Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[denuseri]

Unless we as citizens demand such from our government.

They do after all work for us.

At least they are supposed to be.

[DuncanONeil]

$2.4 in operating profit in one year is to be multiplied by 365 and divided by 2? You can not mean that $438b is available from this one company, unless you are proposing to take all their funds! But you are speaking of profits, "(t)he profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum."
How do you arrive at 365/2?
Taking the money spent on care ($2.26t) and subtracting Federal Medicare ($440b) and Medicaid ($204b) money and applying the profit ratio (2.2%, media reported) of the insurers results in about $35.5 billion. Industry wide! About 1/10 of your figure from one company. This is a serious dichotomy!

How can we resolve this?

The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[steelish]

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/fl...-villains.html

http://www.lockergnome.com/swordofde...eally-so-evil/

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...companies.html

[DuncanONeil]

I think the most extreme proposal on the left is single payer health care and it has been proposed. The bill isn't even close to the most left-wing plan on the table.

True!

The most extreme proposal on the right are very inadequate versions of tort reform that protect companies from lawsuits but not in ways that ensure those who are legitimate victims are still able to sue, along with various attempts at further deregulating the insurance industry.

Companies? I understand the concept of Tort reform was to offer additional protection to doctors. What causes you to make this an issue of company vs individual?

I think the proposal on the table is just slightly left of center for the US.

Were this truly just left of center the ratio of those opposed would not be above 60%. Both the rabid left and the rabid right are joined in opposition, although for different reasons. Those outside of these two camps, that are the ones that actually reason a position are almost universally opposed.
An awful lot of poor legislation has been passed and still survives on the promise that we will fix it later. I think many of us have become fed up with this concept and do not want to suffer another round of "fix it later".

Over and above all of that is once the bill is passed then the regulations are written with no input from either Congress or us. This is where the real scary stuff will come from.

[DuncanONeil]

Having recent experience this this area, it is not quite like the common conception.
Having had insurance and need some change the company that provided insurance certifies that you were a covered individual. Said certification mitigates the effects of applying to a new provider. As you had insurance in force you are not a person with an existing condition but a transfer.

The largest problem I find with the American system is that the insurance is largely done through companies as a work benefit. This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

Also, while officially employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of medical conditions for hiring, people with visible medical conditions are hired at a lower rate than the general population which suggests it is taking place nonetheless. This means someone can be laid off, lose their health insurance as a result driving their costs through the roof, and then not get hired because companies don't want the additional cost of the insurance (although officially its always for a different reason).

[SadisticNature]

The claim made which I was refuting was that 48 hours of the cost of the Obama plan was more than the entire yearly profits of the insurance industry.

48 hours is 2 days. There are 365 days in a year. This is how one arrives at 365/2 .

The Obama plan costs $1 trillion/year.

Hence the contribution of this one company's profit (purely in terms of the measure I didn't even propose) is $438 billion.

There seems to be a serious aversion on this forum to people reading the entirety of an argument or actually attempting to do the math before presenting numerical claims.

$2.4 in operating profit in one year is to be multiplied by 365 and divided by 2? You can not mean that $438b is available from this one company, unless you are proposing to take all their funds! But you are speaking of profits, "(t)he profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum."
How do you arrive at 365/2?
Taking the money spent on care ($2.26t) and subtracting Federal Medicare ($440b) and Medicaid ($204b) money and applying the profit ratio (2.2%, media reported) of the insurers results in about $35.5 billion. Industry wide! About 1/10 of your figure from one company. This is a serious dichotomy!

How can we resolve this?

[SadisticNature]

True!

Companies? I understand the concept of Tort reform was to offer additional protection to doctors. What causes you to make this an issue of company vs individual?

Were this truly just left of center the ratio of those opposed would not be above 60%. Both the rabid left and the rabid right are joined in opposition, although for different reasons. Those outside of these two camps, that are the ones that actually reason a position are almost universally opposed.
An awful lot of poor legislation has been passed and still survives on the promise that we will fix it later. I think many of us have become fed up with this concept and do not want to suffer another round of "fix it later".

Over and above all of that is once the bill is passed then the regulations are written with no input from either Congress or us. This is where the real scary stuff will come from.

Most of the doctors are locked into their insurance plan for a certain period of time so the primary beneficiary of Tort reform in the near future would be the insurance companies.

[SadisticNature]

Having recent experience this this area, it is not quite like the common conception.
Having had insurance and need some change the company that provided insurance certifies that you were a covered individual. Said certification mitigates the effects of applying to a new provider. As you had insurance in force you are not a person with an existing condition but a transfer.

Actually this depends on the state law, and is exactly like I described in many states. Just because you are fortunate enough that it doesn't work this way in yours doesn't make it a misconception.

[SadisticNature]

The Fox News Poll asked if people approve of the Obama Health Care plan and got 60% no.

Other polls have asked if Americans support the idea of public health care and got over 60% yes.

When they ask about "Government run health care" the answer is somewhere in the middle.

When people give reasons for their no vote against the Obama bill, they often list claims reported in certain media outlets that are not actually in the bill. So there is clearly bias in the poll data.

True!

Companies? I understand the concept of Tort reform was to offer additional protection to doctors. What causes you to make this an issue of company vs individual?

Were this truly just left of center the ratio of those opposed would not be above 60%. Both the rabid left and the rabid right are joined in opposition, although for different reasons. Those outside of these two camps, that are the ones that actually reason a position are almost universally opposed.
An awful lot of poor legislation has been passed and still survives on the promise that we will fix it later. I think many of us have become fed up with this concept and do not want to suffer another round of "fix it later".

Over and above all of that is once the bill is passed then the regulations are written with no input from either Congress or us. This is where the real scary stuff will come from.

[DuncanONeil]

"This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance."
I have heard this stated in numerous venues. But due to a child reaching maximum age and being dropped from parent's insurance we learned that documents can be procured that show the "client" has been insured and that they are not a new risk. True this does not offer a great deal of help if they are without a group. Such will result in a higher rate, but said higher rate is, by objective standards, not totally outrageous. Somebody would be required to pay the portion formerly paid by the employer. Although coverage of an individual can be more tailored to the needs of that individual.

The largest problem I find with the American system is that the insurance is largely done through companies as a work benefit. This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

Also, while officially employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of medical conditions for hiring, people with visible medical conditions are hired at a lower rate than the general population which suggests it is taking place nonetheless. This means someone can be laid off, lose their health insurance as a result driving their costs through the roof, and then not get hired because companies don't want the additional cost of the insurance (although officially its always for a different reason).

[denuseri]

All the more reason to take the complicated ass big money insurance companies out of the loop entirely and go to a government run system.

[SadisticNature]

"This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance."
I have heard this stated in numerous venues. But due to a child reaching maximum age and being dropped from parent's insurance we learned that documents can be procured that show the "client" has been insured and that they are not a new risk. True this does not offer a great deal of help if they are without a group. Such will result in a higher rate, but said higher rate is, by objective standards, not totally outrageous. Somebody would be required to pay the portion formerly paid by the employer. Although coverage of an individual can be more tailored to the needs of that individual.

It is the case that they are not a new risk but that doesn't help if the insurance company can factor the old risk into the cost of the new plan, which is not prevented by law. Also depending on the disease by most standards the higher rate can be outrageous. If the cost of care that the company knows the client will need is $1200/month with the potential to rise, they aren't going to offer a policy that costs less than $2000/month.

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

[SadisticNature]

All the more reason to take the complicated ass big money insurance companies out of the loop entirely and go to a government run system.

This approach has had a lot of success in much of the world. Essential Medical Care on one public plan, and extras handled by private insurance.

[DuncanONeil]

"When people give reasons for their no vote against the Obama bill, they often list claims reported in certain media outlets that are not actually in the bill. So there is clearly bias in the poll data."

Can I get some examples of these perceived items that are not in the bills presented by the Democrats? However, please avoid "death panels".

The Fox News Poll asked if people approve of the Obama Health Care plan and got 60% no.

Other polls have asked if Americans support the idea of public health care and got over 60% yes.

When they ask about "Government run health care" the answer is somewhere in the middle.

When people give reasons for their no vote against the Obama bill, they often list claims reported in certain media outlets that are not actually in the bill. So there is clearly bias in the poll data.

[DuncanONeil]

But much of the dross in the health plans are required to be there by the state in question. The states are mandating the things that must be covered in insurance plans. This is likely from some client filing a complaint against a company that would not cover the service they desired, such as acupuncture.
Therefore it is already a government control issue. Much along the lines of social justice.

All the more reason to take the complicated ass big money insurance companies out of the loop entirely and go to a government run system.

[DuncanONeil]

So as I understand what you said, profit is a bad thing!! Fortune ranks the insurance industry at 47 out of 53 in profits related to revenue (-3% for 2008). Top of that list was Network and Other Communications Equipment at 20.4%. Yahoo finance has accident and health insurance ranked 59th for 2010 with a profit margin of 6.7% about half the return for Railroads.
The numbers say there is not a lot of profit to be had here.

It is the case that they are not a new risk but that doesn't help if the insurance company can factor the old risk into the cost of the new plan, which is not prevented by law. Also depending on the disease by most standards the higher rate can be outrageous. If the cost of care that the company knows the client will need is $1200/month with the potential to rise, they aren't going to offer a policy that costs less than $2000/month.

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

[steelish]

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

[denuseri]

And who lines the pockets of the lawmakers on this I ask you all?

Why is it, that when we could have had a public option, we are instead on the cusp of having mandatory forced purchasing of insurance from private companies, just like we allready do with auto and home insurance in some areas?

I wonder how much padding the the big money insurance lobbyists are doing as we speak.

I would personally prefer social justice to social injustice any day.

[DuncanONeil]

The $1200/month was a surmised payment after losing employer funded insurance!

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

[DuncanONeil]

Where is the "social justice" in taking from people that are deemed to have too much money and giving it to those that do not desire to have money?

And who lines the pockets of the lawmakers on this I ask you all?

Why is it, that when we could have had a public option, we are instead on the cusp of having mandatory forced purchasing of insurance from private companies, just like we allready do with auto and home insurance in some areas?

I wonder how much padding the the big money insurance lobbyists are doing as we speak.

I would personally prefer social justice to social injustice any day.

[denuseri]

I dont see anyone saying they dont desire to have enough money to where they are not living on the cusp of homelessness anywhere.

Take one quarter of whats spent on maintaining american imperial claims from the military budget and you have health care pretty much covered.

[Lion]

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

I always get different answers when I ask how much people are paying for health insurance. Can you tell me what type of coverage it has? (100% paid, deductable, limit, etc). Are you buying through some work health insurance program?

Curious to find out how much everyone else is paying.

[SadisticNature]

So as I understand what you said, profit is a bad thing!! Fortune ranks the insurance industry at 47 out of 53 in profits related to revenue (-3% for 2008). Top of that list was Network and Other Communications Equipment at 20.4%. Yahoo finance has accident and health insurance ranked 59th for 2010 with a profit margin of 6.7% about half the return for Railroads.
The numbers say there is not a lot of profit to be had here.

I'm saying that deciding that medical care that is a matter of life and death should belong in the private for profit industry is what is wrong. Denial of life-saving treatment on the basis of affordability is awkward, and its a symptom of having life-saving medical care being handled by a private insurance industry rather than a government plan.

I think profit is actually a wonderful thing, I've run businesses before and I sold a decent start-up, and every business I got into was profitable. But I would not run a business that profited by denying individuals things I consider basic human rights. I would also like to live in a country where things that were basic human rights were not denied to people.

As for not a lot of profit for the industry, they rank the industry as a sector, which includes all of the various non-profits that attempted to provide services to those who couldn't otherwise get them, and went bankrupt doing so.

Note that you are putting words in my mouth here. The equivalent counterargument would be me claiming you value profit so much you'd sacrifice every moral, belief, relative, ideal and value you have all in the name of the almighty dollar. I don't think that is the case about you, and you shouldn't think the fact that I don't believe in putting profit ahead of human rights means that I think profit is bad.

[SadisticNature]

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

I'm saying someone has a condition that costs $1200/month to treat loses their job and their employer covered insurance. Because this condition is considered preexisting to their new insurance it is factored into costs and they can reject coverage or demand a rate based on this information. So while you, your husband and son might get a much better rate, this has little to do with your shopping skills, it has to do with the fact that insurance is an individualized product that factors preexisting conditions.

It must be nice to live in a world where in situations like this you blame the victim. You're basically saying they should be able to find someone to pay $1200/month in care for just $100/month if they just tried hard enough.

[steelish]

I'm saying someone has a condition that costs $1200/month to treat loses their job and their employer covered insurance. Because this condition is considered preexisting to their new insurance it is factored into costs and they can reject coverage or demand a rate based on this information. So while you, your husband and son might get a much better rate, this has little to do with your shopping skills, it has to do with the fact that insurance is an individualized product that factors preexisting conditions.

It must be nice to live in a world where in situations like this you blame the victim. You're basically saying they should be able to find someone to pay $1200/month in care for just $100/month if they just tried hard enough.

You never mentioned a "pre-existing condition"

Oh, and in America, by law, it is illegal to deny health care to uninsured people.

[SadisticNature]

You never mentioned a "pre-existing condition"

Oh, and in America, by law, it is illegal to deny health care to uninsured people.

Actually I did. The exact quote was:

This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

I've bolded the part where I said pre-existing condition in the original post, although it was not bold initially.

Also you might want to be precise on what the statement "deny health care" means. It is quite legal in America to let someone die of a terminal illness that would otherwise be treatable. What isn't legal is for a hospital to have a heart attack patient show up at their doorstep and refuse to treat them because of financial issues. You also can't have severed limbs reattached without first providing insurance information that checks out.

So I certainly disagree that in America it is illegal to refuse health care. A hospital can turn away someone with a severed limb as long as there is no concern about them bleeding to death. If there is they can treat the bleeding in the cheapest way possible even if it were to prevent reattachment of the limb and send them on their way.

That doesn't meet most people's definition of health care. And if it meets yours we probably need to have a discussion on what health care actually is.

[steelish]

It is the case that they are not a new risk but that doesn't help if the insurance company can factor the old risk into the cost of the new plan, which is not prevented by law. Also depending on the disease by most standards the higher rate can be outrageous. If the cost of care that the company knows the client will need is $1200/month with the potential to rise, they aren't going to offer a policy that costs less than $2000/month.

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

THIS is the quote I responded to with my insurance costs. DuncanONeill is the one who mentioned a pre-existing condition and I did not see his post when I responded to yours.

[steelish]

The claim made which I was refuting was that 48 hours of the cost of the Obama plan was more than the entire yearly profits of the insurance industry.

48 hours is 2 days. There are 365 days in a year. This is how one arrives at 365/2 .

The Obama plan costs $1 trillion/year.

Hence the contribution of this one company's profit (purely in terms of the measure I didn't even propose) is $438 billion.

There seems to be a serious aversion on this forum to people reading the entirety of an argument or actually attempting to do the math before presenting numerical claims.

Obama's plan costs $1 trillion a year for the first 10 years ONLY. Not only that, but the tax increases to pay for it kick in immediately, yet no benefits are available for at least two more years. Once the benefits kick in, and the operating costs exceed what the federal government has collected from the citizens, taxes will be raised yet again, funding to education, medicare, medicaid, social security and any other government program will be cut to compensate.

300 million people are eventually going to be covered by the SAME insurer. And this insurer is the same "entity" that runs the Postal Service (which is in shambles), social security (which is broke), medicare (which is faltering), medicaid (which is also having difficulty), etc. And we're supposed to feel confident in their abilities????

[steelish]

Unless we as citizens demand such from our government.

They do after all work for us.

At least they are supposed to be.

Very true. Our government is not our boss, nor our "keeper" or even our nursemaid. This nation was built as a nation of independent people. Why all of a sudden would anyone want to become a nation of dependent people?

[denuseri]

Emplementing a groundbreaking universal health care program like no other in the world; under governmental direction or otherwise, is no different than establishing and maintaining a super power level capable military with no rival or for that matter going to the freaking moon- when you get down to the brass tacks, its just a matter of organization and planning and good ole american ingenuity if we set our minds to the task!

As for weather or not the governement runs it or its made private: American government is run by americans after all is it not?

Ergo just like with other American endeavors the results will be as good as the people doing it insist it to be!

Or are you who are so against it saying that we as Americans (who btw invented a government like no other before it) can't do it, and do it right?

That we have reached our limits as a people when it comes to getting a job done, or finding a better inovation to employ?

Isnt it about time we stopped being complacent and made our government work for us in an area that is just as mutually benificial for us as Americans as the Military is for a change?