I opened my Web browser this morning to find this:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65f9a900-b74b-11de-9812-00144feab49a.html

The mob bosses of the health insurance industry, unhappy that their man Boehner's plan to solidify the health insurance industry as a permanent institution that American citizens will be jailed for not paying, is weighing in with claims that health insurance premiums will rise as a result of the plan. That what they have been asking for, an "everyone pays us" system that will lower costs because everyone is paying in, will actually raise costs. So now they will be institutionalized AND get to charge MORE?

?

Here is what I wrote last month, and it is even truer now.

> Get rid of the health insurance
> system, institute a 10% national sales tax to pay
> doctors and hospitals directly, and most of the
> country's health care problems are gone.
>
> Health insurance companies are useless middlemen
> with major profit motives. If we are all going to
> be forced to pay private health insurers anyway,
> there is no reason to keep them in existence.
> Instead of spending even more resources tracking
> every American to make sure they are contributing
> to a health insurance company's bottom line,
> institute a national sales tax to create a fund
> that health care providers bill to. Easily
> collectible, easy to understand, EVERYONE pays in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2009 07:56AM by pgens.

They're correct that premiums will rise under the bill as it's currently written. There's strong indication that a public option will be snuck into the final bill after it's already been voted on by Congress. The insurers want the Baucus bill as it stands.

Yeah, I love how they are now demonizing PriceWaterhouseCoopers over this. These guys are a very successful and respected firm that performs audits for a number of industries and on a number of issues. If they were to produce something that was off-base or incorrect, it seems that would have a negative effect on their business.

Sure, the insurers want to make money, but that could be corrected in so many ways - just Congress (and the Senate Finance Committee) has not put legislation in place to correct this issue. For all this time, the insurers were evidently behind these efforts since they had made backroom deals with Obama (much like the pharmaceuticals have) - so I guess we should assume that the Baucus bill went off-script for what they had agreed to.

I will take a PWC audit or review over anything the government would produce.

Again - folks are missing the point. There truly are not enough doctors and specialists in the system today. Emergency room medicine is not the same as going to your preventative care physician. Just becuase you can go to a hospital and get emergency treatment does not mean that we will magically create thousands of doctors to fill the gap on preventative care. And while Obama says you won't lose your current coverage or perhaps access to your doctors, that is patent BS - with the taxes and surcharges on better plans, every business in the country will be evaluating and most likely changing providers or plan options to deal with reducing their costs. I would bet one of the first losses as part of the change will be insurers reducing or removing "out of network" options and coverage (which is how many folks manage to keep their long term doctors when plans change) as those plans tend to be more expensive. Hope you all like the Kaiser HMO model - because that is where all insurers will be heading.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

> Sure, the insurers want to make money, but that could be corrected in so many way

if they don't make money, why would they do it??? it's a business, that's how it works!!!

They were originally non-profit, they need to go back to that model.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Non-profits still pay big bucks to executives, it's not like they'll transform into decent corporate citizens with our best interests at heart. It is time to eliminate the middleman, which is better and cheaper with everything else. Just ask Mervis Diamonds!

pgens, we have had a number of conversations about this subject. I have also noted they need executive salary caps in the health care industry.

And sorry, last time I check the Federal Government is not a hospital or an doctor. They are as much a middleman as the insurers are, and they have the added benefit of unions taking over full time management of the programs if it goes under them. They do not have our best interests at heart - if you have ever worked for the Federal Government (and I have on a number of occasions) you will understand that in the minds of probably 80-90 percent of the government workers minds, we are here to serve them, and not the other way around. Especially the ones that work in DC. Also contrary to popular belief, many of them ARE overpaid and overcompensated.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

There are plenty of government entities that run competently and independently, and health care can be one of them. I have indeed worked with feds before and yes, many are overcompensated but others are not. The health-insurance companies aren't doctors or hospitals either, they are transaction processors that take a cut out of every transaction they process that they don't deny.

But the most important part of what I propose is that everyone pays in, and no one goes to jail for not paying in because it is simply unavoidable to pay in.

How about this: do it my way with a 10% national sales tax, and have the feds contract out the transaction processing and let the current insurance companies bid on it, rewards given to those who have the best plan at the best price to We the People. There, both of our issues are answered.

The problem with a 10% sales tax is like every other plan that comes with an across the board sales tax, you affect the poor much more then the wealthy for sure. I am not saying different ideas don't have merit, but there is a lot more to this then just paying for it - and obviously right now adding any new taxes will just be a drag on the economy. You still have the problem of a shortage of doctors, tort reform and a variety of other issues that should and need to be addressed.

At some point we are going to have to decide as a nation where to draw the line on Federal spending. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay more taxes in the end - like increasing all of our taxes 1% for middle income and 3-5% for upper income or something like that - but at the same time we need to look at other ways to cut taxes that will spur growth. Right now the severe lack of tax revenue is coming from a lack of transactions - no one is spending money, therefor no transaction taxes are being assessed (same thing that happened in the 80s when the S&Ls failed after the commercial real estate devaluation). On top of that you then add in unemployment which is a double drag - those people are not paying in taxes, but additionally they are draining money from the system.

Without a stable economy, I just don't understand why this particular issue is such an important one at the moment. It isn't going to create jobs, and it isn't going to help with economic growth.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

For Pgens:

And then do insurance providers compete across state lines, or continue with the same process of responding to State RFPs?

Each state has a Bureau of Insurance that oversees and mandates coverage for the selected insurance providers within the states.

To retain the Bureau of Insurance offices at the state levels seems redundant and an added layer of goverment that we may not need. Do you propose that these offices be abolished?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2009 12:21PM by RestonLass.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I love how they are now demonizing
> PriceWaterhouseCoopers over this. These guys are a
> very successful and respected firm that performs
> audits for a number of industries and on a number
> of issues. If they were to produce something that
> was off-base or incorrect, it seems that would
> have a negative effect on their business.
>
> Sure, the insurers want to make money, but that
> could be corrected in so many ways - just Congress
> (and the Senate Finance Committee) has not put
> legislation in place to correct this issue. For
> all this time, the insurers were evidently behind
> these efforts since they had made backroom deals
> with Obama (much like the pharmaceuticals have) -
> so I guess we should assume that the Baucus bill
> went off-script for what they had agreed to.
>
> I will take a PWC audit or review over anything
> the government would produce.
>
> Again - folks are missing the point. There truly
> are not enough doctors and specialists in the
> system today. Emergency room medicine is not the
> same as going to your preventative care physician.
> Just becuase you can go to a hospital and get
> emergency treatment does not mean that we will
> magically create thousands of doctors to fill the
> gap on preventative care. And while Obama says you
> won't lose your current coverage or perhaps access
> to your doctors, that is patent BS - with the
> taxes and surcharges on better plans, every
> business in the country will be evaluating and
> most likely changing providers or plan options to
> deal with reducing their costs. I would bet one of
> the first losses as part of the change will be
> insurers reducing or removing "out of network"
> options and coverage (which is how many folks
> manage to keep their long term doctors when plans
> change) as those plans tend to be more expensive.
> Hope you all like the Kaiser HMO model - because
> that is where all insurers will be heading.


The lack of Doctors is no excuse to stop medical finance reform. If you are correct..the market place will eventually take care of it.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Without a stable economy, I just don't understand
> why this particular issue is such an important one
> at the moment. It isn't going to create jobs, and
> it isn't going to help with economic growth.


A friend from Scotland said the UK pushed through it's universal health care plan at the end of the war when the economy was in severe distress, but people were distracted.

He said, the best time to push through a controversal program is when people are least expecting it. Once it's passed, they go along with it and learn to accept it.

The UK universal health care plan is little more than umbrella that delegates to each country to create a health care distribution progam(s), set the budget for collection of premiums and pay fees, that work around the pre-determined goverment subsidy.

Canada, with a population 1/10th of the US has 11 different health care plans, one for each province. Each province determines what will be covered, how much it will cost and how the services will be distributed (like is done in our states). The only differences between Canada and the US:

1) each province receives a subsidy from the federal government to offset the costs, and

2) illegal aliens are not allowed to enroll in the system and are denied general non-emergency health care if not able to pay. FYI: In Canada, pre-natal care and child birth are not considered emergency care.

turd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The lack of Doctors is no excuse to stop medical
> finance reform. If you are correct..the market
> place will eventually take care of it.

No where, in any of the bills, does it guarantee patients treatment by a doctor. It is absurd to even presume this.

What we will see is an influx of Nurse Practitioners and Physicians' Assistants.

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> turd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The lack of Doctors is no excuse to stop
> medical
> > finance reform. If you are correct..the market
> > place will eventually take care of it.
>
> No where, in any of the bills, does it guarantee
> patients treatment by a doctor. It is absurd to
> even presume this.
>
> What we will see is an influx of Nurse
> Practitioners and Physicians' Assistants.


You have that now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

And when this goes through, even if a modified version, we'll see much more - whether Americans like it or not.

I thought Kaiser was non-profit. They're one of the more expensive plans. If the problem was only net profits, you wouldn't save that much. It's also the excessive compensation for executives and the cost for unused beds and other facilities that are built into cost structure for these managed care providers.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with a 10% sales tax is like every
> other plan that comes with an across the board
> sales tax, you affect the poor much more then the
> wealthy for sure.

10% would be cheaper for everyone. The current uninsured who would have to pay premiums would easily spend that much to insure their families under the forced-march rules (possibly MUCH more especially with no public option), or go to jail. Everyone else would be paying the 10% sales tax but no longer pay health insurance premiums. Not sure about you, but I make pretty decent coin and the cost of my premiums for family coverage (combinatiom of what I pay and what my employer pays) is close to 10%. And I'm not on a "Cadillac" plan by any definition.

10% is not a lot to ask of any citizen to fund their participation in such a system. Hard to argue it will hurt the poor when what is currently on the way to passage will make many of the poor criminals, and possibly bankrupt them.

Olympia Snowe said she was going to vote for whatever comes out of the combining of the Finance Committee plan and the Baucus plan, so it looks like this is a slam dunk in the Senate now. I would expect Kyl to break party as well.

She also said if they try to sneak in the public option, she will reverse her vote.

And a couple others said their votes are conditional on what is "merged" in from the House Bill.

The fat lady hasn't even made it to the stage to sing her aria yet. There is still some serious dueling to be done and I predict it will be after Thanksgiving before they have anything that vaguely resembles a final bill.

Mandatory insurance without premiums controls is a huge sticking point. It may be good for the country.

Designate Medicaid or Medicare as a primary insurance carrier for everyone. For most, the two programs would provide coverage for major medical expenses and patients would have to get basic coverage on their own, through their employer, or for free from Medicaid if applicable. Low-wage employers could no rely entirely on Medicaid and Medicare to provide full health benefits.

You know, saying Medicaid will just cover folks is great, except isn't it currently in the form of an unfunded mandate by the Federal government that the States have to cover many of these costs?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University