The US has the best health care in the world?

[WhoWee]

By the way, I was "rear-ended" by a driver that lost his license because of no insurance and was driving anyway. My vehicle sustained heavy damage and I was injured. The force of the collision flung me into the steering wheel, then backwards against the seat. The power seat fame was bent so badly it had to be replaced.

To make things worse, (because he didn't have a license or insurance) he tried to flee the scene and was cut off by other drivers until the police arrived (less than a minute).

I injured my neck and shoulder and required treatment including follow up therapy visits that cost me about $1,000 out of pocket. My insurance paid for my car - I paid the $250 deductible out of pocket. I couldn't work for the first week (too many meds) and couldn't sit in a car for another week. The third week I worked but needed someone to drive my car - I couldn't turn my head to view traffic conditions or park.

 

[mheslep]

...I still stand by the claim that my healthcare was free-- it was funded by the people who can afford to pay for it, namely those who are employed!

The employed UK policeman or fireman with 2-3 children might well object to the affordability of those taxes, or not, I wouldn't know. Regardless, assuming one will be employed at sometime in the future, government health services are still not free since the government borrows money from the future.

 

[jreelawg]

I expect my insurance policy to cover what the policy claims to cover, not anything and everything I might need. I never paid them to take me to raise, so why would I expect them to? I never paid them to cover pre-existing conditions, so why would I expect them to?

If I go bankrupt with medical bills, should I blame you? After all it would be true that you failed to pay my bills.

There is a problem with your argument. People very often don't know that they won't be covered. They pay for insurance, they don't know they had some kind of pre-existing condition. Often their insurance plan is supposed to cover them. The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people. People have rightful claims, and have to play games with the insurance companies. Often insurance companies will keep this up hoping the patient gives up.

A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. Why should anybody feel sorry for the loss of this kind of job. They not only should be fired, they should be in prison. Not to mention the fact that their salaries are paid with money that people spend toward their health care.

The government surely has a right to protect consumer rights. This is not a matter of what an individual is able to buy, but what a company is able to sell. I disagree with the mandate, but it's one spoke in the wheel, and the wheel wouldn't spin as true without it.

As for a nanny state. I would be strongly in favor of making tobacco illegal. Or at least some of the 599 approved additives. Or at least so long as it has polonium in it.

 

[Al68]

There is a problem with your argument. People very often don't know that they won't be covered. They pay for insurance, they don't know they had some kind of pre-existing condition. Often their insurance plan is supposed to cover them. The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people. People have rightful claims, and have to play games with the insurance companies. Often insurance companies will keep this up hoping the patient gives up.

Hold on there! If you're referring to an insurance company fraudulaently denying a claim it's obligated to pay, I agree that that should be illegal. No one is suggesting fraud should be legal.

That's not the issue in dispute here.

 

[WhoWee]

There is a problem with your argument. People very often don't know that they won't be covered. They pay for insurance, they don't know they had some kind of pre-existing condition. Often their insurance plan is supposed to cover them. The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people. People have rightful claims, and have to play games with the insurance companies. Often insurance companies will keep this up hoping the patient gives up.

A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. Why should anybody feel sorry for the loss of this kind of job. They not only should be fired, they should be in prison. Not to mention the fact that their salaries are paid with money that people spend toward their health care.

You need to either support or retract these statements - absolute nonsense.

 

[Al68]

How is this any different than any other approved activity? For example, why can't someone hang out a shingle saying "Dentist", and start practicing dentistry? Doesn't the requirement for licensed dentists take away my right to use the local pig farmer as a dentist? I'm sure he would be cheaper.

How is this any different than a tax for fire and police protection? It is effectively a tax based on the cost to society of the uninusured. Or is it your contention that hospitals should be able to refuse ER patients who don't have insurance?

I don't understand the meaning here. It is specifically illegal to buy an illegal policy?

I'll address the last question, since Who Wee addressed the others.

That's an odd question. HR3200 doesn't outlaw what was already illegal. Yes, it makes it illegal to buy the policies that it makes illegal.

 

[Al68]

Economic freedom means the freedom to make unwise and detrimental choices as well as good ones. That's no justification for restricting liberty.

Not everyone holds to this position. Some feel that the government should protect people from making unwise choices.

Sure, but I'm not one of them. The post I responded to was asking how liberty was being restricted by HR3200, so I answered.

 

[turbo]

Hold on there! If you're referring to an insurance company fraudulaently denying a claim it's obligated to pay, I agree that that should be illegal. No one is suggesting fraud should be legal.

That's not the issue in dispute here.

That is standard operating procedure for health insurance companies. I have told you that (as the former IT guy for a large medical practice) as has Adrenaline (doctor in private practice). If you choose not to believe us, fine, but don't argue that it doesn't happen because it does, constantly.

It was a very sore point for my doctors' practice in particular because they were ophthalmologists. If a person presented with a condition that required treatment lest they lose their vision, the person was treated, and then the games with the insurance companies would start. Often the insurance companies would deny the claim outright, (even dropping the patient's coverage on some pretext) or delay and delay the claim for months, making the practice re-code, re-submit, re-code and re-submit over and over again to have any chance of getting paid. Health insurance in the US is a very expensive protection racket, and you'll pay all that the market will bear until you really need the insurance, only to be dropped.

Such practices are fraud, and they should be illegal, but they are not. You won't hear much of this on TV. Actually, you won't hear any of this if you watch FOX, but even the major networks won't cover this story, which is really sad. Health-care costs in the US would drop like a rock once the fraud and gamesmanship by the insurance companies is outlawed and the laws are enforced. Private medical practices lose probably at least 30% of their income to the overhead required to fight this fraud and actually get paid.

 

[jreelawg]

You need to either support or retract these statements - absolute nonsense.

Isn't that what denying coverage is about. Are there not a whole lot of people who sit in an office thinking up creative ways to deny people coverage. Finding loopholes. Initial and subsequent denial of rightful claims, legal, intimidation.

How do they maximize profit except by denying people coverage? They come up with outlandish reasons to deny coverage, and if the customer wants to do anything about it, they must face a team of high dollar lawyers. Meanwhile they can't afford to save their own lives let alone hire lawyers and go through a lengthy legal process. So they give up, and the mastermind behind their loss is an employee.

You could say their only role is to maximize profit in the department of claims. But profit for a private entity is less relevant to health care as a role, than is the death and financial ruin of the patient. Which of coarse is the result, and ultimate indirect goal of the employee.

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't that what denying coverage is about. Are there not a whole lot of people who sit in an office thinking up creative ways to deny people coverage. Finding loopholes. Initial and subsequent denial of rightful claims, legal, intimidation.

How do they maximize profit except by denying people coverage? They come up with outlandish reasons to deny coverage, and if the customer wants to do anything about it, they must face a team of high dollar lawyers. Meanwhile they can't afford to save their own lives let alone hire lawyers and go through a lengthy legal process. So they give up, and the mastermind behind their loss is an employee.

You could say their only role is to maximize profit in the department of claims. But profit for a private entity is less relevant to health care as a role, than is the death and financial ruin of the patient. Which of coarse is the result, and ultimate indirect goal of the employee.

You stated, "The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. "

These are outrageous assertions.

 

[jreelawg]

You stated, "The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. "

These are outrageous assertions.

Other than the fact that insurance company employees have testified confirming this, it is an obvious logical result of the incentive structure which our health care system is built on.

All the incentives for the Insurance companies are towards less care and more cost to the consumer. Less care means more death and financial ruin. There are most certainly people who are working towards the companies incentives, and there are most certainly people who's job is specific to this cause.

 

[WhoWee]

Other than the fact that insurance company employees have testified confirming this, it is an obvious logical result of the incentive structure which our health care system is built on.

All the incentives for the Insurance companies are towards less care and more cost to the consumer. Less care means more death and financial ruin. There are most certainly people who are working towards the companies incentives, and there are most certainly people who's job is specific to this cause.

You claim that it's a FACT that insurance company employees testified that ""The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. ""

You need to support these outrageous comments.

 

[mheslep]

All the incentives for the Insurance companies are towards less care and more cost to the consumer. Less care means more death and financial ruin. There are most certainly people who are working towards the companies incentives, and there are most certainly people who's job is specific to this cause.

Think about what you are saying and apply it to home insurance, car insurance, life insurance. There's a reason these businesses all don't simply up and up the cost and never pay off. Why do you think that is?

 

[jreelawg]

"Potter also faulted insurance companies for being misleading both in advertising their policies to new customers and in communicating with existing policyholders.

More and more people, he said, are falling victim to "deceptive marketing practices" that encourage them to buy "what essentially is fake insurance," policies with high costs but surprisingly limited benefits.

Insurance companies continue to mislead consumers through "explanation of benefits" documents that note what payments the insurance company made and what's left for consumers to pay out of pocket, Potter said.

The documents, he said, are "notoriously incomprehensible."

"Insurers know that policyholders are so baffled by those notices they usually just ignore them or throw them away. And that's exactly the point," he said. "If they were more understandable, more consumers might realize that they are being ripped off."

.."They were no match for insurance companies who know exactly how to design and market plans whose gaping holes don't become apparent until it's much, much too late," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7911195

I guess this is where you come in Whowee

 

[WhoWee]

"Potter also faulted insurance companies for being misleading both in advertising their policies to new customers and in communicating with existing policyholders.

More and more people, he said, are falling victim to "deceptive marketing practices" that encourage them to buy "what essentially is fake insurance," policies with high costs but surprisingly limited benefits.

Insurance companies continue to mislead consumers through "explanation of benefits" documents that note what payments the insurance company made and what's left for consumers to pay out of pocket, Potter said.

The documents, he said, are "notoriously incomprehensible."

"Insurers know that policyholders are so baffled by those notices they usually just ignore them or throw them away. And that's exactly the point," he said. "If they were more understandable, more consumers might realize that they are being ripped off."

.."They were no match for insurance companies who know exactly how to design and market plans whose gaping holes don't become apparent until it's much, much too late," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7911195

I guess this is where you come in Whowee

How exactly does this post support your statements of ""The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. ""

Also, I don't understand your comment "I guess this is where you come in Whowee" what exactly are you attempting to say?

 

[jreelawg]

How exactly does this post support your statements of ""The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. ""

"Workers received high marks on performance reviews after policies were rescinded, documents show. The health insurer denies the practice is a factor in evaluations."

The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

"Blue Cross of California encouraged employees through performance evaluations to cancel the health insurance policies of individuals with expensive illnesses, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) charged at the start of a congressional hearing today on the controversial practice known as rescission."

"In November 2007, The Times reported that insurer Health Net Inc. paid bonuses to employees based in part on their involvement in rescinding policyholders. "
Also, I don't understand your comment "I guess this is where you come in Whowee" what exactly are you attempting to say?

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

 

[WhoWee]

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

I read the article and I'll ask again

"How exactly does this post support your statements of ""The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. """ also, "Also, I don't understand your comment "I guess this is where you come in Whowee" what exactly are you attempting to say?"

You haven't cited anything that supports your outrageous accusations of some insurance person being responsible for millions of deaths - please retract your nonsense and explain the "WhoWee" comment - again, please.

 

[jreelawg]

I read the article and I'll ask again

"How exactly does this post support your statements of ""The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. """ also, "Also, I don't understand your comment "I guess this is where you come in Whowee" what exactly are you attempting to say?"

You haven't cited anything that supports your outrageous accusations of some insurance person being responsible for millions of deaths - please retract your nonsense and explain the "WhoWee" comment - again, please.

I really meant people, obviously one person doesn't accomplish that much. Not one person. Everyone has their role, from the CEO, to the people who reviews claims, to the salesman. One sets em up another knocks em down. People ought to know what they are getting themselves into.

 

[WhoWee]

I really meant people, obviously one person doesn't accomplish that much. Not one person. Everyone has their role, from the CEO, to the people who reviews claims, to the salesman. One sets em up another knocks em down. People ought to know what they are getting themselves into.

Again, support your claims. You said ""The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. ""

Are you saying there's a giant conspiracy to commit murder? Or are you going to retract the nonsense?

Also, please explain this comment ""I guess this is where you come in Whowee"".

 

[turbo]

Where do the doctors stand on health-care reform?

A RWJF survey summarized in the September 14, 2009 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine shows that 62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options—where people under the age of 65 would have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans. The survey shows that just 27.3 percent of physicians support a new program that does not include a public option and instead provides subsidies for low-income people to purchase private insurance. Only 9.6 percent of doctors nationwide support a system where a Medicare-like public program is created in lieu of any private insurance. A majority of physicians (58%) also support expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64.

In every region of the country, a majority of physicians supported a combination of public and private options, as did physicians who identified themselves as primary care providers, surgeons, or other medical subspecialists. Among those who identified themselves as members of the American Medical Association, 62.2 percent favored both the public and private options.

The survey was conducted between June 25 and September 3, 2009 by Salomeh Keyhani, M.D., M.P.H., and Alex Federman, M.D., M.P.H., of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. While the survey was conducted in several “waves” over a tumultuous summer for the health reform debate, no statistically significant differences were identified in physician responses throughout the summer.

http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/quality/product.jsp?id=48408

It's clear that doctors want reform. Doctors want a public option, and they want people to be able to opt into Medicare. Doctors are care-givers, but most are also business people. It would be a good idea for people on the sidelines (who are often fed their "facts" by outsiders) to heed doctors who are on the front-lines of health-care. I have quite a number of friends who are in the medical profession, and I can't think of a single one who doesn't want significant health-insurance reform. They are being squeezed by the insurance companies and they are being forced to fight for payment of legitimate claims. Worst of all, they are often being told that they cannot order what they believe is the best treatments for their patients because the insurance companies refuse to pay for them.

Edit: Notice that if you add the almost 10% of doctors who want a public-only program to the 62+% that want a public plan to supplement private plans, you have over 70% of doctors supporting the creation of a broader public plan in one form or another. In my personal experience, I find that number to be a bit low, but that's probably because I live in a rural area where many of my friend's practices are small and administrative costs are brutal. Doctors who specialize in high-dollar elective procedures like cosmetic surgery, breast enhancements, etc are probably not highly motivated to support a public option because it would have little impact on their practices. Not a lot of them around here, though, so the study is probably accurate across a broad range of practices from GP to specialties.

 

[jreelawg]

Again, support your claims. You said ""The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. ""

Are you saying there's a giant conspiracy to commit murder? Or are you going to retract the nonsense?

Also, please explain this comment ""I guess this is where you come in Whowee"".

"...and this particular act secured my reputation as a good medical director, and it insured my continued advancement in the ah, health care field. I went from making a few hundred dollars a week as a medical reviewer, to an escalating six figure income as a physician executive...I know how managed care maims and kills patients... and I am haunted by the thousands of pieces of paper in which I have written that deadly word, denied."

Dr. Linda Peeno MD testifies in front of congress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoqpPwvUoP0&feature=related

 

[WhoWee]

I've disclosed previously that I'm a licensed insurance broker/agent. I am appointed with MULTIPLE insurance companies. Accordingly, I know hundreds of licensed agents around the country.

PLEASE NOTE - THIS POST IS NOT INTENDED TO DEFEND INSURANCE COMPANIES.

I can honestly make the following statement. Every insurance agent I know, is trained to fight for their clients when there is a problem with coverage. It is in the best interest of the agent to get claims paid - and in a timely manner. Individual health insurance sales are driven by referrals.

Most agents work on a commission only basis. Therefore it's also in the agent's best interest to sell the best coverage possible. Unfortunately, everyone can not afford the best coverage and everyone is not fully insurable.

Agents that take the money and run, and put people into the wrong coverage, don't last in the industry.

At the same time, people don't always tell the absolute truth on their applications. Every prescription you've ever had filled is on a national database.
http://www.mib.com/
If someone lies to obtain coverage, they are taking a very big risk. Instead, applicants need to tell the truth and select from the coverages that are available and in their price range.

I agree that we need reform in the health care industry. There are thousands of items to address and can not be over-simplified.

However, the first place I would start is with standardization of insurance coverage across all 50 states. Then (I've posted this before) the best Government option would be to fund a high risk pool that would guarantee acceptance of all pre-existing conditions.

These 2 steps alone would remove obstacles, reduce premiums (due to administrative and legal savings) and expand coverage to millions of currently uninsured or under-insured people.

Again, we need to remove politics from the debate and approach reform with a problem solving mind set.

 

[WhoWee]

"...and this particular act secured my reputation as a good medical director, and it insured my continued advancement in the ah, health care field. I went from making a few hundred dollars a week as a medical reviewer, to an escalating six figure income as a physician executive...I know how managed care maims and kills patients... and I am haunted by the thousands of pieces of paper in which I have written that deadly word, denied."

Dr. Linda Peeno MD testifies in front of congress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoqpPwvUoP0&feature=related

You still haven't supported your claims that

""The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. ""

Please retract the nonsense.

 

[jreelawg]

You still haven't supported your claims that

""The person who reviews the claims makes more money denying people. Ultimately being responsible for killing millions of people." as well as "A whole lot of health insurance employees, really have no role in the health care system except to maximize death and bankruptcy of the sick. ""

Please retract the nonsense.

If they want to be rated well, and have the opportunity to move up, and get paid more, then they deny as many people as they can (translated save the company as much money as possible) This is how the incentives go. My initial interpretation may be coming on a little strong, and I know that there are probably differences between different insurance companies in policy. In some cases my interpretation is correct, and in some, not so much.

It seams clear that a persons evaluated performance would have a lot to do with wether a person advances, gets a raise, or gets fired. Whether or not in all cases the financial incentive to the employee is directly and officially based on rescinded coverage, rescinding care is commonly practiced, and saves the company money. Whether the reward for an employee's performance is spelled out, or whether the employee simply knows based on common sense that their performance is a factor in the success of their career and pay, the direction is towards dropping as many people as possible to save money. Obviously this results in the deaths, and financial ruin of their customers.

 

[mheslep]

This is an authoritative study on cancer survival rates and the US does very well actually:

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CONCORD.pdf

On the other hand, the US has a higher percentage of it's population diagnosed with
cancer, twice that of France and four times that of Japan. My feeling is that the US
does more in preventive scanning resulting in earlier diagnosis, increasing the survival
rates, but that would need to be substantiated.


Regards, Hans.

Yes, ...five continents... reported in Lancet Oncology too:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470204508701797/abstract?iseop=true

 

[humanino]

Yes, ...five continents... reported in Lancet Oncology too:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470204508701797/abstract?iseop=true

It is indeed fairly well known that the US does slightly better than western Europe on cancer. The link does not explains why, and it has already been pointed out that Europeans tend to smoke more for instance. But above all, the article points slight differences between US, Australia, Japan, and Europe for instance, while large differences with Bresil, the UK, Algeria, or Danemark for instance with prostate.

If we want to go into the slight differences we would have to look at variances by population and location for instance.

So we conclude that the US health care is good enough ? It seems to me, it remains to explain why the US does a couple percent better while spending 50% more.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So we conclude that the US health care is good enough ? It seems to me, it remains to explain why the US does a couple percent better while spending 50% more.

I think it would be more enlightening to compare treatment-by-treatment costs than total costs. Having lived in both Europe and the US, and having recently the unpleasant experience of watching relatives linger and die, I can tell you that one difference is that in the US there are heroic efforts to extend the life of dying patients a month or two. This can't come cheap.

Comparing like-with-like seems to me to be more valuable than comparing aggregates.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If they want to be rated well, and have the opportunity to move up, and get paid more, then they deny as many people as they can (translated save the company as much money as possible) This is how the incentives go. My initial interpretation may be coming on a little strong, and I know that there are probably differences between different insurance companies in policy. In some cases my interpretation is correct, and in some, not so much.

It seams clear that a persons evaluated performance would have a lot to do with wether a person advances, gets a raise, or gets fired. Whether or not in all cases the financial incentive to the employee is directly and officially based on rescinded coverage, rescinding care is commonly practiced, and saves the company money. Whether the reward for an employee's performance is spelled out, or whether the employee simply knows based on common sense that their performance is a factor in the success of their career and pay, the direction is towards dropping as many people as possible to save money. Obviously this results in the deaths, and financial ruin of their customers.

This sounds to me like a lot of guessin' and supposin' but not a lot of evidence. I think I agree with WhoWee that it would be good for you to provide some facts in support of your opinion.

I did provide one fact a zillion messages ago. The two biggest health insurance companies have profits of about 4%. So if people are being denied coverage that they deserve and have paid for so that the insurance companies can make a profit, we know that this can be at most 4% of the total. More than that, the problem isn't that insurance companies are making too much profit, it's that health insurance is underpriced.

 

[humanino]

I did provide one fact a zillion messages ago. The two biggest health insurance companies have profits of about 4%. So if people are being denied coverage that they deserve and have paid for so that the insurance companies can make a profit, we know that this can be at most 4% of the total. More than that, the problem isn't that insurance companies are making too much profit, it's that health insurance is underpriced.

As an answer to this fact, I quoted mutual organization in the US providing health care insurance roughly 30% cheaper. Interestingly, this is in line with the US system being 50% more expensive than the European one. It is possible that, even with similar profits, services cost less with better organization, and above all, health costs are reduced if routine checkups are covered or possibly imposed. Those are just two examples where indeed, we do not compare "like-with-like" but we really change the philosophy of the system.

 

[Al68]

That is standard operating procedure for health insurance companies. I have told you that (as the former IT guy for a large medical practice) as has Adrenaline (doctor in private practice). If you choose not to believe us, fine, but don't argue that it doesn't happen because it does, constantly.

I have never claimed that fraud didn't happen. I said the issue wasn't in dispute here. It takes two to constitute a disagreement, so the fact that you have mentioned fraud doesn't make it an issue in dispute.

In fact I have pointed out that claiming that insurance companies are all alike (as you have done) helps the bad companies get by with it.

And do any of the current proposals address the issue of fraudulently denied claims, anyway? Why should they, it's already illegal in every state.

 

[Al68]

The two biggest health insurance companies have profits of about 4%.

One thing that many people seem to just not understand about economics is that in any (relatively) unregulated industry, higher profits result in products being both cheaper and higher quality for consumers, and vice versa.

"Excess" profits result from inadequate competition, and lure competition into the market, again benefiting consumers.

This just doesn't happen so much when there are regulatory barriers to entry into the market, like with health insurance. The result of the regulation is higher prices and an inferior product.

 

[mheslep]

...
and it has already been pointed out that Europeans tend to smoke more for instance.

That's about how many people contract cancer - out of the of the reach of most medical reforms; the Concord/Lancet study above is about effectiveness of the medical treatment on people that have cancer - two very different things.

...So we conclude that the US health care is good enough ?

We have hundreds of posts in this thread with almost universal agreement that US health care is _not_ good enough and has major flaws. The point is that it also has major strengths, such as the quality of oncological care demonstrated above, and we would like not to wreck that in the process of reforming the system.

 

[Count Iblis]

It's not just that by preventative screening leading to earlier treatment you have better survival chance. There is also the issue of prostate cancer in older men. Some percentage of men who die, have prostate cancer at the time of death, without the cancer being a factor in their death. Such cases go undetected in Europe while in the US, due to screening, they contribute to the cancer surviving rate statistics. I think that the incidence of non lethal prostate cancer is 10% or more in old men.

In the US, you also have a far larger incidence of easily treatable skin cancer compared to Europe.

 

[WhoWee]

Rangel is disappointed - where's the tax on the rich?
http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/105791/rangel-raises-concerns-over-health-care-funding/Default.aspx
...and not enough for the poor?

 

[WhoWee]

On a serious note, details of the Max Baucus Bill are drawing criticism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125303845553412855.html

""This is not like shaving off things, this is reducing coverage for poor and working people," House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) said Monday. Mr. Rangel is an architect of the $1 trillion House health-care bill, which provides more generous subsidies.

Some Senate Democrats are voicing similar concerns. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) on Monday said there was "no way I can vote for the package" without changes. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) vowed to seek additional subsidies, or possibly a new tax break, aimed at helping working families, when the bill comes before committee. "Fundamentally, we're doing this for American families, and we need to make sure this is affordable," she said.

The Baucus bill would provide federal subsidies to individuals and families with incomes as high as 300% of the federal poverty line. For people whose incomes fall between 300% and 400% of the poverty line, the bill would cap premiums at 13% of income.

Critics complain the 13% cap is too high and would impose unreasonable costs on middle-income family budgets. But Finance Committee aides argue that tens of millions of Americans would still benefit from the cap.
Opinion

The Senate Is Ready to Act on Health Care

Mr. Baucus said that because his bill would expand insurance coverage for Americans, "middle-class families are going to be much better off than they currently are." In an op-ed published Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Baucus said the "current system is simply unsustainable," and noted his bill would help small businesses and families stressed by the rapid growth in health costs. "The status quo is no longer an option," he said.

Republicans, meanwhile, have been seeking other changes to the bill. In private negotiations led by Mr. Baucus, Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) made a push this week to drop the proposed mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance. Instead, he has proposed creating a new "reinsurance pool" to help spread the risks associated with high-cost patients.

In a statement released late Tuesday, Mr. Grassley complained the Senate Democratic leadership is imposing an "artificial deadline" on the bipartisan talks led by Mr. Baucus, but vowed to "continue to work with" the chairman.

Health Care for America Now, a liberal advocacy group, estimates that a family of four earning $77,175 a year could pay as much as $10,033 a year for health insurance under Sen. Baucus's proposal. That is about $2,000 a year more than they would pay under a health bill passed through the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, as well as under two of the three bills passed through House committees.

Mr. Baucus's bill would also place higher caps than other versions on the amount consumers would pay for out-of-pocket health-care expenses. It would allow insurance companies to charge older customers premiums that are as much as five times as high as those for younger customers, a provision sought by insurance companies. The other bills would restrict them from charging older customers more than twice as much."

It sounds like the debate has just begun. The cap will have to increase with Obama's mandate of no lifetime maximum payout and no pre-existing conditions.

This is especially true when you consider the average cost of an employer paid policy is $13,000 per year.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMAlWaPqqHfYA1aKXHRs7xjmXQMgD9ANTRAG0

"Health insurance premiums rose modestly in 2009

By TOM MURPHY (AP) – 8 hours ago

The cost of employer-sponsored health insurance rose modestly again this year, but researchers predict a return to bigger increases that may eventually produce crippling premiums if left unchecked.

Meanwhile, more workers with single coverage are facing high-deductible plans that make them pay $1,000 or more out of pocket before coverage starts, according to a report released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, a nonprofit research organization affiliated with the American Hospital Association.

The average annual premium — the amount charged for a fully insured policy — rose 5 percent for the third straight year to surpass $13,000 for employer-sponsored family health coverage.

Employers picked up about 74 percent of that cost, while workers paid the rest. Single coverage remained relatively flat at an average of $4,824, with employers paying 84 percent.

The 2009 increases represent much smaller growth than just a few years ago. Premiums increased anywhere from 10 percent to 13 percent from 2000 to 2004."

How can a 13% cap possibly work - when the median household income is less than $60,000?
[URL]http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

13% of $60,000 is only $7,800 - who is going to pay the difference $13,000 - $7,800 = $6,200 a 47% difference? Is Obama going to be able to cut out 47% of the cost? The numbers don't compute.