RE: Costs of the uninsured/underinsured

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Costs of the uninsured/underinsured

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Costs of the uninsured/underinsured

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Costs of the uninsured/underinsured - 9/19/2009 8:53:28 AM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Seems she is talking about the corporations being the true constituents and when it occurs everything will be blamed on those that are protesting it, because a compromise was "trying" to be made.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Costs of the uninsured/underinsured - 9/19/2009 10:09:49 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

I've heard a lot from the opponents of this bill that they wanted the government to listen to the "voice of the people" and to take their protests seriously. Well, the crafters of this bill have listened. And the poor, weak, useless bill that will eventually pass is what is going to come out of it.

Congress is not "listening" because a bunch of rednecks got up in arms. They are "listening" to their TRUE constituents, who want a bill that transfers billions of dollars to the corporate insurance industry. And when it passes, they can count on the masses to blame a bunch of rednecks, instead of the corporate henchmen who are pillaging this country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Each time we visit a Dr or Hospital, we pay a small portion of the bills incurred by those who cannot. By giving all at least minimal insurance, some of this cost will be removed from those who are paying it now ....

This is an absolute myth that the insurance companies are propagating to gain public support for a law that is designed only to increase their profits. What makes anyone think that the "savings in operating costs" will accrue to the consumer (instead of profits at the top)? There is not some "set percentage of profit," so that anything above that automatically accrues to the consumer. Like hardbodysub said, they are already operating at tremendous profits. Are they passing that down to the consumer now? No. So why would they do so if health insurance was mandatory (or universal)?

what you will find they are listening too this time around is the ballot boxes. Insurance as we know it is about to change, for good or bad. Leave it as it is, and no one will be able to afford it. Even the Republicans understand that, as much as they may hate Obama's version, they realize something HAS to be done.

The market place was allowed free reign... that has to end. all we have had are abuses, price fixing and gouging.. sounds a little like Exxon after katrina. its time that they got a bit of competition... heavy hitting competition. the kind they cant intimidate, buy or take over.

But, with the health care issue, even those with insurance are worried... they are worried because they finally realized that could be them, at any time.

so if you want to worry about how coporate america is lining their pockets.. go ahead. they have been lining them for years and years. odd how no one cared before this issue came up.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to shannie)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Costs of the uninsured/underinsured - 9/19/2009 9:49:39 PM

hardbodysub

Posts: 1654
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Each time we visit a Dr or Hospital, we pay a small portion of the bills incurred by those who cannot. By giving all at least minimal insurance, some of this cost will be removed from those who are paying it now ....

This is an absolute myth that the insurance companies are propagating to gain public support for a law that is designed only to increase their profits. What makes anyone think that the "savings in operating costs" will accrue to the consumer (instead of profits at the top)? There is not some "set percentage of profit," so that anything above that automatically accrues to the consumer. Like hardbodysub said, they are already operating at tremendous profits. Are they passing that down to the consumer now? No. So why would they do so if health insurance was mandatory (or universal)?

That one's not entirely a myth, at least with regard to hospitals. Their reimbursement rates from Medicare (which is a pretty large percentage of most hospital revenue) include a component to cover uncompensated care. The "myth" part is that the for-profit insurance companies are hurt at all by this. The rates they negotiate with hospitals are based purely on the power they have based on their market share of subscribers (patients). The for-profit insurance companies assert that they shouldn't be responsible for any uncompensated care because all of their subscribers are covered.

You're correct that the insurance companies are trying to use it to their advantage, but they're already using the lack of an insurance mandate to raise rates through the roof on lots of people, based on the concept of "adverse selection". This basically means that when people have a choice about buying insurance or not, the healthy people who are less likely to need it won't buy it, and the less healthy people who are more likely to need it will buy it. This result is that the average person buying insurance will use more health care, and be more expensive to the insurance company, than the average person if ALL were included in the insurance plan. Therefore, the company must raise the rates. Covering everybody would take the "adverse selection" argument away from the insurance companies, but that wouldn't bother them if they get more subscribers, and still get to split people into groups as they like and decide on premium levels as they like. It's a windfall for them if all the newly insured have to pay into the insurance company coffers.

I suggest that anyone with questions about such issues listen to Wendell Potter, Senior Fellow at the Center for Media and Democracy, has to say. He's a former CIGNA executive whose conscience wouldn't allow him to continue "working for the wrong team".

(in reply to shannie)

Profile

Post #: 43