life expectancy again

[We need Tom Tupa]

Samuel Preston concludes:

 

the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.

 

Just so we're all on the same page...

[osusev]

you cant blame the health insurance industry for everything maybe contributory but now a sole causation.

 

What you CAN blame them is from 2000 the top 10 health insurance companies profited 2billion and than by 2007 they profited 12.7 billion over 400% increase over 6 years.... while increasing more claim denials and higher deductibles increasing more uninsured.

 

I suppose since we are all on the same page our 37th rank health care quality vs the 1 ranking in health care expense in the world is the same...

 

You can blame them for paying a Ceo over one hundred thousand dollars per hour while denying coverages for the sick who need the care.

 

You can blame them for keeping a system which puts ALL american manufactured products at a disadvantage to other countries products because of our wonderul for profit health care overpriced system thats adds unsustainable costs to everything......

 

Just so we are on the same page.

[heckofajobbrownie]

On the list of the 100 reasons why we need health care reform I'm not sure I would have ever put comparative life expectancy on the list anyway.

 

But I don't mind the rebuke of a fairly common talking point.

[Mr. T]

There needs to be some type of health care reform, but not something that has been put together over a 2 week time period and we are told to except it or we are not American.

 

I say, WTF is wrong with our politicians when they start acting like this.

 

They see a crying need for health care reform, and play upon it to ram through a bunch of new taxes while they themselves would never place their families under the same health care, that is being proposed to the public.

 

 

 

Eventually, the seven principles of Animalism, known as the Seven Commandments and inscribed on the side of the barn, become reduced to a single principle reading “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

 

- Animal Farm by George Orwell

[Guest mz.]

the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.

 

How about poor health/personal care education, poor eating habits due to lack of education in that arena or anything else ancillary to the health system?

 

[Guest mz.]

There needs to be some type of health care reform, but not something that has been put together over a 2 week time period

 

It's really ignorant of you to believe this is the case. You think some drunk dudes sat around the White House bar a few weeks ago and patched this thing together?

 

and we are told to except it or we are not American.

 

This is even more ignorant than your last assumption, T. Come on. If I were cal, I'd cry about "serious discussion" here.

 

[BrownIndian]

There needs to be some type of health care reform, but not something that has been put together over a 2 week time period and we are told to except it or we are not American.

 

I say, WTF is wrong with our politicians when they start acting like this.

 

They see a crying need for health care reform, and play upon it to ram through a bunch of new taxes while they themselves would never place their families under the same health care, that is being proposed to the public.

 

 

spot on. There is a reason why things things were not fixed in the past and it is because it is not easy. a delayed but clear action will be more useful than a hasty and perhaps regrettable decision.

[Guest mz.]

I don't get where you folks find the solution proposed "hasty." Perhaps you can explain this to me.

[We need Tom Tupa]

How about poor health/personal care education, poor eating habits due to lack of education in that arena or anything else ancillary to the health system?

I absolutely agree that the current of state American health education and eating habits are huge contributors to both costs and outcomes.

 

I would probably disagree if someone suggested that there is a proposal for health care legislation that addresses either of those problems.

[BrownIndian]

Hasty because:

 

>> Most of the demonstrators are arguing about something that they dont like or do not understand. and no one takes to such demonstrations unless they feel that this change might make them weaker.

 

>> We are in the middle of 2 wars and an economic recovery and fixing one would be a massive boost as far as getting things knocked down are.

 

>> Blue dog democrats showing dissent/ difference of opinion with the proposed health care idea.

 

I can only conclude that even if the the people involved has come up with a great plan, it has done a shabby job of explaining things to the people about the pros of the new system.

 

We all know that a reform is needed, but we need to know what the reforms put in our plate and how much of a positive influence it will be on us.

[Guest mz.]

I absolutely agree that the current of state American health education and eating habits are huge contributors to both costs and outcomes.

 

I would probably disagree if someone suggested that there is a proposal for health care legislation that addresses either of those problems.

 

Preventive care will always be important, and that stuff needn't only come from doctors' mouths. Our health education blows here.

 

[Guest mz.]

Hasty because:

>> Most of the demonstrators are arguing about something that they dont like or do not understand. and no one takes to such demonstrations unless they feel that this change might make them weaker.

 

I would say so. But because their media outlets (Rush, Fox) TELL them it's bad, they don't care enough to do the legwork/reading. They instead hold up Swastikas.

 

And the Blue Dog Democrats are ridiculous. They are in the pockets of the HMO's as much as anyone else. Why would they want reform?

 

[We need Tom Tupa]

you cant blame the health insurance industry for everything maybe contributory but now a sole causation.

 

What you CAN blame them is from 2000 the top 10 health insurance companies profited 2billion and than by 2007 they profited 12.7 billion over 400% increase over 6 years.... while increasing more claim denials and higher deductibles increasing more uninsured.

 

I suppose since we are all on the same page our 37th rank health care quality vs the 1 ranking in health care expense in the world is the same...

 

You can blame them for paying a Ceo over one hundred thousand dollars per hour while denying coverages for the sick who need the care.

 

You can blame them for keeping a system which puts ALL american manufactured products at a disadvantage to other countries products because of our wonderul for profit health care overpriced system thats adds unsustainable costs to everything......

 

Just so we are on the same page.

Is there a plan that will improve performance or lower costs? If there is, someone should tell the CBO. If not, I dont see your point.

[osusev]

come on Tupa you know that putting another NON profit option as direct competition to for profit is how they see lowing the costs.

 

Competition to a monopolized for profit system that at this point does not have a check is the best solution without legislating and taking over costs.

 

Yes the CBO is projecting on EXISTING costs structures not one based on what driving for profit option costs down becuase a non profit option is not out there right now.

 

The CBO cant project what will happen on the total costs estimates on a system because they dont have base line projected costs IF the non profit option forces the current for profit health care companies to not be so fat.

 

Without a complete government takeover to reign in costs the only other option is this non profit or co-op option administered by the government to force more efficiency and less profit for the current monopolized health care system.

 

The right is using the chicken or egg conundrum to drum up a hypothetical argument that cant be projected or solved until a check of some sort is put in place to force balance. Right now the Insurance industry is a unchecked power. Its almost a Ponzi scheme to a degree.... you have to pay but they dont have to grant you benefits because of all their escape clauses or whatever reason they dream up of.

 

A glaring example of the profits is a CEO who get paid over one hundred thousand dollars per hour while his companies can deny for anything pretty much at anytime.... that is crazy I think in anyone's book. So the CBO has to take the current figures and base projections on cost while companies like this exist right now....ANY projections based upon current stuff like that is going to be insane long term.

[We need Tom Tupa]

On the list of the 100 reasons why we need health care reform I'm not sure I would have ever put comparative life expectancy on the list anyway.

 

But I don't mind the rebuke of a fairly common talking point.

I'd add that it is also a partial rebuke of the use of the WHO rankings in this debate. The WHO ranking heavily weight disability-adjusted life expectancy (DALE) (I'm not sure of the exact weight but I think it is around 20-25%). Not only is life expectancy a useless measure of a health care system, but DALE also subtracts from life expectancy for years lived with some type of disability. For a health system like ours that suffers from excessive behavioral problems leading to long term medical conditions and also excels at early detection and long-time treatment of serious health problems, a deduction from life expectancy for identified disabilities is a punishment where one could argue that credit is due. And then we are knocked again by the WHO rankings for the high cost of our excellent end of life care. A more skeptical person might argue that the WHO rankings were designed to ensure a low ranking for the US.

 

Anyway, the study referenced above concludes that one of the primary measures used by WHO is not indicative of the quality of the health care system. So enough with the number 37.

[We need Tom Tupa]

come on Tupa you know that putting another NON profit option as direct competition to for profit is how they see lowing the costs.

 

Competition to a monopolized for profit system that at this point does not have a check is the best solution without legislating and taking over costs.

 

Yes the CBO is projecting on EXISTING costs structures not one based on what driving for profit option costs down becuase a non profit option is not out there right now.

 

The CBO cant project what will happen on the total costs estimates on a system because they dont have base line projected costs IF the non profit option forces the current for profit health care companies to not be so fat.

 

Without a complete government takeover to reign in costs the only other option is this non profit or co-op option administered by the government to force more efficiency and less profit for the current monopolized health care system.

 

The right is using the chicken or egg conundrum to drum up a hypothetical argument that cant be projected or solved until a check of some sort is put in place to force balance. Right now the Insurance industry is a unchecked power. Its almost a Ponzi scheme to a degree.... you have to pay but they dont have to grant you benefits because of all their escape clauses or whatever reason they dream up of.

 

A glaring example of the profits is a CEO who get paid over one hundred thousand dollars per hour while his companies can deny for anything pretty much at anytime.... that is crazy I think in anyone's book. So the CBO has to take the current figures and base projections on cost while companies like this exist right now....ANY projections based upon current stuff like that is going to be insane long term.

Is your argument that the CBO cant figure it out but you can?

[osusev]

Of course not, my argument that the CBO can not project accurately how a non profit option that creates a check against inefficient and expensive for profit companies will alter the cost structure of an entire industry and the correlary effect that has directly on goverment projected spending.

 

They dont have that data because it does not exist yet. The only data they have is the current system costs and its correlary effect to our government projected spending.

The CBO is not showing potential spending decreases overall in our projected budgets because they dont know how a non profit check will affect the entire industry.

 

Free market principles still apply here, if some competitive product comes out that produces the same service but a lower costs consumer demand and choice forces other producers of the same product to either match and reduce product prices and services. That competition factor benefits the consumer by eliminating and forcing matching quality and pricing.

 

Right now the Medical insurance management industry has a unchecked monopoly on services and prices with out any other competitive source for consumers to pick from. They are obviously bloating costs and controlling access points which is why you have the fall thru uninsured. You can see the same exact examples from a multitude of other countries that now have some sort of non profit government controlled system and how they got there.

 

This is not a "unique" phenomenom this same problem plagued most of the now converted european and Canadien systems until they wrestled control back from the for profit insurance industries.

 

I dont really want a totally one payer system but a non profit option and some legislation to get rid of the pre existing denial crap. I think these companies by nature of Free market principles can operate really well but dont have to right now and will not unless they have to.

 

I will be honest If one of my companies is operating at a high profit level and i dont have to change the structure because the industry is pretty much standard for any consumer i would not change a thing. However if the industry changes and the consumers have other lower cost more efficient options I would have to alter my structure to be able to compete. I think competition fosters so much innovation that it would be crazy to go to only one option. However SOMETHING major has to happen and the for profit structure needs to be challenged seriously when it comes to health care because the nature of when the consumer desires service it is well LIFE threatening which alters the seriousness of the structure of the service.

 

Tupa I believe in the free market for most things and even in health care but right now No one will convince me that the CEO of United health care systems should make one hundred thousand dollars an hour while they deny benefits because its in their profit operational benefits. Something is so wrong with that concept for me.

[Mr. T]

It's really ignorant of you to believe this is the case. You think some drunk dudes sat around the White House bar a few weeks ago and patched this thing together?

 

Whatever you want to believe, from what I am reading it was modeled after the Massachusetts health care plan.

And that was a suprise, I thought it was Hillary who came up with this shit about 12 years ago.

 

 

This is even more ignorant than your last assumption, T. Come on. If I were cal, I'd cry about "serious discussion" here.

 

What do you want a freakin book?

 

 

[We need Tom Tupa]

Of course not, my argument that the CBO can not project accurately how a non profit option that creates a check against inefficient and expensive for profit companies will alter the cost structure of an entire industry and the correlary effect that has directly on goverment projected spending.

 

They dont have that data because it does not exist yet. The only data they have is the current system costs and its correlary effect to our government projected spending.

The CBO is not showing potential spending decreases overall in our projected budgets because they dont know how a non profit check will affect the entire industry.

 

Free market principles still apply here, if some competitive product comes out that produces the same service but a lower costs consumer demand and choice forces other producers of the same product to either match and reduce product prices and services. That competition factor benefits the consumer by eliminating and forcing matching quality and pricing.

 

Right now the Medical insurance management industry has a unchecked monopoly on services and prices with out any other competitive source for consumers to pick from. They are obviously bloating costs and controlling access points which is why you have the fall thru uninsured. You can see the same exact examples from a multitude of other countries that now have some sort of non profit government controlled system and how they got there.

 

This is not a "unique" phenomenom this same problem plagued most of the now converted european and Canadien systems until they wrestled control back from the for profit insurance industries.

 

I dont really want a totally one payer system but a non profit option and some legislation to get rid of the pre existing denial crap. I think these companies by nature of Free market principles can operate really well but dont have to right now and will not unless they have to.

 

I will be honest If one of my companies is operating at a high profit level and i dont have to change the structure because the industry is pretty much standard for any consumer i would not change a thing. However if the industry changes and the consumers have other lower cost more efficient options I would have to alter my structure to be able to compete. I think competition fosters so much innovation that it would be crazy to go to only one option. However SOMETHING major has to happen and the for profit structure needs to be challenged seriously when it comes to health care because the nature of when the consumer desires service it is well LIFE threatening which alters the seriousness of the structure of the service.

 

Tupa I believe in the free market for most things and even in health care but right now No one will convince me that the CEO of United health care systems should make one hundred thousand dollars an hour while they deny benefits because its in their profit operational benefits. Something is so wrong with that concept for me.

Health insurance companies had a profit margin of around 5% a few years ago (they are generally lower now). A third of that profit comes from investment income. Another third is paid in taxes to the federal government. So a nonprofit option would cut 1.5-2% by not making a profit. Of course, the federal government would lose the same amount in tax revenues. I'm looking for where cutting the profit out is an obvious benefit. And we havent even gotten to a discussion of the value of the profit motive v. the deadweight loss of the taxes.

 

And, whoops, you dont want health insures to deny benefits as much as they do now. That's a cost INCREASE. Uh-oh.

[We need Tom Tupa]

I'll agree with you that more competition would be a good thing. That's what Furman/McCain and now Wyden/Bennett (and Milton Friedman over a decade ago) are all about. Rather than add one more insurer to the massive market, let's change the rules of the game to increase competition in a way that makes the individual more powerful.

[osusev]

You and I can go back and forth about profit margins etc of the current top insurance companies and admin costs/salaries that offset these margins all day long.

 

Lets find some common ground instead. I think you believe that the current system is flawed and inefficient which I obviously do.

 

I think you and I both believe that competition can foster better benefits from multiple providers for the consumer.

 

I dont mind if they open up all the states to cross state line selling. What is the harm of a non profit or some sort of co-op adminsitered by the government that runs as competition also along with opening up regions?

 

One thing I am not sure on do you think that denying based upon pre existing conditions should be amended?