Interview with former Cigna executive

I've largely steered clear of the healthcare discussion on this board so far- for several reasons. For one, I've been kinda ambivalent about the whole thing. For another, I don't have the time, energy, or interest to dispell all of the blatant lies that are being thrown around. But I've just stumbled across what I reckon is THE most candid and informative piece I've seen so far on the subject: An interview with former Cigna executive Wendell Potter, who recently resigned out of disgust over how his company was operating, and how it has conducted itself throughout this political debate. Well worth the time to watch or read:

Video and transcript here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

It was worth the time,Thanks for posting it.

Anybody shocked by this?

It was a good read.

Still ain't convinced Government run healthcare is gonna be any better.

Quote :

Still ain't convinced Government run healthcare is gonna be any better.

I ain't either. But between information like this and the obvious lies ("Death panel". For fuk's sake) coming from the Repubs, I'm beginning to wonder.

One thing that I found particularly enlightening was his explanation of how medical insurance group rates are DESIGNED to rid the system of the more expensive customers. I had always wondered why health insurance was ALWAYS rather arbitrarily divided up into different group rates for each employer- multiple employers or individuals are never allowed to form their own 'group'. It always seemed fishy to me. And now I understand why.

This isn't to say I'm convinced that the gov't will do any better. But nobody is proposing a complete government take-over. And neither am I convinced that the proposed "government option" will necessarily lead to one. What's missing here, IMO, are convincing arguments from the Republicans- arguments that don't involve hysteria and DELIBERATE misrepresentation.

Bighead wrote:

nobody is proposing a complete government take-over. And neither am I convinced that the proposed "government option" will necessarily lead to one.

You need look no further than your local WalMart.

I worked the night Smoky Hills aired this program and was very interested in it while it was airing. I find the health fairs or gathering were the unsured went for care disturbing. I understand that they have had these events in Wichita before.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

nobody is proposing a complete government take-over. And neither am I convinced that the proposed "government option" will necessarily lead to one.

You need look no further than your local WalMart.

Totally agree with you on this.

Bighead wrote:

This isn't to say I'm convinced that the gov't will do any better. But nobody is proposing a complete government take-over. And neither am I convinced that the proposed "government option" will necessarily lead to one.

Government doesn't usually openly propose taking anything completely over. They do it an inch at a time so you don't see it coming.

Bighead wrote:

What's missing here, IMO, are convincing arguments from the Republicans- arguments that don't involve hysteria and DELIBERATE misrepresentation.

They're just taking their turn. As I type the democrats are doing their perpetual Chicken Little screaming about guns with all the exaggerations, lies, and scare tactics as usual. At least the republicans will eventually shut up about this.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

nobody is proposing a complete government take-over. And neither am I convinced that the proposed "government option" will necessarily lead to one.

You need look no further than your local WalMart.

Ratzilla wrote:

Government doesn't usually openly propose taking anything completely over. They do it an inch at a time so you don't see it coming.

In my HUMBLE opinion, these are the two most valid and honest criticisms that I hear coming form the opposition. Whatever form this 'reform' takes, we're gonna be stuck with it for a long, LONG time... and it will likely only expand. Ya'll will get no arguments from me on these points.

Problem from my POV is that the current situation is damn near indefensible. It's less efficient than current gov't programs here and abroad (20% administration cost for Cigna compared with 3% for Medicare). The insurance companies can drop their more expensive customers (i.e. those who need coverage most) pretty much at will. Worst of all, from an efficiency standpoint, there is VERY little competition in the insurance or medical industry- and said competition decreases every year via consolidation.

So while I DON'T think that socialism would be the most efficient long-term solution... the socialists here in America are the ONLY ones who are seriously proposing any changes. Our current system is anything BUT a "free market"- and our self-proclaimed 'free market' party has made only half-hearted, token suggestions for reform... in other words, it looks to me like the Republicans' only interest in this discussion is maintaining the dysfunctional status quo (dysfunctional unless you're an investor, that is). This is NOT between socialism & capitalism. Our choice is between the current buddy-buddy system specifically designed to extract maximum $$$ while providing minimum benefits... or some government social-engineering scheme that MIGHT end up in outright socialism (which arguably works better than our current insurance system both here and abroad).

Like I said, I'm kinda ambivalent about the whole thing. I have reasonably ok health insurance- but I KNOW that I'm just a lay-off away from losing it. I've done the health savings account thing: great idea in theory. A paperwork nightmare in practice, and often a rip-off to boot (I've done the math- and when you go from theory to practice, the numbers quickly change in the insurance company's favor). So I have no GOOD options. And I think this here interview makes a pretty good case against our current system.

Bighead wrote:

And I think this here interview makes a pretty good case against our current system.

True, but an excellent point I heard tonite(and I HATE Carl Rove) is that with insurance companies, you have SOME negotiating room. With a Federal run system, you wont be afforded that luxury.

IMO would be better to refom healthcare than to replace it.

If Walmart decides to do diesel mechanics, you're out of a job, Bighead.

Quote :

IMO would be better to refom healthcare than to replace it.

Goddamn it quit saying things that I agree with. Do you understand what that DOES to me? FUKC! And I can't even cuss properly around here.


But yeah, I completely agree. Problem is that that option is not on the table in the sense that NOBODY is making proposals that would truly increase competition within the industry (and I still contend that this lack of competition is the root cause of the rising costs). Like I said, only the Socialists are interested in changing things (and they are ostensibly proposing reform, not replacement). The Republicans (I wouldn't really call them 'Capitalists'- inasmuch at the term means "fee market") apparently have no interest whatsoever in changing the current system. The very few and half-hearted 'reforms' that they've suggested have ONLY been in response to the Democrats... and amount to little more than hand-outs to the industry.

Bighead wrote:

Goddamn it quit saying things that I agree with. Do you understand what that DOES to me? FUKC! And I can't even cuss properly around here.

Why the fuck is that?

Republicans are well known for being in the pockets of the medical/phramaceutical industry. The pills you take are 9 times higher in price than they are in Mexico or Canada largely because of republicans.

Malpractice attorneys on the other hand are veeeery chummy with the democrats. I call it double penetration and it's the reason the two party monopoly in politics must end.

I don't know- but lately every time I type 'f u c k', I end up with 'frack'. Lemme try it:

frack
frack
fracking
fuckhead

Hmmm... that's interesting. Apparently I'm more special than you:

frack
fuckhead
1fuck
fucku
fuckk
ffuck
fuckyou
fracking
ffucking
fuckingg



Anyhow, I would welcome some tort reform when it comes to medical malpractice suits. Problem is that the only tort reform proposal that I've heard about involves either capping the awards at an arbitrary amount, or removing malpractice suits from the courts ALTOGETHER. IMO, that's unacceptable- and is nothing more than one of those buddy-buddy deals that the Republicans love so much.

Now, as I understand it, the John Edwards' of the world go after these massive malpractice awards because they're paid on a percentage basis. The obvious solution is to place limits on not only the percentage that they may be paid, but also a cap on the total AMOUNT the lawyer may be paid (this is already done and works quite well with certain other types of lawsuits). That would completely remove the incentive for lawyers to pursue awards over a certain amount, but still allow plaintiffs to GET huge awards in particularly egregious cases. Hell, I wouldn't even have a problem with a system that somewhat standardizes awards based on the type and severity of malpractice- there are multiple ways that this can be approached.

So yeah, I don't disagree with the Republicans on this issue in principle. But I can't support their proposals on the matter unless they're willing to put a little more thought and effort into it.

Bighead wrote:

What's missing here, IMO, are convincing arguments from the Republicans- arguments that don't involve hysteria and DELIBERATE misrepresentation.

If they would propose a plan that would offer all people a chance at catastrophic coverage (in our parents' day, this was called "major medical") from private insurers, allow people to buy health insurance across state lines (like auto insurance) in order to increase competition and lower prices and take away the incentive for people to sue over unsatisfactory results that were explained to them in advance, they might have a winner. There is no need to scrap the entire system and start over. We can acheive better results at a much lower cost without the government being given more and more control over the economy and our personal lives.

Bighead wrote:

Anyhow, I would welcome some tort reform when it comes to medical malpractice suits. Problem is that the only tort reform proposal that I've heard about involves either capping the awards at an arbitrary amount, or removing malpractice suits from the courts ALTOGETHER. IMO, that's unacceptable- and is nothing more than one of those buddy-buddy deals that the Republicans love so much.

Now, as I understand it, the John Edwards' of the world go after these massive malpractice awards because they're paid on a percentage basis. The obvious solution is to place limits on not only the percentage that they may be paid, but also a cap on the total AMOUNT the lawyer may be paid (this is already done and works quite well with certain other types of lawsuits). That would completely remove the incentive for lawyers to pursue awards over a certain amount, but still allow plaintiffs to GET huge awards in particularly egregious cases. Hell, I wouldn't even have a problem with a system that somewhat standardizes awards based on the type and severity of malpractice- there are multiple ways that this can be approached.

So yeah, I don't disagree with the Republicans on this issue in principle. But I can't support their proposals on the matter unless they're willing to put a little more thought and effort into it.

How about instituting a "loser pays" system? Much of the cost in malpractice comes not from the actual payments to patients, but from the massive cost of defense. Even if the patient is unsuccessful in the suit, the doctor, or in most cases his insurance company, is stuck with a huge bill from the lawyers that they have have to hire in order to defend themselves. And malpractice suits are quite often unsuccessful. If the patient, or even better the patient and his lawyer, were required to pay the cost of the defense in these unsuccessful suits, many of which are frivolous from the start, it would remove the incentive for the ambulance chasers to pursue these ridiculous suits and leave the malpractice suits to serious cases in which the doctor was negligent.

Hell, Bighead, how much would you have to charge to make a repair if you were sued every time the repair didn't fix the problem? Especially if you were sued by people who otherwise completely abused the engine and expected you to have it as perfect as the day they bought it when you were done?

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

What's missing here, IMO, are convincing arguments from the Republicans- arguments that don't involve hysteria and DELIBERATE misrepresentation.

If they would propose a plan that would offer all people a chance at catastrophic coverage (in our parents' day, this was called "major medical") from private insurers, allow people to buy health insurance across state lines (like auto insurance) in order to increase competition and lower prices and take away the incentive for people to sue over unsatisfactory results that were explained to them in advance, they might have a winner. There is no need to scrap the entire system and start over. We can acheive better results at a much lower cost without the government being given more and more control over the economy and our personal lives.

I like the first suggestion.

I think the second suggestion is essentially included in the Democrats' rather vague proposal(s). It's a good idea.

And I like the third suggestion.

For fucks' sake- I even agree with your final point. I've agreed with both Nitro and EP on the same thread. This genuinely disturbs me... but I reckon it's to be expected seeings how I've made this thread into a fun little experiment in constructiveness.

My hang-up is this: the ONLY party that actually wants to make ANY sort of changes to the healthcare system is the one who wants to make MAJOR changes (scrap the entire system, as you put it). Say what you want about our Socialist Party... but at least they're willing to address this OBVIOUS problem. Our Fascist party had damn near total control for 6 years, and control of the executive for 8... and did absolutely NOTHING to address this matter- all while costs steadily rose and billing efficiency (pay-out minus administrative costs) plummeted. Not only that, but the Fascist party are the ones who cheered on prosecution of people who buy prescription drugs from Canada and Mexico. So much for the "free market"... our Fascists' real principle is "profit protection".

So at this point, IF I thought that our Fascists were willing put these ideas into motion, then I very well might support them. But they've brought out these ideas ONLY in response to our Socialists- and have proven beyond any doubt that they see no need to address the issue otherwise.

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

Anyhow, I would welcome some tort reform when it comes to medical malpractice suits. Problem is that the only tort reform proposal that I've heard about involves either capping the awards at an arbitrary amount, or removing malpractice suits from the courts ALTOGETHER. IMO, that's unacceptable- and is nothing more than one of those buddy-buddy deals that the Republicans love so much.

Now, as I understand it, the John Edwards' of the world go after these massive malpractice awards because they're paid on a percentage basis. The obvious solution is to place limits on not only the percentage that they may be paid, but also a cap on the total AMOUNT the lawyer may be paid (this is already done and works quite well with certain other types of lawsuits). That would completely remove the incentive for lawyers to pursue awards over a certain amount, but still allow plaintiffs to GET huge awards in particularly egregious cases. Hell, I wouldn't even have a problem with a system that somewhat standardizes awards based on the type and severity of malpractice- there are multiple ways that this can be approached.

So yeah, I don't disagree with the Republicans on this issue in principle. But I can't support their proposals on the matter unless they're willing to put a little more thought and effort into it.

How about instituting a "loser pays" system? Much of the cost in malpractice comes not from the actual payments to patients, but from the massive cost of defense. Even if the patient is unsuccessful in the suit, the doctor, or in most cases his insurance company, is stuck with a huge bill from the lawyers that they have have to hire in order to defend themselves. And malpractice suits are quite often unsuccessful. If the patient, or even better the patient and his lawyer, were required to pay the cost of the defense in these unsuccessful suits, many of which are frivolous from the start, it would remove the incentive for the ambulance chasers to pursue these ridiculous suits and leave the malpractice suits to serious cases in which the doctor was negligent.

It's a damn good idea IMO.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

nobody is proposing a complete government take-over. And neither am I convinced that the proposed "government option" will necessarily lead to one.

You need look no further than your local WalMart.

So I wanted to go back to this point.

I agree that it's entirely POSSIBLE that the private insurers won't be able to compete with a publik option. But I think it's important here to reiterate some statistics brought up in the interview: Cigna pays $0.80 in medical claims for ever $1.00 they recieve. Whereas Medicare- that horribly inefficient socialist scheme- pays $0.97 our of every $1.00 recieved towards medical claims. So the way I see it, private insurance companies have A LOT of wiggle room here. And if they can't compete with the likes of Medicare... then why should I have any sympathy AT ALL for them?

If they can't be run as efficiently as a government program- then, um... why would I not PREFER the government program?

Ratzilla wrote:

They're just taking their turn. As I type the democrats are doing their perpetual Chicken Little screaming about guns with all the exaggerations, lies, and scare tactics as usual. At least the republicans will eventually shut up about this.

That's true... but also kinda irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I may not have many nice things to say about Republicans these days, but I AM glad that they're around to defend my 2nd Amendment rights, if nothing else.

It's not really irrelevant Bighead, it's what's wrong. The repubs and the dems have these things they constantly try to screw each other on. The repubs defend gun rights and the dems try to topple the 2nd. The dems want health care for everyone and repubs kick it down. It's like two kids on a beach trying to build sand castles but each can't stand the thought of the other getting his done.

Bighead wrote:

I agree that it's entirely POSSIBLE that the private insurers won't be able to compete with a publik option. But I think it's important here to reiterate some statistics brought up in the interview: Cigna pays $0.80 in medical claims for ever $1.00 they recieve. Whereas Medicare- that horribly inefficient socialist scheme- pays $0.97 our of every $1.00 recieved towards medical claims. So the way I see it, private insurance companies have A LOT of wiggle room here. And if they can't compete with the likes of Medicare... then why should I have any sympathy AT ALL for them?

For profit vs Non profit?

Bighead wrote:

If they can't be run as efficiently as a government program- then, um... why would I not PREFER the government program?

Seriously?

Bighead, medicare/medicaid for the elderly or disabled is one thing. But for everyone? Sounds like a new big chunk outta my paychecks.

I'll tell you one thing that needs done. Toss the illegals out the hospital doors. We don't owe them healthcare. Toss the uninsured idiots out of the emergency rooms that get themselves shot in gang disputes and wind up costing the taxpayer millions to keep them alive and pay their disability for the rest of their rotten crackhead existence.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

I agree that it's entirely POSSIBLE that the private insurers won't be able to compete with a publik option. But I think it's important here to reiterate some statistics brought up in the interview: Cigna pays $0.80 in medical claims for ever $1.00 they recieve. Whereas Medicare- that horribly inefficient socialist scheme- pays $0.97 our of every $1.00 recieved towards medical claims. So the way I see it, private insurance companies have A LOT of wiggle room here. And if they can't compete with the likes of Medicare... then why should I have any sympathy AT ALL for them?

For profit vs Non profit?

There's more to it than that. One important statistic from the interview that I forgot to mention is that as of 1993, the PRIVATE insurance industry paid $0.95 in medical claims for every $1.00 received. That 5% administrative cost is pretty damn competitive with Medicare's 3% administrative cost. I think these numbers demonstrate that the VAST majority of the current 20% vs. 3% discrepancy in administrative costs is NOT explained by the 'for profit' vs. 'non profit'.

Now, I'm going to float an idea here that isn't included in the Socialist Party's proposal(s)- 'cause even though I DON'T think the 'profit vs. non-profit' observation explains MOST of the descrepancy in administrative costs, I DO think that it's a valid point. If they're really gonna create a medical program designed to "keep the insurance industry honest", then the program should be REQUIRED to turn a profit- a margin that would be fairly common within the industry. The proceeds could be used to pay back start-up costs. Or the national debt. Or medical research. Or whatever.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

If they can't be run as efficiently as a government program- then, um... why would I not PREFER the government program?

Seriously?

For the sake of discussion, yes. Seriously. If you disagree, and if it's really THAT obvious... then would you care to elaborate?

Bighead wrote:

For the sake of discussion, yes. Seriously. If you disagree, and if it's really THAT obvious... then would you care to elaborate?

Sure.

Who do you trust? Say you were going out of town on vacation. Who would you ask to watch your house? A neighbor or the police? Who considers Bighead, the Commandress, and Thor more of an impact on their life and less like a number?

Not sure how that relates to the discussion, Nitro. 'Cause I would ask neither the police nor a medical insurance company to watch my house.

I mean, if being "treated like a number" is your concern- consider what you read in the interview: Private health insurance companies have been deliberately dropping their more expensive patients (i.e. those who need coverage most) form the rolls as quickly as possible... all for the sake of expanding that 20% administrative cost (which includes profits, BILLIONS in executive pay, and the corporate jets with gold-trimmed plates & silverware that Potter mentioned). That isn't to say that Medicare won't treat you like a number- that's what they DO. But they can't and don't deliberately trim their more expensive (i.e. more sick) customers from the rolls.

As ya'll know, I'm no fan of government. But neither am I a fan of a damn near mandatory, privately-owned, for-profit bureaucracy propped up by anti-competitive (and rather arbitrary) rules and regulations.

So if you want to give this another try, I'd be interested to read it. Feel free to jump in, EP. I'll ask it again:


If private medical insurance can't be run as efficiently as a roughly equivalent government program (and currently the government programs are FAR more efficient)... then why should I NOT prefer that government program?

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead, medicare/medicaid for the elderly or disabled is one thing. But for everyone? Sounds like a new big chunk outta my paychecks.

I'll tell you one thing that needs done. Toss the illegals out the hospital doors. We don't owe them healthcare. Toss the uninsured idiots out of the emergency rooms that get themselves shot in gang disputes and wind up costing the taxpayer millions to keep them alive and pay their disability for the rest of their rotten crackhead existence.

Have I told you lately that you're a dumbass?

Bighead wrote:

Not sure how that relates to the discussion, Nitro. 'Cause I would ask neither the police nor a medical insurance company to watch my house.

I mean, if being "treated like a number" is your concern- consider what you read in the interview: Private health insurance companies have been deliberately dropping their more expensive patients (i.e. those who need coverage most) form the rolls as quickly as possible... all for the sake of expanding that 20% administrative cost (which includes profits, BILLIONS in executive pay, and the corporate jets with gold-trimmed plates & silverware that Potter mentioned). That isn't to say that Medicare won't treat you like a number- that's what they DO. But they can't and don't deliberately trim their more expensive (i.e. more sick) customers from the rolls.

As ya'll know, I'm no fan of government. But neither am I a fan of a damn near mandatory, privately-owned, for-profit bureaucracy propped up by anti-competitive (and rather arbitrary) rules and regulations.

So if you want to give this another try, I'd be interested to read it. Feel free to jump in, EP. I'll ask it again:


If private medical insurance can't be run as efficiently as a roughly equivalent government program (and currently the government programs are FAR more efficient)... then why should I NOT prefer that government program?

My Mom is one of those more expensive patients. Yeah, she has had their battles with insurance, BUT at least she gets that battle. You mentioned wiggle room. With Government, there is none. Repeatedly quoting ONE company does not your point prove. I guess if you want to trust without details, go ahead.

Yes, and you DO realize that millions of expensive patients like your Mom are routinely dropped from private insurance? The technique was described in detail. Medicare, on the other hand, can't drop your mom. So while she may have SOME (very limited) recourse now... how long will it last?

Also, people sue the government ALL THE TIME. Not sure why you think ObamaCare would be immune. And Medicare's 3% administrative costs clearly show that they're denying far fewer claims than Cigna with its 20% administrative costs. Seems to me that your Mom would, according to the numbers, have fewer 'battles' with Medicare.

And if you'll do a little research, you'll find that Cigna's 20% admin costs are pretty typical. And as one of the largest insurers in the industry, I think it's safe to assume that their practices are fairly typical. Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

Bighead wrote:

Yes, and you DO realize that millions of expensive patients like your Mom are routinely dropped from private insurance? The technique was described in detail. Medicare, on the other hand, can't drop your mom. So while she may have SOME (very limited) recourse now... how long will it last?

Also, people sue the government ALL THE TIME. Not sure why you think ObamaCare would be immune. And Medicare's 3% administrative costs clearly show that they're denying far fewer claims than Cigna with its 20% administrative costs. Seems to me that your Mom would, according to the numbers, have fewer 'battles' with Medicare.

And if you'll do a little research, you'll find that Cigna's 20% admin costs are pretty typical. And as one of the largest insurers in the industry, I think it's safe to assume that their practices are fairly typical. Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

I guess it's all in who you trust. You trust the Government.

Bighead wrote:

But I think it's important here to reiterate some statistics brought up in the interview: Cigna pays $0.80 in medical claims for ever $1.00 they recieve. Whereas Medicare- that horribly inefficient socialist scheme- pays $0.97 our of every $1.00 recieved towards medical claims.

The problem here is where the dollars that they receive come from. Insurance companies get the money from premiums paid by the beneficiaries. Medicare gets the money by taxing future beneficiaries. The fact that they are paying out $.97 on the dollar right now should be extremely alarming. As the baby boom generation continues to retire, and with the significantly lower birth rate in subsequent generations, Medicare will very soon reach the point where it is paying out more than it is taking in. At that point, the only options they will have is to either raise the Medicare tax, raise the age that people can receive benefits, or cut services. My guess is that they will do all three. And all you have to do is look in the mirror to see who gets screwed.

Bighead wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead, medicare/medicaid for the elderly or disabled is one thing. But for everyone? Sounds like a new big chunk outta my paychecks.

I'll tell you one thing that needs done. Toss the illegals out the hospital doors. We don't owe them healthcare. Toss the uninsured idiots out of the emergency rooms that get themselves shot in gang disputes and wind up costing the taxpayer millions to keep them alive and pay their disability for the rest of their rotten crackhead existence.

Have I told you lately that you're a dumbass?

I don't keep count, but it's good. Because it means you can't explain how paying for lazy bums, illegals, and gangbangers medical costs through taxes is beneficial to me.

I happen to agree that insurance companies are screwing us, but if we did away with insurance what would be the average monthly expense to working taxpayers? Show us some solid statistics that show that I could get as good or better healthcare from the government without my taxes skyrocketing past what my current insurance is.

The most common complaints I see from socialized medicine are that the ability to pay for a good doctor becomes void because you take your place in line behind the crackheads and bag ladies, and the quality of healthcare tends to drop dramatically if doctors see they'll only get a fraction of what insurance will pay.

See, one point you forget is that doctors in nations with socialized medicine have no reason to see to the needs of the hard working individual above that of the lowlifes and streetcorner inhabitants because they will only get the same low government payment for everyone. So do tell me how it will benefit me to throw away my BCBS card and stand in line behind the bums that my taxes will also pay for.

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

But I think it's important here to reiterate some statistics brought up in the interview: Cigna pays $0.80 in medical claims for ever $1.00 they recieve. Whereas Medicare- that horribly inefficient socialist scheme- pays $0.97 our of every $1.00 recieved towards medical claims.

The problem here is where the dollars that they receive come from. Insurance companies get the money from premiums paid by the beneficiaries. Medicare gets the money by taxing future beneficiaries. The fact that they are paying out $.97 on the dollar right now should be extremely alarming. As the baby boom generation continues to retire, and with the significantly lower birth rate in subsequent generations, Medicare will very soon reach the point where it is paying out more than it is taking in. At that point, the only options they will have is to either raise the Medicare tax, raise the age that people can receive benefits, or cut services. My guess is that they will do all three. And all you have to do is look in the mirror to see who gets screwed.

Take a look a social security and you will see the future of health care. They have increased the age for eligibility only to slow down that light in the tunnel.

Looks like you got a problem with bums crackheads and bag ladies

The big problem I see with our current healthcare is the over-priced over-charging done by the doctors, hospitals and drug companies. I believe in making a decent wage but it has really gotten out of hand. On several occaisions I have been told by the dr's that the reason they charge what they do is because medicare will allow that amount. To charge medicare that full amount, they have to charge everyone that high price. It isn't based on their costs with a reasonable profit added, it is based on pure greed.

Luke, the doctors have got ridiculously high liability insurance due to the frivolous lawsuits EP mentioned above. They also have to have the proper equipment and computer programs (and the people trained to operate them) in order to do all the medicare and insurance paper required for payment of services. I think the doctors are stuck in a lose lose situation, right now.

It doesn't matter, anyway. No one is going to want to be a doctor if this health care legislation is passed.

suzyr wrote:

Luke, the doctors have got ridiculously high liability insurance due to the frivolous lawsuits EP mentioned above. They also have to have the proper equipment and computer programs (and the people trained to operate them) in order to do all the medicare and insurance paper required for payment of services. I think the doctors are stuck in a lose lose situation, right now.

It doesn't matter, anyway. No one is going to want to be a doctor if this health care legislation is passed.

Suzy, I have to respectfully say "Bullshit" to you on this one. I know of a Dr that has been buying land (thousands of acres), has a lake cabin, bought expensive cars for fun, takes lots of vacations and only works 4 days a week. Don't tell me doctors are in a lose/lose situation. It is only us, the public that is losing on all sides.

LukeTHr wrote:

suzyr wrote:

Luke, the doctors have got ridiculously high liability insurance due to the frivolous lawsuits EP mentioned above. They also have to have the proper equipment and computer programs (and the people trained to operate them) in order to do all the medicare and insurance paper required for payment of services. I think the doctors are stuck in a lose lose situation, right now.

It doesn't matter, anyway. No one is going to want to be a doctor if this health care legislation is passed.

Suzy, I have to respectfully say "Bullshit" to you on this one. I know of a Dr that has been buying land (thousands of acres), has a lake cabin, bought expensive cars for fun, takes lots of vacations and only works 4 days a week. Don't tell me doctors are in a lose/lose situation. It is only us, the public that is losing on all sides.

I gotta agree with you here. I don't know what the average wage for a medical doctor is, but I do know two doctors in Hays who turned down $200,000/year offers. Now, before ya'll Republicans start screaming "SOCIALIST!!", I'd like to point out that doctors' inflated paychecks are IN NO WAY supported by the "free market". Let's say you have a nasty cold. We all KNOW that all you need to take care of the problem is $20 worth of antibiotics (though the price of those pills wil be massively inflated- but that's another rant), and $10 worth of that Heavenly Hydrocodone cough syrup. But you can't get it yourself. You are required BY LAW go to pay Dr. ScriptWriter $90 or so just so you can say AHHH while you take it up the ass. Yes, I know that the Dr. knows more than I do and that some antibiotics and cough syrup won't ALWAYS take care of the problem (you know... in about 2% of cases). But I'm a grownup and I'm MORE than willing to take that chance. If I doubt my abilities or if my current strategery isn't working, THEN I'd go pay for a doctor. But I don't have that option because doctors don't work in anything LIKE a 'free market'. Now a cold is only one example- these people take in office visits all day long that are NOT rocket science... but to get effective treatment, the visit is required by LAW and/or is paid for by private or government medical insurance in such a way as the customer doesn't feel the DIRECT cost of the office visit. There is no price pressure and no competition in the medical industry, and THAT is why it's so goddamn expensive.

I've heard Republicans say plenty of times that these guys DESERVE their rock-star incomes because they worked hard and went to lots of school. BULLSHIT. They only have such high incomes because they work in a highly insulated and protected industry. Look at PHD's in other industrys- they make, on average, a small FRACTION of what MD's make. I know non-tenured college professors who make less than I do. So as Clint Eastwood said: "deserving's got nothin' to do with it". These guys with incomes of $200,000 or thereabouts can cry me a ffucking river when they whine about lower medicare reimbursement rates and such. I hope they get squeezed harder every year.

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

Looks like you got a problem with bums crackheads and bag ladies

Not sure why you feel for crackheads and illegals. I have no problem with the bag lady getting some medical help. I just prefer not to stand in line behind her if my taxes are what's paying for both of us.

Oh and suzy, I believe I know the medical professional Luke refers to and he's right. The guy has greed fever big time. Those doctors don't live in the big houses on the NW part of town because they are hurting for cash. Just an empty lot in that part of town sells for more than my house.

I used to talk to an old pharmacist here that told me the reason prices on meds are 9 times higher in the US isn't because of research and development, lawsuits, or anything else. He said the companies still make money selling the stuff way cheaper in other countries and that the one and only reason it's higher here is because politicians are paid well for allowing the drug companies to gouge us.

Ratzilla wrote:

I used to talk to an old pharmacist here that told me the reason prices on meds are 9 times higher in the US isn't because of research and development, lawsuits, or anything else. .

For the benefit of certain "slippery" individuals on this forum who have a propensity to complain about everything and get all worked up about nothing, I saw on an ad that Dillon's pharmacy now has a 90-day supply of generic Prozac for only ten bucks.

Prosac? That's for lightweights. Better 'slide' right on up go Lithium. Or maybe Geodon.

Toss in some Chlorpromazine (Thorazine). It was once called the "chemical lobotomy".

Ratzilla wrote:

Toss in some Chlorpromazine (Thorazine). It was once called the "chemical lobotomy".

Okay, a little off the original topic but a lot more serious, was anyone on here aware prior to the past few days that Eunice Shriver/JFK/RKF/Teddy the K had a sister, Rosemary, who was lobotomized in 1941 because of emotional problems? It ended up being the motivation for Eunice to found the Special Olympics. Even the rich and powerful have medical horror stories.

I seem to recall a story of someone famous having a relative lobotomized, but it may not have been her. The lobotomy was once kind of the cure all for serious mental illness back before they started calling alot of forms of mental illness individualism.

Now that I think about it, I do remember hearing that Rosemary Kennedy was institutionalized. Maybe when they did Rosemary's lobotomy they did Ted as a two for one special. It'd explain alot.

Here's an interesting article. According to the study, roughly 22,000 Americans die every year due to a lack of medical insurance. Al Qaeda only WISHES they could inflict this many casualties:

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf

Quote :

Uninsured and Dying Because of it:

Summary

The absence of health insurance creates a range of consequences, including lower quality of life, increased morbidity
and mortality, and higher financial burdens. This paper focuses on just one aspect of this harm—namely, greater risk of
death—and seeks to illustrate its general order of magnitude.
In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured. Since then,
the number of uninsured has grown. Based on the IOM’s methodology and subsequent Census Bureau estimates of insurance
coverage, 137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 because they lacked health insurance, including 22,000 people in 2006.
Much subsequent research has continued to confirm the link between insurance and mortality risk described by IOM. In fact,
subsequent studies and analysis suggest that, if anything, the IOM methodology may underestimate the number of deaths that
result from a lack of insurance coverage.
More broadly, these estimates should be viewed as reasonable indicators of the general magnitude of excess mortality that
results from lack of insurance, not as precise “body counts.” The true number of deaths resulting from uninsurance may be
somewhat higher or lower than the estimates in this paper, but that number is surely significant.

So how many die from lack of treatment under socialized medicine?

Quote :

From a canadian Reader's Digest survey(April 2005) of hospital administrators:

How often did patients wait six months for elective surgery?
canada: very often or often--32%
U.S.: none

Breast biopsy, three weeks or more wait?
canada: 21%
U.S.: 1%

Routine hip replacement, six month or more waits?
canada: 50%
U.S.: 0%

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/08/socialized_medi_4.html

http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2006/02/Health_Care.php

How many of those do you reckon were uninsured? 'Cause I'm willing to bet that a LARGE fraction of the uninsured would NEVER have most of those surgeries. Never is a long wait.

Did you read this in the first link? What's interesting is that the story they quote from is no longer available online at DailyRecord.co.uk. Wonder why? Maybe it's like pointing out how Britain's gun control was a massive failure.

Quote :

From Scotland, land of enlightened socialized medicine:

Cancer patients are still waiting up to seven months for treatment.
Patients are supposed to be treated within 62 days of urgent referral.
But figures out yesterday showed only three areas in Scotland were meeting those targets every time.
In the worst cases, sufferers were kept hanging on for 220 days.

At least the uninsured don't die expecting the government to do something. And odds are that even if private insurance still exists many who are now insured in the US would drop it in favor of the government plan. I don't like how insurance rates and lesser coverage is going, but at least I still get quick results when they see I have BCBS.

I work for a private insurance company that has 250 employees, do you realize how many of us are going to be out of jobs if this health care reform passes? Do any of you realize how much money we pour into the community every year?HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars donated to various charities that some of you probably use and have no idea where that money comes from all of which will suffer when we go out of business.

Not to mention we have been in the RED for 2 yerars now and BXBS took out bankruptcy a couple of years ago?? and OBAMA says he is creating jobs??? I think NOT!!!

clowninaround wrote:

I work for a private insurance company that has 250 employees, do you realize how many of us are going to be out of jobs if this health care reform passes? Do any of you realize how much money we pour into the community every year?HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars donated to various charities that some of you probably use and have no idea where that money comes from all of which will suffer when we go out of business.

Not to mention we have been in the RED for 2 yerars now and BXBS took out bankruptcy a couple of years ago?? and OBAMA says he is creating jobs??? I think NOT!!!

Presidents don't think wide scale, they think of how to get applause from whatever audience they are aiming at. Reagan was considered a great conservative and "supposedly" thought he was doing great bringing in cheap Saudi oil, but the big oil producing states took an ass whippin. Guys I knew from the rigs were traveling long distance for as low as $5 an hour.

The farmers in the early 80's were already taking it in the butt from the Carter years so Reagan's Saudi deals putting extra pressure on the local oil hurt Western KS and alot of other oil and farming states big time. You couldn't hardly give a house away around here in the mid 80's.

So no, Obama won't care if you lose your job so long as his audience is applauding.

Let's look at other aspects of the Dems' argument.

1. The pharmceutical companies are supporting the bill. - Might be because there's a provision in the bill that assuring them that the government won't use its leverage to lower prescription drug costs.

2. Wal-Mart, the largest retail employer in the country, supports the bill. - Sure. Wal-Mart now offers insurance to their employees. Part of the cost is paid by Wal-Mart. When this bill is implemented, Wal-Mart will simply stop offering insurance to employees. But they'll be hit with fines, you say. Uh-huh. The fine is 8% of each employee's salary. For the sake of argument, let's say that the average Wal-Mart employee makes $10 per hour. That's probably way too much, but even if it was that much, the average fine would only be $32 per week. I doubt seriously if they are paying less than that for each employee who takes the insurance right now. It would actually save their corporation money, transferring the costs to the taxpayer.

The whole thing is nothing but a way to further screw the litttle people. Bend over, here it comes!

My BCBS is about $80 a week for a single policy. Some families had to drop it because it came to $700 or more a month and the employer only covers the single policy.