The Secret "Bomb" in Obamacare Explodes Today

[TCE]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/

Cliff's: There is a provision mandating that private, for-profit insurance companies spend 80-85% of the money they bring in on health care costs for the patient. There is no way for-profit companies will be able to do this, thus, they will go out of business and that will pave the way for Single-Payer.

Thoughts?

 

[oyarde]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/

Cliff's: There is a provision mandating that private, for-profit insurance companies spend 80-85% of the money they bring in on health care costs for the patient. There is no way for-profit companies will be able to do this, thus, they will go out of business and that will pave the way for Single-Payer.

Best I can tell , the private ins co.'s were only turning an avg of 2 to 3 percent profit before . Can they survive ? I dunno , but someone who does the books for one of these companies would have a pretty good idea....

 

[oyarde]

One thing I am fairly sure of that will not survive well with this bill will be the people and business ,standard of living , as a whole will be lowered due to the extra taxes , more unemployment , more uninsured this will cause.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Obama in a year:

"It's obvious that we can't let such an important service as health care be handled by something as volatile as the free market, as we've seen over these past few months. Every day, more and more people are losing their health care coverage. They're being turned away from doctor's offices all over America. That's why I'm putting forward a bold plan that will allow an expansion of Medicaid, and allow every citizen who makes less than $100,000 a year to be covered. God bless America."

 

[WhistlinDave]

Best I can tell , the private ins co.'s were only turning an avg of 2 to 3 percent profit before . Can they survive ? I dunno , but someone who does the books for one of these companies would have a pretty good idea....

I don't know what their profit margin is but I know they are operating at a much bigger threshold of "administrative cost" right now than the 15 to 20% mandated by Obamacare... I forget the actual statistic, read it a couple years ago in an article I can't find now. I think it's well above 35 cents of every healthcare dollar in the US that gets spent on non-actual care costs by the private insurance companies.

They can still turn a profit, they will just need to scale back on marketing and advertising (a huge portion of their admin costs), bloated CEO salaries (not that there's anything wrong with a guy making tens of millions of dollars per year while they deny coverage to people dying of cancer like they tried to do to my neighbor and dear friend before she died), and they will need to operate more efficiently.

I will probably take a lot of flack for saying this on this forum, but healthcare is one area in which I am very UN-Libertarian. I know plenty of people who live in Canada who love their healthcare, and the timeliness and quality of it. And it costs them far less as a portion of their taxes than it does here for us. I know someone who lives in Sweden who is a lifelong Libertarian, and after living there a year or so, she has decided she loves their universal healthcare.

Most people don't mind paying taxes for firemen, even though most of us will never need their help in our lifetimes. I don't see healthcare as much different in a civilized society... If they are going to tax the hell out of me I would much rather have it pay for my healthcare, and for the healthcare of others who can't afford it, than to spend it on killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people overseas, and then spending billions more rebuilding all the shit we just blew up. Just saying.

As long as the actual healthcare PROVIDERS are kept in the private sector--doctors, hospitals, etc.--I would actually prefer a single payer system. In Canada something like only 8 cents of every healthcare dollar is spent on non-actual care costs. The insurance there spends over 90% on actual healthcare.

Health insurance is basically a socialist mechanism to begin with, albeit a voluntary one, carried out by a private entity. (Or, it USED to be voluntary!) You give them your money, they pool it, and then whoever needs it gets it... Only since they operate for a profit, that often isn't even true. Sometimes those who need it don't get it, and they are told "well, we don't know what happened to your premium last month; we're thinking it might have been a computer glitch, but it's too late now, we can't reinstate your policy." True story... But back to the point, "socialism" isn't all that different from what health insurance is already doing now, with pooling people's money and doling it out.

Those who worry about so-called "death panels," I have news for you: The private insurance companies already have death panels, and have for decades. It's called "Utilization Review." Google it. Just ask my friend Cathy about Utilization Review... Well, I mean once you get to heaven, you can ask my friend Cathy about the death panels.

The only entity I trust less than the government is private health insurance companies who operate for a profit. Sorry, this is the one area in which I am not Libertarian. Just being honest. It's not that I think healthcare is a right; I just think a single payer system would actually operate better and more efficiently than what we have now. If the government is going to make me pay for something, at least get my costs down and don't give me any bullshit when I need my care paid for. I wouldn't feel this way if I didn't know so many people who live in countries with a single payer system, but I do, and none of them have any complaints. Most of them think we are crazy in the US for not having it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

And here's the big, huge, glaring problem with that.

If costs are borne across the board by the taxpayers, then what logical argument could be used to prevent regulation of every single aspect of your life, since everything you do can affect your health, and your health, and the costs to maintain it, are being paid by me.

Drug testing and household monitoring is already becoming a requirement for welfare benefits, I have no reason to think that it would extend into this realm as well, ten fold.

The only entity I trust less than the government is private health insurance companies who operate for a profit. Sorry, this is the one area in which I am not Libertarian. Just being honest. It's not that I think healthcare is a right; I just think a single payer system would actually operate better and more efficiently than what we have now.

 

[Dr.3D]

And here's the big, huge, glaring problem with that.

If costs are borne across the board by the taxpayers, then what logical argument could be used to prevent regulation of every single aspect of your life, since everything you do can affect your health, and your health, and the costs to maintain it, are being paid by me.

Drug testing and household monitoring is already becoming a requirement for welfare benefits, I have no reason to think that it would extend into this realm as well, ten fold.

Of course that's the real reason they want this so called health program. They want to be able to control every aspect of every persons life. With this nice little system, they can effectively do what they have always wanted to do. They have always wanted to have total control.

 

[Xhin]

What AF and 3D said. Also it's worth noting that the problems with today's healthcare system isn't the insurance companies and isn't the doctors and isn't the market itself, but government regulation of the healthcare industry. Take that out of the picture and there's ample competition against healthcare cartels.

 

[Acala]

I don't know what their profit margin is but I know they are operating at a much bigger threshold of "administrative cost" right now than the 15 to 20% mandated by Obamacare... I forget the actual statistic, read it a couple years ago in an article I can't find now. I think it's well above 35 cents of every healthcare dollar in the US that gets spent on non-actual care costs by the private insurance companies.

They can still turn a profit, they will just need to scale back on marketing and advertising (a huge portion of their admin costs), bloated CEO salaries (not that there's anything wrong with a guy making tens of millions of dollars per year while they deny coverage to people dying of cancer like they tried to do to my neighbor and dear friend before she died), and they will need to operate more efficiently.

I will probably take a lot of flack for saying this on this forum, but healthcare is one area in which I am very UN-Libertarian. I know plenty of people who live in Canada who love their healthcare, and the timeliness and quality of it. And it costs them far less as a portion of their taxes than it does here for us. I know someone who lives in Sweden who is a lifelong Libertarian, and after living there a year or so, she has decided she loves their universal healthcare.

Most people don't mind paying taxes for firemen, even though most of us will never need their help in our lifetimes. I don't see healthcare as much different in a civilized society... If they are going to tax the hell out of me I would much rather have it pay for my healthcare, and for the healthcare of others who can't afford it, than to spend it on killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people overseas, and then spending billions more rebuilding all the shit we just blew up. Just saying.

As long as the actual healthcare PROVIDERS are kept in the private sector--doctors, hospitals, etc.--I would actually prefer a single payer system. In Canada something like only 8 cents of every healthcare dollar is spent on non-actual care costs. The insurance there spends over 90% on actual healthcare.

Health insurance is basically a socialist mechanism to begin with, albeit a voluntary one, carried out by a private entity. (Or, it USED to be voluntary!) You give them your money, they pool it, and then whoever needs it gets it... Only since they operate for a profit, that often isn't even true. Sometimes those who need it don't get it, and they are told "well, we don't know what happened to your premium last month; we're thinking it might have been a computer glitch, but it's too late now, we can't reinstate your policy." True story... But back to the point, "socialism" isn't all that different from what health insurance is already doing now, with pooling people's money and doling it out.

Those who worry about so-called "death panels," I have news for you: The private insurance companies already have death panels, and have for decades. It's called "Utilization Review." Google it. Just ask my friend Cathy about Utilization Review... Well, I mean once you get to heaven, you can ask my friend Cathy about the death panels.

The only entity I trust less than the government is private health insurance companies who operate for a profit. Sorry, this is the one area in which I am not Libertarian. Just being honest. It's not that I think healthcare is a right; I just think a single payer system would actually operate better and more efficiently than what we have now. If the government is going to make me pay for something, at least get my costs down and don't give me any bullshit when I need my care paid for. I wouldn't feel this way if I didn't know so many people who live in countries with a single payer system, but I do, and none of them have any complaints. Most of them think we are crazy in the US for not having it.

So you favor slavery, but only when it comes to health care. You oppose people being forced at gunpoint to provide you with free housing and food, right?

 

[Schifference]

I find it kinda funny that the government is implying that they can run health care efficiently. Every thing they do ends up costing more.

 

[WhistlinDave]

And here's the big, huge, glaring problem with that.

If costs are borne across the board by the taxpayers, then what logical argument could be used to prevent regulation of every single aspect of your life, since everything you do can affect your health, and your health, and the costs to maintain it, are being paid by me.

Drug testing and household monitoring is already becoming a requirement for welfare benefits, I have no reason to think that it would extend into this realm as well, ten fold.

You're probably right. I suppose sometimes I think in terms of "in an ideal world" and in this analysis, I forget this isn't Canada, or Sweden, this is the US. Under our current government it wouldn't be a good thing and would result in the kinds of controls you're talking about. So maybe I should say I think a single payer system would be a good thing in some other nation or in some other time, where drugs are legal, government is transparent and honest, and there isn't any plan in the works to completely control everyone and everything. Unfortunately that's not where we are.

 

[specsaregood]

Thoughts?

Seems like a good excuse for them to raise rates and costs.

 

[WhistlinDave]

So you favor slavery, but only when it comes to health care. You oppose people being forced at gunpoint to provide you with free housing and food, right?

As someone who has worked and paid taxes all my life, I would be the one providing for others, not the other way around. (If you're looking at my profile and think you know anything about me, I should clarify for you: I was laid off two months ago and this is literally the first time in the last 25 years, all my adult life, that I have ever found myself unemployed. So if you think I'm looking for a handout, you're barking up the wrong tree.)

But no, I don't favor slavery or being forced to do anything at gunpoint. I just think that under the right conditions (see my post directly above), single payer healthcare would be preferable to a system in which you are forced to buy private health insurance. If you want to call that "slavery" then I suppose I must also favor slavery when it comes to emergency fire and paramedic services. I guess I am not near the "complete anarchy" end of things on the spectrum of Libertarianism. I'm completely Libertarian when it comes to most things but there are a few things I think it's fine to have government provide. That doesn't mean I favor slavery or anything at the end of a gun though. I pay my taxes voluntarily and always have.

 

[Acala]

As someone who has worked and paid taxes all my life, I would be the one providing for others, not the other way around. (If you're looking at my profile and think you know anything about me, I should clarify for you: I was laid off two months ago and this is literally the first time in the last 25 years, all my adult life, that I have ever found myself unemployed. So if you think I'm looking for a handout, you're barking up the wrong tree.)

But no, I don't favor slavery or being forced to do anything at gunpoint. I just think that under the right conditions (see my post directly above), single payer healthcare would be preferable to a system in which you are forced to buy private health insurance. If you want to call that "slavery" then I suppose I must also favor slavery when it comes to emergency fire and paramedic services. I guess I am not near the "complete anarchy" end of things on the spectrum of Libertarianism. I'm completely Libertarian when it comes to most things but there are a few things I think it's fine to have government provide. That doesn't mean I favor slavery or anything at the end of a gun though. I pay my taxes voluntarily and always have.

So if you aren't advocating anything at the point of a gun, how are you going to get people like me, who oppose your health care scheme, to pay for it? I don't pay my taxes voluntarily. I pay them because if I don't men with guns will come and kill me. I think more people are like me than you. Certainly enough people only pay taxes under threat of violence that your government health care system will not work without it. So what is it that you advocate? A health care system run under the threat of violence or a system where people only participate if they so choose?

 

[RabbitMan]

I find it kinda funny that the government is implying that they can run health care efficiently. Every thing they do ends up costing more.

Oh come now. If there is one aspect of government that most conservatives don't quite grasp, its the realities of socialized medicine. Don't turn into one of those silly '10 Tea Partiers.

Universal Healthcare has many flaws and dangers, but compared to the costs of the American monstrosity as it stands, the administrative savings make it a no-brainer. Everyone just saves money. That's all there is to it, really. I've heard very, very few complaints from citizens in Western European countries(or Canada for that matter), or even Mexico. The ones that I see paraded around are likely cherry-picked. By contrast, you can talk to 10 people on some random street in our country, and if they have insurance to begin with, they will likely complain about it.

I spoke to a local business that deals with the industry and she said that I had to realize that even in a practice with just one doctor, that any given patient could have any of dozens upon dozens of different insurers, each having its own unique rules and paperwork and coverage, and even if one patient shares the same Insurer to the next, they probably still have different, unique customized plans. They had a near full-time staffer in a small practice that ONLY dealt with paperwork and insurers. It's astoundingly inefficient. In Canada, they have one form, and information is available about how much everything will be covered. Done.

From an economics stand point, there is almost no reason to prefer the current system than one from abroad. The moral aspect is tricky, like some above posters have mentioned. Once your health becomes part of the social contract, then there is pretty much a precedent to regulate anything under the sun under the pretense that "we're all suffering for your [ENTER HABIT]."

Now, if we wanted to deregulate the healthcare industry, that's another issue altogether....

EDIT: Can we not have a civil conversation about healthcare or any other disagreements without using language like 'slavery', 'sheeple', etc? Good lord.

 

[Acala]

Oh come now. If there is one aspect of government that most conservatives don't quite grasp, its the realities of socialized medicine. Don't turn into one of those silly '10 Tea Partiers.

Universal Healthcare has many flaws and dangers, but compared to the costs of the American monstrosity as it stands, the administrative savings make it a no-brainer. Everyone just saves money. That's all there is to it, really. I've heard very, very few complaints from citizens in Western European countries(or Canada for that matter), or even Mexico. The ones that I see paraded around are likely cherry-picked. By contrast, you can talk to 10 people on some random street in our country, and if they have insurance to begin with, they will likely complain about it.

I spoke to a local business that deals with the industry and she said that I had to realize that even in a practice with just one doctor, that any given patient could have any of dozens upon dozens of different insurers, each having its own unique rules and paperwork and coverage, and even if one patient shares the same Insurer to the next, they probably still have different, unique customized plans. They had a near full-time staffer in a small practice that ONLY dealt with paperwork and insurers. It's astoundingly inefficient. In Canada, they have one form, and information is available about how much everything will be covered. Done.

From an economics stand point, there is almost no reason to prefer the current system than one from abroad. The moral aspect is tricky, like some above posters have mentioned. Once your health becomes part of the social contract, then there is pretty much a precedent to regulate anything under the sun under the pretense that "we're all suffering for your [ENTER HABIT]."

Now, if we wanted to deregulate the healthcare industry, that's another issue altogether....

EDIT: Can we not have a civil conversation about healthcare or any other disagreements without using language like 'slavery', 'sheeple', etc? Good lord.

Forcing someone to provide you with free healthcare is slavery. Forcing a third party to pay for your healthcare against their will, under threat of violence, IS slavery. You don't like the word because it exposes the moral depravity of socialism. Too bad.

 

[Xhin]

I find it kinda funny that the government is implying that they can run health care efficiently. Every thing they do ends up costing more

I find it kinda sad

 

[Anti Federalist]

The Secret "Bomb" in Obamacare Explodes Today

Off topic, but, I wonder how many NSA "red flags" that thread title caused?

 

[Seraphim]

Sadly your backwards logic is prevalent.

It is precisely because health care is so important that government has ZERO (NONE) GODDAMN BUSINESS in it.

I don't know what their profit margin is but I know they are operating at a much bigger threshold of "administrative cost" right now than the 15 to 20% mandated by Obamacare... I forget the actual statistic, read it a couple years ago in an article I can't find now. I think it's well above 35 cents of every healthcare dollar in the US that gets spent on non-actual care costs by the private insurance companies.

They can still turn a profit, they will just need to scale back on marketing and advertising (a huge portion of their admin costs), bloated CEO salaries (not that there's anything wrong with a guy making tens of millions of dollars per year while they deny coverage to people dying of cancer like they tried to do to my neighbor and dear friend before she died), and they will need to operate more efficiently.

I will probably take a lot of flack for saying this on this forum, but healthcare is one area in which I am very UN-Libertarian. I know plenty of people who live in Canada who love their healthcare, and the timeliness and quality of it. And it costs them far less as a portion of their taxes than it does here for us. I know someone who lives in Sweden who is a lifelong Libertarian, and after living there a year or so, she has decided she loves their universal healthcare.

Most people don't mind paying taxes for firemen, even though most of us will never need their help in our lifetimes. I don't see healthcare as much different in a civilized society... If they are going to tax the hell out of me I would much rather have it pay for my healthcare, and for the healthcare of others who can't afford it, than to spend it on killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people overseas, and then spending billions more rebuilding all the shit we just blew up. Just saying.

As long as the actual healthcare PROVIDERS are kept in the private sector--doctors, hospitals, etc.--I would actually prefer a single payer system. In Canada something like only 8 cents of every healthcare dollar is spent on non-actual care costs. The insurance there spends over 90% on actual healthcare.

Health insurance is basically a socialist mechanism to begin with, albeit a voluntary one, carried out by a private entity. (Or, it USED to be voluntary!) You give them your money, they pool it, and then whoever needs it gets it... Only since they operate for a profit, that often isn't even true. Sometimes those who need it don't get it, and they are told "well, we don't know what happened to your premium last month; we're thinking it might have been a computer glitch, but it's too late now, we can't reinstate your policy." True story... But back to the point, "socialism" isn't all that different from what health insurance is already doing now, with pooling people's money and doling it out.

Those who worry about so-called "death panels," I have news for you: The private insurance companies already have death panels, and have for decades. It's called "Utilization Review." Google it. Just ask my friend Cathy about Utilization Review... Well, I mean once you get to heaven, you can ask my friend Cathy about the death panels.

The only entity I trust less than the government is private health insurance companies who operate for a profit. Sorry, this is the one area in which I am not Libertarian. Just being honest. It's not that I think healthcare is a right; I just think a single payer system would actually operate better and more efficiently than what we have now. If the government is going to make me pay for something, at least get my costs down and don't give me any bullshit when I need my care paid for. I wouldn't feel this way if I didn't know so many people who live in countries with a single payer system, but I do, and none of them have any complaints. Most of them think we are crazy in the US for not having it.

 

[jmdrake]

Most people don't mind paying taxes for firemen, even though most of us will never need their help in our lifetimes. I don't see healthcare as much different in a civilized society... If they are going to tax the hell out of me I would much rather have it pay for my healthcare, and for the healthcare of others who can't afford it, than to spend it on killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people overseas, and then spending billions more rebuilding all the shit we just blew up. Just saying.

Most people aren't concerned about choosing their own fireman. But most people want to choose their own doctors and their own healthcare services.

As long as the actual healthcare PROVIDERS are kept in the private sector--doctors, hospitals, etc.--I would actually prefer a single payer system. In Canada something like only 8 cents of every healthcare dollar is spent on non-actual care costs. The insurance there spends over 90% on actual healthcare.

But you've just ruined private sector doctors, hospitals etc as soon as you go to single payer. It's bad enough with medicare. Some doctors are purposefully opting out of that to get away from the regulations and headaches. And now your going to take away their right to be paid by someone other than the government? And say if I want to use some kind of alternative treatment? In the free market I can find insurers that might cover that. How's that supposed to work under single payer? Also why should I have to belong to a system that pays for services I may disagree with like abortion? Why should someone else not be able to get health insurance for such services as long as they remain legal?

Oh, and despite how good Canadian "free" healthcare is, 15% of seniors who go bankrupt in Canada cite medical costs as the reason.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/vwapj/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf/$FILE/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf

Health insurance is basically a socialist mechanism to begin with, albeit a voluntary one, carried out by a private entity. (Or, it USED to be voluntary!) You give them your money, they pool it, and then whoever needs it gets it... Only since they operate for a profit, that often isn't even true. Sometimes those who need it don't get it, and they are told "well, we don't know what happened to your premium last month; we're thinking it might have been a computer glitch, but it's too late now, we can't reinstate your policy." True story... But back to the point, "socialism" isn't all that different from what health insurance is already doing now, with pooling people's money and doling it out.

It's not just about "pooling money". It's about having choices in how you pool your money or someone else making that choice for you. The reason you can make a colorable argument about this is that the government under FDR screwed up health insurance by tying it to employment rather than to the individual. If health insurance was like car insurance it wouldn't at all be socialist.

Those who worry about so-called "death panels," I have news for you: The private insurance companies already have death panels, and have for decades. It's called "Utilization Review." Google it. Just ask my friend Cathy about Utilization Review... Well, I mean once you get to heaven, you can ask my friend Cathy about the death panels.

Then by all means tell us which insurance company Cathy was using so that people can avoid it. Take out billboards in Cathy's honor criticizing that company. But don't force everyone into one company (the government) so that there's no way out of the death panels. Besides, Obamacare isn't even single payer. It's written by the same "evil companies" you're worried about.