Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Originally Posted by classicman

I have insurance on my entire family, very good insurance relatively speaking, and it less than $6K a year GROSS. I contribute about 1/2 to that cost.

I find it very difficult to believe that the average cost is more than twice what I pay.

I can only rely on independent studies and not anecdotal examples;

The Commonwealth Fund
The rapid rise in health insurance premiums has severely strained U.S. families and employers in recent years. This analysis of federal data finds that if premiums for employer-sponsored insurance grow in each state at the projected national rate of increase, then the average premium for family coverage would rise from $12,298 (the 2008 average)to $23,842 by 2020...
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...s-Incomes.aspx

Kaiser Family Foundation
Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose to $13,375 annually for family coverage this year—with employees on average paying $3,515 and employers paying $9,860, according to the benchmark 2009 Employer Health Benefits Survey released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET).
http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091509nr.cfm

Of course, there are many variables that would lead to some families paying much less, including not only factors related to the level of coverage, but also external factors like location, cost of living, level of competition in the state, etc.

For example, in 1/4 of the states, a handful of insurance carriers control 90% of the business. It is a closed market with virtually no competition, thus little or no incentive to control premium costs.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I think that average cost is the quote for an individual trying to purchase insurance on their own. Group coverage through an employer (like I'm assuming you have, classic, but correct me if your plan is something different) is inherently cheaper than an individual plan, because your employer is negotiating a group rate. Plus, group coverage isn't allowed to charge one person more just because they have pre-existing conditions or are genetically at risk for disease. The rates for individual plans are sky-high, if they are willing to offer them at all--my best friend shopped around extensively to get the best rate she could, which is $1,000 a month (i.e., the 12K/year average that Redux quoted,) for their "family," which is to say everyone except the daughter with diabetes. No insurance company will cover her.

The cost of a family plan on the open market would absolutely be higher than the average cost of employer-base plan (cited above) for the reasons you noted.

The only "advantage" of an open market, non-employer based plan is the ability to pick and choose from more levels of coverage with more/less benefits at various prices...but then you lose the significant employer contribution.

And in any case, more and more employers are limiting those choices and lowering benefits or raising the employee share.

[classicman]

Beancounter mentality! - Where the hell is Tommy when you actually Want him to post something? The Economist had an article on this a few weeks - months ago - Dammit - I wish I had 1/2 the memory I smoked back.

Originally Posted by classicman

Beancounter mentality!

The fact that there is little or no competition in the health insurance industry and little or no built-in incentives to lower administrative costs and /or premiums is not, IMO, beancounting.

It is econ 101, competition stimulates lower pricing and greater innovation (thus lowering administrative costs).

[classicman]

I was referring to the rates you are quoting - You are saying that the average is over $1000 a month. Lemme tell you real plainly - NO EFFIN WAY is that average. The commonwealth fund is on crack.
Lets take a lil poll here - What is the cost for your health insurance?
I just checked mine - It went up - It is now $517 a month GROSS.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

It is econ 101, competition stimulates lower pricing and greater innovation (thus lowering administrative costs).

I couldn't agree more - Keep as many competitors as possible. The last thing we want is monopoly and control by a bloated inefficient giant. Long live Capitalism!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

If you work for a small business or self-employed, you must purchase that insurance on the open market and pay the full cost yourself.

SO basically if you are a small business owner you are screwed.

You might choose to forgo health insurance if it would require 20-25% of your income.

Not an option, everyone will be required to carry it. The middle income people will take the hardest hit or pay the fine to the Feds.

Personally, I think accessible and affordable quality health care should be a right for all citizens as it is in every other western industrialized country.

Thanks for that statement. Please show us where it is a "Right" of "every other western industrialized country"...

While I might share your ultimate goal. I dont think we can get there from here. The political will is not there.

Which is exactly why I have been saying all along that you are about to get a big ass bill that your grand children will be paying off that will not fix the problems with the industry. And yet YOU continue to support this BS as if it is a fix. It is not.

I prefer a more pragmatic approach....half a cake is better than none.

BS again. You are about to accept a less than half empty glass of solutions to fix a problem that is much larger than what the DEMONcrats are putting on the table. I am at the point of letting them have their way to watch them fail and allow them to take the fall. The solutions proposed to this point do not fix the problems in our system.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am at the point of letting them have their way to watch them fail and allow them to take the fall.

1.) You've been "at that point" this whole time.
2.) You make it sound as if you personally will have any role in whether they "have their way" or not.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

you are about to get a big ass bill that your grand children will be paying off

Says the man with children, to the man without children. You gotta work on your threats, thar.

[TheMercenary]

True dat. I have little to add to your observations.


Take this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcNc_...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhJp0...eature=related

Peace Friend.

Originally Posted by classicman

I couldn't agree more - Keep as many competitors as possible. The last thing we want is monopoly and control by a bloated inefficient giant. Long live Capitalism!

So how would you stimulate greater competition, given that it hasnt happened by leaving it to the insurance companies alone.

Why do you think something like the government administered (not government controlled) Federal Employees Health Benefits program wont work at a more macro level like in a proposed public option (or national insurance exchange)....it currently includes 10 or so private insurance companies providing more than 20 different plan choices (at varying premium rates) and I dont think any objective observer would characterize it as a bloated inefficient giant....but it does control costs in order for any particular private carrier to be include among the provider choices. Hell, even Medicare, with all its faults, has relatively low administrative costs compared to the private sector.

Just throwing out the same old rhetoric....monopoly, bloated inefficient giant, is not a very helpful solution.

[classicman]

Nice try at a turnaround there. I agreed with part of and was referring to your previous post (the one I quoted) - It appears as though you want to have it both ways - Gov't run, but also greater competition. Having the Gov't running things will NOT lead to greater competition.

Originally Posted by classicman

Nice try at a turnaround there. I agreed with part of and was referring to your previous post (the one I quoted) - It appears as though you want to have it both ways - Gov't run, but also greater competition. Having the Gov't running things will NOT lead to greater competition.

I dont see it as a turnaround, but hey, interpret it as you wish.

In fact, the FEHB program does promote competition, in that private insurers compete to be included among the 10+ private providers and 20+ plan options made available to employees. A government administered public option or public/private national exchange based on that model can do the same. IF you dont think it can work, why not? Please, more than just bloated bureaucracy.

But if you dont want to go that route, how would you encourage or stimulate greater competition among private insurance companies when it is clear from their record, they currently have little or no incentive to reduce administrative costs or premiums (profits, after administrative costs, are based in part on a percentage of premium...the higher the premium, the greater the profit)? Further, in many states, there is no incentive to even open the market up beyond a few large private insurance providers. How do you fix that?

Too many of the arguments against the public option intentionally confuse public option with single payer. There is no single payer proposal on the table.

I hear alot of criticism from opponents, but very few solutions.

[classicman]

I never claimed to have any of the answers. Did I? I am just looking at the pro's and con's of those that our well-paid elected officials are putting out there. How can gov't stimulate competition? Off the top, or bottom, of my head... make it a profitable industry with easy access to new competitors. Thats the same as any industry.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

So how would you stimulate greater competition, given that it hasnt happened by leaving it to the insurance companies alone.

Why do you think something like the government administered (not government controlled) Federal Employees Health Benefits program wont work at a more macro level like in a proposed public option (or national insurance exchange)....it currently includes 10 or so private insurance companies providing more than 20 different plan choices (at varying premium rates) and I dont think any objective observer would characterize it as a bloated inefficient giant....but it does control costs in order for any particular private carrier to be include among the provider choices. Hell, even Medicare, with all its faults, has relatively low administrative costs compared to the private sector.

Just throwing out the same old rhetoric....monopoly, bloated inefficient giant, is not a very helpful solution.

Medicare has lower administrative costs?
Maybe not:
only an extremely small portion of administrative costs are related to the dollar value of health care benefit claims. Expressing these costs as a percentage of benefit claims gives a misleading picture of the relative efficiency of government and private health plans.Medicare beneficiaries are by definition elderly, disabled, or patients with end-stage renal disease. Private insurance beneficiaries may include a small percentage of people in those categories, but they consist primarily of people are who under age 65 and not disabled. Naturally, Medicare beneficiaries need, on average, more health care services than those who are privately insured. Yet the bulk of administrative costs are incurred on a fixed program-level or a per-beneficiary basis. Expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs makes Medicare's administrative costs appear lower not because Medicare is necessarily more efficient but merely because its administrative costs are spread over a larger base of actual health care costs. When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/...istrative.html

[TheMercenary]

Hmmmmm.... sounds like more Bullshit from Redux:


http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/re...ublication.pdf