Correspondent of the Day: Private Insurers Fear Obama’s Health Plan
Private Insurers Fear Obama's Health PlanEditor, Times-Dispatch: To respond to a question posed by President Barack Obama during his Rose Garden press conference: "If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they are offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly [is] going to drive them out of business?"
If the federal health care plan (FHCP) rates are underpriced (as expected since the federal government will want to make the program as attractive to the marketplace as possible), then the federal government will be required to pass along some of the losses in the form of future tax increases, although the vast majority of the losses will be passed through as ongoing deficits (similar to how Medicare losses are currently recognized). Since the FHCP will not be able politically to pass along a sufficient rate increase in subsequent years to be self-supporting (as is required by the insurance companies to remain viable), more participants will continue to choose the FHCP, which will mean future tax increases will be needed to cover the losses and/or the federal deficits will be grossly accelerated (neither of which is an available option for the insurance companies).
The insurance companies in the interim will lose market share, have fewer people with whom to spread the risk and administrative expenses, and have to raise their premiums even more to cover past and expected future losses. It will not take the insurance companies long to realize that they are in a protracted death spiral from which they cannot possibly recover -- so they will decide pretty quickly to get out of the business altogether.
In three to five years, the FHCP will be the only viable plan option.
Gary S. Powers.
Midlothian.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Compusa - how about suing the administrator of the health care program - that is suing the U.S. government if something goes sideways in the administration of care? Sorry, in a litigious society like this one, I’m not on board with being held liable as a taxpayer for the medical malfeasance of a U.S. government administered healthcare program. Frankly, I’m not on board with turning over health care to a government run by Barack Obama (I wouldn’t be for it no matter who was president, but, Obama is the least trustworthy to include Clinton and Bush) - if he’s got ACORN working the census, it’s not beyond belief they’ll be looking at your medical records before all is said and done.
We’re not Europe - we have significantly different circumstances to contend with such as a gigantic illegal alien population that would not pay into the system, but, would undoubtedly receive the benefits.
What will be the ratio, in the United States, of people who pay into the system (taxpayers) versus the beneficiaries of the system? What is the comparative rate in Europe?
Sorry, there’s too much downside with not enough upside.
Randy Posted: “A poorly run government stays in business and poor government practices tend to perpetuate themselves past solvency - think Social Security, think medicaid and medicare.“
Seems like they are doing what they were designed to do. And at much less cost to the taxpayer than the Medicade and Medicare packages that were farmed out to the private sector.
As for SS, you giving up yours? How about your parents? They giving up theirs?
Did you know the Government shifted BILLIONS of SS funds into the general fund, enough to keep the fund solvent for decades?
As for suing a doctor, or a hospital, try the statistics and see how many viable lawsuits actually get into court.
For Profit rations medical care and perpetuates the treatment option rather than looking for a cure. How many Insurance company stockholders also have stock in Drug Companies, and Hospitals?
How prevalent is the intertwining of interests in this sector of business?
In countries where they have National health care the system concentrates on finding cures rather than treatments.
If the patient is cured, the costs fall.
In the current for-profit system in use in the USA, finding treatments, and new drugs is the preferred method.
If the patient is cured, the profits fall. If the treatment is prolonged everyone profits, The drug companies the Hospitals and even the insurance companies who can write off the losses as a tax credit. Besides what the stockholder loses on the Insurance side of the tally sheet he more than makes up on the Hospitol/Pharma side.
Diversified portfolio.
Did you know that a small handfull of insurance companies have more than 94 percent of all the market?
A poorly run business that does not make a profit goes out of business (when a sloppy government doesn’t bail it out). Sloppy business practices will end a business. A poorly run government stays in business and poor government practices tend to perpetuate themselves past solvency - think Social Security, think medicaid and medicare.
Private sector businesses are accountable to stakeholders, shareholders (which are often employees) and ownership. If a private sector doctor screws up, I can take him to court. If my insurance company screws up I can take them to court. If the government screws up the health care they administered, can you take them to court? (accountability) Guess who pays the awards when the government screws up? YES, THAT’S CORRECT!!! The same taxpayers that are subsidizing the program to begin with. It’s a double screwing!!!! The people who aren’t paying into the system that subsidizes their health care stands to make more money off the taxpayers if they successfully sue the administrator of the health care plan (the taxpayers).
What’s not to like about that? I take care of my family with my job and my health care - the government program that I pay to subsidize somehow botches a sex change operation, the victim sues, wins and more money comes out of my pocket to satisfy that liability. Hey, if you’re not paying into the system, it’s no skin off your nose - but, if you are paying into the system, you’re getting the shaft.
“technology has been available for years by which routine claims especially can easily be submitted electronically and processed, automatically, almost instantaneously. Regardless, Medicare and its various contracted service bureaus regularly require six month to pay even the most routine claims.“....Upgrading not only Medicare, but all segments of the industry into the computer age (including most physicians whose record-keeping is similar to Y1909), is recommendation of the Executive Branch to Congress to consider inserting into any reform the develop. Part of the reform’s cost of $600 billion to implement, but by 2020 can save us $3 trillion, per The Commonwealth Fund, per AARP July/Aug mag.
Health Savings Accounts (HSA) are good investments for those who have the cash to invest and high enough income brackets to benefit from using $ invested as a tax deduction. Unfortunately, most low-income working poor don’t have the cash. For a person making pretty good income, say $50,000+, it’s workable. 2009 max for individual is $3,000; family $5,950, and age 55+, extra $1,000 catch-up. Health Savings Administrators of Richmond is one of the best in nation, offering Vanguard Fund options. Unfornately, those that best benefit from HSA’s can afford (at a pain) insurance and you can not withdraw $ to pay for high-cost premiums. Conclusion: A young health buck making $50M+ who takes a chance on no individual insurace; then, some drunk driver hits him, puts him into intensive care for a week, he’s looking at $50,000+ hospital cost being his. So, HSA’s alone won’t cut the mustard.
Compusa: I would not be too quick to assume that FOIA is a viable “watchdog mechanism” for the average person. If you make an FOIA request for information about any issue about which the governments is likely to have acted improperly, you’ll find that you will only receive heavily redacted copies which are for all intents and purposes nearly useless. The only hope of using FOIA to effectively disclose political or governmental wrongdoing is to (a) have a significant stable of high-profile attorneys available to support you and (b) large amounts of money to pay for their services. It has been my experience that the government can and will delay responses to, refuse, and otherwise delay or obstuct compliance with FOIA requests until they are faced with potential legal action which they are sure to lose - even then, they will delay the matter in court for months.
The government cannot compete with private industry.. it can run at a loss.
If the stock market “crashes”, that is not necessarily a failure of capitalism, it is possible for people to assign value to a stock when there isn’t underlying “hard currency.“.. hence corrections and devalued stock prices (which by the way is NOT the same thing as the company’s earnings or profit.. stock price can reflect the market’s opinion of their profit/loss, but it is not the same thing).
Credit card rates are a factor of risk… obviously, we have shown ourselves to be much riskier with so many jobs lost.. therefore CC companies are seeking to cover themselves for the increased losses through higher rates.. should the government just start giving out free credit?
A company operating in a competitive environment FOR PROFIT.. will be much more efficiently and effectively run. I am not saying that oversight to detect and prevent criminal activity is not warranted. Of course, where there is money involved, there is the potential for fraud.. but the government is not immune to that either.. there have been countless stories where public moneys were squandered due to illegal activities.. A for profit company does have more incentive to be efficient than the government.. there is no way you can dispute that.. Yes, a monopoly will reduce the incentive to provide the services at a competitive price.. but that is what will happen if the govt steps in.. no competition.. the companies who operate at a profit will not want to compete against the government who can run at a loss.
Posted by ( qhgirl )“Look, for profit has an incentive to keep costs down. It has an incentive to run efficiently and it has an incentive to not make mistakes because we can sue the for profit entity.“
Sure, FOR PROFIT.
That explains the crash of the Stock Market.(Sarcasm)
And the Extra-Low Interest on Credit Cards.(Sarcasm)
For profit does none of the things you have stated.
ONLY COMPETITION does those things, and with the 94 percent of the insurance markets cornered by a handful of companies, there is effectively no competition.
Private, for profit businesses fail by the thousands each year due to greed, incompetence and stupidity.
Why do you think they tried for years to pass a bill capping medical mal-practice suits, and limiting the scope of them?
The goal of any business is to corner the market and the set the prices that they want - without competition.
Businesses are usually not run as well as government because they don’t really have to worry about accountability. Government agencies who make mistakes, even tiny ones get lots of publicity, lots of recriminations and lots of punishments.
Because by the FOIA, Government has to be accountable and somewhat transparent.
Businesses have no such watchdog. They buy spin time, sell the public on their viersion of events, then claim that due to publicity, they can’t get a fair trial - Or did the lessons from the Tobacco industry, or the car industry slip by you? With the Ford Pinto, the company KNEW there were fatal problems but decided to produce the car anyway because they ran the numbers and decided that being sued was cheaper than fixing the problems.
So sure, put your health care in the hands of people who will kill you or deny you treatment because it’s cheaper to get sued than it is to treat you, or insure you.
Profit is the top, middle and bottom line - it is everything. You on the other-hand, should you get sick, are simply a liability - a hazard to profit that must be shed.
For all the proponents of the government system.. go read the article about the girl who was killed by her mother in Manassas.. the government run social services system had a major breakdown and a girl is dead.. we want these employees managing ANYTHING in relation to our health and well-being? Heck no! Look, for profit has an incentive to keep costs down. It has an incentive to run efficiently and it has an incentive to not make mistakes because we can sue the for profit entity. The government will be allowed to mismanage without any consequences. I am not saying our current system is perfect, but a lot of increased cost is because so many ailments are treatable in ways they never were in the past.. we have drugs, testing and equipment that is so much more advanced than it was in the past.. so much further than just penicillin and aspirin. We also have doctors having to pay much higher malpractice insurance premiums due to high court verdicts. It is just crazy to give the government any more control over our lives.. they can’t handle the responsibility!
One only has to look at Medicare to understand what it is ill-advised to have the Government operate any healthcare insurance system. For routine office visits, it is not uncommon for doctors to have to wait six months before their patient’s medicare claim is adjudicated and payment is received - one can only imagine the situation with claims for complex procedures and treatments required for catastrophic illnesses or injuries. To add insult to injury, when the payment is received it is less than or only slightly above the cost of providing the treatment - not including the interest expense incurred for the six months while the provider waited for payment.
Having once worked for a health-insurer in its IT organization, technology has been available for years by which routine claims especially can easily be submitted electronically and processed, automatically, almost instantaneously. Regardless, Medicare and its various contracted service bureaus regularly require six month to pay even the most routine claims.
It is no wonder that doctors dislike having to treat medicare patients - and those of us who have conscientious physicians willing to tolerate the excessive delays and minimal payments should be very thankful for their dedication to the practice of medicine and their patients’ welfare.
Unless the government bureaucracy is some overcome, it is highly likely that more and more physicians will find that they cannot afford to be abused by the Government or continue the practice of medicine. Knowing what I’ve learned from several very respected physicians, I’d be hard pressed to encourage any young person to aspire to be a doctor.
Sign up for a private, tax free health care account. You set a certain amount of tax free income into the account per paycheck/payperiod. I’ve been paying cash for Doctor’s visits and getting better rates, then, I’m reimbursed out of the account. John Stossel did a great piece on these plans on 20/20 a few months ago. They work well.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement