average, for family coverage than they'd pay to purchase a gas-sipping Chevrolet Aveo — about $12,000 — or to rent a two-bedroom apartment for the nationwide yearly average of $11,136.

"It just underscores why health insurance is increasingly unaffordable for working people and for employers, especially small employers," Altman said.

About 159 million people have employer-based coverage nationally, but the percentage of companies that provide it is declining, particularly among smaller ones. Only 59 percent of firms with fewer than 200 employees offer coverage in 2009, compared with 62 percent last year. The rate fell from 78 percent to 72 percent among companies with 10 to 24 employees.

Perry Goodwin, who runs the Gaines W. Harrison & Sons hydraulic repair shop in Columbia, S.C., saw his insurance costs increase 28 percent to 33 percent a year for five straight years. But when it cost him $16,000 a month to insure his 20 employees, Goodwin decided it was time for a change.

So he switched insurance carriers several years ago, and his premiums fell to about $10,000 a month. "But then they shot up another $3,000 (a month) over the period of one year," Goodwin said. "So then I went to another carrier, who got me down to about $11,000 a month."

Goodwin now pays about $10,000 a month, and to keep his costs down he increased his employees' deductible this year to $500 from $250 and cut his coverage for employee dependents in half.

"I could get it cheaper if I wanted it, but you get what you pay for," Goodwin said.

As the debate about health care goes on, Goodwin said he opposes what the Obama administration and Congress have proposed, particularly a government-run public option, which he fears businesses could be asked to subsidize.

"It ain't the government's business," Goodwin said. "They don't need to be running a car company, and they sure don't need to be running health care."

If there's a way to keep costs down without the government getting involved, however, Goodwin said he's all for it.

Dallas Salisbury, the president and chief executive of the Employee Benefits Research Institute, said Goodwin's comments are typical of surveys of business owners, who're mostly Republican or Libertarian and are likely to oppose most forms of government intervention.

Without state or local level regulation, however, Salisbury said insurance companies would withhold coverage from people with pre-existing conditions and try to "cherry pick," or insure only healthy people.

Resolving the cost, coverage and quality issues surrounding the health care debate will always be difficult as long as consumers want access to everything, "but they assume that everybody else is getting a lot of services that they really don't need. That has been, for at least 60 years, the dilemma of modern health care," Salisbury said.


<font size="4">Other key findings from the survey:</font size>

• Twenty-two percent of workers now pay at least $1,000 out of their own pocket for single coverage before their insurance kicks in. That's up from 18 percent last year, according to the survey of more than 2,000 public and private employers.

• The average annual deductible for single coverage in an HMO increased to $699 this year from $503 in 2008. For family coverage in an HMO, the average deductible jumped to $1,524 from $1,053.

(The McClatchy Washington Bureau works in partnership with Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service that provides coverage of the nation's health care debate and is part of the Kaiser Family Foundation. The Kaiser foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization that isn't affiliated with Kaiser Permanente, helped conduct this survey.)


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75404.html

 

[QueEx]

 

[Cruise]

All of these self-serving statistics, "findings", and research from the same people who are getting support from the government...

looks real convincing.

The government knows that it can't continue its bureaucracy without seizing control of healthcare. It's key for them. They need it.

If healthcare reform fails, I can guarantee it's not going away. They'll create some crisis, or emergency, or outbreak to scare people into passing this garbage.

My only hope is that the nutbag birthers, teabaggers, and extremists do their thing and force the government to wait.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
CBO finds Dem bill with public option
reduces deficit</font size></center>


Cable News Network
From Deirdre Walsh
October 21, 2009


WASHINGTON (CNN) – A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.

This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month.

CBO analyzed what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls a "more robust" public option - one that ties reimbursement rates for doctors to current Medicare rates, plus a 5 percent increase.

At a meeting with House Democrats on Tuesday night, Pelosi did not release CBO's preliminary numbers, but told members that CBO told leaders the House bill would cost well below $900 billion. Aides say final CBO numbers could be released on Wednesday.

Senior Democratic aides told CNN that House Democratic leaders are likely to put this version of the public option favored by liberal Democrats in the final bill they are drafting. While no final decision has been made, on Tuesday night Speaker Pelosi made the case to House Democrats that this approach saves the most money and would put the House in a better negotiating position when it comes time to negotiate a final health care bill with the Senate.

Pelosi instructed House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, D-South Carolina, to begin canvassing all House Democrats on Wednesday to determine whether this bill had enough votes to pass in the House. According to several sources in the meeting, Pelosi acknowledged she did not currently have the 218 votes needed to pass this version on the House floor, but believed she was close to having around 200 votes.

Moderate, "blue dog" Democrats in the House largely oppose the robust public option and instead argue for a government run insurance option that could negotiate reimbursement rates directly with doctors and hospitals. CBO's analysis of that approach was not available according to Democratic sources, but aides say the preliminary analysis shows it does not save as much as the approach pushed by Pelosi.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/21/health.care.cbo/index.html

 

[thoughtone]

You seem to think government knows all and government is looking to help non-whites.

When in United States history, has the government EVER passed a law that helped slave descendants without helping honkeys first and foremost?

It is reckless and irresponsible to believe government would ever do anything to help slave descendants.



For the umpteenth time, I say no government involvement and no corporate involvement in health care.

Why do you insist on making this issue so complicated? Why are you so determined to have government/corporate involvement? What is your agenda? Do you work for the government?

I see you depended on corporate health insurance, so a NANNY STATE solution is just fine by you.

Believe it or not, not everyone is in that situation. But, it sounds like you want to impose this on everyone, whether they like it or not.

No, I don't think the government knows all. But I do know the private sector does not know all!

 

[QueEx]

You seem to think government knows all and government is looking to help non-whites.

When in United States history, has the government EVER passed a law that helped slave descendants without helping honkeys first and foremost?

It is reckless and irresponsible to believe government would ever do anything to help slave descendants.

Doesn't your argument "ignore" the notion of intended and incidental beneficiaries ???

As I am sure you probably know, there is such thing as "Intended" beneficiaries and "Incidental" beneficiaries. You may do a thing Intending to benefit someone, and that happens. However, someone else is also likely to benefit, incidentally, though you weren't trying, necessarily, to benefit that other person.

For example: You "Intend" and do benefit your son by paying his college tuition. Though it was not necessarily your concern, the school, including its administrators, instructors and even janitorial staff, will benefit, incidentally, by the tuition payment.

So, what does it matter if someone else benefits, incidentally. Assuming there is a program that you contend was INTENDED to benefit whites, wouldn't it be hard for us not to also benefit, incidentally ? ? ?


QueEx

 

[Cruise]

No, I don't think the government knows all. But I do know the private sector does not know all!

WE are the private sector! I know you aren't saying the government and corporations know how to live our lives better than we do.

Be clear...

CORPORATIONS are GOVERNMENT-created entities.

CORPORATIONS are NOT PRIVATE but PUBLIC.
GOVERNMENT is NOT PRIVATE but PUBLIC.

It is these public intrusions into private matters (e.g. health care) that are destroying people's access to medicine and treatment.

The PUBLIC options (CORPORATIONS and GOVERNMENT) want to ration and limit people's access to health care.

They want to create shortages where none exists, through regulation, standardization, and bureaucracy.

CORPORATIONS and GOVERNMENTS are the same thing, from the standpoint of the private individual.

Both seek to place themselves between you and the physician, all the while taking a huge cut for themselves and leaving less for you to use.

Now, if your goal is to harm certain groups (let's say the elderly, slave descendants, the poor, the unemployed), it's a great plan.

Otherwise, it's naive to believe this will do anything but make a bad situation worse.

I guarantee you this, within 5 years (long enough for statistics to be kept) after this passes, there will be a great health care crisis affecting this country that will require the government to take more control over those irresponsible hospitals and doctors.

Doesn't your argument "ignore" the notion of intended and incidental beneficiaries ???

As I am sure you probably know, there is such thing as "Intended" beneficiaries and "Incidental" beneficiaries. You may do a thing Intending to benefit someone, and that happens. However, someone else is also likely to benefit, incidentally, though you weren't trying, necessarily, to benefit that other person.

For example: You "Intend" and do benefit your son by paying his college tuition. Though it was not necessarily your concern, the school, including its administrators, instructors and even janitorial staff, will benefit, incidentally, by the tuition payment.

So, what does it matter if someone else benefits, incidentally. Assuming there is a program that you contend was INTENDED to benefit whites, wouldn't it be hard for us not to also benefit, incidentally ? ? ?


QueEx

I only mentioned that "IF" someone believed good things have been done for non-whites.

Personally, I think everything the Federal government does is to harm or inhibit non-whites.

But, to play devil's advocate, I don't believe it makes sense to advocate a position unless there are clear and direct benefits for yourself. Incidental benefits are nice but do not make or break the negotiation.

This is especially true when you are dealing with an adversary with a clear history of detrimental and harmful actions toward you in every part of its past.

If you are paying the same price as the primary benefactor, should you not receive the same primary benefits as they. Why should you settle for incidental benefits while bearing the same cost?

That is the history of white and non-white in this country. Whites get the benefits, non-whites pay the cost.

 

[thoughtone]

WE are the private sector! I know you aren't saying the government and corporations know how to live our lives better than we do.

Be clear...

CORPORATIONS are GOVERNMENT-created entities.

CORPORATIONS are NOT PRIVATE but PUBLIC.
GOVERNMENT is NOT PRIVATE but PUBLIC.

It is these public intrusions into private matters (e.g. health care) that are destroying people's access to medicine and treatment.

The PUBLIC options (CORPORATIONS and GOVERNMENT) want to ration and limit people's access to health care.

They want to create shortages where none exists, through regulation, standardization, and bureaucracy.

CORPORATIONS and GOVERNMENTS are the same thing, from the standpoint of the private individual.

Both seek to place themselves between you and the physician, all the while taking a huge cut for themselves and leaving less for you to use.

Now, if your goal is to harm certain groups (let's say the elderly, slave descendants, the poor, the unemployed), it's a great plan.

Otherwise, it's naive to believe this will do anything but make a bad situation worse.

I guarantee you this, within 5 years (long enough for statistics to be kept) after this passes, there will be a great health care crisis affecting this country that will require the government to take more control over those irresponsible hospitals and doctors.



I only mentioned that "IF" someone believed good things have been done for non-whites.

Personally, I think everything the Federal government does is to harm or inhibit non-whites.

But, to play devil's advocate, I don't believe it makes sense to advocate a position unless there are clear and direct benefits for yourself. Incidental benefits are nice but do not make or break the negotiation.

This is especially true when you are dealing with an adversary with a clear history of detrimental and harmful actions toward you in every part of its past.

If you are paying the same price as the primary benefactor, should you not receive the same primary benefits as they. Why should you settle for incidental benefits while bearing the same cost?

That is the history of white and non-white in this country. Whites get the benefits, non-whites pay the cost.

If you are paying the same price as the primary benefactor, should you not receive the same primary benefits as they. Why should you settle for incidental benefits while bearing the same cost?

I read somewhere that somebody said life wasn't fair. Do you know who it was?

 

[redemption]

That was almost 15 years ago when I was with a very large corporation. In fact, if you want to get specific, I had the best (or I was supposedly paying for) level of heath insurance. My primary doctor had me running from specialist to specialist, avoiding the surgery that would have made the situation better immediately. The cost of this delay as while as making my injury worse led me to seek a law suit. To make a long story short, my threat of law suit causes them to capitulate and pay the entire bill including co-pay. Even the doctors apologized, being beholden to the corporate insurance bureaucrats. I find it strange you are arguing with me about a situation you have no knowledge of. Have you ever been involved with or needed severe health care or are you a whining fewer twenty something experiencing life from your mothers basement and a Ron Paul pamphlet?

 

[Cruise]

I read somewhere that somebody said life wasn't fair. Do you know who it was?

I get it.

You believe people should NOT exercise their rights, they should do whatever they are told, and not use their god-given head to make up their own minds.

Yeah, your way makes more sense.

 

[thoughtone]

I get it.

You believe people should NOT exercise their rights, they should do whatever they are told, and not use their god-given head to make up their own minds.

Yeah, your way makes more sense.

Yea, people should not make up there own minds.

Your hyperbole has gotten extremely tiring. When you can't debate a specific issue you make ridicules generalities.

 

[Cruise]

Yea, people should not make up there own minds.

Your hyperbole has gotten extremely tiring. When you can't debate a specific issue you make ridicules generalities.

Well, isn't that your position. The government knows better than we do about our own health needs.

You believe we should be FORCED to accept their decisions about our care, right?

You are the one advancing the government-as-god position, not me. I say, let private individuals decide the health care they want, not the PUBLIC (corporations and governments).

You have been saying PUBLIC is better, right? PUBLIC means no one has the right to decide their own health care, only the government and corporations.

Unless, you are against this, in which case I have misread your position.

 

[thoughtone]

Well, isn't that your position. The government knows better than we do about our own health needs.

The government, which we the people empower, know how to prevent those leech insurance companies from gouging us on the premiums we have to pay them when we need to use medical care.

Next grandiose comment...

You believe we should be FORCED to accept their decisions about our care, right?

I don't what you mean sight an example.

You are the one advancing the government-as-god position, not me. I say, let private individuals decide the health care they want, not the PUBLIC (corporations and governments).

I think you worship at the alter of capitalism. The almighty dollar!

You have been saying PUBLIC is better, right? PUBLIC means no one has the right to decide their own health care, only the government and corporations.

I don't know what you mean sight a specfic example

Unless, you are against this, in which case I have misread your position.

You haven't proven anything. I guess you think if you keep repeating nonsensical statements or talking point over and over, they will magical become some sort of confirmation of your murky premise.

Well, isn't that your position. The government knows better than we do about our own health needs.​

The government? You mean The Veterans Administration, Medicare, What?

 

[Greed]

Why Does Health Care Cost So Much?

For anyone not a Republican or Democrat the truth is clear and not rocket science.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1320

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1321

 

[Cruise]

The government, which we the people empower, know how to prevent those leech insurance companies from gouging us on the premiums we have to pay them when we need to use medical care.

So, you think you are one of the people. I take it you are white.

Besides, insurance companies come from the government. They would not exist if not for the government. If you blame insurance, you MUST blame the government.

Otherwise, you are not looking at the issue honestly.

I don't what you mean sight an example.

I think you worship at the alter of capitalism. The almighty dollar!



I don't know what you mean sight a specfic example

You haven't proven anything. I guess you think if you keep repeating nonsensical statements or talking point over and over, they will magical become some sort of confirmation of your murky premise.



The government? You mean The Veterans Administration, Medicare, What?

the government, its agencies, its laws, its corporations, everything that interferes in a private individual getting health care from a private care provider (doctor, nurse, hospital, etc.)

So, I take it you want socialized medicine?

 

[cbm_redux]

A:

a. The AMA's iron-fisted on monopoly on all areas of medicine, many of which could be performed just as well and far more economically by nurses or skilled technicians.

b. The lack of a single payer national health care option. Economies of scale, my nigga.

 

[thoughtone]

So, you think you are one of the people. I take it you are white.

Besides, insurance companies come from the government. They would not exist if not for the government. If you blame insurance, you MUST blame the government.

Otherwise, you are not looking at the issue honestly.








the government, its agencies, its laws, its corporations, everything that interferes in a private individual getting health care from a private care provider (doctor, nurse, hospital, etc.)

So, I take it you want socialized medicine?

You still haven’t given me any SPECFIC examples. I'll just chock it up to ideology.
You live in theory and your mama's basement; I live in the real world.

 

[thoughtone]

source: CBS

U.S. to Soon Pay Half of Health Care Costs

Even Without Health Care Overhaul, Report Says Government Will Pay Half of All Medical Cost by 2012

(AP) For all the hue and cry over a government takeover of health care, it's happening anyway.

Federal and state programs will pay slightly more than half the tab for health care purchased in the United States by 2012, says a report by Medicare number crunchers released Thursday.

That's even if President Barack Obama's health care overhaul wastes away in congressional limbo. Long in coming, the shift to a health care sector dominated by government is being speeded up by the deep economic recession and the aging of the Baby Boomers, millions of whom will soon start signing up for Medicare.

"This does mark a pretty stark jump in the data," said Christopher Truffer of Medicare's Office of the Actuary, which prepared the analysis published in the journal Health Affairs.

The tipping point is likely to come next year, Truffer said. For technical reasons, the report assumes that Congress is going to allow Medicare to cut doctor fees by 20 percent later this year, as required by a 1990s budget law. But lawmakers have routinely waived such cuts, and they're not likely to allow them in an election year. So government probably will end up picking up most of the nation's medical costs in 2011, instead of 2012.

The report serves as a reality check in the debate over Obama's health care plan, which has been dominated by disagreements over how large a role government should play.

Congressional Democrats want to move forward with the sweeping legislation despite the loss of a Massachusetts Senate seat that cost them undisputed control of the legislative agenda. Republicans have rejected Obama's approach as a top-down, big government solution.

Richard Foster, Medicare's top economic forecaster, said the recession has only worsened the two stubborn problems facing the U.S. health care system, lack of insurance coverage and high costs. "All that argues that some form of health care reform is a good idea," Foster said.

The Democrats' plan would expand coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured, while taking some modest steps to slow the pace of future cost increases. It would set up a new insurance marketplace for small businesses and people buying coverage on their own, with government subsidies available for many. Denial of coverage because of health problems would be prohibited.

The report estimated that in 2009, the United States spent $2.5 trillion for health care, with government programs - mainly Medicare and Medicaid - paying $1.2 trillion. Employer health insurance and various private sources covered the other $1.3 trillion. Even as the economy shrank because of the downturn, health care spending grew by 5.7 percent from 2008. Spending by government grew nearly three times faster than private spending, closing in to overtake it.

Driving much of the government surge was Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people, which grew by nearly 10 percent as workers lost jobs with health insurance, and Democrats expanded coverage for children of the working poor.

The swine flu outbreak contributed modestly to higher costs in 2009, as more people went to the doctor and took antiviral medications, the report found. Total spending on prescription drugs grew by slightly more than 5 percent, as higher prices for brand name medications overpowered the widespread availability of generics.

Previous estimates had put the crossover point to a health care system financed mainly by taxpayers at about 2016. There seems to be little chance that the balance will tip back decisively in the direction of private financing, with the Baby Boom generation signing up for Medicare and the lack of health insurance at many new jobs.

Other economically advanced countries - including those with government-run health care - also have problems with costs. But the U.S. spends much more per person than any other nation, without getting better results in life expectancy and many other measures of health.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Insurer handed out bonuses,
while planning huge rate increase</font size></center>


McClatchy Newspapers
By Rob Hotakainen
February 24, 2010


<font size="3">WASHINGTON — While Anthem Blue Cross proposed a 39 percent rate increase on thousands of its California customers, its parent company gave 39 of its executives more than $1 million each and spent more than $27 million on 103 lavish executive retreats, congressional investigators said Wednesday. </font size>

"One question we asked is where does all of this money go? ... Corporate executives at WellPoint are thriving, while its policyholders are paying the price," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said at a House of Representatives subcommittee hearing Wednesday.

Angela Braly, the chief executive of WellPoint, Anthem Blue Cross' parent company, told the House panel that the rate increases were necessary to keep the company solvent.

In response to the company's proposed rate hike, Congress is weighing a plan that would create a federal agency to oversee proposed health insurance rate increases.

Critics say the federal government has no business setting prices in the private sector, while proponents say it's the only way to rein in greedy companies that increasingly are taking advantage of consumers.

At Wednesday's hearing, Braly told the House panel that the rate increases were needed to keep up with medical inflation.

"Raising our premiums was not something we wanted to do," she said. "But we believe this was the most prudent choice given the rising cost of care and the problems caused by many younger and healthier policyholders dropping or reducing their coverage during tough economic times."

She said the company welcomed the scrutiny it was receiving, and that its rate increases were "actuarially sound and in full compliance with all requirements in the law."

Waxman, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, charged that the company's story wasn't one of higher costs. "The thousands of pages of WellPoint documents we have reviewed tell another story," he said. "They tell a story not about costs, but about profits."

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who's proposing the new Medical Insurance Rate Authority, called Anthem's proposed rate hike "unconscionable." She said the company's latest move "is just another demonstration that the health insurance industry will not change its behavior until it is required to do so."

Feinstein cited a recent study that showed that the nation's five largest insurance companies reported record profits of $12.2 billion last year, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008. "The insurance industry reaps soaring profits by piling massive financial burdens onto consumers," she said. WellPoint, she said, reported earning $2.7 billion in the fourth quarter of last year alone.

Waxman used WellPoint to make the case for an immediate overhaul of the nation's health insurance system.

"If we fail to pass health reform, insurance rates will skyrocket and health insurance will become so expensive only the most healthy and most wealthy will be able to afford coverage," he said. "Health insurers like WellPoint may get richer, but our nation's health will suffer."

Under Feinstein's bill, the secretary of health and human services could review proposed rate increases in states where the insurance commissioner lacks the authority or capability to do so. Feinstein said that at least 25 states gave their insurance commissioners some type of authority to review or regulate premium hikes.

In addition, the bill would require companies to justify premium increases and would give the HHS secretary the authority to deny rate increases that the government found to be unjustified. The Medical Insurance Rate Authority would advise the secretary and would be composed of seven members: two consumer representatives, one insurance industry representative, one physician and three other experts.

Feinstein's idea won a key endorsement Monday from President Barack Obama, who wants it included in any new health care bill that Congress will consider this year.

In interviews earlier this week, two Republican governors expressed skepticism.

"I have never known federal price-fixing to work very well for very long," Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said.

"My initial reaction is I'm not wild about it," Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said. He said a rate authority board might be a good idea if it were advisory only. "I believe strongly in the free market to decide the prices. … To give them any teeth to help regulate prices at the federal level I don't think is the right direction."

Maryland Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley called WellPoint's rate increase "outrageous" and said that a federal rate authority could aid states in their regulatory efforts: "I think that having a federal backstop could well be helpful."


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/...rates-39-executives.html?storylink=MI_emailed

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
WellPoint grilled over rate increases</font size></center>


San Francisco Chronicle
Carolyn Lochhead
Chronicle Washington Bureau
Thursday, February 25, 2010




Washington -- The health insurance industry came under fierce assault on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, with the House voting 406-19 to revoke the decades-old antitrust exemption for health insurers after a congressional committee grilled the top executive of WellPoint, parent company of the insurer that plans rate increases of up to 39 percent for individual California policyholders.


The fireworks came as President Obama is scheduled to hold a C-SPAN-televised summit today with members of Congress on health care reform legislation.

Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove (Sacramento County), said the bill to strike the health insurance industry's 65-year-old antitrust exemption will "force America's health insurance industry into the same market we want all American industry to be in: the free market competitive system."

"This is simple," added Garamendi, a former California state insurance commissioner and co-sponsor of the bill. "Insurance companies should not be able to monopolize the health insurance marketplace."

Earlier Wednesday, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, said his panel's investigators found that as Anthem Blue Cross plans to hike rates in California, WellPoint awarded salaries of $1 million or more to 39 of its executives and spent $27 million on company retreats, including one in Scottsdale, Ariz., that cost more than $3 million.


FULL STORY: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/25/MN671C6K68.DTL

 

[Cruise]

These phony-ass politicians are so transparent.

For years, there were no problems with the Insurance companies. Congress was fine with it.

Suddenly, when Congress needs something from the voters, health insurance is a big problem that needs addressing.

So, Congress starts grandstanding about how it's so wrong what these insurance companies are doing, when they've been doing it for years.

They did it with the banks, then the auto companies, now the health insurance companies.

Of course, this all precedes legislation for yet another new law to fix a "new" problem which only creates more problems that Congress will need to "fix" with yet more laws.

What a great scam!

 

[Lamarr]

Of course, this all precedes legislation for yet another new law to fix a "new" problem which only creates more problems that Congress will need to "fix" with yet more laws.

What a great scam!

 

[thoughtone]

I guess she figures the electric company will accept chickens. You can't make this stuff up!

source: CBS

Sue Lowden Stands by Chicken Health Care Barter Plan


<OBJECT width=640 height=385>


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a9o8lVWWDac&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></OBJECT></P>
Sue Lowden, a Republican Senate hopeful in Nevada, has been widely mocked for earlier this week stating that, "before we all started having health care, in the olden days our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor, they would say I'll paint your house."


"I mean, that's the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors," she said. "Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system."

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee subsequently set up a "Chickens for Checkups" website offering a fake form letter in which people could offer items in exchange for health care - 10 chickens for rickets treatment, five sets of overalls for "the vapors," etc.

The letter sarcastically concludes: "Thanks for coming up with such a simple solution to a complicated problem!" Jay Leno also mocked Lowden's suggestion.

Many expected Lowden, who is hoping to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the general election, to back off the comments. Instead, she is standing by them.
<!--pagebreak-->Lowden spokesperson Chrystal Feldman told The Plum Line's Greg Sargent that "Americans are struggling to pay for their health care, and in order to afford coverage we must explore all options available to drive costs down."

"Bartering with your doctor is not a new concept," said Feldman. "There have been numerous reports as to how negotiating with your doctor is an option and doctors have gone on the record verifying this."

The Lowden campaign also pointed Sargent to a letter to a Nevada newspaper from a rural doctor who said "I can state from personal experience that bartering works."

"I have bartered with patients -- for alfalfa hay, a bath tub, yard work and horse shoeing in exchange for my care," said Dr. Robin L. Titus, a former Republican candidate for Senate who ended her campaign three months ago.
<!-- body end -->

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[Greed]

Doctors driven to bankruptcy

Doctors driven to bankruptcy
By Parija Kavilanz @CNNMoney
April 8, 2013: 11:20 AM ET

As many doctors struggle to keep their practices financially sound, some are buckling under money woes and being pushed into bankruptcy.

It's a trend that's accelerated in recent years, industry experts say, with potentially serious consequences for doctors and patients. Some physicians are still able to keep practicing after bankruptcy, but for others, it's a career-ending event. And when a practice shuts its doors, patients can find it harder to get the health care they need nearby.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by physician practices have spiked recently, noted Bobby Guy, co-chair of the American Bankruptcy Institute's health care committee, who tracks bankruptcy trends tied to distressed businesses. Guy said there were at least eight filings in recent weeks, which he said was "very unusual."

Five years ago, Plantation, Fla.-based bankruptcy attorney David Langley didn't have a single doctor as a client. Since then he's handled at least six bankruptcy cases involving doctors. Two current clients -- an orthopedic surgeon and an OB/GYN -- also are in bankruptcy.

None of his physician clients had malpractice lawsuits that landed them in dire financial straits. All are "top-notch doctors," he said.

The weak economy has taken a toll on doctors' revenue, as consumers cut back on office visits and lucrative elective procedures, said Guy, a bankruptcy attorney in Nashville with Frost Brown Todd LLC.

Doctors also blame shrinking insurance reimbursements, changing regulations, and the rising costs of malpractice insurance, drugs and other business necessities for making it harder to keep their practices afloat.

Oncologist Dr. Dennis Morgan had a profitable solo practice in Enfield, Conn., for years. Revenues began to fall, he said, when reimbursements for treatment and drugs to oncologists started shrinking. He made cutbacks, but he began having trouble meeting expenses, and his business debt grew. Critical chemotherapy drug and medical supplies providers "eventually cut me off," Morgan said.

In June 2011, his practice, in a medically underserved area, filed for bankruptcy. It had hundreds of chemotherapy patients at the time.

For the next two years, his role became "that of a captain of a sinking ship managing the allocation of life boats until rescue arrived," he said. He redirected patients to other doctors and area hospitals. Early last year, he stopped practicing medicine.

Having a cancer practice close can be "debilitating" to a community, said Morgan. "If you have to travel one or two hours to get treatment and you have no one to go with you, it becomes a matter of getting care or not getting care," he said.

Primary care doctors face similar challenges. Langley recounts one client, a solo practitioner in an underserved area of Broward County, Fla., whose patients were mostly on Medicare or lacked insurance.

As the economy worsened in the wake of the recession, fewer patients could afford to come in. Cash payments and reimbursements dropped. To come up with money to keep the practice going, she took a second job at a hospital. Still, her debt ballooned. She fell behind on state tax payments.

Two years ago, Florida tax officials showed up at her door to shut the clinic down. She quickly called Langley and he was able to file an emergency bankruptcy for her online while the officials were still in the waiting room. He gave them the bankruptcy case number, and they left without closing the clinic. Langley eventually helped the doctor restructure her debt and the clinic is still open, he said.

Dr. Morgan Moor was on the brink of bankruptcy in 2011. An internist with a solo practice in Brentwood, Tenn., Moor said the recession badly hurt her once-thriving practice. By 2010, she had lost almost half of her active patients, her annual revenue had dropped nearly 30%, and she had to lay off half her employees.

"We were told that bankruptcy was our only option," she said. So she hired Guy. Luckily, Moor said, she was able to restructure her debt and her business without filing.

Every day since has been a struggle, though. "Every payroll, I wonder if we will be able to keep doing this," she said. "I try not to think about it because it paralyzes me with fear."

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/08/smallbusiness/doctors-bankruptcy/index.html?iid=s_mpm

 

[QueEx]

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/look-how-quickly-the-us-got-fat-1985-2010-animated-map/274878/" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/look-how-quickly-the-us-got-fat-1985-2010-animated-map/274878/">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[thoughtone]

source: Daily Koz


Aetna CEO @mtbert Sees Salary Triple (Well, Quadruple); Company Plans To Spit On ObamaCare Regs


The same CEO who pledged to make Americans 'suffer' during the fiscal cliff drama, lives in a mansion on a mountain with a hot tub, and is spitting in the face of our President and democracy by openly defying the most critical ACA regulations in 2014, was rewarded last year for his immoral and unethical behavior with a salary that tripled -- or quadrupled, depending how you count it. If you can stomach the details:

The CEO of Aetna Inc., Mark T. Bertolini, had a 2012 pay package that more than tripled — nearly quadrupled — his compensation the year before, according to documents filed Friday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Bertolini was compensated a total of $36.36 million last year, not including $11.1 million in stock awards which vest later and are based on the company's performance.
​

Of course, Aetna's PR flack is poor mouthing the (likely) billionaire's wealth:

"Bertolini received no salary increase in 2012 and his bonus was down 55%," Aetna spokeswoman Cynthia Michener said. "The long-term stock payouts reported in 2012 actually include two years' worth of equity grants from prior years. No long-term equity grants are scheduled to pay out in 2013."​

Cry me a fucking river -- his bonus was down 55%. If my bonus going down 55% means I still make almost $50 million in a year, can I please have my bonus go down 95%?!

Other unnecessary executives who do nothing of value at a private insurance corporation that adds zero social value to our country also took home the bacon (well, the filet mignon):

Chief Financial Officer Joseph M. Zubretsky was compensated $21.39 million, not including $4.5 million in stock awards that have a future value and depend on the company's performance.
Kristi Ann Matus, executive vice president of government services, was compensated $2.5 million, not including $3.8 million in stock awards that have a future value and depend on the company's performance.

Margaret M. McCarthy, executive vice president of operations and technology, was compensated $11.9 million, not including $2.75 million in stock awards that have a future value and depend on the company's performance.
​

But, oh no, Aetna still must do everything possible to avoid complying with ACA regulations that might hit its profits (i.e. Mark's salary) just a tiny bit:

One of the largest health insurance companies in the United States is advising insurance brokers on how to evade new mandates and benefits set to take effect next year under President Barack Obama's health care reform law.
In an email sent to brokers, the insurance giant Aetna explains how they can renew customers' current health plans before Jan. 1, a strategy the Los Angeles Times reported this week is under consideration at other big health insurance companies.

Obamacare includes a number of new rules for health insurance plans that will become law at the beginning of next year, or whenever existing policies expire. By extending customers' plans before then, health insurance companies and their customers can lock in health plans that don't adhere to those rules for up to one more year.

Among the new rules this approach could skirt are requirements that health insurance cover a minimum set of benefits, prohibitions on turning away people with pre-existing conditions, bans on charging higher rates to sick people or to women, limitations on how much extra older people can be asked to pay, and rules against insurance companies refusing to renew policies.

The company is calling its outreach to insurance brokers "Aetna’s Premium Savings program."
​

Even loyal Aetna soldiers are pretty pissed in the comments section of the blog post detailing his riches. Take this example:

I am seriously appalled!! Aetna holds all employees to the company’s values: Employee Engagement, Quality Service and Value, Excellence and Accountability; last but not less “Integrity” which is doing the right thing for the for the reason! Well gluttony is not Integrity. We work for this healthcare company and pay for a ridiculous amount in premiums which our monetary raises doesn’t even meet the hike. I am a nonsmoker that exercises several times a week. With the millions you made, you could of put it towards the employees and paid our premiums for a full year. We work for a company that also charges us to work there by paying for parking on their own property. Mark, by setting this example it’s no wonder why department heads (i.e. I was going to name some but what’s the point) follow your lead and keep lying to their employees too. They have no integrity in their works ethics so this carries over to the home life too. You are no role model!! So what’s the point of the employees of holding their end of the business conduct and integrity if the President bluntly refuses too ergo no need of a HR department too (no one is on the hard workers side). You might as well stop spending our time with employee surveys too! I work extremely hard for the company every day, put my heart and sole into what I do just to make less than the previous year. It’s sad to say that I have had looked into obtain assistance via food share. You tell the employees that we didn’t make our target metrics so that raises and bonus are cut back but yet where did all of these millions come from that you gave yourself? The Aetna moto is “We want you to know”, well we are not well informed but lied too again and again.
The last person who ran Aetna poorly is now working with Obama with universal health care. Will Mark be looking to get his grips into this too and bankrupting the tax payers? Aetna sponsors lots of events and charities, well at this point, the employees not departments heads are the new charity cases so pass out the wealth!!!​

 

[QueEx]

89 arrested in crackdown by Medicare Fraud Strike Force

WASHINGTON — Doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals were among 89 people recently arrested in nine cities, accused of scheming to defraud the Medicare program of nearly $223 million in false billings, the Obama administration announced Tuesday.

The defendants face charges of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, money laundering and violating federal anti-kickback statutes for submitting claims to Medicare for purchases, treatments and services that, according to federal officials, either were medically unnecessary or never provided.
​

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191250/89-arrested-in-crackdown-by-medicare.html#storylink=cpy