Naitonalized Healthcare...

[furnishedowner]

Brockovich,

I just read in Fortune Magazine that the current maximum tax rate is 35%.  So you are probably NOT paying 71%. Does that make you feel better? I think the CPA said we had to pay 31% this year. We wouldn't have money for even bread and water if we paid 71%.

Furnishedowner

[brockovich]

I mean 71% of the tax revenues overall come from Americans who make 110K or more. Not my tax rate is 71%... although it could be soon!

[Abraham679]

Public vs. Private college...  More students per class in public vs. private college... higher admission standards, better academia, really NOT an adequate comparison... this would actually be a great debate, but let's not muddy the waters; let's focus on healthcare...

[PositiveOutlook]

This article from CBS News just RAMS home the point of how by putting the healthcare of the nation in the governments hands it WILL cost more, by showing how ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/business/econwatch/entry5007862.shtml

"There's little belt-tightening in evidence in Washington, D.C.: Counting benefits, the average pay per federal worker will leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year."

This is dramatically MORE than the average healthcare worker... So, you can say you want nationalized healthcare, but explain how it will in any way cost LESS...  Where's the money going to come from?

[jfpen]

Hi all,
      I want to make a distinction between COSTS and PRICES. The mass media and politicians talk about controlling healthcare COSTS. COSTS are what a company incurs to produce a product or service. What politicians really mean is that they wish to control healthcare PRICES.  Prices are what consumers pay for goods or services. PRICES are not arbitrarily chosen by companies, they are what they are because of supply and demand (market forces). To make PRICES go down, either COSTS have to be reduced or DEMAND has to decrease. With a socialized healthcare system DEMAND WILL INCREASE. Therefore, either PRICES to the Consumer/Taxpayer will greatly increase and/or quality of service will be greatly reduced or some combination thereof.

JP

[jfpen]

Public vs. Private college...  More students per class in public vs. private college... higher admission standards, better academia, really NOT an adequate comparison... this would actually be a great debate, but let's not muddy the waters; let's focus on healthcare...

Not necessarily true. There are many BUY your diploma private colleges out there with very lax admissions standards.

[Hooch]

I am a far right conservative republican that supports health care. Wow, doesn’t sound like the conservatives on the radio, does it? Actually, I agree with most of what they say but have to draw the line here. I support health care for everyone as I am pro life. Not just pro life for babies but for adults as well.

I don’t think that someone should have something catastrophic happen to them and have to choose between death and financial ruin. With those two choices in mind, they have to choose financial ruin.

I am not saying health care for someone who has the sniffles. I am saying major medical with a relatively high deductible. High enough to encourage people to not use it unless it is absolutely necessary. Low enough to allow someone to pay off this debt within a year or two and be back on their feet without a tarnished credit rating or a lifetime of debt.

Those who want to see the doctor for minor issues can pay for it out of their pocket. When negotiating with a doctor, I have found rates significantly drop if it is mentioned that you are paying cash. A $75 dollar 5 minute consultation quickly turns into a $40 consultation.

I am going to let you in on a couple of things you may not be aware of as being issues within the health care industry.  This is insider information that I am aware of and that I have not heard a word of from the mainstream media.

My father was a vice president of The Travelers Financial Services prior to their breaking up. Back when they were one of the largest insurance companies in the United States. He told me a couple of very interesting stories about the industry.

His first month or so that he was on the job, he was meeting with top executives of many of the other largest insurance companies in the country and the topic came up of raising premiums by a certain percentage. The insurance companies all agreed together to do so.

At this point he was afraid from what just happened. My dad was previously the VP of RJ Reynolds / Nabisco and if something like that ever happened he knew that he would be sent straight to prison for price fixing or collusion. So… upon returning to The Travelers he immediately reported to the president and said I can’t believe what just happened, they were all talking about raising prices and now I am going to end up going to jail. The president of Travelers laughed and informed him that there legally is an exception for insurance companies and this is perfectly legal for him to do so within the industry.

This was quite shocking information to my dad and when he told me about it I too was surprised that the government would allow this.

A couple years down the road the insurance giants were going head to head with the all mighty American Medical Association. The AMA has some sort of book. It’s kind of like a guideline of what is acceptable to pay. Got the sniffles and insurance companies must pay __ dollars. Got a broken arm and it will cost insurance companies ___ dollars. Well, the AMA decided to increase prices across the board to the insurance companies. The insurance giants were outraged at this and got together to decide how to handle this. They were fully aware that the AMA was controlling the supply and demand of doctors in the United States so they decided that they would threaten exposure and let the cat out of the bag.

They came back to the AMA with a response that if they even think about raising the prices they will drop the ball on how the AMA was only allowing a certain number of doctors graduate per year. Just enough to account for population increase and death of doctors. This tight control of the supply and demand is what has allowed health care prices to go through the roof and medical doctors to get paid 3 to 4 times the amount that doctors and highly educated people of other fields get paid. Even the doctors that simply treat people with the sniffles are flush with cash after a short term of paying off medical school due to this monopoly that the AMA has created.

They also promised that they will make sure that with the breaking of the news they will ensure that thousands upon thousands of highly qualified doctors get imported from India to the United States which will in-turn create an atmosphere of competition, and prices will drop regardless of what the AMA does due to the change in supply and demand.

Upon the receipt of this counter threat, the AMA quickly decided against raising prices to insurance companies and the issue was resolved.

Our health care system is broken. Broken in a huge way. It is broken due to non-regulation. I am not saying that we need government-controlled health care. I am saying that we need regulation in this industry. It is broken because the government has allowed a monopoly with the AMA and allowed collusion among insurance companies. Sure, there are many other reasons why it is broken. These are two glaring examples which have caused the American people to feel that even Government controlled health care would be better than what we have now. And it would be. When the government doesn’t enforce the laws we already have in place, or give special privileges to particular industries, things get broken and it makes it seem that the only option is more government control.

Regardless of the situation, people need health care and the system needs to be fixed. Health care costs are through the roof in all areas, from pharmaceuticals to hospitals, from insurance to doctors themselves. No one should face a financial ruin or death decision due to a catastrophic health problem. Lets get this problem fixed. Those who are profiting to a massive degree will go down kicking and screaming all the way and that is to be expected. “Plants” will be hired by the profiteers to appear on the media giving reasons why this is a bad idea. A campaign will be kicked off likely using scare tactics, etc. Regardless of what happens, we need to push through major medical for the people.

We conservatives need to open this topic up for discussion on ways to enforce the laws we have and use the free market system to decrease the costs of health care rather than canceling the idea out all together as if there is no solution that is acceptable.

[PositiveOutlook]

Hooch, that was an interesting read...

If that is indeed the case, then you provided the answer already (i.e. - importing doctors, increasing competition would REDUCE costs).  Not so much importing doctors, but increasing the competition.

My feeling on this would be if the government were to have any role across the board, it would be to collect the premiums from the people/companies and unlike Social Security, Medicare, etc.  the money would be sequestered for this purpose ONLY.  Then they would issue vouchers to people whereby they could use with whatever insurance company they want, thereby INCREASING the competition for the money.  Any money that the CONSUMER could save on premiums/plans would be rebated back to them.  It would become like other insurances that competition (i.e. - auto, life, disability,etc.) is prevalent in.  Next thing you know, Geico will be offering a cheaper alternative, and they will be advertising for better coverage at better price.  Their little money stack with the eyes will have a medical cap on it.

Once we move the emphasis AWAY from easy money for the insurance industry and make them WORK for it, they will look into alternative model like the Walmarts, CVS's, etc. or different ways of providing the same care at better cost. 

I don't think that the lawyers and frivolous lawsuits can be overlooked as they are also a major cost factor.  Once this is adequately addressed, malpractice insurance will also ease and costs come down.  There will not be an excuse.

Another thought is that if you sue a hospital for malpractice, that part of the judgement should be the care needed to make people whole...  at no additional cost. 

Most people don't realize that Social Security has collected MORE than it has needed every year since it's inception.  The reason it is a problem is that the money is not sequestered for that use alone, but is rather a tax that is used in the general fund, which is why it is always in trouble.

Hooch, the interesting thing about your post is that with government run nationalized healthcare, all the things you posted would be culminated under one roof...  price fixing, supply chain for doctors, etc...

If there are laws that protect them the way you say, I would like to know the law, who signed it, and then work to eliminate it...  any clue on the specifics of this?

[PositiveOutlook]

Hooch,

Any additional information on that law you referenced above?

Also, someone shoot some holes in my previous post (with arguments, not insults which waster everyone's time) so we can refine the concept...

[fdjake]

IMAGINE.....

A Health Care System manipulated by Insurance Companies and GREED.

Thanks Hooch,

You confirmed almost every SENTENCE I have written on this subject!!!!

Our health care system costs are OUT OF CONTROLL because the BUSINESSES that run them got GREEDY.   A Harvard education costs $50,000/year because they can GET it.....A State run University runs under COST CONTROLLS set by the GOVERMENT and if you're a resident, you'll pay one FIFTH what Harvard students pay.....I know a LOT of VERY successful people that graduated from State colleges and have done EXTREMELY well for themselves.   It is NOT a junk system.

That system could EASILY work for health care.  A State cost controlled system that is AFFORDABLE....NOT completely FREE...but MUCH lower in cost than current systems that operate on a profit based model.
Anyone who wanted the "HARVARD" of health care, could PAY EXTRA FOR IT.  But EVERYONE would be afforded a low cost opportunity.  Just like a State College education.  We have a Goverment that ALREADY collects TAXES.....That's what they do.....They collect money and USE IT to pay for BENEFITS for the citizens.....By benefits I mean a national highway system. A strong and professional military, security for the elderly too old to work.
It's ALREADY BEING DONE!!!  Collect the money and SET the COSTS.  If Dollar Bill McGuire can make enough PROFIT to RETURN $650,000,000 to United Health in STOLEN money......There's PROBABLY SOME FAT THERE!!!!

What "POSITIVE" is looking for is called the...

McCarran-Ferguson Exemption Act.

It allows Health Insurers to FIX PRICES and engage in elaborate price collusion schemes WITHOUT being charged with ANTI TRUST violations.  EXACTLY as HOOCH described.

It sounds to me like Positive is moving towards a HYBRID system of sorts.

I have to admit.....I like some of his ideas!!

[phlemboy]

This article from CBS News just RAMS home the point of how by putting the healthcare of the nation in the governments hands it WILL cost more, by showing how ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/business/econwatch/entry5007862.shtml

"There's little belt-tightening in evidence in Washington, D.C.: Counting benefits, the average pay per federal worker will leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year."

This is dramatically MORE than the average healthcare worker... So, you can say you want nationalized healthcare, but explain how it will in any way cost LESS...  Where's the money going to come from?

In regards to healthcare workers. Nurses, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, etc.. average 50K - 80K /yr. on a 40 hr. week. That's not including benefits. If you were to blend in the Doctors and physician assistants, that raises the average pay. I'm a Respiratory Therapist and wife is a nurse. This has been a great paying field in very tough times. I'd say healthcare pay is about on par with the federal workers, but there's more demand for healthcare workers than federal.. As far as cutting costs, I still see a lot of wasteful and unecessary charges in healthcare (too much to list). But I get the feeling that if the waste was cut out, that would only improve health facility's bottom line instead of reducing the cost of healthcare. By the way, when I paid out of pocket for my health insurance 6 months ago, it cost $1028/mo. Now that I have "benefits", it only costs me about $640/mo. I remember the days when healthcare benefits cost $0.

[PositiveOutlook]

Phlemboy....

"Nurses, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, etc.. average 50K - 80K /yr. on a 40 hr. week"

What I was referring to was not necessarily the professional occupations you listed, but the administrative level, which may or may not require a degree...  The article I was referring to (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/business/econwatch/entry5007862.shtml) was regarding federal workers, NOT the specialists...  which is WHY the costs for a nationalized healthcare would increase EVERYONE's healthcare...

"The final evidence that it's a good time to have a .gov e-mail address? Civilian government employees are set to enjoy a 2 percent raise. Not only are private sector workers are struggling to keep their jobs, but their earnings are stagnating and pay cuts are no longer uncommon. "

The money to pay for this comes from the TAXPAYER...  So just like Congress doesn't sacrifice their earnings increases NO MATTER WHAT IS GOING ON... federal employees don't either... now imagine it increased dramatically in just the administration of a national healtcare system...

What are of the country do you live in?

[PositiveOutlook]

FDjake... from the legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

"The McCarran-Ferguson Act DOES NOT prevent the federal government from regulating the insurance industry. It provides only that states have broad authority to regulate the insurance industry unless the federal government enacts legislation specifically intended to regulate insurance and to displace state law. The McCarran-Ferguson Act also provides that the sherman anti-trust act of 1890, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., the clayton act of 1914, 15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq., and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 41–51, APPLY TO THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE to the extent that such business is not regulated by state law."

Where did you get your information from?...  It doesn't say what Hooch said at all... there is no protection from price-fixing in this from what I am reading...


"A Harvard education costs $50,000/year because they can GET it....."

Harvard cost more and they can get it precisely BECAUSE it is MORE VALUABLE than a degree from a State College... It immediately opens doors that a State run college does not... If you have an example where a Harvard graduate and a State school graduate, at the same academic level secured the same level of employment (i.e. - position, salary, etc.) you MIGHT have the beginnings of an argument.  Even if you were able to find such an anomaly. it would be the exception NOT the rule... that is WHY they can charge what they charge...   


"By benefits I mean a national highway system" - No, you are incorrect, it is not currently a nationalized healthcare system, but a SUBSIDIZED healthcare system.  If it is already a nationalized healthcare system, what are you pushing for? Nationalized healthcare would encompass it all...


"It sounds to me like Positive is moving towards a HYBRID system of sorts." -

No, not a hybrid system at all... All the government would be responsible for in the scenario I presented, is collecting the money into a sequestered account, providing vouchers that insurance companies can redeem for that account, have the health industry COMPETE for the dollars in lower cost and/or better coverage, and if the tax payer is able to get a better rate than their voucher provides for, they get it back in a refund...

By doing this, it puts the control BACK in the hands of the people and NOT the government OR the healthcare industry... and/or greatly minimizes it...

[fdjake]

To be honest...Positive...or to QUOTE YOU...

"It doesn't say what Hooch said at all...there's no protection from price fixing in this from what I'm reading..."

YOU KNEW NOTHING OF THIS LAW as of an HOUR ago..

Now your going to tell us what it covers?????

For someone that claims to have all the experience you do with Health Insurance, I find it MORE than interesting that as of a few hours ago you had NO CLUE what McCurran-Ferguson even WAS!!  You went as far as to ask if it was TRUE and how we could defeat it!!!

BUDDY....It's been on the books since 1 9 4 5!!!!    H E L L O??????

But hey.....you did look it up on an online DICTIONARY.

What you quoted here doesn't even SCRATCH the surface of this ACT.

Keep looking......maybe you'll find it.  I was able to find a document online from the U.S. Senate that confirms everything Hooch mentioned.  I GAVE you the ACT....Now you don't believe it.   You can find the Senate document yourself.  Anyone else interested can PM me for the link.

It DOES give insurance companies EXACTLY what Hooch claims it does....

E X A C T L Y.....

I explained what it was to you.  PLEASE don't try and act like you know what it covers.  You read a ONE PARAGRAPH dictionary definition  of an ACT that contains HUNDREDS of pages.

Bottom line................YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS ACT EXISTED.

Sorry if that remark offends you.....But it's 100% TRUE.

You asked for HOLES........Hooch just blew a few thousand into your theory on Health care. 

Oh and for your State run College Vs. Ivy league comparison......Chew on these for a while....

Dan Rather........Grad....Sam Houston State teachers college.  We have a local TV anchor that went to HARVARD.....He's making about one TENTH what Danny boy made!!

Jon Corzine......Gov State of NJ......Grad....Univ. of Illinois

Charlie Crist.....Gov......State of Florida...Grad...... Florida State

DICK CHENEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....VICE PRESIDENT....GRAD......Univ. of Wyoming!!!!

Tom Brokaw............Univ of South Dakota

Author James Faulkner..........Univ. of Miss.......DROP OUT!!!

Patrica Woertz.....CEO....Archer daniels Midland a $36 BILLION business...Grad...Penn State University

Looks like we got MORE than the BEGINNINGS of an argument here!!!!

Looks like you got lots of those H O L E S you were looking for........E V E R Y W H E R E!!!!!!!

[PositiveOutlook]

FDJAke...

"YOU KNEW NOTHING OF THIS LAW as of an HOUR ago." - I never claimed to know every law as it relates to the health insurance industry...  I stated as such when I asked about the law that I never heard of from Hooch.

"YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS ACT EXISTED"

Since you remind us ALL THE TIME of your expertise when it comes to real estate and stocks, based on this standard, you obviously know EVERY LAW regarding them...  especially ones that go back to 1944, and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, respectively...  So, since by your own definition, YOU DO NOT KNOW ALL THE LAWS with regards to real estate and stocks, WE SHOULD NOT EVEN BE LISTENING TO YOU...   

You're telling us that YOU knew of this law before looking it up?  You are an EXPERT on this law?...   


Here's some additional information...

Bill To Repeal Mccarran-Ferguson Act Antitrust Exemption For Insurance Business Introduced

"In practice, the exemption has been more important over the years to sectors of the property and casualty insurance business, particularly in the past when rating bureaus were used widely. In the health insurance field, a McCarran-Ferguson exemption defense has been relied upon successfully only OCCASSIONALLY, such as a Rhode Island case involving allegedly anticompetitive minimum enrollment terms included in group policies issued by a large health plan that were claimed to have an exclusionary effect on smaller health plans."

You can read the rest here...  http://www.crowell.com/NewsEvents/Newsletter.aspx?id=306


Hooch said that [b]"price fixing or collusion"[/b]  &  "The president of Travelers laughed and informed him that there LEGALLY IS AN EXCEPTION FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES and this is perfectly legal for him to do so within the industry." 

This law DOES NOT provide such an exception (price fixing or collusion)...  SHOW US WHERE IT DOES, FDjake...   

Upon reading it more, the other FACT that you forget is that insurance companies are subject to STATE LAWS first unless specifically enacted by the Federal Government to DISPLACE STATE LAW...

"The McCarran-Ferguson Act does not prevent the federal government from regulating the insurance industry. It provides only that STATES HAVE BROAD AUTHORITY to regulate the insurance industry unless the federal government enacts legislation specifically intended to regulate insurance and to displace state law. The McCarran-Ferguson Act also provides that the sherman anti-trust act of 1890, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., the clayton act of 1914, 15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq., and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 41–51, apply to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by state law."



"YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS ACT EXISTED.  Sorry if that remark offends you.....But it's 100% TRUE."

Why would I be offended at something I admitted BEFORE your post in my response to Hooch that I was not familiar with?...   Your logic is truly dizzying here...   



With regards to your list, FDJAke... as usual, it was NOT what was requested...  people succeed WITHOUT going to college, so your list is irrelevant...  What I said was - " If you have an example where a Harvard graduate and a State school graduate, at the same academic level secured the same level of employment (i.e. - position, salary, etc.) you MIGHT have the beginnings of an argument."

The list of people you provided DID NOT get there right out of college... try reading it again, and this time, take your time...  An IVY league eduction opens doors, and depending on area of study pays more, but OF COURSE, there are good public schools...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/personal-finance/on-topic/education/harvardshmarvard/


As far as "holes" go, I don't see how your application of this law puts "holes" in what I am proposing...

"All the government would be responsible for in the scenario I presented, is collecting the money into a sequestered account, providing vouchers that insurance companies can redeem for that account, have the health industry COMPETE for the dollars in lower cost and/or better coverage, and if the tax payer is able to get a better rate than their voucher provides for, they get it back in a refund...

By doing this, it puts the control BACK in the hands of the people and NOT the government OR the healthcare industry... and/or greatly minimizes it..."

That being said, I am LOOKING for people to find holes in it  to refine it...  focus your energy on that and let's make this a useful discussion...