WTF?

And it’s a long, long stretch from doctors maybe – just maybe, performing procedures that aren’t necessary to boost the bottom line to the mushroom clouds alluded to above.Everybody in this society/economy is out to boost their bottom line. That’s the raison d’etre of capitalism. Putting in place a system to remove the incentives for doing so, when the current system is wildly dysfunctional, is good business.

Bob,I’ve just discovered a new tactic, and I blogged about it. I’ll share it here, since everyone here is fighting tooth and nail to reform our system.I have turned the tables on the conservatives I am debating with. They have no answer; they haven’t even considered the consequences of their actions, and most I am debating with have admitted it.Ask them what the consequences of forcing private insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, end the practice of denying coverage for health reasons, and ending the practice of rescission would be.Just exposing their hypocrisy in their desire to CONTROL private industry by forcing them to do business they don’t want to do isn’t enough. Conservatives have been using the rallying cry of cost, and the impact it will have on the taxes of middle America. That has been their strongest rallying point.We can tun it around on them by asking them what it will cost if insurers are forced to fix the system. They can’t answer that question, but just thinking about it can drive you to jump off a cliff.Insurers profit by selling to the masses, controlling costs and limiting claims. That is their business model.Conservatives are asking them to entirely change that model, and pay for everyone, and everything, and force every American to buy that product. What are the consequences of that? Can you even begin to imagine what the cost of each policy would be?Insurers have had decades to ponder this question. Their actuaries know the answer, and as a result, they have refused to offer a product that will cover everyone, including their pre-existing conditions. They have shown over time that they want no part of covering everyone; they don’t even want to approach it. Why not?I have deduced that it is about affordability. As I said, insurance companies only profit by selling to massive numbers of people, and forcing the statistics to work to their advantage. Any statistic about a provision that indicates they cannot profit they will simply refuse to cover. In essence, Bob, they may not be able to cover every American and remain profitable at any price.Why else would an industry as greedy as health insurance not offer an extremely expensive policy that would cover everyone and everything? The mountains of money they would collect would be astronomical. It would be tempting, to say the least.Yet they won’t touch such a policy, they won’t offer it, they don’t even want to discuss it. What does that tell us?It tells us that they cannot do it, AT ANY PRICE.Logically, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that if every American must be covered, and if pre-existing conditions must be included, private insurers cannot and will not ever offer a solution. It is literally impossible for them to do.Conservatives are demanding the impossible from a private industry, and we need to ask them if they want to bail out health insurance companies every year. What will the cost of that be?I’m talking about insurance premiums that won’t just increase thirty percent. No, I’m suggesting that if insurers are forced to cover everyone, then everyone’s premiums will double at a minimum, and that’s just for starters.It’s time to attack them, Bob, rather than just trying to debunk their lies.I titled my post “MAKING HEALTH INSURANCE UNAFFORDABLE FOR EVERY AMERICAN”. That’s what we need to attack them with. Cost.

PPP – that is an amazing read. I’m still trying to wrap my head around it. One conclusion seems to be that’s it impossible to set up a universal health care system that’s based on a profit model.There’s another statistic I heard a few weeks ago (probably on NPR) that keeps reverberating in my head, and I don’t know what to do with it. I heard that 40% of Medicare expenditures are paid out for procedures that are performed during the last months of a patient’s life. These procedures do not extend that life beyond these few months. (I hope I’m remembering that percentage correctly, it was something like that.) This practice, if the politicians are to be believed, is coming close to bankrupting the country.I’ve examined that bit of info from every which way, trying to extrapolate one conclusion, then another. I don’t know what to do with that statistic.

I have nothing to say. I have decided this woman is just not worth any comments. She is that ridiculous.

@PPP: I thought that was a great moment in last night’s presser. When whoever that reporter was (the wrong Cleveland one) asked about what suffering people were going to do under the new plan, and the president was all, let’s talk about how much they’ll suffer WITHOUT it. Let’s talk about what they will continue to not have, if the system remains as is.Every question last night was framed within a context wherein healthcare now is the awesomest, cheapest ever and the new plan will change that. I thought Pres. Obama did a fair good rebuking that, but I agree with you. That needs to be the response always, all the time, forcefully.

” The problem is the fabrication of irrational fear for political gain — that’s “fear-mongering”. “That is pretty damn close to the deffinition of terrorism.

PPP-I understand the point you’re making, however I would caution you in this.”It tells us that they cannot do it, AT ANY PRICE.”So, what you just said is that, hypothetically, no matter how much you raised the price to cover everyone, there is no way for them to make a profit.The argument for Government healthcare being able to do it, is that they do not have to make a profit. Think about the argument you’re making here. IF at ANY price insurance compaines can’t do it, how can government do it within the cost constraits of being deficit neutral. You just have proved they can’t do it either, no matter the revenue, costs will kill it.Instead, you have just made the argument that rationing of care is the end result of Universal Healthcare.

R&T,our care is already rationed, by the exclusions as set forth in your individual policy. And I see your point, but what you must understand about insurance companies is:1. none of them own THE monopoly, thus, their costs will ALWAYS be higher than a single payer. There are dozens of insurers competing. In the case where you must cover everything, this drives risk up for each insurer, and necessarily drives the demand for percentage of profit up. Higher risk = higher profit in any investment scenario.2. more claims paid means more administrative duties for all involved. in a single payer source, admin would be cookie cutter. In our current system, with dozens of different insurers in each state, admin costs increase as duties and difficulty increase. Each state has different policy provisions; that’s part of why admin costs are so high for private insurers; they literally administer a different plan for every state. A nightmare.3. Needing to generate profit, and a higher necessary profit due to increased risk PLUS the actual cost of that risk will drive up the cost of private insurance premiums astronomically. Without the profit to manage, the Public Option really kicks ass here.That’s my take on it. Thanks.

PPP-Your points.#1. Yes I get that.#2 More administravtive costs for private insurance? I’m not going to buy that one 100%. The Fed’s turned over the running of Medicare prescription drug plans to the private sector to reduce costs and administrative fees to save money. They now pay a flat fee per enrollee so that the costs are managed more effectively, and they have capped the upside expense. This would seem to refute your claim.#3 This is acutally my point “due to increased risk PLUS the actual cost of that risk”. What happens in both models is that costs explode. I grant you that compared to private the public would kick ass IF profit was the desired end result of providing the care. But it isn’t. It’s managing revenues to pay for it, with the costs associated with running the program within a deficit neutral constraint. With the cost explosion that happens, to be neurtal, you have to A. increase revenues (taxes, fees, premiums) or B.reduce costs (fraud, waste, abuse, rationing of care, efficiency).On the cost side. Reducing cost in hospital settings and other provider settings has been a priority for quite a long time. Next, “Unnecessary” tests”. First, who’s making the call that the test is unnecessary? Second, if it could be eliminated, but currently isn’t, it’s most likely done to protect against litigation. Malpractice insurance is a huge expense that drives up the cost of medical care exponentially, as it’s CYA at every step of the process from supplier, to the manufacturer, to the doctor, and to the hospital. The Democrats will not even acknowledge this, but it is huge.Savings from fraud, waste & abuse sounds good on the pulpit, but there are already agencies busting their butts to seek out Fraud waste and Abuse. What does everyone think they have been doing all this time, nothing? And if it hasn’t been effective up until now, what makes anyone think it’s going to get magically better? The point, no great leaps forward in savings here, they are already doing it.So the questions.Is it worth ignoring tort reform, if without those reforms we cannot get to a deficit neurtal position?Tough one. Do we include all the 10 million illegals in Universal Care, if that means getting it or not getting it for everyone else?Another tough one. How do we provide Universal Care which has an almost unlimited upside on demand for care, with the hard fact that it this care has to be paid for somehow (rationing)?