Health Insurance Discussion

[JRScott]

It's not as simple as that nc73.

If you do that you pretty much screw any doctor with student loans and almost all have them if they haven't been out of school that long. You'd need some sort of forgiveness for them or you'd force them out of business pretty much. Then the creditors would need some sort of incentive to forgive and so on.

Personally I wish the Congress would stop raising the debt limit, the sooner we hit that limit and have to readjust the sooner things will improve long term even though short term it'll mean a lot of problems. You know if we hadn't accumulated all this debt the last 100 or so years then we'd have plenty of money for national health care.

[momisery]

Sounds to me like Insurance is the elephant in the room then? There is not doubt they are simply the middle man, that costs more than any other middle man in the nation. I would say if other nations can have affordable care we can too. We simply need to pass some regualtions against snake oil and price gouging.. thought we had those laws, but apparently not. Those two things would lower our costs a great deal.

[JRScott]

I'm interested in how folks feel about the bribe to bring Sen. Nelson on board.

How do you feel that your state will not only have to pay your own state's increased Medicaid costs, but also will have to pay for Nebraska's?

[momisery]

I feel like it is business as ususal in washington and in the board room. Deals are struck all the time. Some say it is called compromise. I say we need to get real people in office and in upper management in business to clean this mess up. Gov. should be about the people and the good of our nation instead of speaking to the media all the time to try to get back in office, or stay in office. It is a circus when no one will come up with a plan to stop the run away costs because of partylines. We need to return to honesty and doing what is right and good for ALL the people in the USA, what a concept?

[tigergem]

Merry Christmas! Ed Hanway, Cigna CEO, is getting a $73,200,000 golden parachute

Yesterday at 2:30pm

Ed Hanway, CEO of Cigna, one of the nation's largest health insurance companies, will step down at the end of this year, in just over a week. When he does, he'll get $73,200,000 as compensation for a job well done.

What makes Hanway worth $73.2 million? Well, for one example, he's presided as Cigna denied a liver transplant to 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, causing her death and widespread outrage. Wendell Potter, Cigna's former spokesperson turned whistle-blower, was at the company during the Sarkisyan scandal, and he explains its effect on him personally, as well as how the company thinks about denying care:

In our system today, there is literally no repercussions for insurance companies when they deny care, jack up rates, or do all the other things they do to screw over their customers. Ed Hanway did all those things as much as he could, and for that, he's being rewarded.

Out there in America, people are losing their jobs. They're losing their homes. They're skimping on holiday gifts to put food on the table. And they're still going bankrupt do to skyrocketing medical costs.

Meanwhile, insurance company stocks are "on fire" in reaction to the Senate bill, which, though it has some regulations, leaves people at the mercy of private insurance because it lacks a public health insurance option.

People out there are suffering, insurance companies are winning, and Ed Hanway is walking away with $73.2 million.

We've managed to track down Hanway's personal email address. This isn't a spam box or an unattended address, this is Hanway's actual corporate email. It's [email protected].

Send him an email. Tell him what you think of his golden parachute. While you're at it, why don't you tell Hanway what you'd like for Christmas, and what you'd buy with his money. You can leave a message on Cigna's Facebook page as well, if you want.

[JRScott]

Tiger trust me the government is going to be denying care to a lot of people as well, I know that's not what they claim but there is no way to cut medical costs unless they ration care.

Mom yes I see it as more of the same from Washington. They are getting bolder and bolder with their corruption.

[lrprn]

There's nothing new about this, JR. This kind of internal horse-trading to get votes for bills has been going on as long as we've had a Congress.

This is what our founding fathers intended when they set up Congress to work the way it does in the Constitution. Do a Google search for 'earmarks' and for 'pork barrel' - the 'tit for tat' 'I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" vote trading inside Congress has been done extensively by both parties and has been going on for two centuries non-stop. Happy reading.

[tigergem]

My post wasn't just about denying care. I mean c'mon. $73 MILLION dollars he got? For what? It's no wonder they deny coverage!

And to correct something in my previous post, you cannot comment on Cigna's facebook page because the cowards have blocked it to comments.

[Tom_Mi]

Tiger trust me the government is going to be denying care to a lot of people as well, I know that's not what they claim but there is no way to cut medical costs unless they ration care.

Mom yes I see it as more of the same from Washington. They are getting bolder and bolder with their corruption.

Currently we get denied care because our illness isn't profitable. Health Ins. Executives get bonuses for the numbers of denials they have. Why is that better than being denied by the government?

[lrprn]

Tiger trust me the government is going to be denying care to a lot of people as well, ...

Yes, but it will be a lot less people than are denied even basic care now.

I know that's not what they claim but there is no way to cut medical costs unless they ration care.

JR, you seem to think that care isn't being rationed now. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Every single private insurance company in the US rations care every single day and has been doing so for decades. They ration it by how much money it's going to cost them. The need to ensure keeping a healthy profit for their shareholders trumps everything, including keeping their own promises to their policy holders when those policy holders need their insurance the most. Insurance companies ration care by making decisions in secret behind closed doors based solely on cost, not medical need. They ration care by rewarding their employees who carve out and drop policy holders who paid premiums in good faith using every excuse in the book to deny coverage to save money for their own pockets and the pockets of their shareholders. This *IS* true rationing of care, and it's based solely on money.

Help me understand why you think rationing based only on how much money a person has is ok (the current state), but making clinical decisions based on solid repeatable medical research about what works best to cure medical problems and providing that rather than also providing a lot of other treatments that aren't as effective and don't provide good medical outcomes is not ok? This is the "rationing" that everyone on the right is making into a scarey bogeyman.

Why do some people want to continue to have expensive, ineffective treatments that don't work very well and still have their insurance or the government pay for it? Taking what truly doesn't work out of the system as options frees up a great deal of money to put towards what does work. Frankly as a healthcare professional, I just don't get it.

[justbroke]

My post wasn't just about denying care. I mean c'mon. $73 MILLION dollars he got? For what? It's no wonder they deny coverage!

First, it's a business. Until we take the middleman insurance companies out of the equation, or reduce their profits to just 3% over costs (or so)... they will continue to make money and increase shareholder value. Everything is interconnected as this company trades on the stock market as well. Insurance companies don't deny claims to pay bonuses... they deny claims to preserve (or even grow) the insurance pool. Without a large insurance pool, they are nothing more than Social Security operating out of their running budget.

Insurance companies must, as a practical matter, deny claims. That's just the business of insurance. If an insurance company paid every claim, it would quickly be out of business.

To fix this, and I was short on my response last time, you need single payer, and a plethora of other reform. I mean single-payer is removing "insurers" from the equation. Medical providers invoice and bill the Federal Government. But, alas, without reform, this won't work because there is so much Medicare and Medicaid fraud these days, it will make your head spin.

There's nothing like seeing the FBI raid a private insurer on an otherwise quiet business day. (I have witnessed this!)

[JRScott]

It's amazing that folks think things are going to be run better by the government.

First off there are serious issues with this backdoor trading and contrary to what you think the founding fathers were against it and George Washington warned against such partisanship in his farewell address. Jefferson and Hamilton both were against large debt even though they despised one another they both agreed it would lead the nation to destruction.

Giving Nebraska free Medicaid while making everyone else pay for it is wrong, and if you are from any other state keep in mind your taxes will go up and Nebraska's will not, I'm not talking federal taxes I'm talking state. This on top of 300 million that was given to Louisiana for their Medicare expenses. How is that fair to your state, or mine? Where is the change that Obama promised? Wasn't he going to end the business as usual? There are no free lunches.

Do you really believe they'll cut Medicare by 500 billion dollars? They couldn't even write a health care reform bill without giving billions away to various states and districts. That's where the waste and corruption is. They can't stop it because they themselves are to corrupt to do so.

The government has run AmTrack for 30 years and in 30 years it has not made a profit, Social Security is 13 trillion in the hole right now, Medicare is 73 trillion in the hole, Medicare Prescription Drugs is another 18 trillion in the hole, The Post Office is in negative cash flow for five straight years, Nothing the government ever runs comes in on budget. It doesn't know how to do so because they give so many 'special' deals just to get votes. It's bribery and should be called what it is and any senator that votes for a bill that does not at least provide by population his state's fair share of any funding in it is basically a traitor to his state. Same with the Representatives who vote for whatever even if their district gets nothing.

Under this plan you will not see better health care, you will pay more for health care. Health care will become more expensive, rationing will increase, and health care in general will decrease. There are key elements missing from the bill that are necessary to meet the goal. Tort Reform is one of them, however the other major problem is we simply don't have enough doctors and nurses to give daily care to 20 million more Americans and there is no provision to assist with educating doctors and nurses to fill the gap. Why not open up insurance to intrastate competition?

If we really were looking for helping health care, would you really need all these back door deals just to get votes? If it could stand on its own merits would they not vote for it without kickbacks and special treatment? The many exceptions in our laws is what has largely led us to this place, keep in mind that their are also exceptions for some insurance companies and not others in the legislation.

If they were really going to cut the 500 billion from Medicare wouldn't those cuts be specified in the legislation, trust me seniors vote in higher numbers than any other age group and your not going to find much will in Washington to cut their benefits and you can't cut 500 billion without cutting benefits. Without those cuts the bill adds 500 billion to the national debt and is far from deficit neutral.

I may not agree with what needs to be done with Dr. Howard Dean but I do agree with him the current bill in the Senate is not going to fix the problems and should be thrown away and start over. Hopefully whatever comes out of conference neither the House nor Senate will pass and they'll start over on a good bill without all this excess spending just to buy votes that does nothing to help Health Care.

[momisery]

Our government was set up as a majority vote, the filibuster 60% came about later. They keep talking about going back to the constitution but they have not yet. If that were in place the "sweet deals" would not be necessary. The super majority vote came about as an amendment from what I am reading. So, maybe if we moved back to that we could avoid some of the give aways to get votes for the last person holding out?

[JRScott]

Our government was set up as a majority vote, the filibuster 60% came about later. They keep talking about going back to the constitution but they have not yet. If that were in place the "sweet deals" would not be necessary. The super majority vote came about as an amendment from what I am reading. So, maybe if we moved back to that we could avoid some of the give aways to get votes for the last person holding out?

If you go by the Constitution there is no right to health insurance or medical care and it wasn't a right given to the Federal Congress in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. Thereby the 10th Amendment it would be a State power not a federal one. Congress could regulate it over state borders but that's not what they are doing. The main problem the states have run into is that people are not willing to pay high enough taxes to support the health cares systems thus every state that has tried it has repealed it except Massachusetts which probably will have to within 5 years, Hawaii's didn't even last a year I don't think.

To change Article I Section 8 would first require a constitutional amendment which is far harder than the 60% required. The 60% majority was so that they'd have a chance under most circumstances to override any Presidential veto, however the Constitution doesn't set it at that and leaves that up to Congress itself.

By Article I Section 7 this bill shouldn't of originated in the Senate since it has a revenue component and all of those have to originate in the House (That's why after the final bill is written in committee it has to first go to the House for passage then to the Senate to become law).

By Article I Section 9 the bill in the Senate violates the US Constitution by giving favorable treatment to some states like Nebraska and Louisiana over other states as well as some insurance companies over others in essence penalizing all others without due process (It's the same claim they used to challenge the stripping of ACORN's funding since to date its not yet been found guilty of wrongdoing).

[momisery]

JR, I believe that they did away with the majority vote and created a total disaster. I do agree that we need amendments, but some are not working at all like this one. As for healthcare of course it was not address it didn't really exist at the time to govern it.

We know a lot of things don't work, but we don't work on doing the things that do work. What we have now does not work for 47 million Americans and that number grows everyday. That number also only represents those who do not have insurance, it does not reflect those that have insurance but can't afford to use it unless they have a heart attack or something. We spend too much money on ads for big burgers and not enough on education and holding business accountable for their blunders. They changed the oil in french fries finally, but they continue to maxi size everything so, they should pay for the damages they create. They are selling snake oil to people, like the burgers will make them happy and social... at best it is all they can afford is the real reason they are there. So, make it a bit more healthy how about a little wheat in the bread, or grain, maybe some lettuce and tomato instead of paying more and more stock holders. The crux of this mess I think, and of course you don't have to agree that is what is so great about living here.. is that we don't have INVESTORS, we have GAMBLERS in the stock markets. They don't build anything, or create/invent.. instead they gamble on what goes up or down and expect big returns for sitting on their behinds. We give them huge tax breaks on unearned income and tax the heck out of earned income as if working for a living is worth less. Make stocks be investing in building and createing and maybe I will like big business a lot more and our country will do a lot better too. By the way.. have a great holiday weekend. I love this board because people discuss things. I think we are all so much close to the same principals then we realize. IF we could simply all talk instead of shouting... this board does that... I like that.. very cool!!