Socialistic health care goal of the traitors in power

[oladub]

The real death knell is going to be greedy-ass Republicans who care more about keeping a few extra bucks in their own wallet, while the people who elect them continue to get far worse and expensive medical care than their Congressman does for the rest of his life. The status quo is simply not an option, and fear is the worst justification of all.

No, the real death knell will be the destruction of the dollar. Neither president Bush nor President Obama has exercized restraint in avoiding bankrupting this country. President Obama is cementing the status quo by expanding upon it. Take a look at is what is happening in California. Prisoners are being let loose, taxes and fees are going up, eduactional aid is being reduced, bureaucrats are taking payless days off. This is where Obama is taking us except his expanded banker owned Federal Reserve has a printing press to help his friends until people see that the emperor has no money. I think it more credible to believe in Santa than in Obama's cutting cost budget promises. I mean, really, how much has this guy cut the federal budget. Answer: he hasn't. He has increased the national debt from $9T to $11.5T on the first six months of his watch. Divide that by $306M Americans and adjust your fantasy to the product. Anyone who wants to blame all problems on one party is just prolonging the corrupion that got us to this place. Check out which corporations donated to whom on opensecrets.com.

The Post office might not be able to make its September payment to retired postal workers and their health care plans. I'm sure you friends will like that too. Maybe these are the same folks who still believe in government after Clinton/Gingrich took away most of their earned social security benefits to balance the budget. http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=43192

[Papasito]

Your President wants to give Doctors [[some of the wealthiest citizens in America) $245 billion to help ensure their support of the bill.

Annd...he believes it shouldn't count as part of the cost of healthcare.

Sooo who here supports this???

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats want to give doctors a $245 billion sweetener that helps ensure their critical support for a health care overhaul bill. Next up: Trying to explain how they could do it without breaking President Barack Obama's promise that health legislation won't increase the federal deficit.

Obama reiterated the pledge in a "CBS Evening News" interview Tuesday, saying: "It's got to be deficit neutral. It can't add to our deficits."

So what of the Congressional Budget Office's conclusion that the House bill does add to the deficit?

Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the $245 billion included for doctors -- the approximate 10-year cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts -- does not have to be counted in the overall cost of the health care bill.

[mjs]

If you watched Obama's press conference last night, he argued in favor of a system similar, if not idential, to the existing health plan for federal employees. This plan allows the participant to CHOOSE his plan from several private-sector options, and may change his provider during open-enrollment periods. The federal employees I know love this plan, and unlike private employer-provided insurance, allows free-market choice.

Tell me what section of HR 3200 says you can get subsidized coverage on any private program! Quote it! The plan says you can take the subsidized government plan or pay full price on your own. I'm cheap. I'll take the wasteful subsidized program over the better ran private program any day.

If you want to be able to select from any HMO with providers in your region, then you support the proposed Senate bill that will create a voucher system where the vouchers are handed out by the government and private employers. That is not in HR 3200.

The status quo is simply not an option, and fear is the worst justification of all.

Fear? What in the world are you talking about? Status Quo? Really, beyond the Democrats rhetoric, who said we need to change nothing? If your addressing me, I say for the tenth time, most people, including myself, will support everything I've seen in HR 3200 except for the public option. If HR 3200 removed the public HMO portion, it still upsets the status quo in millions of ways.

I don't necessarily see that a government insurance program would be the death knell of health reform.

Lets stop to make sure we're both being careful with our terms here because its key to communication. The politicians keep intentionally intermixing them so they can push their agendas on either side of the aisle. Health care reform means more complete coverage for those that are insured. Universal coverage means getting the significant majority insured. Health care savings means finding ways to save money so we spend less per insured. Socialist coverage means moving the role of health care administration and denials from private HMOs to government bureaucracies.

I didn't say the government program would be a death knell to "health reform". If HR 3200 passes, the inefficient government portion may raise costs per insured, but it won't lead to decreased coverage for whoever ends up insured by private insurers. What I said was that the public HMO provision in HR 3200 will be what kills the bill entitled HR 3200 if the bill entitled HR 3200 does not pass. The bill entitled HR 3200 may pass regardless; it may not.

If HR 3200 fails, health care reform will likely come within the next year and medicare cost efficiencies will also likely come within the next year. Hopefully universal health care will also come in the next four years, but it may not.

There are plenty of inefficiencies in the private sector as well. Let's do without the ambiguity of unsubstantiated "waste" for once, shall we?

I've never been good at turning a blind eye to waste. The bill is being sold as a savings plan that eliminates waste through better efficiency. Its 1/3 funded by reducing government inefficiencies in the health care field. The President is saying that the $313 billion in medicare/medicaid waste is concrete and not unsubstaniated. I believe him, why don't you?

[ghettopalmetto]

Oladub, spare me the crap. Bush's tax cuts, in total are roughly equivalent in amount to Obama's stimulus plan.

One of these put money in the pockets of the wealthy and led to a free-for-all fleecing and near-collapse of the entire financial system.

The other expenditure stabilized the banking system and distributed money to states for unemployment insurance, education, and police and fire services.

You tell me which one is the raw deal. And if you think that dividing this level of expenditure by the time spent in office is somehow indicative of things to come, I'd like to see your justification. Obama has repeatedly said that his goal is to balance the budget, reduce spending, and that he'd rather not have had to pass such a stimulus plan.

Now, if you want worthless money, let's have the major financial institutions fail simultaneously, and tell me how many greenbacks it takes you to buy a Euro then.

Sheesh. Educate your damn selves already instead of regurgitating unfounded fearmongering crap.

[ghettopalmetto]

MJS, you realize that FIVE Congressional committees are working on this plan simultaneously. Surely you know how our government works, and that the bill that ends up on Obama's desk will not be HR 3200 verbatim. Stop treating it like the end-all be-all [[as if you've read the entire text of the document, anyway).

[mjs]

I have a hunch that the head of a public health insurance bureacracy isn't going to be paid $10 million per year, that's for certain.

Thats so so cherry picking and such a distractor. There's 1400 HMOs and you talk about the worst two. Don't select them as your HMO. How many people that have employer based insurance can't get nonprofit Blue Cross/Blue Shield? How much did the CEO of BCBS make? A million is less than one millionths of the $2.3 trillion in the US alone. Take a look at opensecrets and see how much ten million buys HMOs these days.

I tell you what, I won't even suggest you try to do this with average HMO CEO pay. I'll let you use your $10 million figure. Refuse to do business with anyone that pays their CEO over $10 million. I'll take no response as confirmation that you did since you'll be struggling to use your computer or internet provider or drive a car or buy gas. Better get started on your garden so you won't have to buy any groceries.

[mjs]

GP, HR 3200 is the bill Nancy and Barack are pushing and its the one I know of that has made it out of a House committee. Amendments are done between making it out of committee and going to a vote. I've trodded through about 1/3 of it now and I keep going back for more. Trying to read it is how I know most house members couldn't have read it yet and why a rush vote is a bad idea. If they think there's going to be a vote before the recess, they only have 11 days left to get the bills out of committee so the other members can read them.

You've obviously read none of it or any of the other bills. I've already provided you a link to it. Give me another bill to read and I'll read it. The link where the bill info is e-mails me daily updates on all new health care bills that to go to the floor so I'm not sure you'll find anything I haven't.

[rb336]

How many people that have employer based insurance can't get nonprofit Blue Cross/Blue Shield? How much did the CEO of BCBS make?.

Daniel Loepp, BCBS Michigan, $1,657,555. that is for ONE STATE
Cleve L. Killingsworth, BCBS Mass, $3,500,000. that is for ONE STATE
Robert Lufrano, BCBS FL, $4,700,000. that is for ONE STATE

that is a bit more than 9.8 million for three states. THAT is worse as a percentage of their firms incomes than the big three private corps. add to that that several BCBS orgs are facing loss of their not-for-profit standing, and ...

[oladub]

Oladub, spare me the crap. Bush's tax cuts, in total are roughly equivalent in amount to Obama's stimulus plan.

One of these put money in the pockets of the wealthy and led to a free-for-all fleecing and near-collapse of the entire financial system.

The other expenditure stabilized the banking system and distributed money to states for unemployment insurance, education, and police and fire services.

You tell me which one is the raw deal.

Both, but you forgot to mention the major earmarks bill and the $500B the Fed gave to unknown foreign banks. Then there is the proposed cap and trade tax, the proposed excise taxes for toothpaste, toilet paper, and 'water drinks' in the water bill. Obama expanded the size of the military and its role in Afghanistan. It all costs money. On top of this, Obama wants to increase medical care spending. Something has to give. I would suggest the value of the dollar will be taking a hit.

And if you think that dividing this level of expenditure by the time spent in office is somehow indicative of things to come, I'd like to see your justification. Obama has repeatedly said that his goal is to balance the budget, reduce spending, and that he'd rather not have had to pass such a stimulus plan.

I appreciate the humor found in your last sentence. I wouldn't be able to say something so outragious with a straight face. "Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the government’s financial bailout programs, in testimony prepared for delivery to the House oversight committee Tuesday" said that " A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion." Since only 2T has been spent so far, this government spokeman pretty well provided the justification you asked for. Pick up your pencil again and divide up to $23T by 306M Americans.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

Now, if you want worthless money, let's have the major financial institutions fail simultaneously, and tell me how many greenbacks it takes you to buy a Euro then.

Sheesh. Educate your damn selves already instead of regurgitating unfounded fearmongering crap.

Infation, at its core, is the inflation of the money supply. I could provide you with a graph. It is spiking. The higher prices that we call inflation come later. You need to visit the grocery store more often. Our collapsing dollars will also buy less health care. I don't think Neil Barofsky's numbers are crap but then I am more pursuaded by numbers than hope and belief.

[Papasito]

There's no need to confuse "dollars spent" with "quality of health care". Why spend more than necessary?

I find it amusing that anyone can think the US Government won't spend more money then necessary on anything. This is the US Government we're talking about here, these are the folks who have little care about how much of your money they spend on anything. And once they've spent all your money, they borrow more.

Why would anyone want to put anything in their hands at this point?

[ccbatson]

Taken further, the more money the government spends, the more power they gain. So, the incentive is? spend more money. The only check on this is if we, the voters, have the strength and courage to vote the perpetrators out.

[Detroitej72]

Why would anyone want to put anything in their hands at this point?

Well, they seem to do a good job of:

1. Providing the roads we drive on
2. Providing a military for our protection
3. Delivering my mail
4. Employing the police and fire departments
5. Running programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc
6. Keeping the justice system via courts and prisons up and running

[mjs]

Daniel Loepp, BCBS Michigan, $1,657,555. that is for ONE STATE
Cleve L. Killingsworth, BCBS Mass, $3,500,000. that is for ONE STATE
Robert Lufrano, BCBS FL, $4,700,000. that is for ONE STATE

That is a bit more than 9.8 million for three states. THAT is worse as a percentage of their firms incomes than the big three private corps. add to that that several BCBS orgs are facing loss of their not-for-profit standing, and ...

BCBS of Michigan covers 65% of Michigan's insured and assuming Michigan follows the national coverage average of 86%, that means it covers 5.6 million Michiganders. That means each person covered by BCBS of Michigan pays only 16 cents a year for Loepp's salary and 30 cents a year for his total compensation package.

BCBS of Michigan has 9000 employees. Using $80k as the average cost of a BCBS worker, he gets paid as much as twenty employees. So, if he can cut enough wasted time to eliminate just 20 out of 9000 positions, he's justified his cost. They had $19.4 billion in revenue in 2007 so his 2008 pay would be 0.0085% of that. A cost savings of 0.0085% justifies his pay. If a move of his cuts costs by 1%, the savings would cover his salary in just 3 days.

Are you sure thats a worse percentage than the three biggest private firms? Do you really believe these guys can't run an HMO for 0.0085% less than a large government beauracracy? In just six months, Barack found enough waste in medicare/medicaid alone to reduce the nation's overall health care costs by 13.6% [[$313 billion savings in a $2.3 trillion industry).

After looking over his resume, recognizing what other jobs he could have, and thinking of the potential savings involved, what do you think the pay should be for the top 0.01% of BCBS employees? http://www.bcbs.com/news/bcbsa/daniel-j-loepp.html

http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...p.asp?cycle=08
http://www.sbnonline.com/Local/Artic...uidelines.aspx
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...titiveness.pdf

[rb336]

BCBS of Michigan covers 65% of Michigan's insured and assuming Michigan follows the national coverage average of 86%, that means it covers 5.6 million Michiganders. That means each person covered by BCBS of Michigan pays only 16 cents a year for Loepp's salary and 30 cents a year for his total compensation package.

first, you are assuming things not in evidence [[assuming michigan has the same coverage as the national average with the highest unemployment rate is really a stretch)

BCBS of Michigan has 9000 employees. Using $80k as the average cost of a BCBS worker, he gets paid as much as twenty employees.

where are you getting that $80k? seems unlikely

So, if he can cut enough wasted time to eliminate just 20 out of 9000 positions, he's justified his cost.

another unsubstantiated assumption

They had $19.4 billion in revenue in 2007 so his 2008 pay would be 0.0085% of that. A cost savings of 0.0085% justifies his pay. If a move of his cuts costs by 1%, the savings would cover his salary in just 3 days.

that very revenue stream is why bcbsmi is under investigation re their not-for-profit status, and the moves they have made include increasing denial of coverage, thereby reducing costs at the expense of lives, another part of the investigation, and your rationale for his pay simply solidifies my point


sorry, bcbs is NOT a "good actor" in the current situation

Do you really believe these guys can't run an HMO for 0.0085% less than a large government beauracracy?

they certainly haven't shown an ability to do so so far. their admin costs are WAY higher than the govt run health care system, and the govt. run systems conistently show a higher satisfaction level in consumer surveys, and those HMOs are the ones restricting procedures and restricting access to doctors to those they select to be "in network" and then they are the ones getting between patient and doctor

[Omaha]

Hey Detroitej72, I believe you underestimate/undervalue the importance of the court system. Sure it’s about putting criminals away and protecting property as most folks understand it.

But it’s about protecting property in ways that go underappreciated by the common wage earner. [[Oops, is my class bias showing? ) It is about enforcing business contracts as well. No legal business can run unless GOVERNMENT is there to help enforce contracts. Without the court system, paid for by taxes, capitalism would not even be as strong as a house of cards.

And because businesses and their owners use the court system more than others…thereby deriving greater financial benefit from it than most. I just wish we could go to a flat tax and end progressive taxation so others would pay for more of the underlying costs associated with all levels of the courts.

If that happened, it would limit the $ needed to pay for memberships in the Yondotega Club, the Little Club, the DGC just to name the few in the metro area worth belonging to.

[mjs]

Rb, anytime you want to run numbers with your data, feel free. I don't see $80,000 being at all out of line for the cost of an employee. I figure thats about a $50,000 average salary in a field thats primarily office jobs requiring a degree. Its less than the average blue collar job costs the big three.

The 20 employees estimate comes from $80,000 x 20 = $1.6 million= Loepp's cost. $1.6 million was his total cost; his salary was $900,000. A mathematical calculation is not an unsubstantiated assumption. Run the numbers again with your estimate of employee costs. If you want to say its wrong, follow it up with your opinion of whats the correct number. You're even free to provide cost per insured based on an estimate and rationale for how many BCBS insured in 2008, the year of the compensation being discussed.

So, now, the argument is once again that all 1400 HMOs are greedy and the nonprofits are just as bad? Because in earlier arguments in support of a government plan, private HMO was redefined to exclude nonprofit HMOs. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but rather ask questions to understand how profits are the end all be all biggest problem while the largest nonprofit is also part of the problem.

Is there a single HMO that you believe isn't greedy? Again, I need you to define greedy to understand your argument. Once again, give me the specific dollar figure you think the boss of 9000 people responsible for the health of millions deserves. Tell me what you think acceptable administrative costs are. I know of at least one HMO that has 3% administrative costs. I looked for the administrative costs of medicare/medicaid and can't find it. You claim to know it so please please please post a reliable link so the rest of us can know it.

Its your side thats saying there has to be a government option because nobody can do what the governemnt can do. That means you need to prove nobody can do it, not simply prove that there's a few that can't. Nobody is the justification for this federal power grab.

You're still not grasping that the government can place restrictions on acceptance and denials at anytime even without a government option. If the government says condition xyz has to always be covered up to $5 million per patient, then thats how it is. If the HMOs determine that adds $10 billion a year to our costs, then the nonprofits adjust premiums to raise another $10 billion and the for profits adjust them to raise another $11 billion. Thats not an unsubstantiated assumption, but rather why insurers hire armies of actuaries.

[rb336]

Rb, anytime you want to run numbers with your data, feel free. I don't see $80,000 being at all out of line for the cost of an employee. I figure thats about a $50,000 average salary in a field thats primarily office jobs requiring a degree. Its less than the average blue collar job costs the big three.

you see, you are still purely guessing, or, as you put it, figuring. hell, i doubt MOST jobs at bcbs require college degrees. how much education do you need to run a form, determine "no, that is not coverred" and deny treatment?

[rb336]

So, now, the argument is once again that all 1400 HMOs are greedy and the nonprofits are just as bad? Because in earlier arguments in support of a government plan, private HMO was redefined to exclude nonprofit HMOs.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but rather ask questions to understand how profits are the end all be all biggest problem while the largest nonprofit is also part of the problem.

I never redefined them that way, and the fact is that Blue Cross companies across the nation are getting investigated for acting like for profits

Is there a single HMO that you believe isn't greedy? Again, I need you to define greedy to understand your argument.

you don't understand the definition of greed? Let's put it this way, they are not in business to provide health care. they are there to make money. there is nothing wrong with making money, but when you choose to increase your bottom line - whether a profit or non-profiit - by denying coverage or refusing to pay for covered items [[which has been the case in the last 10 years) then you cross the line into the immoral. That is greed run wild

I know of at least one HMO that has 3% administrative costs. I looked for the administrative costs of medicare/medicaid and can't find it. You claim to know it so please please please post a reliable link so the rest of us can know it.

like you provided a reliable link to your HMO with only 3% admin costs? you first

Its your side thats saying there has to be a government option because nobody can do what the governemnt can do. That means you need to prove nobody can do it, not simply prove that there's a few that can't. Nobody is the justification for this federal power grab.
You're still not grasping that the government can place restrictions on acceptance and denials at anytime even without a government option. If the government says condition xyz has to always be covered up to $5 million per patient, then thats how it is. If the HMOs determine that adds $10 billion a year to our costs, then the nonprofits adjust premiums to raise another $10 billion and the for profits adjust them to raise another $11 billion. Thats not an unsubstantiated assumption, but rather why insurers hire armies of actuaries.

actually, it is our side that says a public option is needed because it is the only way to keep the industry honest. government can, and should place those restrictions.

what your side fails to grasp is that health care, to the rest of the civilized world, is a right, and should not be treated as it is here -- as a commodity to be traded

[mjs]

Again, poster of no, tell me what numbers you feel are correct. Here's the career section that describes job types and benefits. http://www.bcbsm.com/home/careers/index.shtml Any numbers on anything. Employee costs, medicare/medicaid administrative costs, number insured by BCBS, reasonable pay to run an organization the size of BCBS.

Greedy is a subjective term. I might say that 30 cents per insured is not greedy, you might say 3 cents is too high. I might say 10-15% profit is reasonable. You might say 1-3%. What do you say?

Answer anything. Are all 1400 HMOs greedy? Will every administration run a government option more efficiently than BCBS? I'll take your answer that public health care is the only way to "keep them honest" to be yeses. You do know that the word honest is not synonym for greedy or restrictive or fiscally responsible or whatever you meant when you said honest. I can tell that the biggest problem between us is that my words are used according to their exact dictionary meaning and yours are used according to what you believe will create the biggest shock value.

HMOs have to cover what they say their contract or the law says they'll cover. Thats how contracts and laws work. They are enforceable in court. Once again, if you want a law that sets minimum coverage in the contract, you're getting no opposition from me. Michigan no-fault says they have to pay your medical bills for life. That was not a standard contract clause before the law was enacted. The State didn't create a public option program for that like they did for unemployment insurance and look how much in the red the unemployment insurance program is. Government can't do insurance because an organization that can't balance a checking account can't do the necessary complex actuary analysis.

As for a link on the 3%, here you go. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/HMO'S+...%25-a083857239 The hundred links I've posted so far show I'm not afraid to back up what I say. Goody. Goody. Now you'll post your link on Blue Cross's percent and Medicare/Medicaid's percent. You must have had numbers when you made your comparison. I know whats not coming now.

[mjs]

What your side fails to grasp is that health care, to the rest of the civilized world, is a right, and should not be treated as it is here -- as a commodity to be traded.

I'm all for universal coverage. I'm against a nationalized option. How does a voucher system with mandatory coverage not provide universal coverage?

A nationalized option will eventually end up like this. HR 3200 says that anyone with a salary under I think 8 times the poverty number is eligible. The vast majority of those people will eventually go for subsidized coverage over unsubsidized coverage as employers drop their health care programs but give their employees health insurance money like they did in dropping pensions but giving 401K money. Then the Dems will say they are conceeding to the Republicans and do what they already started to do with Medicare, contract management portions to HMOs. The government administrative costs will then be something like 15% and the HMO administrative costs will be like another 15%. I'll be making money on health care stocks as they see record volumes and record profits, but crying over our burdgeoning national debt. What do you think the HMOs are paying Obama and the bill's sponsors for?

[rb336]

only the top two listed on your bcbs require a degree

thank you for that link to the story on HMOs

you will note that the graph showed that only the Kaiser Foundation health plan was under 12% [[over 88% revenues for health care), and they are a bird of an entirely different feather -- not merely a not for profit, but a philanthropic organization. btw -- they are based in BC

for admin exp. of medicare, see http://tinyurl.com/neryhj [[Medicare Chart Book - 3rd Edition - Summer 2005

this is from the Kaiser Family Foundation. on page two, it says:

Administrative expenditures currently account for less than 2 percent

of Medicare benefit expenditures, significantly lower than the cost of running private health plans.

[rb336]

I'm all for universal coverage. I'm against a nationalized option. How does a voucher system with mandatory coverage not provide universal coverage?

A nationalized option will eventually end up like this. HR 3200 says that anyone with a salary under I think 8 times the poverty number is eligible. The vast majority of those people will eventually go for subsidized coverage over unsubsidized coverage as employers drop their health care programs but give their employees health insurance money like they did in dropping pensions but giving 401K money. Then the Dems will say they are conceeding to the Republicans and do what they already started to do with Medicare, contract management portions to HMOs. The government administrative costs will then be something like 15% and the HMO administrative costs will be like another 15%. I'll be making money on health care stocks as they see record volumes and record profits, but crying over our burdgeoning national debt. What do you think the HMOs are paying Obama and the bill's sponsors for?

i'm not against some sort of voucher system. i would not be against a single-payer system where everyone pays in via taxes, and a voucher is issued that would allow chosing from a number of plans that meet certain standards

[ccbatson]

Voucher? how would that be different than a government single payer system? Just by virtue of paying in something other than money...why?

[ccbatson]

Do you mean that the government would pay via vouchers for private insurance? Can't we come up with something less wasteful and inefficient, cut out the middle men [[government) altogether and save a bundle? Most importantly, this would not be another socialisation move where producers are robbed to pay for nonproducers [[who would be producers if it weren't for the lack of incentive.

[mjs]

I think the voucher some Senator wants would be given from employers to employees and government to the poor so everyone has a wider variety of providers to choose from. That may or may not be better than what I orginally proposed.

The voucher system I envisioned was just for the needy because bats is right in that it would just be an added transaction cost if everyone qualified for a government voucher. It would require provisions outlining the minimum a policy can cover; a health insurance PLPD policy. Something like a voucher for 95% of the regional cost average if you make under poverty, 85% if you make under twice poverty, 70% if you make under three times poverty. We offer Food Stamps and we don't ask for a government ran grocery chain to keep Walmart and Kroger's honest. The voucher holders would present it to their private insurers and since the premium isn't 100% paid, they would still have incentive to shop around. They'd also have the option of a higher policy that covers more if they want to cover the supplement themselves. Just like auto insurance now. They can get just the PLPD coverage or add any of a variety of supplements and extras.