• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Why the murder of Healthcare Insurance CEO should end Private Health Insurance

The physical cost of health care is the bulk of the problem. If we got that under control, the insurance would be like our car insurance, manageable enough for virtually everyone.

the guys that keep agreeing to pay these crazy costs, the insurance companies, are the ones responsible for keeping costs under control. if they got that under control it would be a great argument that private insurance is a viable choice for healthcare cost management.
 
Public health actually is for the wider community. Reasonable public access to basic health care is good for the economy. The working poor lose productivity when they (or their kids, or their parents) are out of commission with preventable and treatable conditions.
By your measure of economic strength, I'd argue that America has been pretty top notch about providing reasonable public access to basic health care, for almost its entire history.
 
Yup. This is a problem that the whole "Private Sector" has that the Government doesn't. A layer of profit-skimming middlemen. Now, if a privately run organization can make a system more efficient overall in comparison to the government, then sure, let them skim some or all of that efficiency in terms of profit. But with US healthcare it is pretty clear that that is not happening. We have every other country in the world to look at for healthcare policies and outcomes, and by any objective standard you can name we are paying champagne quality prices for beer quality healthcare.

And not good beer at that.

Your post says it well. Capitalism can be very advantageous. But like everything, it has drawbacks. It doesn't always produce the best results. The Robertson screwdriver head was superior to the Phillips head. Betamax was superior to VHS. We see superior technologies all the time fail because dominant businesses prevent their adoption.

I'm all in favor of using capitalism when the markets are truly free and are competitive. When prices respond to supply and demand. But the same forces that makes capitalism work so well are inevitably the same forces that restrict and manipulate markets. The market winners use their dominance to prevent a competitive environment. I worked for a company that purchased competitors to eliminate competition so they could keep prices high. Businesses call competition "destructive capitalism." Trusts and monopolies are eventualities of our system.
 
Did you forget to read this thread? UHCs profits were down, not up. And their margins fell well within the Fed's requirements for how much had to go to direct health care coverage. Maybe the ire here should be directed at the federal government?

Thompson, the highest paid person in UHC by far (as CEO making $10 million per year), cost policy holders 20 cents per year each. While we can rightfully be disgusted by his pay, it ain't the problem.by a long shot. Nor are the 3% profit margins that UHC made.

The physical cost of health care is the bulk of the problem. If we got that under control, the insurance would be like our car insurance, manageable enough for virtually everyone.
your point being that the company grifted no more than they were legally allowed?

The whole point of the killing was to show that these companies can profit from killing people through refused help legally, making an extrajudicial action necessary.
 
By your measure of economic strength, I'd argue that America has been pretty top notch about providing reasonable public access to basic health care, for almost its entire history.
No it doesn't. That which may be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
The consistent strength of the American economy over time is pretty well evidenced.
You can't point to a robust economy and say that it is evidence that EVERY thing that is good for an economy is being done and done well. Please don't argue like a wet noodle.
 
your point being that the company grifted no more than they were legally allowed?
No, my point was what I said it was. Insurers are managing a pyramid scheme. They do not ever say "dude, you can't have treatment". Only a doctor or hospital can say that.

I'm no fan of these guys. But they are a smallish part of the bigger problem. Making them out to be The Reapers when they are basically money managers is not real honking fair.
The whole point of the killing was to show that these companies can profit from killing people through refused help legally, making an extrajudicial action nnecessary.
Well, well see what the point was. Only Luigi really knows that right now, and he hasn't said much. His manifesto was a bit limp, if the version we saw was even his.

Luigi declaring himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner is something I could do without. I mean, what happens if he doesn't like his auto mechanic's service next? You really can't do this kind of thing. If we want to get rid of this system, we have these cats called "Representatives" to work that out. Blaming some CEO or Health Care reimburser is not dealing with the problem.
 
You can't point to a robust economy and say that it is evidence that EVERY thing that is good for an economy is being done and done well. Please don't argue like a wet noodle.
It is such a robust economy that homelessness has skyrocketed. It is such a robust economy that anyone other than the top 10 percent has seen their income and wealth decrease. Our system is so good that most of us get to do with less not more. The United States where the rich get richer and everyone else gets screwed.
 
You can't point to a robust economy and say that it is evidence that EVERY thing that is good for an economy is being done and done well. Please don't argue like a wet noodle.
If you can have a robust economy without providing reasonable public access to basic health care, that pretty much negates your appeal to providing reasonable public access to basic health care.
 
Basic humanity. All people should have access to basic health care, no matter what their income is.
 
Public opinion of it doesn't change the fact that it is inefficient and less effective than many other systems of health care.
But we were discussing public opinion.. This is why these conversations don't move forward. We can't get to the why of things without acknowledging the baseline facts. A majority of people like their insurance. Even those that have to use it constantly. Very few even hate it enough to rate it poorly.

your point being that the company grifted no more than they were legally allowed?

The whole point of the killing was to show that these companies can profit from
killing people through refused help legally, making an extrajudicial action necessary.
No it doesn't. That which may be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Let's extend this line of thinking to the highlighted. Because at this point I haven't even been compelled to believe this is an actual statistically observable problem. I've asked this before but what are some egregious cases of this even happening? How often is it estimated to happen at all?
 
If you can have a robust economy without providing reasonable public access to basic health care, that pretty much negates your appeal to providing reasonable public access to basic health care.
My point was that such health care isn't a purely selfish issue. And it is good for an economy (without being necessary). You have not presented an argument that it isn't. You've barely presented an inference.
 
My point was that such health care isn't a purely selfish issue. And it is good for an economy (without being necessary). You have not presented an argument that it isn't. You've barely presented an inference.
Of course your point is that it's a purely selfish issue. The economic argument is an appeal to more money in the pockets of the people you're trying to convince.
 
If you can have a robust economy without providing reasonable public access to basic health care, that pretty much negates your appeal to providing reasonable public access to basic health care.
Unless reasonable public access to basic health care would make the economy more robust. Robustier. Why settle for hamburger if you could have steak?
 
Of course your point is that it's a purely selfish issue. The economic argument is an appeal to more money in the pockets of the people you're trying to convince.
Any argument for a more robust economy is an appeal to more money in the pockets of the people you're trying to convince.
 
But we were discussing public opinion..
Ok. Public opinion seems to sway as they actually deal with insurance companies. The more they have to use it, the worse they feel about it.
From this link:

" a recent survey from NORC at the University of Chicago, which found that, while 8 out of 10 U.S. adults believe the person who killed Brian Thompson bears the responsibility for the murder, 7 in 10 shared the belief that healthcare companies are also to blame. They said that proceedings like healthcare denials for coverage bear “a moderate amount” of responsibility for the Dec. 4 slaying. "

It's a bit confusing that most people are satisfied with their health insurance companies, yet most people also think that healthcare companies share the blame.
 
Ok. Public opinion seems to sway as they actually deal with insurance companies. The more they have to use it, the worse they feel about it.
From this link:

" a recent survey from NORC at the University of Chicago, which found that, while 8 out of 10 U.S. adults believe the person who killed Brian Thompson bears the responsibility for the murder, 7 in 10 shared the belief that healthcare companies are also to blame. They said that proceedings like healthcare denials for coverage bear “a moderate amount” of responsibility for the Dec. 4 slaying. "

It's a bit confusing that most people are satisfied with their health insurance companies, yet most people also think that healthcare companies share the blame.
Not for nothing but that's a separate convo. Even from that survey itself 58% had no issues with their insurance in the last year and only 15% had a denial. Even that tells very little, as everyone has different expectations and pressure points. Would you rather have no denials but a provider pool so limited you can't see a specialist you need for 6 months? It's why the tradeoffs matter and the general approval seems to continue to remain high.

It also falls into this current trend of personal experience falling secondary to general consensus depending on the question. Congress itself, low approval rating. Your own congressman, high approval. Personal finances, great. Economy, terrible. Crime, education etc etc. Personal experienced trumped.
 
Well, there are also people who recognize that while X is working okay for them personally, it's not working so well for other people.
 
Well, there are also people who recognize that while X is working okay for them personally, it's not working so well for other people.
Which comes down to how and where they get information that they determine that. It seems easier to consider things are worse for others than that they are better. If polling shows a large majority believe something is working well for them but nothing others, where is the disconnect?
 
Which comes down to how and where they get information that they determine that. It seems easier to consider things are worse for others than that they are better. If polling shows a large majority believe something is working well for them but nothing others, where is the disconnect?
Which is why decisions should be made based on objective measurements, not opinion polls and surveys. The fact that medical bankruptcy is a thing is enough to justify a need for a better healthcare model.
 
Well, there are also people who recognize that while X is working okay for them personally, it's not working so well for other people.
This is the internet, sir. Where people are exposed to the experiences and viewpoints of people around the country and even the world on a daily basis, yet 90% of the time their arguments still come down to personal incredulity. "I don't think so, I don't see it, it probably doesn't exist."

I'm one of the 85% who had no problem with their insurance last year. You know why? I saw the doctor twice and had no issues.
Having "only" a 15% complaint rate isn't that great when you consider that that's the 15% that need the damn service we're all paying for.
 
Last edited:
Which is why decisions should be made based on objective measurements, not opinion polls and surveys. The fact that medical bankruptcy is a thing is enough to justify a need for a better healthcare model.
Yes, but changing policies means changing opinions. To completely overhaul the current system, you have to acknowledge that most people are actually happy with their current situation. When you portray the opposite, it leads to the disconnect people keep having about why it doesn't change. And when the solution is only painted with rose colored glasses, it leads to pessimism.

No one truly believes it will be cheaper, better quality and more available. Saying it can be doesn't mean it will be, and reality is easier to acknowledge and get support for.
 
the guys that keep agreeing to pay these crazy costs, the insurance companies, are the ones responsible for keeping costs under control. if they got that under control it would be a great argument that private insurance is a viable choice for healthcare cost management.
But they don't pay those crazy costs. The actual amount they pay is a small fraction of what's billed. They have the healthcare providers inflate the bill. They don't exactly publicize that fact, but when asked about it, they say it's because they want to show their shareholders that they're negotiating on price with the providers. But the transparently obvious reason is that by drastically inflating the bill over the actual costs, and making the uninsured pay the full, inflated price, they assure that everyone is trapped into the need for private insurance, because without it, even a trip to the ER with a broken arm is prohibitively expensive.
 
Agreed. But Fanucci need not dip his beak.

The doctors, yes, the nurses yes, the electricians yes, the guy who cuts my hair, yes. Some stockholder who only adds money is not required. This meal need not that ingredient. It costs too much and adds neither flavor or nutrients.
The most useless member of any society is the rentier, and the most egregious rentier is the one who makes their living from stocks and shares.
 
But they don't pay those crazy costs. The actual amount they pay is a small fraction of what's billed. They have the healthcare providers inflate the bill. They don't exactly publicize that fact, but when asked about it, they say it's because they want to show their shareholders that they're negotiating on price with the providers. But the transparently obvious reason is that by drastically inflating the bill over the actual costs, and making the uninsured pay the full, inflated price, they assure that everyone is trapped into the need for private insurance, because without it, even a trip to the ER with a broken arm is prohibitively expensive.
Problem is the uninsured often don't pay the full price. Why is that? Two reasons:-

1. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients who cannot pay in an emergency situation.
According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated. When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers. For example, it has been estimated that cost shifting has amounted to $455 per individual, or $1,186 per family, in California annually.

However, because of the recent influence of managed care and other cost control initiatives by insurance companies, hospitals are less able to shift costs, and they end up writing off more and more in uncompensated care. The amount of uncompensated care delivered by nonfederal community hospitals grew from $6.1 billion in 1983 to $40.7 billion in 2004, according to a 2004 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, but it is unclear what percentage of the amount was emergency care and therefore attributable to EMTALA.
2. Shifting the costs on to those can pay reduces the number who can pay and increases the number who can't - a vicious cycle.

The fundamental problem with healthcare is that people want more than they can afford, which is perfectly understandable. This is greatly exacerbated by medical advances that make treatments possible but expensive. There are two ways to deal with this:-

1. 'Free market' healthcare - those who can pay get it, those who can't don't. The problem with this is obvious. The rich can afford much better healthcare than the poor, and the health industry concentrates on them because that's where the money is. A billionaire will pay a billion to be kept alive. Health providers then have no incentive to offer cheaper medical care.

2. 'Universal' healthcare run by the government. But this is totally unacceptable becauss it's socialism, with all the bad stuff that imples:-
a) The governement is inherently less efficient than private enterprise. This is so obvous that we don't need to prove it.
b) Government is inherently corrupt - again no proof needed, this is just a fact.
c) Healthcare will be rationed. If you think breadlines in Russia were bad, just imagine camping outside a hospital for 2 years! Many people will suffer - and some will die - because the authorites decided they weren't urgent enough.
d) People will be refused care because they aren't 'worth it'. 90 years old and need multiple organ transplants or expensive cancer treatment? Sorry bud, you're not a productive member of society so...
e) The underserving will suck up resourses that you should get. You know - the obese, drug addicts, whores etc. Of course your'e not overweight, don't eat unhealthy foods, and don't drink, smoke, or engage in risky behavior, right?
f) They will unfairly prioritize people who follow the government's bogus health advice.
g) You will be paying for poor people to get the same healthcare as you. How unfair!

For all these reasons and more, universal healthcare is the worst possible option.

But there's another way. Keep things as they are now - just blame insurance campanies and shoot the occasional CEO. The public outrage will then... um... fix it so we can have all the affordable healthcare we want no matter how much it actually costs.

I hear that some countries have a fourth way - universal healthcare and private healthcare with insurance for those who can afford it. Thus everyone gets basic care, while those who can afford it can either have the same or more. The result is not the greatest healthcare for most, but affordable care for most. Unforunately this only works in countries whose governments have been infiltrated by soicalists. It couldn't possibly happen in the US.
 
Last edited:
Government is inherently corrupt? I don't accept this claim as fact. Also, it appears to me that business and capitalism is inherently corrupt.
Also, many of these other claims you make are just that, claims. UHC works much better than profit driven systems, and that's based on facts and evidence. The ridiculousness of your claims makes me wonder if it was satirical.
 
Government is inherently corrupt? I don't accept this claim as fact. Also, it appears to me that business and capitalism is inherently corrupt.
Also, many of these other claims you make are just that, claims. UHC works much better than profit driven systems, and that's based on facts and evidence.
His post was totally sarcastic.
 
Problem is the uninsured often don't pay the full price. Why is that? Two reasons:-

1. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients who cannot pay in an emergency situation.

2. Shifting the costs on to those can pay reduces the number who can pay and increases the number who can't - a vicious cycle.

The fundamental problem with healthcare is that people want more than they can afford, which is perfectly understandable. This is greatly exacerbated by medical advances that make treatments possible but expensive. There are two ways to deal with this:-

1. 'Free market' healthcare - those who can pay get it, those who can't don't. The problem with this is obvious. The rich can afford much better healthcare than the poor, and the health industry concentrates on them because that's where the money is. A billionaire will pay a billion to be kept alive. Health providers then have no incentive to offer cheaper medical care.

2. 'Universal' healthcare run by the government. But this is totally unacceptable becauss it's socialism, with all the bad stuff that imples:-
a) The governement is inherently less efficient than private enterprise. This is so obvous that we don't need to prove it.
b) Government is inherently corrupt - again no proof needed, this is just a fact.
c) Healthcare will be rationed. If you think breadlines in Russia were bad, just imagine camping outside a hospital for 2 years! Many people will suffer - and some will die - because the authorites decided they weren't urgent enough.
d) People will be refused care because they aren't 'worth it'. 90 years old and need multiple organ transplants or expensive cancer treatment? Sorry bud, you're not a productive member of society so...
e) The underserving will suck up resourses that you should get. You know - the obese, drug addicts, whores etc. Of course your'e not overweight, don't eat unhealthy foods, and don't drink, smoke, or engage in risky behavior, right?
f) They will unfairly prioritize people who follow the government's bogus health advice.
g) You will be paying for poor people to get the same healthcare as you. How unfair!

For all these reasons and more, universal healthcare is the worst possible option.

But there's another way. Keep things as they are now - just blame insurance campanies and shoot the occasional CEO. The public outrage will then... um... fix it so we can have all the affordable healthcare we want no matter how much it actually costs.

I hear that some countries have a fourth way - universal healthcare and private healthcare with insurance for those who can afford it. Thus everyone gets basic care, while those who can afford it can either have the same or more. The result is not the greatest healthcare for most, but affordable care for most. Unforunately this only works in countries whose governments have been infiltrated by soicalists. It couldn't possibly happen in the US.
Private Healthcare insurance only makes the problem worse. Their goal like all businesses is profit. Period. So they seek ways to accomplish that. And the most effective way is to pay the small bills and deny the large ones the best they can. They simply are not needed. An insurance adjuster doesn't save lives.
 
Yup. This is a problem that the whole "Private Sector" has that the Government doesn't. A layer of profit-skimming middlemen. Now, if a privately run organization can make a system more efficient overall in comparison to the government, then sure, let them skim some or all of that efficiency in terms of profit. But with US healthcare it is pretty clear that that is not happening. We have every other country in the world to look at for healthcare policies and outcomes, and by any objective standard you can name we are paying champagne quality prices for beer quality healthcare.

You're close. The studies in the file drawer are the ones I want to read.

I'm pretty sure large governments like California and New York did studies on it. Large companies probably did quite a few studies on it. Even billionaire venture capitalists and hedge funds probably did studies on it. Every study read once and then straight into the file drawer never to be seen again. And the temptation to do something before the study, immense.

I read a study, I think it was in the AMA Journal that said 25% of the cost of healthcare in the United States was wasted on managerial inefficiencies. And that doesn't even go into any other activities associated with healthcare.

Just offer a more efficient system to employers, split the difference on the savings, and walk a way with billions.

It's possible no one commissioned a study to see if it could be done. But I doubt it.
 
Private Healthcare insurance only makes the problem worse. Their goal like all businesses is profit. Period. So they seek ways to accomplish that. And the most effective way is to pay the small bills and deny the large ones the best they can. They simply are not needed. An insurance adjuster doesn't save lives.
Explain the not-for-profit private healthcare insurance providers in Australia.
 
Back
Top Bottom