WebMD Community Talk Show

look up non profit and not for profit there is a distinction. I worked for a hospital that was non profit and yes they did make a profit a lot. But I digress you bring to the table a lot of good points about the largess of the insuance companies in this discussion. But I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop; Have you noticed how MUCH LARGER your government is than the insurance companies. I think you can t see the forest for the trees. Let government get control of the healthcare and it will be like the military 500 dollars hammers and 1000. dollard toliet seats. Yeah the government has a track record and it is more dismal than the insurance companies

Most reading do not remember when there was NO health insurance.

I do.

We got sick or hurt, went to the doctor/hospital for treatment, paid the bill, DONE.

NO hassles figuring out what was covered, appeals, bills coming after we thought all were paid, etc.

In short, life was a WHOLE LOT LESS COMPLICATED.
(Not to mention less expensive!)

Very, VERY few families were forced into bankruptcy.

My strongest argument is my first nephew was born in 1966 with the total bill being $300 and no insurance. My second nephew was born in 1968 and the bill was $600. The same hospital and I believe the same doctor.

The difference?

The employer then provided health insurance.

Twice the bill BECAUSE of insurance.

Luckily the family had insurance. And those who would say "So what" because the whole $600 did not have to be paid miss the point. The inflated amount came out of SOMEONES POCKETS!

And medical costs have spiraled out of control ever since.

Insurance does NOT pay for anything. It merely reallocates premiums paid in by many to the bills of some...
After lifting a THIRTY PERCENT service fee off the top.

And browbeating providers for "cost adjustments".

Doctors study many years and labor through challenging resident programs to earn their degrees.

And then are told what is covered and how much they can charge by someone in the insurance industry who has a bachelor's degree in statistics.

So, while I do not like the idea of a federal health program, it is a FAR BETTER option for the citizens because the outrageous profit margin will be eliminated.

Oh I get its not that you can t see the forest for the trees. You are living in a vacuum. For example when i started in the lab in 1974 amylase and lipase test took 8 hour manual method. It was cheap and slow. Then someone devevloped a 20 minute lipase and amylase test which was automated. It was quick and expensive. Most patients opt for immediate relief and will pay any amount of money for healing. But I can see that you want the new technology (don t hear about bed sores any more) but the old prices. Just like cars.. In the late 60's cars average 2000.00 dollars but we heavy gas guzzlers that a back yard mechanic could work on. Today they are ran by computers for a smoother ride,need less maintainece and great gas mileage. but you would prefer to pay 2000.00 for the car after all a car is a car or is it????

Everyone should have health coverage period. Talk to anyone with out insurance, who has had a major illness, a love one in an accident, or minor surgery. It is like starting over, being destitute. The medical bills are more than their paycheck.

Vacuum?

"Most patients opt for immediate relief and will pay any amount of money for healing."O.K., but those without insurance would be MORE THAN HAPPY to have a less expensive option available, even if it took longer.

Obamacare is written to make everyone participate. That is intended to help those who cannot obtain health insurance at the present time.

BUT, big insurance companies have already obtained waivers for their employees.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/10-health-insurance-companies-get-obamacare-waivers-their-own-employees

(CNSNews.com) — The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has granted waivers to 10 health insurance companies, including giants such as Cigna and Aetna and divisions of Blue Cross Blue Shield, from the requirements of the new health care law, also known as ObamaCare.

The waivers allow these companies to impose annual limits on the health coverage they provide to their employees. Under Obamacare, companies that do not get special waivers from the administration must phase out their caps on annual health-care benefits between now and 2014 when they must offer limitless annual benefits. The Obama administration began granting waivers to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last September.

If you work for an insurance company, you should check whether your company has a waiver. If it does, some of your premium will be used to pay claims for people with no cap while your own benefits will be capped.
Gotta protect pay rates for the executives, after all. Limitless benefits (think cancer, AIDS, brain surgery, etc.) might mean they's have to settle for a few million less each year.

AND
The CEO's of those companies are already paid ENORMOUS compensation packages.
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/05/20/health-insurance-ceos-total-compensation-in-2008/

Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212

Why would insurance companies be granted waivers at the same time their executives are being compensated with MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

http://www.libertariannews.org/2010/03/30/big-pharma-and-insurance-industry-lobby-heavily-for-obamacare/
According to a study released over the weekend by "The Center for Public Policy", a non-partisan public interest think tank in Washington D.C., it is estimated that a record $120 million was spent lobbying for health reform.
Miami Herald journalist John Dorschner reminds us in a March 23rd article that "In November 2008, just days after Obama's landslide victory, America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, made a stunning announcement, saying it favored universal coverage and supported a law that would stop insurers from rejecting applicants because of preexisting conditions. "Universal coverage is within reach," the group said in a historic press release. After being adamantly opposed to reform during the Clinton years, AHIP said it had changed its mind — based on one condition: Any reform plan had to require that all individuals have insurance or pay stiff penalties."
While capping payments for their OWN employees...

I am not living in a vacuum.

And I did NOT invest with Bernie Madhoff - because it was OBVIOUS the returns he promised were TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.

Anybody who thinks patient would prefer agnozing slow procedures over the new quicker less evasivie technologies offered for relief in my opinion is living in a vacuum. OBTW i substituted pro athletes and hollywood actors names in place of the insurance executives. Guess what they make a heck of a lot more and contribute less to society. That is where you should direct your ire.

At a population that has now surpassed 7 billion persons can we afford to fix everything? That's horrible to say, but is it better to take care of a 100 and lose 1 then put all the money in to that 1 and lose 100?

Technology costs a tremendous amount of money not only in innovation and research but in training personnel and when it comes right down to it if your loved one is dying, you know the technology is available, there may be some scary scenarios played out. You want lower health care. Ask why our Defense budget needs to be equal to 50% of the entire world combined! And those are just the figures reported.

Jay I responded to you not on the ethical point but on moral one that many of our citizens that we call upon to do jobs most of us do not want to do (example being military), end up being left behind later and should they be less deserving than someone who chose not to work for their country, but for themselves?

I don't understand why people should NOT be required to pay for health insurance or have the financial capacity to pay cash. If you refuse to pay for insurance then you should sign a paper that states you refuse all medical services and if you become ill you agree to allow the medical professionals to let you die at home. Why does the medical community or the masses who do pay for insurance need to pay the bill for you?

The government has NO RIGHT to demand the public buy ANYTHING! Why is this even a debate. What burns me about Obama's focus on this is the fact he WANTS to get rid of all public insurance companies and force Americans to use govt based insurance (this is factual on tape prior to his election).

Govt isn't and never has been the answer. History shows this and yet our people are so damn lazy and foolish that they don't want to think about it.

with today economy, i would say no to government pressuring people to have health insurance. but if the government would provide the unemployed and the people on public assistance with jobs. then everyone could afford health insurance coverage without government interference. i work for a health care industry where at times wish that the self pay patient were made to have health insurance to keep the health industry out the financial debt because of unpaid bills. but in reality the government should not force everyone to have health insurance or to fine a person for not having health insurance because they cannot afford coverage.

you're missing the point. everyone should pay for themselves. i don't want to pay for you. period. that is not the same as saying i don't want to pay for myself.

if you can't pay, as sad as that is, then don't rob me as a result.

i can't pay for the flat screen tv i want. should you have to buy it for me.

i can't afford the organic vegetables every night of the week in this city, despite the claimed health benefits, or have the time to prepare them...so i eat out more than i should. are you expected to buy them for me and prepare my meals?

there is nothing wrong with being selfish with the money i earn and the time i devote to earning it.

I do not believe it is constitutional, as the government does not have the power to regulate commerce.

If you choose to not have health insurance, that is the risk you are willing to take. Do not complain if you find yourself needing medical care- take responsibility.

However, health insurance is too expensive for many. Fortunately, there are ways to reduce to costs:

1) Allow health insurance to cross state lines. This will increase competition.
2) Reduce malpractice litigation by offering patients a "negative outcomes" insurance before medical treatments.
3) Ensure everyone is eligible for a Health Savings Account.
4) Provide tax credits and deductions.

Whenever government subsidizes anything- costs go up.
The answer is not force, but freedom.

I agree. Since people don't want to take responsibility it needs to be legislated. All 50 states require auto insurance. Medicare payments are taken out of a paycheck even though the worker is too young to receive benefits. Its amazing how Americans want something for nothing. They want free healthcare and make everybody else pay. These same people who want no govt intrusion will be the 1st to say "don't touch my Social Security or Medicare!"

NO. (ALL PEOPLE) NO MATTER WHAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO DO OR WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO,
ARE NOT ALWAYS IN A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN.
INSURANCE FOR EXAMPLE: I HAVE GOOD HEALTH INSURANCE, LIFE , AUTO, HOME ETC. I HAVE WORKED OVER 35 YRS NOW.
WHILE WORKING IN THE PUBLIC SPECTRUM, I HAVE EXPERIENCED SO MANY SITUATIONS THAT PEOPLE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT.
PLEASE DO NOT FORGET ABOUT THE POOR, HOMELESS HUNGRY ETC NO MATTER WHAT GOT THEM THERE.
SURELY AS BIG AS THE UNITED STATES ARE, WE COULD
fix the problems that are ailing us in a common sense, realistic approach..
thanks