PDA

View Full Version : A question for the single payer advocates



Paul Pless
08-14-2009, 10:42 AM
of which I happen to be one...

How much are you willing to pay the insurance companies to 'go away'?

Andrew Craig Bennet mentioned this several days ago that when such reforms took place in England, that both the insurers and the doctors had to be essentially 'bought' before any real change could take place on the issue.

So... how much are you willing to pay???

rbgarr
08-14-2009, 10:54 AM
As I said in another thread, I'm willing to pay the $10,000 per year (in taxes) for universal single payer insurance that I currently pay in health insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles and non-covered expenses (dental, vision, hearing, prescriptions, etc.).
Meanwhile I support my Congresswoman Chellie Pingree in the pursuit of the following which comes from a response to my letter to her office:

Thank you for contacting me about health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you on this critical issue.

We are facing a dire health care crisis, resulting in a lack of access to high quality, affordable care for far too many Americans. We spend more money per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation, yet the United States continues to rank far worse in life expectancy, maternal mortality and infant mortality. Too many Americans who have insurance find that coverage is not there when they need it - and with 47 million uninsured Americans, and countless more underinsured or paying premiums and bills they cannot afford, we must act now to fix our broken system.

I believe that the time has come for guaranteed, affordable access to health care. President Obama has affirmed that repairing and reforming our health care system is a top priority on his agenda. I am hopeful that we have the political will in this Congress to work with him to thoughtfully develop a plan that lowers the cost of health care for those who are already insured, improves the quality of care in this country, and provides guaranteed access to a choice of affordable coverage for every American family.

As we move forward in crafting health care legislation, we have many important issues to consider - promoting prevention and primary care, investing in scientific research on the causes and most effective treatments for debilitating and life-threatening diseases, reducing the cost of prescription drugs, reforming Medicare, and bolstering our workforce of nurses, providers, and allied health professionals - just to name a few.

I have outlined several key principles that I believe must be included in the health care reform legislation that this Congress will pass. I strongly believe that this bill must include a public health insurance option, in order to give the insurance companies some competition and give people a real choice in coverage. Competition from a public option will force private insurers to lower costs and improve coverage. I also believe any health care reform should guarantee choice - so that people who like their current coverage can keep the same doctors and coverage plans.

On July 14, 2009, the House Committees on Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means released H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act. I am eager to work with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation will make bold changes to cover all Americans, contain costs, and improve the quality of health care in this country.

I am particularly pleased to see the inclusion of critical regulations that will prohibit private insurance companies from engaging in discriminatory practices that enable them to refuse to sell or renew policies due to an individual's health status, or to exclude coverage of treatments for pre-existing health conditions. The legislation also creates an Advisory Committee that would develop an essential benefit package that includes preventive services with no cost-sharing, mental health services, dental and vision for children, and caps the amount of money a person or family spends on covered services in a year.

I understand that many people have concerns about whether or not Members of Congress have had time to read and thoughtfully consider this bill - I can assure you that I have indeed read this bill and truly believe it is the right step forward to fix our broken health care system. I have spent many years working on issues surrounding health care reform, and I believe this proposal is the greatest chance we have had in our lifetime for significant health care reform.

Others have asked how this bill would impact the employer-provided coverage that federal employees and Members of Congress receive - I can assure you that Members of Congress and federal employees are not exempt from any provisions of this bill. As a Member of Congress I am lucky to have quality coverage from my employer - and my greatest goal as your representative in Congress is to ensure that every Mainer and every American has access to the same high quality coverage that Members of Congress do.

Health care is an issue that affects all of us, our families, our friends and neighbors, and our businesses. I truly appreciate you taking time to share your health care concerns with me. I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind as I work with the Obama Administration and my colleagues in the 111th Congress to improve our health care system.

Again, thank you for being in touch, and I hope to see you in Maine soon.

Sincerely,
Chellie Pingree
Member of Congress

Kaa
08-14-2009, 10:59 AM
How much are you willing to pay the insurance companies to 'go away'?

Zero.

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." -- Robert Heinlein

Kaa

Keith Wilson
08-14-2009, 11:02 AM
Good quote. Why should we have to pay them to go away? Haven't they taken enough out of our pockets already?

Nye Bevan's remark about "stuffing their mouths with gold" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan)was about a political tactic, it seemed the best he could do at the time. It worked.

Paul Pless
08-14-2009, 11:04 AM
Why should we have to pay them to go away?Do you expect them to go quietly or without a fight?

John of Phoenix
08-14-2009, 11:07 AM
It may be much less expensive than you think.

Based on comments from a cardiologist client, he thinks single payer would be significantly cheaper that what we have now. I was amazed that he and many of his friends are big fans of single payer.

“I spend a third of my time fighting with insurance companies. A third of my expenses go to filling out insurance forms. I could provide better care, faster and cheaper if we could get rid of those damned insurance jackals.”

Similar comments from my primary care doctor. I’d get Scotted if I went into what he said about prescription drugs.

Kaa
08-14-2009, 11:12 AM
Do you expect them to go quietly or without a fight?

"I expect you to die, Mr.Bond" :D

Kaa

Nanoose
08-14-2009, 11:20 AM
Supply and demand.
Change the system, via law, resulting in no more 'demand' for them.
They are gone with $0 payout.

Keith Wilson
08-14-2009, 11:23 AM
Hmm . . the amount of support for single-payer health insurance among those of pretty diverse political opinions here is remarkable; Me, Kaa, Milo, John T, . . . Maybe Obama would do well to read the Bilge occasionally. ;)

Keith Wilson
08-14-2009, 11:55 AM
All estimates I've seen are a lot higher than 14% - over 30% more likely.

Dan McCosh
08-14-2009, 12:10 PM
Medicare delivers services that the seniors will kill to preserve for .03 on the dollar. Insurance companies deliver for .14 on the dollar give or take. So there .11 out of every healthcare dollar to use to make single payer work. I worked for 36 years and was in the Army for 3 and recently had a quad bypass. My wife had cancer. We're not some marginal "other", we are you. We would be uninsurable if we lost our current coverage. Single payer will happen someday.

The medicare tax is 6%, not 3% against a payroll. It is certainly the model for a single-payer system. My guess is that extending it to the whole country might double the cost--to 12% or so. That would probably raise most people's federal tax by 50% or so. Problem being that it isn't holding it's own at the present time anyway. It's kind of a weird system, paid by those who don't use it, and used by those who don't pay it.

Paul Pless
08-14-2009, 12:33 PM
I'd be a supporter, too, if I werent a pragmatist and realist, like Obama.Oh... that's good.:D

Keith Wilson
08-14-2009, 12:39 PM
Troutman was speaking of Medicare administrative costs, which are very much lower than private insurance. I don't think he tax structure is a good model for a single-payer system, although 12% would be a good deal compared to what we're paying now.

Dan McCosh
08-14-2009, 12:42 PM
As long as it's restricted to senior citizens, I think that makes perfect sense; it's really akin to making an investment during one's working years for the sake of the benefits that the investment returns in their retirement years.

So, why not privatize it? Two reasons: 1) There's too much risk in investments... even supposedly safe ones, and 2) if people weren't forced to do it, they wouldn't.

Of course, like all intergenerational payment transfers, it suffers variations due to demographic shifts, as well as cost changes like inflation, etc. This doesn't invalidate the idea... it simply means that the system has to adapt to the variatons over time. Social Security, for example, can easily be 'fixed', in terms of getting over the demographic 'bump' caused by the Baby Boomers, with some rational changes, like reducing the inflation index, raising the retirement age, applying means testing, etc... none of these are 'palatable', but they're probably necessary.

I'm not implying anyone should privatize it. It is an existing model for a single-payer system already in existence. I'm just trying to look at the notion of what it would cost to expand it to everyone. Those in medicare also are the highest-cost portion of the health-care system, due to their age. They also will soon be about a third of the population. Adding the other two-thirds, however, would be relatively much less expensive, as this is the healthiest segment. Hence the idea that it would double the current tax rate. That, of course, ignores the fact that in its present form, it is not funded to take on those it promises to take on--due to the demographic imbalance. That problem exists anyway, without any reform.
If you want to go to single-payer, this seems like a simple way to do it. It's already there, and the medicare seniors screaming about "socialism" would have to sit down.

Uncle Duke
08-14-2009, 12:46 PM
troutman:

Medicare delivers services that the seniors will kill to preserve for .03 on the dollar. Insurance companies deliver for .14 on the dollar give or take
Dan:

The medicare tax is 6%, not 3% against a payroll. It is certainly the model for a single-payer system. My guess is that extending it to the whole country might double the cost--to 12% or so
Dan - I think he was talking about administrative and overhead costs, not financing.

paid by those who don't use it, and used by those who don't pay it.
Quite right. And I'd be happy to 'buy in' and get medicare now. Keep taking the 6% you're taking, but let me buy insurance for use now. Getting some younger and more healthy people paying in might make some kind of sense.

JimD
08-14-2009, 12:52 PM
Not a direct answer to the question but as others say, best way to be rid of the private companies is to ensure the government system works. In Canada a family's average annual fee is probably around $1500. I'd guess most American families would happily pay twice that.

Dan McCosh
08-14-2009, 01:00 PM
Not a direct answer to the question but as others say, best way to be rid of the private companies is to ensure the government system works. In Canada a family's average annual fee is probably around $1500. I'd guess most American families would happily pay twice that.

Using my arithmetic, $3,000 year in additonal taxes is about what the average family would be paying for medicare to expand it to everybody. They already pay that much for the system that goes to seniors. The total per-family would be about $6,000.
Dunno much about Canadian fees--does the $1,500 include all tax funding, or is that in addition to the taxes going to the system?

John of Phoenix
08-14-2009, 01:24 PM
Not a direct answer to the question but as others say, best way to be rid of the private companies is to ensure the government system works. In Canada a family's average annual fee is probably around $1500. I'd guess most American families would happily pay twice that.
If I paid twice that $1500, I'd be paying less than half of what I pay now, $7200. If I had to buy insurance on my own (outside the company group plan) it would be over $13,000.

So yes, $3000 would be a real deal.

Dan McCosh
08-14-2009, 01:30 PM
Oddly, my estimates turn out to be about the average cost of health care per family per year is today in Canada--about $6,000. I guess the $1,500 fee is out-of-pocket, not including the taxes that go to support the system.

Paul Pless
08-14-2009, 01:35 PM
If I paid twice that $1500, I'd be paying less than half of what I pay now, $7200. If I had to buy insurance on my own (outside the company group plan) it would be over $13,000.

So yes, $3000 would be a real deal.John, aren't you a 20+ year served veteran, don't you have good enough VA benefits to not pay that $7,200.00?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-14-2009, 01:36 PM
It may be much less expensive than you think.

Based on comments from a cardiologist client, he thinks single payer would be significantly cheaper that what we have now. I was amazed that he and many of his friends are big fans of single payer.

“I spend a third of my time fighting with insurance companies. A third of my expenses go to filling out insurance forms. I could provide better care, faster and cheaper if we could get rid of those damned insurance jackals.”

Similar comments from my primary care doctor. I’d get Scotted if I went into what he said about prescription drugs.

Exactly!

The average UK general practitioner takes home around 125,000 per year; some make double that, and they hardly have to fill in a single form other than a prescription or a clinical referral (and the computer does those!). Unlike the USA, where specialism is very highly rewarded, UK consultants and surgeons earn something similar, plus whatever they make from their private practices, which they were allowed to keep under Nye Bevan's deal.

We have a rather useful organisation called NICE which limits the amount the pharmaceutical industry can rip us all off for.

And only those doctors who want to keep their private practices need waste time fighting insurance companies.

JimD
08-14-2009, 01:39 PM
Using my arithmetic, $3,000 year in additonal taxes is about what the average family would be paying for medicare to expand it to everybody. They already pay that much for the system that goes to seniors. The total per-family would be about $6,000.
Dunno much about Canadian fees--does the $1,500 include all tax funding, or is that in addition to the taxes going to the system?

Dan, the $1500 is not a tax in the sense that there is any provision for paying it on the income tax return each spring. It is a separately billed fee which typically shows up in the mail along with other bills to be paid. There's so many ways to look at the numbers its hard to decifer it all but from one recent CBC article for 2008:

The spending works out to $5,170 per person, with expenditures reaching a record 10.7 per cent of the gross domestic product, the Canadian Institute for Health Information said in its report, National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975 to 2008...


So the fees levied directly from Canadians through their provincially controlled health care systems might account for about a quarter of the cost of the actual services provided. The rest of the money presumably is raised through taxation from all sources, including provincial, federal, personal, corporate, etc. Other sources suggest the administrative costs of our system amount to around 2.5 %, so it is quite an efficient system and not the wasteful bureaucracy government run outfits are stereotypically branded as. From the same article:

Canada was in the top fifth of countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in terms of per person spending on health in 2006, spending $3,678 US per person — a similar amount to France, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria.
Spending per person on health care remained highest in the United States at $6,714 US, followed by Norway ($4,520 US), Switzerland ($4,311 US) and Luxembourg ($4,303 US).
After adjusting for inflation and population growth, spending is expected to grow by 3.4 per cent in 2008, compared with an estimated 2.8 per cent for last year and 3.7 per cent in 2006.
Hospitals still account for most of this country's health care spending, but their share of total health expenditures has steadily declined. Spending on drugs is expected to grow at a faster rate in 2008, 8.3 per cent, than spending on hospitals, 5.8 per cent, or physicians, 6.2 per cent, the report's authors said.
In 2008, hospitals are expected to account for 28.0 per cent or $48.1 billion of total health care spending, down from 30.7 per cent in 1998.
This year, spending on drugs is expected to account for 17.4 per cent of health care spending at $29.8 billion, up from 15 per cent a decade ago and 8.8 per cent in 1975.


There are considerable subsidies for low income individuals and families and students.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/11/13/health-spending.html?ref=rss

JimD
08-14-2009, 01:41 PM
Oddly, my estimates turn out to be about the average cost of health care per family per year is today in Canada--about $6,000. I guess the $1,500 fee is out-of-pocket, not including the taxes that go to support the system.

Yes, the $1500 is out of pocket. Each province administers its own plan, and prices vary, although a lot of the money comes from federal tax transfers. For example in BC we pay
$54 for one person
$96 for a family of two
$108 for a family of three or more

There are subsidies from 20% to 100% of that fee for low income groups:

$20,000 - 100 percent subsidy
$22,000 - 80 percent subsidy
$24,000 - 60 percent subsidy
$26,000 - 40 percent subsidy
$28,000 - 20 percent subsidy


So Cathy and I, being a family of two, pay $96 a month, or $1152 a year directly out of pocket. Except we don't because we are covered through an employer perk that pays it for us.

A recent quote from the leader of our left wing party, the NDP:
We spend similar amounts on public care - around 7% of GDP. For that price, Canada covers everyone, the U.S. just one third of the population. In case you're worried Canada wastes money on bureaucracy, know that just 2.4% of our total costs go to administration compared to 7% of what your government spends. In the end, Canadian care costs $2,500 less per capita - and covers everyone.

Our outcomes are excellent too: infant mortality is lower, people live longer and we are less at risk of cardiovascular disease than Americans.

Dan McCosh
08-14-2009, 01:44 PM
Sounds like the Medicare expansion approach would provide a basic plan that would cost about the same all told as Canada's, and leave it up to individuals who want to to spiff up the benefits through private insurance companies---which is how it works with medicare today. We've just figured it all out.

elf
08-14-2009, 01:51 PM
Now tell you congressperson.

JimD
08-14-2009, 01:52 PM
Sounds like the Medicare expansion approach would provide a basic plan that would cost about the same all told as Canada's, and leave it up to individuals who want to to spiff up the benefits through private insurance companies---which is how it works with medicare today. We've just figured it all out.

Wow, that was easier than I thought it would be :D

JimD
08-14-2009, 02:08 PM
If I paid twice that $1500, I'd be paying less than half of what I pay now, $7200. If I had to buy insurance on my own (outside the company group plan) it would be over $13,000.

So yes, $3000 would be a real deal.

Given that total per capita cost in Canada is about $5,000Cdn even if you paid the whole pot yourself without any subsidy you'd still be better off. Of course to provide universal care you'd also be subsidizing the millions of people too poor to come up with the five Gs - you charitable man, you. :D

John Smith
08-14-2009, 06:42 PM
of which I happen to be one...

How much are you willing to pay the insurance companies to 'go away'?

Andrew Craig Bennet mentioned this several days ago that when such reforms took place in England, that both the insurers and the doctors had to be essentially 'bought' before any real change could take place on the issue.

So... how much are you willing to pay???
I don't want them to go away wealthy, I just want them to go away.

The way I see it, the health insurance companies have been screwing us, their customers. Is it unreasonable to want an alternative means of getting coverage?

If you were to back up, and the insurance companies weren't such bastards, we'd not be having a crisis.

I view this as, if we have no public option, as a bail out for the insurance companies.

John Smith
08-14-2009, 06:45 PM
The medicare tax is 6%, not 3% against a payroll. It is certainly the model for a single-payer system. My guess is that extending it to the whole country might double the cost--to 12% or so. That would probably raise most people's federal tax by 50% or so. Problem being that it isn't holding it's own at the present time anyway. It's kind of a weird system, paid by those who don't use it, and used by those who don't pay it.
Why do you think that. Medicare covers only the elderly. Those are the folks with the highest per capita medical needs (expenses).

If Medicare took into it's fold the rest of the age groups, it would require a smaller tax per person to maintain itself.

John Smith
08-14-2009, 06:47 PM
Not a direct answer to the question but as others say, best way to be rid of the private companies is to ensure the government system works. In Canada a family's average annual fee is probably around $1500. I'd guess most American families would happily pay twice that.
More than happily for this American.

My "fee" now is over $400 a month.

John Smith
08-15-2009, 08:52 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_260177.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_260177.html)

Think you'll enjoy this. Need to scroll down a bit for the video.

John Smith
08-15-2009, 09:43 AM
Something needs to be done, but I'm not sure just what. The last time I had health insurance it was private pay, and it became too expensive. I drew the line when it hit over five hundred a month. Hell, says me, I live on that much, and I'll be damned if I pay an insurer that much. This was fifteen year ago.

A compromise, that's been shot down but here it is. A federal guarantee that you aren't going to lose your life savings because of medical bills. Big stuff, you're covered. This is a genuine fear of people, and I think the only way to assuage it is through government. The rest of the stuff, day to day, you are on your own.
When my kids were young, our neighbor was a divorced woman with three kids. She was on welfare. My tax dollars paid for her kids' dental work. I had to pay for my kids' dental work.

I didn't begrudge her kids the work, but I was pissed that my tax dollars didn't pay for my kids.

My care, under my private insurance, is most definitely rationed. Even though they pay most of whatever anything costs, my 15% (AFTER DEDUCTABLES) is a lot of money out of my fixed (broken?) income.

If the doc wants me to have a test taken, and the test costs $1000, out of which I have to pay 15%, I cannot afford to have the test taken. If this was a one shot thing, yes, I could afford it, but between myself and my wife, there is an ongoing process here, and we each take a number of medicines for a variety of reasons. We pay 15% of those, also after a deductable. It all adds up and guts our monthly budget.

My share of my premium for my wife and I is over $400 a month. We have several $250 deductables to meet, then a $20 per visit co-pay, and 15% of what the plan allows for most everything else.

A very few years ago, if we dealt with preferred providers, we got no bill.

Talk about "end of life" decisions. My question has become: do I want to live longer with far less enjoyment, or enjoy more and die sooner?

I think what needs to be done is not so complicated. It includes, however, several factors with up front costs.

First, let's graduate doctors who are not buried in debt. This could be done by simply forgiving all or part of their debt upon graduation. Now they don't need to charge as much for their services. I'd extend this to other medical professionals.

Second, we open Medicare to anyone who wants to join, with premiums being based upon ability to pay. Include prescription, eyeglasses, and dental.

I think I just solved the problem.

Uncle Duke
08-15-2009, 09:43 AM
A federal guarantee that you aren't going to lose your life savings because of medical bills. Big stuff, you're covered.
How are you going to pay for that?

John Smith
08-15-2009, 09:58 AM
How are you going to pay for that?
I think we need to connect a few things.

Most bankruptcies are from medical bills, where the providers don't get paid anyway.

If we have truly universal health care, we can all drop medical from our car insurance.

Many times in life we spend money to save money. An oil change now and then is cheaper than replacing an engine.

I think there's a lot to be said in saving money by eliminating the staff your doctors need to deal with so many different insurances.

I think there's a lot of money to be saved by having all the data on a computer network. Possibly, this would need the patient's permission, but I'm of the opinion my medical data should be shared with anyone who asks for it, as it more than likely anyone who asks is doing so for my benefit.

It's true, and sad, that any upfront money spent on any of this is borrowed, so the interest must figure into the cost.

It's also true, and sad, that if we do nothing, the problem will get worse, it will cost more to fix, and we'll still have to borrow the money to fix it.

John Smith
08-15-2009, 10:22 AM
You might want to watch this

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/14/you_dont_cut_deals_with_the

Uncle Duke
08-15-2009, 11:10 AM
John, I'm not arguing any of that stuff, I was just asking Ishmael about his proposal for a "federal guarantee... big stuff, you're covered".
That sounds to me like the government will cover health costs over some certain limit, or over some percentage of assets or something.
My question was how he thought that should be funded. Tax increases? Make it a federally backed, low-cost insurance?
Other good questions would be along the lines of "how would that change regular insurance", but I was primarily interested in how he thought it should be paid for.

Milo Christensen
08-15-2009, 11:14 AM
How much are you willing to pay the insurance companies to 'go away'?


To go back to Paul's original question, maybe, given the low profitability of health insurance companies and HMO's, we should just buy them out.

Obama has said:

There have been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits, right now," Obama said during a prime-time news conference. At a time when everybody's getting hammered, they're making record profits, and premiums are going up. What's the constraint on that? ... Well, part of the way is to make sure that there's some competition out there.


Well, this is another of those liberal hyperbole things we're not supposed to call lies, but:

The health insurance sector ranks 86th in profitability, averaging 3.3%.
There's 130 health insurance companies operating in one or more states in the union. I kind of think that's enough to make a pretty competitive group.
Linky poo. (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html)

Interesting that industry sectors making alcoholic drinks and cigarettes are substantially more profitable than the health insurance sector.

Uncle Duke
08-15-2009, 11:34 AM
There's 130 health insurance companies operating in one or more states in the union. I kind of think that's enough to make a pretty competitive group.
Would be interesting to know what is covered in the '130' given that since insurance is state regulated, large insurance companies (like Blue Cross or Kaiser) actually create separate companies for each state they operate in.
How many different 'parent' companies are there, would be a nicer measure - if there are really 130 parent companies that is one thing. But if the 130 includes (for example, just making up numbers here...) 42 Blue Cross companies and 21 Kaiser companies, etc., then it's not really as meaningful.

Uncle Duke
08-15-2009, 11:45 AM
OK - regarding both the profitability and '130' figures above, let's look at some real numbers:
From here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/493022_5
Regarding the "130", open up table #2 (link in the article), and note that 5 companies dominate the field, with some states having 100% of commercially insured persons in just 2 to 4 of those 5. Not quite as competitive as thinking about choices between 130.
Regarding profitability, please see chart #3.

elf
08-15-2009, 01:13 PM
Interesting that industry sectors making alcoholic drinks and cigarettes are substantially more profitable than the health insurance sector.

All the more reason to legalize all drugs.

elf
08-15-2009, 01:15 PM
OK - regarding both the profitability and '130' figures above, let's look at some real numbers:
From here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/493022_5
Regarding the "130", open up table #2 (link in the article), and note that 5 companies dominate the field, with some states having 100% of commercially insured persons in just 2 to 4 of those 5. Not quite as competitive as thinking about choices between 130.
Regarding profitability, please see chart #3.

Gotta be registered. I'm already registered on about 100 different site. One more that I might visit once is just too much.

john l
08-15-2009, 02:15 PM
[QUOTE=Milo Christensen;2288592]


Well, this is another of those liberal hyperbole things we're not supposed to call lies, but:
[LIST=1]
The health insurance sector ranks 86th in profitability, averaging 3.3%.


i haven't done my home work on insurance co profitability - but i'd venture to say that profitability on paper that you state is after investments and bonuses. Insurance companies are actually in the money business. they make, lend and invest money. since they don't want to pay taxes they use their cash flow in ways that show low profitability. then again if your numbers are for 2008 they may have had a down time like everyone and posted lower profits. check their profits over the last 20 years and might as well look at their financials to see how much they paid in bonuses, dividends and what investments they made to get a better picture of their financial health.

Uncle Duke
08-15-2009, 08:21 PM
Gotta be registered. I'm already registered on about 100 different site. One more that I might visit once is just too much.
Very reasonable. Here is the table addressing the contention that you have 130 choices:

Table 2. Percentage of Commercially Insured Population Enrolled in the Largest U.S. Health Plans

http://img.medscape.com/fullsize/migrated/493/022/ha493022.tab2.gif

John Smith
08-16-2009, 09:23 AM
I think we, as a public, get what we deserve.

There are almost 50 million Americans without any health insurance.

I know several. Not a single one of them has made any effort to contact their representatives.

Imagine the impact of every adult without insurance writing their congressperson and senators.

It there was ever a time, it is now.

Paul Girouard
08-16-2009, 10:32 AM
There are almost 50 million Americans without any health insurance.

I know several. Not a single one of them has made any effort to contact their representatives.

Imagine the impact of every adult without insurance writing their congressperson and senators.

It there was ever a time, it is now.



People are basically lazy , they want something for nothing. Your example sort of points that out. IF they get "free" health care , they will use it no doubt. But taking action to move the process , TO MUCH WORK:rolleyes:

Or they really don't think they can help the process in any way.

Take your pick , or use the default , all of the above!