A Modest Proposal

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
Reducing the scope of drugs that are covered will not go over well with the pharmaceuticals, and also stymie development of future drugs.

Its the old adage about why a single pill out of a prescription costs $20. Its not that it costs that to make that particular one, its that the first one they made of that drug cost them $1 billion.

If the system is not going to cover the cost, say, of a new arthritis drug, the R&D firms and the pharmaceuticals behind them have no incentive to develop new and potentially very beneficial things.

In the end, there are only three ways that seem to have direct promise of reducing costs: 1) regulate profits; 2) increase competition by injecting (no pun intended) a true competitior in the mix, likely in the form of the government option; or 3) dramatically scaling back what is covered.

#2 has been killed off. #3, you cannot imagine the political fallout of that.

In fact, don't know if anyone else has noticed that a lot of what you guys are talking about -- reducing mandated coverages, reducing coverage of medicines --- sounds a lot like systemic rationing to me.

What you are proposing is one big death panel.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'd rather see federal grants for R&D (I knew this would come up) than trying to give free healthcare. I wonder how much federal money they already get?

US has shouldered R&D costs forever, and that has gotten us way further into this particular crunch than any other factor. I'd be willing to bet the drug plans have driven 60% of your increase.

HSAs are the way to go. Fact is that the government nor big corporations want people actually saving money to pay for doctor visits and prescriptions.

I can't be the only one on here that was put on a maintanence med (Advair) for very minor symptoms just because it was available and was covered under my plan. I was paying 20 a month. My insurance company was paying 85...or 1/3 of my premium for one medication.
 
Last edited:
#52
#52
lawgator1 said:
In the end, there are only three ways that seem to have direct promise of reducing costs: 1) regulate profits; 2) increase competition by injecting (no pun intended) a true competitior in the mix, likely in the form of the government option; or 3) dramatically scaling back what is covered.

#2 has been killed off. #3, you cannot imagine the political fallout of that.
Click to expand...

#1 is ridiculous since the insurance companies are making a little bit more than 2% margin. And #2 would kill the insurance companies even more since our gov't has proven time and again that losing money does not bother them one bit. Hard to compete with a "company" that doesn't care, or even understand, about the bottom line (or has other ways to get cash)
 
#53
#53
utvolpj said:
#1 is ridiculous since the insurance companies are making a little bit more than 2% margin. And #2 would kill the insurance companies even more since our gov't has proven time and again that losing money does not bother them one bit. Hard to compete with a "company" that doesn't care, or even understand, about the bottom line (or has other ways to get cash)
Click to expand...


Don't know where you got that, but if you think that is a truly accurate number representing their profits then you are beyond gullible.

Look, I don't begrudge them making a profit. But reality is that costs keep skyrocketing and we have to take some step that will meaningfully slow it or even reduce it.

Adding more and sicker people is going to make premium costs go higher, not lower. And reducing coverages is politically unpalatble.
 
#54
#54
ummmm virtually every insurance company is a publically traded company with audited records. how in the world could they fake their margin number unless they are underestating earnings? which woudl of course be pretty friggin stupid since the execs own a lot of stocks.
 
#55
#55
volfanjustin said:
If that person had insurance their whole life than it would not matter, they would be covered. It's obsurd for one to not get their own coverage and then they get sick and now they want to go get health insurance. Like I said it's like me dropping my auto ins. have a wreck next week and then call an auto ins. company and say I need coverage. People need to have some personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Not true... We had medical insurance for years. My wife was diagnosed with diabetes around 10 year ago The insurance dropped her coverage.
 
#56
#56
droski said:
ummmm virtually every insurance company is a publically traded company with audited records. how in the world could they fake their margin number unless they are underestating earnings? which woudl of course be pretty friggin stupid since the execs own a lot of stocks.
Click to expand...

don't try and confuse the attorney with facts
 
#57
#57
according to a research report i have here. united healthcare's pretax margin is 6.6% which doesn't exactly scream ridiculous margins. intel's pretax margin is 14%. apple's is probably twice that.
 
#58
#58
here's what I was going off of

My Way News - FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif] THE NUMBERS:
Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.
The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.
HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
#59
#59
#61
#61
I don't know how things are in Cali or in Bad Newz, VA but every hospital in Lex has recently undergone (or is in the process of going through) millions of dollars of expansion. There is some culpability on the provider side as well.
 
#62
#62
in california tons of hospitals have been shutting down. many because of illegal immigrants flooding the emergency rooms thus making the emergency rooms huge cash drains to the hospital.
 
#63
#63
droski said:
in california tons of hospitals have been shutting down. many because of illegal immigrants flooding the emergency rooms thus making the emergency rooms huge cash drains to the hospital.
Click to expand...

Yet another reason that we are approaching this problem in bassackwards fashion. Seems like in all cases immigration reform should come before any type of "public assistance" legislation.
 
#64
#64
Lexvol said:
Yet another reason that we are approaching this problem in bassackwards fashion. Seems like in all cases immigration reform should come before any type of "public assistance" legislation.
Click to expand...

True, but it will never happen, that issue is a landmine for democrats and republicans.
 
#65
#65
Lexvol said:
Yet another reason that we are approaching this problem in bassackwards fashion. Seems like in all cases immigration reform should come before any type of "public assistance" legislation.
Click to expand...

Good point.

That is gonna be a sticky situation with this bill, or any bill. No matter what they are saying.
 
#66
#66
lawgator1 said:
In fact, don't know if anyone else has noticed that a lot of what you guys are talking about -- reducing mandated coverages, reducing coverage of medicines --- sounds a lot like systemic rationing to me.

What you are proposing is one big death panel.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Mandates say what must be covered in an insurance policy. Reducing them is not rationing care. Any item can be offered as part of policies depending on what people want to pay for.

As it stands now, the minimum policy is still a Lexus when many folks would prefer to buy a Hyundai. They could still buy the high end if they like but currently many states prohibit the selling of low-end plans.

Many states mandate fertility treatments. All insurance buyers end up subsidizing fertility treatments as a result. Removing this mandate would not be rationing care. Anyone that wanted fertility treatments could pay for all they want.
 
#69
#69
obama-healthcare1.jpg
 
#71
#71
Let me see if I understand this LG. Your insurance rates have went up over the years, so the "real" problem is that this rate increase effects your bottom line causing you to pay more out your own pocket! Therefore you want myself and every other tax payer to pay for "your" employees health care! I don't think I'm too far off here as to the real reason you want health care passed!

ps, for 30 years I have had to pay part of my health insurance! Sounds to me like you want total loyalty from your employees by you paying it all! JMHO!
 
#72
#72
Oldvol75 said:
Let me see if I understand this LG. Your insurance rates have went up over the years, so the "real" problem is that this rate increase effects your bottom line causing you to pay more out your own pocket! Therefore you want myself and every other tax payer to pay for "your" employees health care! I don't think I'm too far off here as to the real reason you want health care passed!

ps, for 30 years I have had to pay part of my health insurance! Sounds to me like you want total loyalty from your employees by you paying it all! JMHO!
Click to expand...

Yea, this. A business owner(I assume a law firm) discussing how we should keep costs of another industry in check. That is rich.
 
#73
#73
What have we learned?

LG wants the tax payers to pick up the bill for his employees health care so he can make more money!

Awesome!
 
#75
#75
OrangeEmpire said:
I prefer getting the names of registered democrats in your county and we start killing them.
Click to expand...

I do not want to give my name out on a public message board, but send me a private message. Since no one registers as a Democrat or Republican in Tennessee I am not a registered Democrat. But I can give you my address if you give me a date and time, I will have my Mossburg ready for introductions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top