Re: I'm now a Republican
AZ Nomad
>Many Republicans want to expand the role of private insurance companies
>in Medicare. Insurers already manage Medicare???s prescription drug
>benefit, and Republicans see that as a model.
>Republicans agree on the need to slow the explosive growth of Medicare,
>but say the savings should be used to shore up Medicare, not to help
>finance a new entitlement program.
Nah. They agree to do absolutely fucking nothing, block any possible
legislation, and let the insurance company
bribes^H^H^H^H^Hcontributions keep rolling in.
F.H.
> Many Republicans want to expand the role of private insurance companies
> Republicans agree on the need to slow the explosive growth of Medicare,
> but say the savings should be used to shore up Medicare, not to help
> finance a new entitlement program.
>
>
>
> Also
> the Medicare Advantage program is run by private insurance companies
> under contract with the government. I''ve been on it for over two years
> now and it is better coverage than I had in corporate America (except
> for dental) and United Healthcare/Secure Horizons who run the part I'm
> in have easy access to customer service and quick handling of
> questions/problems. This is the program the Democrates want to 'gut'.
> and take $500 billion and give to uninsured. There are 11 million
> senior in Medicare Advantage and Democrats act like they don't matter at
> all.
A couple of perspectives on this and free market insurance: (had to dig
because as you know, I'm not familiar with Advantage)
First:
This from Sept 09 Boston Globe:
Many health policy specialists say that, with Medicare nearing
bankruptcy and millions of Americans going without any insurance at all,
the United States can hardly afford to offer a pricier Medicare version
that is growing more popular.
“The [Medicare Advantage] beneficiaries have gotten a very good deal
from these overpayments. These are good services,’’ said Robert
Berenson, a health policy specialist at the Urban Institute. “But it’s a
very inefficient way to give people extra benefits.’’
The $120 billion cut to Medicare Advantage is part of spending
reductions in Medicare totaling $460 billion to $540 billion over 10
years that have been proposed by Democrats. The cuts would fall on the
government reimbursement rates for a broad variety of providers such as
hospitals and home health agencies, which could probably absorb them
without affecting the services elderly Americans receive, many
specialists said in interviews.
Though some industry groups complain the spending reductions are too
severe, adjustments could be made if problems arose because they would
be phased in gradually. Most are aimed at making the programs more
efficient.
“We think the proposals actually will improve access and quality,’’ John
Rother, a leading lobbyist for the AARP, the large lobbying organization
for senior citizens, said in an e-mail. [end quotes]
http://tinyurl.com/ybgqxzo
Second:
After the LA Times wrote about Anthem Blue Cross announcing that it will
be hiking its rates 30% to 39% for individual policies they received
some mail. Two samples:
As an individual policyholder with Anthem and a healthcare provider, my
back is indeed against the wall. Last week, I read about its eightfold
increase in profits. This week, I get the letter telling me it is hiking
my rates 36% because healthcare costs have risen.
I don't doubt that healthcare costs have risen, but apparently so have
insurers' profits. I am puzzled about where they spend their money
because most insurance companies haven't adjusted their reimbursement
rates for my services in more than 25 years. Those that have have not
even kept up with inflation.
As an individual policyholder, I cannot find any other insurance. As I
gasp for breath, I know that this is only the beginning.
I also worry about how my self-employed patients, who are already
struggling to make ends meet, will be able to get by.
This is a cruel blow at a time when so many are already living on the
edge of insolvency.
Elizabeth Weinberger
Los Angeles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I chuckle every time I hear the public cry out against health insurance
companies raising their rates or declining coverage of a person who may
be a health risk.
These healthcare insurers are publicly traded, for-profit corporations
whose managers are responsible for making money for their company and
its stockholders. They are not part of the social welfare system.
Understanding that raises a fundamental question that must be answered
before we go forward with healthcare reform: Should healthcare be a
for-profit business?
If it should be, why all the screaming?
Elliot Rosenthal
Fullerton
F.H.
> On 2010-02-09 15:47:55 -0600, "F.H." <connec...@verizon.net> said:
>
>> Gary wrote:
>> A couple of perspectives on this and free market insurance: (had to
>> dig because as you know, I'm not familiar with Advantage)
>>
>> First:
>> This from Sept 09 Boston Globe:
>> Many health policy specialists say that, with Medicare nearing
>> bankruptcy and millions of Americans going without any insurance at
>> all, the United States can hardly afford to offer a pricier Medicare
>> version that is growing more popular.
>
> you factor in the cost that the private companies are doing what the
> government would have to do to process the claims, etc. But no one
> cites the costs. I think they are comparing apples to oranges (no one
> really knows that the government has to pay for employees, systems,
> etc. When United Healthcare takes over the Medicare program on a
> outsourced basis, you can't go to the Medicare site and see your health
> record or drug costs. That's because the government doesn't have to
> keep that anymore nor staff people to do the entry and maintenance.
>>
>> “The [Medicare Advantage] beneficiaries have gotten a very good deal
>> from these overpayments. These are good services,’’ said Robert
>> Berenson, a health policy specialist at the Urban Institute. “But it’s
>> a very inefficient way to give people extra benefits.’’
>
> what way? People write like they do out here. No data to back it up.
> I have not seen one person opposed to Medicare Advantage that has done
> anything but make accussations and implications that they haven't even
> come close to supporting. Medicare Advantage is a nice way to bundle
> everything up so a company which controls an HMO (which is the most
> efficient and least expensive medical care in this country---else it
> wouldn't exist). Medicare Advantage mostly includes prescription drug
> coverage some of it included, some of them it costs extra and they also
> put in more coverage, usually at an extra cost over and above the Part B
> premium, which they get.
>>
>> The $120 billion cut to Medicare Advantage is part of spending
>> reductions in Medicare totaling $460 billion to $540 billion over 10
>> years that have been proposed by Democrats. The cuts would fall on the
>> government reimbursement rates for a broad variety of providers such
>> as hospitals and home health agencies, which could probably absorb
>> them without affecting the services elderly Americans receive, many
>> specialists said in interviews.
>
> absorb them without affecting the ser vices American's receive, many
> specialist said in interviews." Oh. Many specialists said in
> interviews. Very good. My primary care physician gets $52 for a
> regular office visit. $5 from me and the rest from the insurance
> company. I had a lipid lab test recently which is normally billed out
> at $400 but my insurance paid $42 for five tests and I paid zero copay.
> That's fact. Who's getting it better cost than that? If the government
> can bring down all the rates to those levels, then who needs private
> insurance who has to organize HMO networks to set low rates.
>>
>> Though some industry groups complain the spending reductions are too
>> severe, adjustments could be made if problems arose because they would
>> be phased in gradually. Most are aimed at making the programs more
>> efficient.
>
>>
>> “We think the proposals actually will improve access and quality,’’
>> John Rother, a leading lobbyist for the AARP, the large lobbying
>> organization for senior citizens, said in an e-mail. [end quotes]
>> http://tinyurl.com/ybgqxzo
>
> insurance costs, the higher their commissions get. I read that they
> made over $222 million last year in Medicare insurance most of it in the
> higher priced traditional Medicare with outrageously high Medicare
> Supplement (or Medicare Gap) plans. AARP also is an agency for life
> insurance and car insurance. Haven't you noticed?
>>
>> Second:
>> After the LA Times wrote about Anthem Blue Cross announcing that it
>> will be hiking its rates 30% to 39% for individual policies they
>> received some mail. Two samples:
>>
>> As an individual policyholder with Anthem and a healthcare provider,
>> my back is indeed against the wall. Last week, I read about its
>> eightfold increase in profits. This week, I get the letter telling me
>> it is hiking my rates 36% because healthcare costs have risen.
>>
>> I don't doubt that healthcare costs have risen, but apparently so have
>> insurers' profits. I am puzzled about where they spend their money
>> because most insurance companies haven't adjusted their reimbursement
>> rates for my services in more than 25 years. Those that have have not
>> even kept up with inflation.
>
> seriously doubt that in the last 25 years Blue Cross hasn't had to raise
> their payment rates to doctors and hospitals. If that were the case,
> most doctors and hospitals would not accept Blue Cross period. There
> are a number of hospitals, clinics here in Dallas (mostly the very large
> Baylorl Hospital System) that don't take Medicare Advantagebecause the
> payments are too low. They will accept traditional Medicare with the
> Gap thought. Wonder why? Pays more than Adantage?
>>
>> As an individual policyholder, I cannot find any other insurance. As I
>> gasp for breath, I know that this is only the beginning.
>>
>> I also worry about how my self-employed patients, who are already
>> struggling to make ends meet, will be able to get by.
>>
>> This is a cruel blow at a time when so many are already living on the
>> edge of insolvency.
>> Elizabeth Weinberger
>> Los Angeles
>
> by the Federal Government for people who can't afford insurance. I know
> people who are on Medicaid and they seem to get better coverage,
> including nursing home, that Medicare doesn't get.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> I chuckle every time I hear the public cry out against health
>> insurance companies raising their rates or declining coverage of a
>> person who may be a health risk.
>>
>> These healthcare insurers are publicly traded, for-profit corporations
>> whose managers are responsible for making money for their company and
>> its stockholders. They are not part of the social welfare system.
>>
>> Understanding that raises a fundamental question that must be answered
>> before we go forward with healthcare reform: Should healthcare be a
>> for-profit business?
>>
>> If it should be, why all the screaming?
>>
>> Elliot Rosenthal
>> Fullerton
>
> country want universal health care run by the government or private
> health care or some combination as it has now? Is health care a right?
> Or a privilege? (BTW, Medicare and Social Security are not free) If
> the government takes over health care in a universal plan, it will cause
> many people and institutions serious problems. Do they just close down
> their business and turn over their facilities to US? Do the doctors go
> on to government payroll? The US government taking over an entire
> industry which comprises 17% of currrent GDP? That's the solution?????
> The transition would cause this economy to go into a spiraling downward
> depression, don't you think?
Don't know Gar, but the class tension will continue to escalate I think.
Was Marx onto something? My instincts and conditioning lean toward
sacrifice for the common good. Mileage varies. Here's the latest on
corporate media reporting on things related to the common good:
JoeRaisin
In addition to raising the cap on contributions, I also believe that
benefits should be means tested.
F.H.
Means testing is not something I've given much thought. Perhaps a person
could opt out of paying in at some point (say around 45/50) if they
could show that they are not going to be in need of benefits. I wonder
what percentage of workers make it to that level of financial security.
Ted L.
"F.H." <connec...@verizon.net> wrote:
> These healthcare insurers are publicly traded, for-profit corporations
> whose managers are responsible for making money for their company and
> its stockholders. They are not part of the social welfare system.
My healthcare "insurer" is a non-profit, private corporation.
"It is the largest consumer-governed, nonprofit health care organization
in the nation." (from a fact sheet)
My *only* complaint is that the dental plan doesn't include my dentist,
so I have a separate plan that covers that.
--
Ted L.
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
Ted L.
Gary <yex...@sbell.net> wrote:
> I read that but no one cites the costs.
I agree. In the last year I've had what I imagine are some pretty
expensive tests (echocardiogram, ct scan, ultrasound, lots of lab work,
etc) at absolutely no cost to me. Part of the reason they are no cost
is because for 65 years or so I never needed any expensive tests. Will
the total amount of premiums that I've paid in, or have been paid in on
my behalf, over those 65 years (adjusted for inflation) cover what my
medical expenses will be from now until I die? I haven't a clue.
Suppose you added up *all* the medical costs in this country (with or
without administrative overhead of various kinds) ... what would that
amount to per capita? Anyone know? That's the number we need to know
before we can have any meaningful discussion, I think.
JoeRaisin
Okay, the first step is to realize it's not a retirement program, it's a
tax and a government entitlement. The level of income upon which the
tax is levied needs to be raised - perhaps doubled, maybe more.
As for means testing, I say anyone who has an income level (not
including social security) 10 times the poverty level looses $1 for
every $2 earned above that level.
But the only reforms we hear about are making the retirement age higher.
That's fine for desk jockeys and some other blue collar types, but do
we really want to see 72 year old roofers who are up there not because
they are fit and remarkably healthy for their age, but because they have
no choice. I know that I'm not looking forward to squirming through
crawl spaces when I'm 70.
F.H.
Do you have some protection against being canceled or denied treatment.
A story I read this morning:
http://tinyurl.com/yhnmadj
Ted L.
"F.H." <connec...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Do you have some protection against being canceled or denied treatment.
>
Of course not! But there is some kind of historical relationship
between my "insurance" company and my health care provider that makes
them more partners than adversaries, so there is less chance of the
insurance company arguing with the doctors. While what I've had to go
through this past year or so hasn't been that extreme, there never was
any questioning of the various hospital admissions or any of the
procedures or lab tests.