home

Why Can't We All Get the Same Heath Plan as Congress?

We've heard lots of times that members of Congress have a great health care plan. The LA Times has an article today describing its benefits and how it differs from the private insurer plans the rest of us are offered.

We're paying for Congress' plan -- as well as the plans of other federal workers:

In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

....The plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month. Taxpayers kick in $700, and employees pay the rest. Seeing a doctor costs $20. Generic prescriptions cost $10. Immunizations are free. There is no coverage limit.

As to why we all can't have that plan: [More...]

The answer: The country probably couldn't afford it -- not without reforms to bring costs way, way down.

Do they mean reforms or reductions in coverage? I think it's the latter. Which again leads me again to suspect that when politicians talk about "reducing costs" for Medicare, they are talking about reducing covered benefits.

I happen to like my health insurance plan, although the cost is far more than what federal workers pay. If the new health care plan Congress passes results in reduced coverage and benefits but not reduced rates, I'm going to be one unhappy camper.

< O.J. Simpson Bail Hearing Tomorrow | Obama Considering U.S. Prison-Court Complex for Guantanamo Detainees >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Then fed workers will have come down to our level (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 06:59:50 PM EST
    If it's unreal all of us would get their plan then they need to give that up and come down to the majority levels.

    Sigh - Federal Healthcare is entirely (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:45:51 AM EST
    managed by the private insurers.  The only difference between ours and theirs is that they have better rates as a result of government bargaining power.  They often go through the same bogus rejections of claims as we do - only if they are a Senator or a Congressman they can use their name recognition and clout to bully the private insurers into paying.

    I wish people would stop buying this red herring of adopting the Congressional plan because even if your premiums were more managable, you still wouldn't have the clout to fight the private insurers if they rejected your claims or wanted to deny your care.  That is why a government insurance plan is really the only sane solution to the problem.

    Parent

    Thanks for bringing up more reality (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:59:44 AM EST
    With Tricare Prime we get denied all the time too and end up spending a great deal of time fighting for our care.  That's part of the current money making system, denials.  If you have the time to fight, the energy to fight, you may get what you need.....if you don't.....you can probably afford to get sicker then and you will.  When we were cleaning out storage yesterday and going through photos I went out on the front porch and cried for awhile.  There were photos and some movies of Joshua when we were fighting his denials and he was moving towards the early stages of paralysis in his legs.  You think you have made it through something like that, you think you've cried all that pain out, but it always seems to take longer than I thought it would to heal myself.  God that time in my life sucked, I have never felt more like a worthless commodity in this society than when it was okay to treat my son like that.  It was perfectly legal, it was happening to all of us who they could do it to and still is, and your whole focus is on you or your kids and you would tell the whole world if only you could stop crying long enough to be able to do what had to be done and then had a moments time remaining.

    Parent
    If I understand you correctly... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 07:17:35 PM EST
    taxpayers are subsidizing the health care plans of Federal employees to the tune of 67%.

    Why can't we all have that plan - subsidized by our own tax money? Because the country couldn't afford it unless the costs come down?

    I'm all for cutting costs - especially from drug companies.

    But the last I heard - we are still spending about One Million Dollars every two minutes for the war in Iraq.

    It seems to me that that money could cover a whole lot of people.

    Does this help? (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 07:22:33 PM EST
    Please put that in an open thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 07:28:56 PM EST
    I'd like to keep this one to health care, and while the cost of the war in Iraq may be a factor in why we can't get it done, the heist by Iraqi police is not.

    Parent
    It's about priorities (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:27:35 PM EST
    We can't get it done because our government would rather do other things with our money.

    Parent
    Our government is quibbling (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:03:27 PM EST
    about spending $1 trillion on health care over ten years but had no qualms about giving the banks something in the neighborhood of $15 trillion. Health care for 304,059,724 people vs providing the banks money to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus this year. How could we ever doubt that our government has our best interest at heart?

    Parent
    Not true! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:45:41 PM EST
    Goldman Sachs has set aside somewhere in the area of 10-12 BILLION dollars just themselves.

    So that would be thousands of millions of dollars:)

    Parent

    10 - 12 Billion could give a lot of (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:01:20 PM EST
    families the same great insurance coverage that Congress has. But then again, the money given to the banks could pay for universal health care for a long, long time.

    Parent
    banks (none / 0) (#38)
    by bocajeff on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:02:36 AM EST
    didn't receive $15 trillion. total u.s. debt is only about $11 trillion, so your numbers are wrong.

    Also, you assume the money was given without the need for payback (not true) and that the money was given just for the heck of it (instead of propping up the entire economy). Apples and Oranges comparisons.

    Parent

    Wonder if Moveon.org (hah) (none / 0) (#28)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:57:42 PM EST
    would start a grass roots effort urging its members to withhold an estimated potion of their income tax that would normally be used to provide health care for members of Congress.

    If I'm not mistaken, Quakers do this (as conscientious objectors) to avoid funding wars.

    I'd like to see any Congress 'critter' try to argue against a similar Moveon initiative to deprive them of their Cadillac health coverage.

    Parent

    We can do that ourselves (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:13:06 AM EST
    we just need a little courage.  If you're a wage-earner, claim 99 dependents.  If you're self employed, stop cutting Uncle Sam a check.  

    Parent
    Sure, you and I and 3-4 other TL (none / 0) (#74)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    users could put the hurt on the fed. But Moveon has got THE mailing list with oodles of members at their behest.

    BTW, how would you claim "99 dependents" w/o getting audited?

    Parent

    True... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    they could help with getting the word out, but I don't think Move-On is ever gonna back something that radical, especially since they never started organizing a tax revolt in response to Iraq.

    As for dodging that audit, I have a friend who has been claiming phony dependents for years, never been audited.  My guess is that he's dodged it by not making a lot of money...the IRS has bigger fish to fry.

    Parent

    I also have a friend, and a relative, (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    who both "dodged" the IRS for years. Guess what? They both got caught. The friend spent many years paying the IRS what he owed. My relative is still paying...

    It's dumb to claim numerous dependents, or to neglect to file in the first place. There really is something to be said for responsibility and maturity.

    Parent

    Personally... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    I think dodging your taxes is the responsible and mature thing to do, if done on principle as a protest of government spending and policy...I've been childishly and selfishly paying what they say I owe even though I know it is wrong...all to avoid a hassle and a potential smackdown...its part of why we're in the mess we're in, a childish selfish citenzry.

    Parent
    Yeah, what happened to free markets (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:01:36 AM EST
    so that insurance companies can survive :)?  If we stopped subsidizing, costs would have to come down but in the immediate moment people who have such coverage would be helpless.......like the other 43 million out there.

    Parent
    Government employees are paying less for (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    family coverage than I am for single coverage. In fact, they are paying less than I will have to pay for my Medicare supplemental insurance. Also, while I am sorry that Senator Dodd has cancer, I am willing to bet that at no time will he ever be denied ANY treatment that his doctor recommends unlike other cancer patients who have this happen on a regular basis.

    As long as the insurance companies are in the equation, we can expect to continue to pay higher premiums for less coverage.

    Those insurance executives would starve without their multimillion dollar salaries. Our members of Congress couldn't exist without insurance company contributions. Just think, they might just have to come up with ways to campaign without spending obscene amounts of money.

    Never fear though, a weak highly restricted public option, paid for with reductions to Medicare, will be our salvation. In another 50 or 60 years, we just might get single payer health care coverage that people can actually afford.  

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by bocajeff on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:00:28 PM EST
    You write:

    As long as the insurance companies are in the equation, we can expect to continue to pay higher premiums for less coverage

    But they ARE being covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. What they are doing is shifting the payments of the premiums to the taxpayers. It has little effect on the insurance companies.

    This whole thing is about cost. We either lessen benefits to cover more people at the same costs or we increase costs to cover the same benefits and more people. It's all coming from the same pie.

    Parent

    There are other options (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:21:31 PM EST
    We can eliminate the insurance companies all together. That would reduce cost.

    1. Eliminates the profit margin
    2. Standard forms would reduce costs to medical providers
    3. Risk would be spread through an entire population
    4. Government negotiated "large volume" prices" for drugs and equipment.

     Yes, the whole thing is about cost and we are paying at least twice as much as any other country.  

    Parent
    You forgot one. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Jake Left on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:56:47 AM EST
    Number five would be the savings in lobby costs and advertising costs. Add up all the money that pharma and the insurance companies and the AMA are paying in bribes (excuse me, I mean donations) to congress.

    Your last point is the one that no one seems to mention when they worry about the cost. We are already paying. Paying twice as much. That money is already coming from us. We just aren't getting anything for it.

    Parent

    What's the incentive to reduce costs? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:52:41 AM EST
    I see your argument but isn't profit incentive the best force to drive down administrative costs?  How do we make sure that bureaucrats aren't costing us more than a competitive salary environment driven by cost reduction to yield higher profit margins?  Given government spending efficiency it is feasible that lowering competitively driven administrative costs + profit would be less than uncompetitive costs with no aggregate "profit" to the government as an entity.  

    How much of each current welfare dollar is spent on administrative costs?  Without this number you provide no means to judge your argument which alone appears compelling.    

    Parent

    The "profit incentive" myth (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    is pushed by advocates of vouchers for schooling too.

    NO, it does not work.  What it creates is "CHEATING" and LYING.   Look at TX and the bogus claims of the Bush administration about rewarding schools and teachers increasing scores. It increased cheating.  It increased "encouraging" poor students to drop out because if they drop out their scores don't matter.

    Profit in health care encourages denying coverage. It encourages dropping people.

    Parent

    Take it another step. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:27:26 PM EST
    "Look at TX and the bogus claims of the Bush administration about rewarding schools and teachers increasing scores. "  I agree that their reason is bogus, 100 percent, but that's a very different issue.  I'm discussing administrative costs being reduced to remain competitive while maintaining a margin.  Public schools are not voluntarily funded, they are funded through taxes.  This means that public schools are not in competition with each other.  A parent cannot take their money and kid to another school if they think the school is doing poorly.  While a parent's opinion on their child's schooling is not perfect, it certainly would be a much better system than a standardized test which aggregates for performance and encourages cheating to improve one's own salary.

    Now this distinction is important when it comes to your second point "Profit in health care encourages denying coverage. It encourages dropping people."  Well yes, this is true.  It is also true for car insurance / home owners insurance / all warranties.  So why is it so much worse in the health insurance industry?  How have these other industries come to give us reliable products while health insurers get away with murder?  The basic answer is a lack of competition.  Federal and State regulations have fostered an environment where businesses obtain coverage for their employees cheaper than employees can do independently (though we do end up paying for the tax breaks in the longrun, obviously, and lose out even worse for it).  This and a slew of other regulations translate to individual choice, the driving force behind competition, being severely restricted.  If everyone chose their own coverage, rather than a state induced oligopoly through employer coverage schemes, this problem would be reduced to a minimum like the other industries mentioned.

    In support of that last point, here is a rough example:  Toyota won't sell you a car that blows up the day after you get it.  Not because they would necessarily have to pay you back but because they would lose many future customers to competitors that have a better record.  

    Parent

    Did you really just ask (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    why having a profit motive that denies people coverage is worse in the health insurance industry than in the auto insurance industry?

    Um... How about because human life is at stake? If I don't get auto coverage I guess I'll have to take the bus or work closer to home. If I am denied health care coverage while seeking cancer treatment I could die. It's a moral issue.

    Is that hard to understand?

    Parent

    Well that's another argument. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:55:58 PM EST
    Tone down the indignation.  I was discussing denying actual claims, to which my point about consumer responsiveness is still accurate.

    So to answer your question, no I did not "really just ask" that.  Totes almost nailed me.

    As far as what you're arguing...I mean, I have a right not to be robbed, correct?  So how is that someone can have a "right" to receive goods and services in the form of healthcare that mandate I be robbed?  

    Parent

    You'll have to rephrase (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 04:35:02 PM EST
    your question because I'm not sure what you are referring to when you use the example of getting "robbed".

    As for my indignation, it's based on the premise that health care is a human right, not a privilege for those who can best afford it. I do not believe in the profit motive as it pertains to the delivery of health care.


    Parent

    Ok. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 04:46:49 PM EST
    Our conflict, as you just indicated, arises from your definition of a right.  

    In order for healthcare to be a right, rights must be something that involves transfer of resources.  Commonly considered rights (free speech, etc) do not require others to give things up.  Regarding healthcare as a right means the violation of the right to property.  This is a logical contradiction.  

    Parent

    What did you mean by (none / 0) (#102)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:14:21 PM EST
    your example of being "robbed"?

    Parent
    Samuel... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    is talking about taxes.

    Parent
    Yea thats what I meant. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:06:52 PM EST
    It makes sense, right?  Libertarians are accused of being callous - maybe so, I would say not in this case -  but what they are not is sentimental and what they are not is stupid.  Perhaps government healthcare will help in the short term relative to the existing government spawned mess of employer provided coverage but anyone who asserts that government run healthcare is not a violation of individual liberty and will be positive in the long run has never looked at a single damn welfare statistic...or public schools...or the department of defense...or cell phone tower reciprocity...wait, that last one was private enterprise, 4 bars.  

    Parent
    It is not a human right.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    we are not endowed by our creator with the right to recieve medical care...though it would be nice.

    I can agree with the moral argument that we should make health care available and affordable for all...but to call it a human right is a fantasy.  If it requires the work of another, how could it be your right?

    Parent

    "Endowed by our creator" (none / 0) (#101)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    doesn't mean much to me. I realize you are merely quoting from our nation's founding documents, but let's get away from what is written. When it comes down to it, the preservation of all human rights, and protection of human beings, always depends on the work of others.

    Let me cast the issue in terms that may be more agreeable:

    Denying health care to a fellow human being -- particularly when that denial is based solely on the ability of one to pay, and the ability of the other to make a profit -- is grossly inhumane. So, perhaps, instead of deeming it a human "right", we can speak in terms of humanity and inhumanity.

    I think our current health care delivery system is obscene and that health insurance companies should be prevented from making and overseeing the rules. I'm acquainted enough with the Canadian system (by friends who live or have lived there) to know that denial of care based on profit motives is outmoded and unnecessary. And inhumane.

    Parent

    Much more agreeable... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    Yes, to deny necessary medical care that is capable of being delivered to anyone for any reason is most definitely inhumane.

    I'm just f*ckin' clueless as to the best way to administer a more humane healthcare system...the insurance companies are out of control, but so is the government.  You hear about people being denied care in our system and dying, and then in the next breath you hear about the lower survival rate for certain cancers in Canada.  I see my youngest niece whose life we may well owe to our proximity to the top flight care at Columbia Presbyterian, and I see my brother taking fish antibiotics because he is uninsured.  I just don't know.

    Parent

    Kdog, I actually know people from Canada (none / 0) (#113)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:01:34 PM EST
    Since I live in Washington State, I have quite a few friends who moved here from B.C., and vice-versa. Everything I have heard first-hand regarding their experiences with health care in the U.S. and healthcare in Canada wipes out the claims that Canadians have to suffer on waiting-lists for months to get necessary care. The fact is, if you want elective surgery, well,  that will not be considered a priority. However, if you have a heart condition, diabetes, cancer or any number of conditions that are a threat to your health, you get treatment plus prescriptions without hassle.

    I'm not an expert either, but after watching friends and family members have to fight with their insurance companies over life-saving treatments and go broke in the process, it's clear that a new system which provides access to care for all Americans is THE priority. How do we get there? Let's start by cutting out the profit motive.  

    Parent

    The few Canadians I know... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:16:50 PM EST
    like it too, but they are all young and healthy. I know people who have had problems with our system, plenty of young uninsured people beating the odds, and people who have been well served, my niece especially.

    I'm no fan of insurance cos, one of the most crooked industries around in my book...CEO compensation alone shows how unfree our markets are, healthcare is no exception.

    But this government, taking money from those insurance cos hand over fist?  Ya gotta be scared sh*tless.

    Parent

    However, I wonder, (none / 0) (#104)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    Does the right to life (as in "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") go out the window if an insurance company decides your "right to life" interferes with its ability to make a profit?

    In the service of logic...

    Parent

    Technically your illness... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:38:19 PM EST
    is threatening your right to life, not the insurance company.  The insurance company is only refusing to pay for it, aka help you or do what you paid them to do.  

    An inhumane dirtbag thing to do, but technically not a violation of your rights.  Maybe a violation of their contract with you.

    Parent

    So, we agree that it's inhumane? (none / 0) (#110)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    That is the core issue here, is it not?  

    Parent
    Absolutely... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:51:22 PM EST
    that is the whole issue to me.  Calling it a right only gives those who care more for profits ammo, because it obviously ain't.

    Parent
    Not clear on your definition of (none / 0) (#111)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:47:34 PM EST
    "the right to life".

    Parent
    Put it this way... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:04:17 PM EST
    the right to life does not include the right to be free from illness or disease.  It does include the right to preserve your own existence in as far as you can preserve it, without infringing on the rights of others.  Forcing a doctor to treat you free of charge would be an infringement on their rights, as would forcing another to work to pay for your treatment.  We both would hope a doctor or fellow human being would do the humane and charitable thing...but to force them would also be inhumane.

    Or the shorter version, you only have the rights you can defend, including life.  It's just damned hard to defend yourself from cancer once you've got it...Mother Nature can be randomly cruel.  
     

    Parent

    And the government won't. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Samuel on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:12:33 PM EST
    You know, they have killed more people than any private company, ever.  

    Parent
    "Welfare" is run state by state now (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:01:54 AM EST
    Didn't Bush completely cut all federal funds to medicaid programs?

    Parent
    Administered by states but there (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:10:25 AM EST
    is definitely federal money involved.

    Parent
    I just googled (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    I thought they cut all funding but only some funding.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:12:26 PM EST
    Fed employees can cover a family cheaper than I can cover myself . . . .

    Didn't Obama talk about opening up the fed plan or some such thing when he was campaigning?

    Key words are (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:20:25 PM EST
    talked about when campaigning.

    John Kerry also said that every American should have the same great coverage as Congress when he was campaigning.

    Don't see either Obama or Kerry going to bat to deliver what they campaigned on.

    Parent

    We need some commercials (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:25:17 PM EST
    with Obama's words . . . refresh America's memory.

    Parent
    I'd contribute to a commercial (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:55:00 PM EST
    that repeats Obama's 2003 speech where he states that single payer is the way to go but first the Democrats need to take back the House, the Senate and the Presidency.

    The ending lines of the commercial, "We delivered. Why won't you."

    Parent

    Do you have a good link to it? (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:13:45 PM EST
    Here is one (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:38:55 PM EST
    "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."
    Link


    Parent
    You can see the video ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:29:44 AM EST
    No Payer (none / 0) (#44)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:43:02 AM EST
    not single payer. Create a public health service based on a military model. Have public clinics, hospitals, etc. No paperworks, no claims. You show up, you get treated, you go home. It worked for my family for the 24 years while my father served in the US Navy. I got GREAT government healthcare for nearly 19 years. It all turned to crap when I had start relying on private insurance.

    Parent
    My great-uncle... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:08:38 AM EST
    gets unbelievable care at the V.A...so good that I don't see how we could afford it for everybody without some serious reprioritizing.  They clip his toenails for him for crying out loud!  Full dental!  He's got stockpiles of free drugs...it's really something.

    I'm always  bustin' on him (good naturedly of course) to stop abusing his benefits and save some care for his fellow vets:)

    Parent

    He Mentioned it in His Recent Speech (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:53:12 AM EST
    If you don't like your health coverage or don't have any insurance, you will have a chance to take part in what we're calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that's best for you and your family - just as federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a Member of Congress. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. And one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.

    Obama Health Care Reform speech to the AMA June 15 2009

    Parent

    A republican friend sent me this (none / 0) (#35)
    by suzieg on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:33:02 AM EST
    unfortunately she didn't tell me where she got it from, nevertheless it's still interesting to read:

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats voted 31-28 to reject an amendment from Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), and Lee Terry (R-NE) that would have opened up the multiple-plan health coverage options available to Members of Congress to the public at large.

    Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who spoke at length yesterday about the need to ensure Americans have access to the same quality health coverage that Congress gets, came out against the measure when the Republican trio offered him a chance to put his vote where his mouth was.

    "People will say to us, `Why can't we have the same thing you guys have?'" said Gingrey. "We ought to give everybody in this country an opportunity to get this."

    E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) responded that, in his view, opening up the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to the general public was unacceptable "because it strikes the public plan." E&C Health Subcommittee Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said the proposal to let the public into Congress' health plan was based on "a false assumption" that the result "is going to be somehow better" than segregating Congress' health care from that of the great unwashed.

    Bringing Congress' Coverage to the Public Level
    A separate amendment sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt would have put all members of the committee on the record about the desirability of the Democrats' "public option" by forcing them to vote for or against the automatic enrollment of all federal elected officials from Congress to the President in that public health coverage plan.

    "We've been challenged by many constituents that `if there's going to be this government plan, shouldn't you be a part of it?' I agree with my constituents that if were going to pass this plan, we ought to put ourselves in it," said Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE). North Carolina Republican Sue Myrick concurred, saying, "If this is a good plan for them, it ought to be good enough for us."

    Waxman dismissed the amendment on procedural grounds without holding a vote.

    Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) argued that the amendment was outside the jurisdiction of the committee because it would affect the benefits of members of Congress. Waxman upheld her with a ruling of the chair, and the amendment was dismissed.

    Parent

    Nice speech (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:55:02 AM EST
    But it is my understanding that even in the best bill considered by Congress people who have any type of insurance through their employer are prohibited from participating in the exchange. So they cannot shop in the exchange if they do like their insurance coverage. The exchange is restricted to small businesses who employ 10 people or less the first couple of years and then expanded to small businesses who employ 20 people or less. Larger employers cannot "one-stop shop for a health care plan" using the exchange.

    So while Obama's speech sounds good it does not accurately reflect  what is being offered in the legislation before Congress. Very few will actually be able to shop for insurance coverage.

     

    Parent

    That was Hillary. (none / 0) (#61)
    by rennies on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:08:35 AM EST
    They both did (none / 0) (#64)
    by CST on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:35:11 AM EST
    Obama mentioned it repeatedly when he was debating McCain.  And yes, it sure sounded like a good idea at the time.

    Parent
    Two big items that I noted... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:34:25 PM EST
    ...in this story:

    1 - Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.

    and

    2 - Federal employees also enjoy a significant benefit denied the average American: There is no such thing as a preexisting condition, which keeps many sick people from obtaining insurance. Once hired, federal workers are eligible for coverage no matter their health, with no waiting period.

    Those are two big benefits in the governmnet plan.  I wonder how many private healthcare plans anywhere give an option of 10 types of plan, with no limitation for pre-existing conditions?

    There are significant numbers of Fed employees who (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:47:42 AM EST
    cannot afford even the subsidized costs of the any of the FEHBP offerings. My neighbor was one of them.

    Parent
    Back in the day . . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:52:16 PM EST
    I remember having choices with the larger companies I worked for. That would be pre-2000. Last company was one choice. Iirc, company before that was whittling down to one or had arrived there.

    Parent
    The Federal Plans (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by BDB on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    differ widely and the quality differs as well.  They are generally better than what private employers can buy simply because the government gets to negotiate on a huge pool of employees.  So we're better off than most folks (even if approximately 250,000 federal employees don't have insurance because they can't afford it).  

    However, speaking as someone who has Blue Cross/Blue Shield FEP (federal employee plan), let me tell you that all of the other issues that private insurance has remains.  Primarily the denial of care.  When I submitted a rather large claim (around $1000), they asked me for additional information.  Three times.  It took weeks to get reimbursed.  I had a friend who joined one of the HMOs (Kaiser, I think) and when they found a lump in her breast they decided to "watch it".  For a year.  A double mastectomy later, she's fine.  Another friend with a chronic disease had Blue Cross (I believe) deny payment for her drug because it was experimental (although they would happily pay for a more expensive one that didn't work for her).  

    So, yes, we have better insurance, but it's still private insurance where they make money by denying care.

    I have elderly relatives and they get every bit as good, if not better, treatment through Medicare.  And it's cheaper per person than the federal plans.  A lot cheaper.  

    A friend of mine, has a very serious (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    form of cancer. Her insurance company has denied payment for the chemotherapy drug that her doctor recommended. Initially her tumor was so big that it made it impossible for her to eat food and she had to be feed through artificial means. She has proof that the chemo drug recommended by her doctor is working since the tumor has shrunk enough that she is now able to eat normally. She decided to continue with the drug through the appeals process and now the insurance company is refusing to pay for the other normally approved drugs that are part of the chemotherapy cocktail.

    Parent
    Insurance companies should not be (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:45:17 PM EST
    able to hold people hostage this way.  People so fear that continuing a course of treatment that an insurance company has denied coverage for will throw them into a situation where all treatment from that point forward will be denied, that they often do not get the treatment they need when they need it.

    It's unconscionable.

    With regard to the federal plan, which is really a bunch of different plans that are all significantly subsidized, paying less for something doesn't always mean that it is better; sometimes it just means that it's less expensive to the insured.  

    The insurance company doesn't care who is picking up the tab, they just want to keep more of the premiums they collect.

    That's the business model, regardless of whether you are a federal employee or a private-sector employee, or paying on your own.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    No matter who picks up the tab, the insurance companies will find ways to increase their bottom lines by denying coverage and if it just happens to result in the death of some of their customers, no big deal.

    Parent
    Only logical: sick customers make claims, ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by cymro on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:53:45 PM EST
    ... dead ones do not.

    Parent
    well, (none / 0) (#40)
    by bocajeff on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:06:58 AM EST
    you assume that the government wouldn't make a similar decision. big assumption cosidering some of the stories coming out of Canada and Europe. Also, having spent 2 years with my mother having terminal cancer fighting Social Security over her disability (the gov't doctor spent 5 minutes diagnosing her) before saying she was healthy enough to work and then the judge took about 10 minutes saying the gov't doctor was a "bureaucratic ass" and my mom finally won - after 2 years of no income and me having to pay her health insurance premiums.

    Much of the discussion has to do with thinking the gov't will do a better job. Why? I have no confidence in running public schools, government budgets, used car programs, or anything for that matter.

    Parent

    Edger has provided us with a story (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:33:18 AM EST
    about the "horrors, I say horrors", of Canadian health care in his diary here at TL.
    Socialized Medicine Sucks

    $54 a month for health care premiums for single coverage.
    A total out of pocket cost of $18 for all diagnostic tests and surgical removal of his kidney.
    Medical unemployment insurance paid during the entire time prior to surgery and during his recovery period.

    Parent

    Sounds Criminal (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:35:28 AM EST
    If we adopted something like that, hink of all the children of insurance company workers that will be without food, shelter and clothing. I can't bear the thought... lol

    Parent
    Many of the worker bees who work for (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    the insurance industry would be needed in an expanded government run system. IIRC, the nurses association published an analysis of the impact on employment if we adopted a single payer system. It projected that more people, maybe in different capacities would be employed, not less. Don't have your great google skills (primitive at best) and am unable to provide you with the exact details or a link.

    Of course, the poor deprived CEOs and top execs might not be able to purchase another mansion or yacht.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:07:21 PM EST
    O
    f course, the poor deprived CEOs and top execs might not be able to purchase another mansion or yacht.

    Those are the ones that I was weeping over. The cannon fodder of low class drones.. well they will manage.

    Parent
    Please... (none / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    ...show us some of these stories.  Documented stories.  Not made up ones by some elected official.

    Seriously.

    Parent

    What makes the Federal Plan so great (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:37:12 PM EST
    is that we help pay for it.

    Why?

    Good question.


    And you pay for mine too Anne (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 08:11:59 AM EST
    I don't have a dollar figure but you pay.  I get to have the security blanket of some form of healthcare (because it gets sucky too sometimes) but I don't have to worry about paying for my sucky coverage like you do.  Of course I'm part of keeping America safe.  What are you part of?  I suppose you are part of creating the base of the economy that can be taxed in order to provide itself with a military.  I'm told that that means you just aren't a good enough person to get what I have.  Now if you were willing to lay down your life for your country then you would be good enough.  And they tell this to people who are "laying down their lives" to be Americans!  Isn't it time we all went to France?

    Parent
    Well, anyone who pays taxes (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:16:03 AM EST
    is paying for any insurance the government provides, right?  So, even though my husband's VA coverage costs him "nothing," in truth both he and I pay some amount for it via the taxes we pay.

    And I have no problem with that; he served his time in Vietnam and the government has decided that its use of Agent Orange may be the reason he has Type 2 diabetes, and so feels obligated (I think there was class-action litigation involved) to pay for his health care - and give him a small monthly disability payment.

    I suppose, if you wanted to get right down to it, aren't we, the people, the real infrastructure of this country, and shouldn't the government have as much interest in getting and keeping us healthy and productive as they do in making sure the roads and bridges are in good repair?


    Parent

    Because In An Employer Based Insurance System (none / 0) (#84)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:15:10 PM EST
    Employers are supposed to pay for health insurance.

    The answer is not to take away decent health insurance from those who have it, but to move to Medicare for All and make sure everyone has coverage.

    And, btw, I've given up hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in salary that I would've made if I'd stayed in private practice.  The one consolation I got for that was decent healthcare and retirement benefits.  

    Parent

    Supposed to pay, or supposed to offer? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:46:37 PM EST
    Because I think the number of companies that actually pay for the coverage is diminishing, probably in proportion to the increasing cost of doing so.

    My firm pays only the employee's cost; the employee pays 100% of the cost of anyone else on the plan with them - spouse and/or children.  Even with the firm paying the employee's cost, family coverage is running about $800/month - and that is for a plan that requires referrals, etc.  So, the employee with family coverage is out of pocket $9,600 a year, plus co-pays and deductibles, before he or she sees any benefit.    

    I talk to very few people whose companies pay 100% of the cost of insurance, if they even offer a plan at all.  

    I think Obama is completely out of touch on the "employer-based" model, not just because I think that model is not even close to what it used to be, but because it is stifling and restrictive in terms of the creativity and innovation that could be brought to the workplace and the workforce.


    Parent

    Meant to say (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    "stifling and restrictive when viewed against the creativity and innovation that could be brought to the workplace and the workforce via a single-payer model."

    Monday.  Blame it on Monday.

    Parent

    Teachers here in MO (none / 0) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    get employer paid coverage for themselves but must pay 100% of the cost of anyone else on the plan with them - spouse and/or children.  The costs are comparable to what you described. This definitely seems to be the trend.

    Parent
    Rep. Doc Hastings (R - WA) is using disinformation (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by gtnoah on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:18:25 PM EST
    to oppose health care reform by running a slimy push poll on his official, taxpayer-funded website.

    The poll asks:

    Do you support health care reform if it means you might be forced out of a plan that lets you see your current doctor?

    Besides being an out and out lie, the proposed plan does not do that, this is a standard MO for this guy.

    So we are trying to push the "Yes" vote in this poll over 50% and we are very close - then we have a newspaper reporter and two bloggers that are going to contact his office for a reaction, ether denying the accuracy of his own polls - and hopefully getting them removed, or explaining why he is voting against the majority will of his constituents by opposing the bill.

    You can help by following this link and voting YES.  Thank you!

    http://hastings.house.gov

    Keep at it! (none / 0) (#82)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    Hastings is corrupt to the core. He should have been removed from his position on the ethics committee after his shenanigans over the firing of U.S. Attorney John McKay.

    Parent
    Reminder: Pelosi has promised to allow a House (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:02:54 AM EST
    floor vote on Medicare for All, the single payer bill HR 676 Conyers has had on offer for years now. Even with over a hundred co-sponsors, Conyers was told he couldn't get a vote in previous years as Bush would veto it, if it passed.

    Now, we do have a president with a D after his name.

    Time to call your reps and just say: "I want my Medicare NOW. Vote YES on Medicare for All."

    11 pages long normal print format; 30 pages long with the spacing for comments (mark ups?), listing of sponsors' names, etc.

    Compare to the 1000 plus pages for the HR 3200 which requires setting up health insurance "exchanges," which uses taxpayer money to subsidize lower income people's purchase of private for-profit insurance plans with their notorious 30% of the health care dollars going to huge exec compensation packages, lobbying costs, marketing costs, denial of care bureaucracy, paperwork bogs, etc.

    One of the beautiful things Rep. Weiner did on Thursday during his "double dare ya, Repubs" amendment presentation was to have charts comparing all the current complexity and proposed complexity with the utter simplicity of Medicare for All--where, currently, 95-97% of health care dollars go to CARE.

    Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard (his studies on costs are used by just about every player in the health cost debates) and PNHP says single payer, Medicare for All, would result in overall $350 Billion per year savings, and that has been increased in the most recent studies to $400 Billion per year savings.

    That's $350-$400 Trillion over 10 years--and would provide comprehensive coverage for everyone, from day one, dollar one. No deductions, no co-pays, iirc includes vision and dental. Prescriptions.

    What's not to like? Saves money, saves lives, saves tress (fewer pages). Improves health and businesses' bottom line.

    Link to my comment with link to 4 Weiner videos (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:16:59 AM EST
    LINK to TL comment

    Also, Rep. Weiner will be on the Brian Lehrer Show this morning on WNYC, NYC's public radio station (93.9FM; 820AM), second segment. Not sure when it starts, maybe 10:20AM.

    Available on streaming audio; as of now comments can be left at the show's site (light registration required). Pod cast usually up later in the day.

    I would post the call-in number, but I can't find it on the redesigned web site (what's with all the business on so many web sites?), It will be announced during the program. Two comments already up.

     

    Parent

    Pelosi's playing a game (none / 0) (#83)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    She has been practically invisible during the health care debates. Suddenly, last week she went on TV denouncing the insurance companies as evil, and NOW she's going to let this vote be taken? There has been virtually NO DEBATE on the floor of the House over Conyers' single payer plan. This is her empty gesture to the Democratic progressive caucus.  She and Hoyer never put any muscle behind this effort, not even once in last six months. They know it cannot pass and then they will all be going home for August recess.

    Parent
    I plan to Get the Same Heath Plan as Congress (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:43:17 AM EST
    Keep running until I'm elected to the US Senate.

    Cutting Costs does not have to mean reducing (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:38:31 AM EST
    benefits.  Atul Guwande wrote a much mentioned article that goes a long way to explaining how to at least starting to fix costs.  

    My wife is a family physician.  For many years she working in private practice.  It was a constant battle with the insurance companies.  They could not take the time to do things like talking to patients on the phone or by email, even if it would avoid an office visit, because they would not get paid for it.  All the incentives were to do procedures that the insurance companies would pay for even if they were not needed (EKGs for example are quick, easy, reimbursable, and utterly pointless unless the person is actually having a heart attack).

    Now she works at Kaiser Permanente.  She is on salary and her bonuses are based on the health and satisfaction of her patients.  
    Look at diabetes.  It is one of the fastest growing and most problematic medical conditions in the U.S.  At Kaiser she has support from nutritionists, and dedicated staff who check in with patients, offer classes, monitor blood sugar, etc.  The better controlled her diabetics blood sugar is the more she gets paid.  In private practice she would try to get diabetics to follow the regimen but most insurance companies won't pay for the classes, nutritionists, etc., so there was only so much she could do.  (Several years ago the New York Times ran an article about the inability of Beth Israel Medical Center to sustain its diabities center because insurers would not pay for it.)

    While the insurance companies waste a huge amount of money on overhead, much of which involves trying to deny care, at least as big a problem is the screwed up incentives in our current system.  It is not at all clear to me that anything in the current bill really addresses that.  

    Call your Congress critters (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    Link to contact info.

    Let'em know that we're mad as hell and are ready to vote'em out!

    I am not advocating opposing the plan (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:26:37 PM EST
    I'm questioning whether it's the best we can do and expressing skeptism about what it will mean for those approaching Medicare age. I don't think the questions have been adequately answered. That doesn't mean that no health care reform is better than this plan.

    Parent
    If no plan means they don't reduce Medicare (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:03:15 PM EST
    I may be on that train. Reducing Medicare and getting a subpar PO/Co-op is just too unacceptable to me. We are supposed to be improving things, and right now I'm not seeing it. The questions are not being adequately answered for a reason, imo.

    Parent
    Save me a seat on that train. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:09:57 PM EST
    Selling HC in South Austin (none / 0) (#34)
    by suzieg on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:05:55 AM EST
    Wonder if this might be the problem (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    ThinkProgress reported today on the growing number of angry right-wing activists viciously harassing Democratic, as well as moderate Republican, members of Congress on health care reform. Jonathan Cohn wrote that these tactics represent "classic astroturf organizing, in some cases bankrolled by the health care industry." The insurance industry is sending staff members to over 30 states to "confront" lawmakers about health care reform. Simultaneously, Cohn writes, the health care industry will use the August recess to "flood the airwaves with ads picking apart reform legislation." Indeed, AHIP, the lobbying juggernaut for the health insurance industry, has promised to change its tone and begin running negative ads on reform soon.  link


    Parent
    Cost reductions by eliminating health insurers? (none / 0) (#50)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 09:32:21 AM EST
    Not really no.  None of these do that to the extent necessary w/the exception maybe of increasing the risk pool.

    1. Eliminate the profit margin - research shows profits are the smallest share of every dollar spent on healthcare.  

    2. Standard forms would reduce costs to medical providers - a standard claim form already exists - it's called the 837.  There are other "forms" you can use to obtain coverage info, get claim status and payment information electronically in a file right now.  Other items like referrals and pre-certification requests can be sent in electronically also.  These forms were developed by standards organizations years ago under the administrative simplification section of the HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountablility Act (HIPAA) to cover a wide range of scenarios.  The degree to which these have been implemented by doctors who don't want to shell out the money to their practice mgmt software vendor is the issue.  Eliminating the insurance company however, doesn't solve this problem.  

    3. Risk spread through the entire population - eliminating the insurance company doesn't solve this problem.  That's a mandate for coverage - nothing to do w/the insurance company.

    4. Government negotiated "large volume" prices" for drugs and equipment - this has nothing to do w/insurance companies but definitely will help.  What were talking about here however are costs associated w/a service - similar to fees charged by doctors, hospitals and labs.

    Folks need to understand, you will never eliminate the need for the health insurance company; or at least the infrastructure it provides.  Someone needs to be there who knows how to process a claim and answer a coverage question.  Even in a blue-sky, single-payer, Medicare-for-all scenario, the infrastructure the health insurer provides is there.  They are the ones who actually process claims under gov't programs today.  They are the ones who provide assistance w/everything but the printing and delivery of the ID card used under gov't healthcare today.  

    Costs get reduced by determining which doctor provides the best service only when it's truly necessary for the least amount of money.  We need to talk about this stuff honestly because the writing's on the wall; there's a high probability other industries along with health insurance are going to suffer.

    What about stuff like this? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    Based on this, the next time you want to argue with your Primary Care doctor's front desk about a $5.00 co-pay, remember that he makes an average of $149,000.00 per year. On the other hand -- using United Healthcare as an example -- your insurance company paid their CEO -- one man -- $324,000,000 over a recent five year period.

    If you are uninsured, try calling any one of these 23 CEOs and see if they will give you free insurance.

    BTW: 10% of 14.9 billion is 1.4 billion. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.

    Linkage

    It just shocks me how many people will fight the fight to allow the porkers at the current trough to keep on killing the rest of us.  Men wearing suits sitting at desks do not have more of a right to live on a yacht than the rest of us do to just simply live.

    Parent

    You'll get no argument from me on salaries (none / 0) (#60)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    Men wearing suits sitting at desks do not have more of a right to live on a yacht than the rest of us do to just simply live

    All businesses "suffer" from CEO's who get paid too much.  Unless you and I and the rest of us are serious about moving to a different economic system, I think we may be a bit up the creek w/regard to how much the bosses get paid.  I also doubt any legislation would tackle that issue.  If congress couldn't deal w/that as part of the bailouts.....

    I'll be honest and confess I know next to nothing about how compensation at that level works.  To your point though, I'm sure that CEO didn't get that all in cash.  The person behind the story should also compare apples to apples if the conversation is going to be honest.

    average of $149,000.00 per year vs. $324,000,000 over a recent five year period
    point being, there's probably a few docs getting paid well beyond $149K/yr.


    Parent
    Just my opine (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    But the CEOs killed the cash cow.  They are just sucking the corpse dry now.  We haven't hit bottom in this economy yet and I don't care what bullhonk has been written about it.  All that is left for us all to decide is what economic reality we want to come out of this destruction.  But now you want to go after doctors who make beyond 149K/yr?  Cuz that's laughable to me.  I think there was a day when perhaps doctors were overpaid but that was a long time ago now.  If the doctor that created the titanium rib makes a million this year I'm okay with that because I've seen him not sleep in order to save another child's life.  I've seen him argue with the FDA for ten years.  Someone give the guy a million please!  Hell, I'm fine with bypass surgeons that save all the fat suits lives making some heavy bucks too.  But what sleep did the suit do without and what child's life did the suit save with his denial?  The suit is a bloodsucker, plain and simple and you defend him vigorously while attempting to say you don't.

    Parent
    You've got it wrong, no defense of suits (none / 0) (#70)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    I'm defending the people who work in health insurance/healthcare who aren't "suits" - who don't take home millions in salary.  

    I'm also not talking about cutting doc's salaries either.  What I am saying is, if we are talking about cutting costs, and if those costs are primarily due to the services provided, at some point you have to look at the manner in which the services are provided.  To me, that means reduced salaries is an inevitable.


    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:18:34 PM EST
    the average worker pushing insurance denials in the insurance industry is eating us alive with the ghastly top heavy wages they are making.  I'd just like to pay them to do something constructive.  It is the upper level management that make as much in one year as every sinle one of those denial pushers combined that is where the health of our nation is bloodily being slaughtered.  To be able to skim that much cream off the top of anything .....killing someone was involved.

    Parent
    I understand you have personal experience (none / 0) (#73)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    and am sorry that it's been a bad one.  I disagree with you on the root causes of the problems w/health care & health insurance in this country.

    Parent
    Executive salaries (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:52:33 PM EST
    are not significantly driving our health care costs up.

    For example, the CEO of our biggest insurer, UnitedHealth Group, made $15.5 million in 2008. UHG serves about 70 million people.

    So if they refunded his salary, every customer would get back 22 cents.

    Parent

    The CEOs of the individual insurance (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:03:58 PM EST
    companies are not the only ones in the corporation getting multimillion dollar salaries.

    Evidently 2008 was a bad year for the CEO. In 2005, William W McGuire, CEO of UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Earns $124.8 mil
    What did he do to earn this salary?

    The Arizona Department of Insurance on Friday ordered United Healthcare to pay civil penalties totaling $364,750 -- the largest fine in the department's history -- for violations of state insurance laws.

    State regulators said United Healthcare illegally denied more than 63,000 claims by doctors without receiving all of the information needed to accept or deny a claim.

    The company also failed to follow state laws for promptly notifying doctors and patients about about decisions and appeals, the state said.

    United also violated a 2002 agreement to correct previous violations, the state said. link



    Parent
    And $125MM / 70 MM customers = $1.79/cust. (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    I make no claims about their ability, only that their salaries are not why health care is expensive.

    Parent
    It isn't so much that Congress has to (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    tackle the issue of salaries in a regulatory sense, but they could deconstruct many of the industry's arguments about how they can argue that there is little profit in health insurance, even as they are "managing" to be able to pay these huge salaries and bonuses and what-not.  

    Of course, the media could go a long way in that department, too, but it's just not as sexy as critiquing Palin's shoe wardrobe, or investigating Michael Jackson's doctor or whatever the scandal-of-the-week is.


    Parent

    Can you believe that someone (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:23:05 PM EST
    making $100,000,000 a year in salary can actually stand in front of anyone and tell them that his industry makes very little in profits :)?

    Parent
    I get pretty darned tired of being (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 01:33:32 PM EST
    treated as if I were stupid by the likes of banksters and health insurance industry CEO's.

    And politicians.

    It's just galling.

    Parent

    Except this has been tried (none / 0) (#90)
    by cenobite on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    Folks need to understand, you will never eliminate the need for the health insurance company; or at least the infrastructure it provides.  Someone needs to be there who knows how to process a claim and answer a coverage question.  Even in a blue-sky, single-payer, Medicare-for-all scenario, the infrastructure the health insurer provides is there.

    Except this experiment has already been run.

    Medicare and private insurance both have this infrastructure, and both have had it over the same time period. However, they don't spend the same amount on that infrastructure. Medicare spends about 3% on administrative overhead and private insurance is in excess of 20%. Canadian Medicare (their government insurance system) has about the same overhead ratio as US Medicare. So this is a very misleading argument you are making.

    US private insurance also costs more for health providers to use than Medicare. Medicare might pay less, but they pay, with very little hassle. US private insurance companies have entire groups dedicated to denying and delaying payment so that forces the health providers to hire extra people just to get the deadbeat insurance companies to pay up -- this is a significant additional cost.

    Parent

    And the argument (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    that Medicare's Admin overhead is only 2 or 3% is also misleading.

    Parent
    Medicare and private insurance infrastructure (none / 0) (#93)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:49:17 PM EST
    Medicare and private insurance both have this infrastructure, and both have had it over the same time period
    You're right about that.  The reason is Medicare and private insurance are the same thing.  Here's a listing of the companies that process Medicare claims today.  So how do these same insurers suddenly have substantially higher costs for private business vs. gov't business?  Wouldn't the federal gov't avoid such ineffecient companies?  Of course they would.  The real answer is administrative costs are lower because they simply aren't counted the same way insurance companies do it.  Monies for salaries, real-estate, computers, pens, etc. and all the other things needed to actually process claims are counted elsewhere in the federal budget.  

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#94)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    The list is as of 2007, which is somewhat out of date.  However the point that Medicare = Private Insurance Company remains the same.  Changes in the names of the players involved not withstanding.

    Parent
    Simple answers to simple questions (none / 0) (#97)
    by cenobite on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 04:37:28 PM EST
    So how do these same insurers suddenly have substantially higher costs for private business vs. gov't business?

    Because they can.


    Parent

    So how do these same insurers (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 04:55:33 PM EST
    So how do these same insurers suddenly have substantially higher costs for private business vs. gov't business?
    Because the private business subsidizes the gov't business.

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#108)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    This serves two purposes, lowers the costs for gov't and increases the likelihood the Request for Proposal submitted to the gov't is accepted and the business gained.

    Parent
    If the Federal government is hiring (none / 0) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:16:24 PM EST
    outside insurance agencies to process claims then they would be paying a flat fee and a per transaction fee for the processing. That and only that would be the expense to the government.

    Large retail companies do this all the time. They have local banks do their payment processing and pay the bank a flat monthly fee and a small per transaction fee for each individual item processed. That cost, and only that, is what is carried as an expense on the company's books.

    The bank's processing center is responsible for the processors salaries, real-estate, computers, pens, etc. and all the other things needed to actually process the checks.

    That is how it works. The government is not hiding those expenses somewhere else because they are not responsible for those expense. The insurance processing centers are.

    Parent

    Actually, that's not the way it works at all. (none / 0) (#107)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:35:28 PM EST
    There is no per transaction fee.  The gov't puts out an RFP; Request for Proposal, for the services it requires.  Companies that can handle the work submit their budget/costs and bid on it.
    .....because they are not responsible for those expense. The insurance processing centers are
    Um, not really no.  See the aforementioned RFP process.  But, let's assume for a minute this is true.  If the gov't isn't responsible, then the true cost of paying administrative items isn't reflected in the budget now and would be once the gov't becomes the sole payer.  Thus that low administrative % quoted so often becomes moot tomorrow.

    Parent
    Additional info on how Medicare is handled today (none / 0) (#118)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 07:37:01 PM EST
    2003 Senate Appropriation Bill:
    The Medicare operations line item covers a broad range of activities including claims processing and program safeguard activities performed by Medicare contractors. These contractors also provide information, guidance, and technical support to both providers and beneficiaries. In addition, this line item includes a variety of projects that extend beyond the traditional fee-for-service arena.

    Dept of Health & Human Services FY 2010 Budget in Brief:

    Contracting reform will transform Medicare claims processing from 40 cost-based contracts to 15 performance-based, competitive contracts (plus four specialty contractors). In 2009, CMS awarded the last of the 19 competitive Medicare Administrative Contracts (MACs). In FY 2010, CMS plans to finish transferring the remaining Medicare claims workloads to these new contractors.


    Parent
    Math (none / 0) (#115)
    by PeterC on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 06:23:42 PM EST
    Is there an error in this story?  15 trillion divided by 8.5 million people covered is an average cost of $1,765 per year or a $147 per month.

    That seems pretty affordable to me since I have to pay three times that amount.

    What about having only one base policy that all insurance companies and the government must offer...same terms, same coverage as say a Senator.  Then let them all compete on a level playing field.  


    Yeah (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:12:12 PM EST
    That is the same number I came up with. Pretty good, deal.

    Certainly an huge argument for cutting out the insurance cos.

    The same people would be paying at least $600 for the same coverage if they went through a health care company, like Oxford or Blue Shield..

    No wonder the Insurance companies always have record years.

    Parent

    who are employed by insurance co's out of work?