OK, I admit it....I was wrong.

[keepitlow]

OK, I admit it....I was wrong. I estimated the annual increase for healthcare at a puny 8.7% instead of the 39% Blue Cross is raising it rates in March.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-anthem-obama9-2010feb09,0,4384044.story

But, C'mon, do you really think the proposed Obama care plan would have helped the average citizen that can't afford astronomical healthcare costs?

Even if the dreaded public option went through it would not have helped. Have you ever noticed they never talked numbers just in generalities?

For instance lets say they took all the profit out of the Blue Cross $15,000 a year annual premium for health plan me and my wife would have to pay. So with a non profit public option it may come down to $11,000 or $10,000 or $9000...so what! We still can't afford it. And we would have been in much worse shape paying the $3800 ObamaCare fine for not being able to afford healthcare.

 "Kaiser forecast that the yearly family premium for health insurance could reach $30,803.00 in ten years if the 8.7% annual increase of the previous 10 years were to continue."

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm

And lets go out a further 10 years.  Now, the average premium is $70,939.00 per year at an 8.7% annual increase. Would you like to be forced under penalty of law to pay a $70,000 a year bill?

Once healthcare insurance is mandated under penalty of law, the insurance companies will really start raping the public. They will have a captive audience.

As I've told you time and time again...There is ONLY ONE SOLUTION to the healthcare mess in the US of A. The solution is this. We need a SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE plan for the poor (people making under $150,000 a year) as well as a 'FEE FOR SERVICE' plan for the rich. (current healthcare plan in the US.)

We already have a socialized education system. We all pay for educating the kids through taxes. And some of us use this system and others don't, but we all pay. The people that don't want to use the public education system go the private education route.

So it should be with healthcare.

Tax people 1% to 6% depending on income and start a gov run healthcare system that can be used by ANY citizen in need. If that tax is not enough revenue, then start charging foreigners flying into the US an arrival and departure tax. Or start charging a 1% SHC (socialized health care) sales tax.

If some of the citizens don't like receiving socialized government run healthcare, then they can always go the private healthcare route and pay their own way. Just as they can do with private education, if public schools are not to their liking. This is the only way a socialized healthcare proposal would work in the US of A. You need duplicate healthcare systems to satisfy all comers. The rich and the poor that cannot afford the rich healthcare system.

[powerDown]

Let's outlaw health insurance. Thirty days in price wars will develop in favor of the customer.

[Hendrek]

From the OilDrum today, an interesting viewpoint on the efficacy of modern medicine within our society... to put the healthcare debate into perspective:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6186#more

I’ve been working on problems completely removed from Peak Oil, but the ignorance of big problems and the solutions turned out much the same. “Medical Dark Matter” is my metaphor for ignoring the causes of our relatively poor health.

Astronomers looked right past most of reality (96% invisible “dark matter”) until recently. Doctors looked only inside the body and thereby missed about 85% of what really makes people sick or healthy.

Although doctors can save some sick people, they have no power to make most people live longer.  Despite over $2 trillion a year of modern medical care, US life expectancy has dropped to 50th in the world (CIA 2009) behind all of Europe and behind some very poor countries.  It seems to me that societal factors account for about 85% of differences in life expectancy, with genetics and individual health care accounting for the remainder.

Social factors- differences in our artificially created everyday living conditions- are the real keys to human health. Health is improved by money, social status, healthy early childhood, education and a good job.  Poverty and lack of control hurt health. Chronic stress boosts hormones that may harm health. Health choices (diet, exercise, and smoking) are shaped by the neighborhoods we live in, which are influenced by powerful business interests. Income equality is an interesting and controversial factor influencing health. The health of the wealthy may depend in part on the well being of the rest of society.

Money buys health for individual rich Americans, but has failed to make average Americans healthier. What we decide about healthcare reform will have no effect on US life expectancy, since doctors have so little influence on health.

Our American lifestyle takes years off our lives and cannot be sustained indefinitely by available energy resources.

[clarison]

In this forum's broadly anticipated view, the future health of the rich will largely depend on the quality of their security teams.

[yellowrocker]

For instance lets say they took all the profit out of the Blue Cross

Blue Cross is a non-profit entity. The profit of a for-profit health care company (I use Humana as an example) is only about 3% if premiums. The money you pay in premiums flows to a health insurance company, but then flows out to pay for medical services. So in order to make SUBSTANTIAL savings in medical costs and thereby reduce premiums, there will have to be a reduction in core medical costs. This has been a great concern of mine about health care is that the very vast majority of medical expenses go to pay salaries. The cost of medication from big pharma includes very large profit percentages (like 19% profit at GSK), but a lot is also paid out in salaries for employees.

I just don't see how a worthwhile reduction in medical costs can be achieved without reduction in salaries of core medical services.

Another comment/question I have has to do with comparisons of US life expectancy with other countries. There are significant non-medical factors that play into the computation of life expectancy. In the US, a large cause of death is auto accidents and murder - I think the US rates are much higher than other countries. Some of the auto accident problem is due to the layout of US cities wherein Americans drive more in comparison to other countries; consequently, there is a larger highway death toll. Americans also like to kill each other. These things reduce life expectancy in addition to death by medical reasons.

So my question - has anybody compared life expectancy after filtering out the non-medical deaths?

[dam]

One possilbe savings in health care would be to lose the lawyers--that is serious tort reform, we have designated payoffs for workers compensation, if you lose a finger you get x amount, etc, sure there are some mistakes made by doctors, but the ins premiums they pay is outlandish because of the suites being filed. a cased gets in court and only the lawyers win. But as long as Congress and gov't is run by lawyers I guess it will be designed to protect the lawyers and not the public that pays the bills in this country

[chopper]

One possilbe savings in health care would be to lose the lawyers--that is serious tort reform, we have designated payoffs for workers compensation, if you lose a finger you get x amount, etc, sure there are some mistakes made by doctors, but the ins premiums they pay is outlandish because of the suites being filed. a cased gets in court and only the lawyers win. But as long as Congress and gov't is run by lawyers I guess it will be designed to protect the lawyers and not the public that pays the bills in this country

tort reform is a red herring.

[RMG]

Yellowrocker, CEO McAllister is doing just fine with Humana, not withstanding the 3% profit margin on premiums you mentioned. Lots of stock options yet to convert.

Attached is a listing of healthcare CEO's and their packages. There may have been some changes recently but they are doing OK.

http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/

[horsedrawn]

well when non of us can afford health care. I guess we will all be on socialized health care.
and when this happens the insurance companys will go belly up as well .
so then we need to deal with the lawyers.

[RMG]

One possilbe savings in health care would be to lose the lawyers--that is serious tort reform, we have designated payoffs for workers compensation, if you lose a finger you get x amount, etc, sure there are some mistakes made by doctors, but the ins premiums they pay is outlandish because of the suites being filed. a cased gets in court and only the lawyers win. But as long as Congress and gov't is run by lawyers I guess it will be designed to protect the lawyers and not the public that pays the bills in this country

You are kidding - right? Tort reform is the saviour? Do you have any idea of the dollars involved or is this just another bash the lawyers talking point, a meaningless one at that. OK, now for the numbers - the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). a non partisan entity, says Americans could save $54 billion over 10 years with tort reform. Simple math puts the savings at $5.4 billion per year.

Total healthcare spending in the U.S. was $2.2 TRILLION in 2007. The $5.4 billion in savings = 0.245% of costs. All this angst and talking points for a savings of 0.245% per annum. Yup! This will sure make a dent in healthcare costs.   Link below...

http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/223625-cbo-stands-by-estimate-tort-reform-will-save-taxpayers-billions

Edited for math - I had one too many zeros, big numbers, hard to comprehend. 

[chopper]

One possilbe savings in health care would be to lose the lawyers--that is serious tort reform, we have designated payoffs for workers compensation, if you lose a finger you get x amount, etc, sure there are some mistakes made by doctors, but the ins premiums they pay is outlandish because of the suites being filed. a cased gets in court and only the lawyers win. But as long as Congress and gov't is run by lawyers I guess it will be designed to protect the lawyers and not the public that pays the bills in this country

You are kidding - right? Tort reform is the saviour? Do you have any idea of the dollars involved or is this just another bash the lawyers talking point, a meaningless one at that. OK, now for the numbers - the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). a non partisan entity, says Americans could save $54 billion over 10 years with tort reform. Simple math puts the savings at $5.4 billion per year.

Total healthcare spending in the U.S. was $2.2 TRILLION in 2007. The $5.4 billion in savings = 0.0245% of costs. All this angst and talking points for a savings of 0.0245% per annum. Yup! This will sure make a dent in healthcare costs.   Link below...

http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/223625-cbo-stands-by-estimate-tort-reform-will-save-taxpayers-billions

waddya want, these are the same sort of people who think you can balance the budget by cutting food stamps.

[hillwalker]

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

While they:
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight

                  --Kill the Poor
                    Dead Kennedys
-jelly biafra, ray pepperel

[spudco]

Tort reform/malpractice insurance costs are simply red herrings:

Total malpractice payouts for 2005 were only $2.14 billion.  This is an increase of only ½% annually since the 1991 payout amount of $2.11 billion.  The total cost of health care annually is $2+ trillion.  That means that malpractice payouts represent 1/10 of 1 percent of medical costs – a penny for every $1,000 spent.
 
The great majority of valid cases are never filed.  Most people just don’t sue their doctors.

It is often reported that costs are increasing as a function of defensive health care.  The truth is doctors, like all social beings, behave like the herd…  They do what their peers do – right or wrong. 
 
Malpractice rewards for injury are for really bad mistakes.  32% for death, 19% for significant permanent injury, 19% for major permanent injury and 13% for quadriplegic, brain and lifelong care.  No one gets money for a bad boob job.

Malpractice rewards are fairly small – less than $500,000 on average and are growing at a very slow rate – 8% increase in the last 14 years.  Only 2.4% of settlements are greater than $1 million.

In short, medical malpractice is just another insurance company high profit product and the issue is used to distract us from the real issues of high medical costs.

[highstreet]

One possilbe savings in health care would be to lose the lawyers--that is serious tort reform, we have designated payoffs for workers compensation, if you lose a finger you get x amount, etc, sure there are some mistakes made by doctors, but the ins premiums they pay is outlandish because of the suites being filed. a cased gets in court and only the lawyers win. But as long as Congress and gov't is run by lawyers I guess it will be designed to protect the lawyers and not the public that pays the bills in this country

You are kidding - right? Tort reform is the saviour? Do you have any idea of the dollars involved or is this just another bash the lawyers talking point, a meaningless one at that. OK, now for the numbers - the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). a non partisan entity, says Americans could save $54 billion over 10 years with tort reform. Simple math puts the savings at $5.4 billion per year.

Total healthcare spending in the U.S. was $2.2 TRILLION in 2007. The $5.4 billion in savings = 0.0245% of costs. All this angst and talking points for a savings of 0.0245% per annum. Yup! This will sure make a dent in healthcare costs.   Link below...

http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/223625-cbo-stands-by-estimate-tort-reform-will-save-taxpayers-billions

waddya want, these are the same sort of people who think you can balance the budget by cutting food stamps.

nothing is that simplistic.

And No One here has made such a claim.  So quit with the stereotypes.

[boiler_92]

OK, I admit it....I was wrong. I estimated the annual increase for healthcare at a puny 8.7% instead of the 39% Blue Cross is raising it rates in March.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-anthem-obama9-2010feb09,0,4384044.story

But, C'mon, do you really think the proposed Obama care plan would have helped the average citizen that can't afford astronomical healthcare costs?

So, you were wrong about the FACTS, but we are still supposed to believe that your ideology was/is correct anyway.

GOD, I FUCKING HATE IDEOLOGUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!