 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: DougR Date: 03 Aug 09 - 12:19 PM The Barden of England: If the federal government establishes a health program in competition with the 1200 or so private insurance companies in the US, it will drive those companies out of business. How? By providing health care at Walmart or COSTCO prices. The private companies will not be able to compete with a congress that spends money like we have it. You may well ask, "What's wrong with that?" Low cost does not necessarily equate to quality of care. It is ironic that our president is preaching that the government should enter the fray as a provider to provide competition, when we already have over 1200 insurance companies in this country competing for consumers. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 12:21 PM We already have medical rationing. Well over ten thousand people die each year in the US because of lack of access to health care and because of insurance companies denying needed care to their customers. That's the definition of medical rationing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 12:23 PM If the private insurance companies in the UK weren't driven out of business when access to medical care became FREE to everyone, there is absolutely no reason whatever to expect that the private insurance companies in the US will be driven out of business if medical care in the US becomes available for Walmart prices. None whatever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: dick greenhaus Date: 03 Aug 09 - 01:14 PM Doug- The Post Office hasn't driven FedEx nor UPS out of business. Public Schools haven't driven private schools out of business Even the US Army hasn't driven Blackwater out of business. What's so damn fragile about Health Insurance companies? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: artbrooks Date: 03 Aug 09 - 01:17 PM IF healthcare is provided at prices comparable to those at Costco, and it is equal or superior in quality to that which insured individuals currently have, than I don't personally see anything particularly wrong with companies that have been charging more for less going out of business. Certainly, there will be some job loss at the commercial insurance companies - think of all of those poor individuals whose jobs are to By the way, Members of Congress have exactly the same health insurance plans as all other Federal government employees, and they pay exactly the same amount for it. And it isn't cheap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: DougR Date: 03 Aug 09 - 03:38 PM Carol C: Your definition of health care "rationing" is a bit off base. "Rationing" is withholding needed health care because of cost and age. Artbrooks: Perhaps you are right provided the health care provided by a government plan IS "equal" or "superior" to the care we have now. However, a question: if such a plan is "equal" or "superior" why wouldn't government employees, including the president and members of congress, opt out of the excellent plan you describe and join us "common" folks in the plan Obama is trying to shove down our throats. The Rassmussen Poll out today reports that 48% of Americans believe our current health care is good. Only 19% declared that they thought it was poor. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 03:54 PM We definitely have rationing based on that definition. The insurance companies regularly deny needed care to those they insure in order to bolster their bottom line. They don't make money by providing care. They make money by denying care, and they do that quite regularly, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of people each year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: DougR Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:05 PM Dick Greenhaus: Sorry, Dick, I didn't address your questions to me. The Post Office has enough problems without trying to put either Fed Express or UPS out of business. If the Postal Service had been operated more efficiently,there would be no Fed Express or UPS today. Ditto, the public school system. Blackwater? Last I heard Blackwater (operating under a different name now) is still in business. Why shouldn't it be? It's a privately operated business and they evidently offer a needed service some folks are willing to pay good money for. It's a question of supply and demand. Health Insurance companies in the US are not perfect but they MUST supply good services or they will go out of business. Ever heard of a government agency going out of business for the same reason? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:15 PM Insurance companies don't have to provide good services to stay in business. All they have to do is provide needed services, even if they do it very badly, and be the only game in town. Which is the situation we have today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: VirginiaTam Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:25 PM The Rassmussen Poll out today reports that 48% of Americans believe our current health care is good. Only 19% declared that they thought it was poor. Who is actually being surveyed? Many poor cannot afford home phone. Many work long and unsocial hours. Who was surveyed? Rasmussen And Gallup: Skewing Obama's Approval? One can make statistics say anything one wants. snips from the Washington Independent The question, the result, and the carnival barker spin-all are trademarks of Rasmussen Reports, a pollster that has become ubiquitous in the conversation of Republicans and conservative pundits. It is not a partisan polling firm, and it is not hired to ask partisan questions the way that, for example, John Zogby was hired to test the mocking anti-Obama questions of a conservative radio host. Rasmussen is influential because its carefully crafted questions that produce answers that conservatives like — 59 percent of voters agreeing with Ronald Reagan's view of big government, a 10-point plurality of voters trusting their economic judgment over President Obama's — are bolstered by highly accurate campaign polling. The result is that polls with extremely favorable numbers for Republican stances leap into the public arena every week, quickly becoming accepted wisdom. .....Scott Rasmussen is well aware of how Republicans use his polling to make their arguments. "Republicans right now are citing our polls more than Democrats because it's in their interest to do so," he said on Monday. "I would not consider myself a political conservative — that implies an alignment with Washington politics that I don't think I have." But in the early days of his polling firm, when it was named Rasmussen Research, Rasmussen balanced a cold analysis of politics and consumer opinion with advocacy for some conservative views. .....Since then, Rasmussen's business has boomed, aided in no small part by those "newspaper" questions that are blasted out to reporters and frequently buck up the Republican spin of the week. Rasmussen. The only poll that matters - the whole story here hmmmm! Not a pollster I would trust. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: dick greenhaus Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:26 PM Doug-- "It's a privately operated business and they evidently offer a needed service some folks are willing to pay good money for. It's a question of supply and demand." That's the whole point. If private insurance offer a needed service some folks are willing to pay good money for" they'll survive. And the folks that don't have or are not willing to pay the money, a National service, like the "inefficient" Post Office will have to suffice. A helluva lot better than the nothing that millions are living with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:36 PM Personally, I think the Post Office does a great job. I can't imagine having to rely on UPS or FedEx for sending letters. The cost would be prohibitive, and the wait time for delivery is not all that different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:50 PM "Everyone" who would benefit most certainly includes Dougie Not in Douggies alternative world, McGrath. "Remember that perception is not reality, that opinion, no matter how widely held, is not fact... [The United States] moved into an era in which stupidity was celebrated if it managed to sell itself well, if it succeeded, if it made people money. That is "glorifying ignorance". We moved into an era in which the reflexive instincts of the Gut were celebrated at the expense of reasoned, informed opinion. To this day, we have a political party�the Republicans�who, because it embraced a "movement of Conservatism" that celebrated anti-intellectualism is now incapable of conducting itself in any other way. That has profound political and cultural consequences, and the truly foul part about it was that so many people engaged in it knowing full well they were peddling poison." Charles P. Pierce's Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free (Doubleday, 2009) is illuminating regarding a certain mindset. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:52 PM "If the federal government establishes a health program in competition with the 1200 or so private insurance companies in the US, it will drive those companies out of business." Could not that concern be addressed with "GOOD RIDDANCE"? DougR, we in countries having universal healthcare provided for all have tried to address your concerns but you seem determined to argue for companies that are fleecing both you and your fellow countrymen. There is none so blind as those who refuse to see! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:53 PM Whether or not most people in the US are satisfied with their current health care (and even if we accept the figures from the Rasmussen poll, 48 percent is not a majority - it would be more accurate to say that 52 percent of those surveyed do not believe our current health care is good), is totally irrelevant, since those who do like the coverage they have will eventually lose it if Obama's health care proposals fail. That interview with the insurance industry insider was very enlightening. He said (and current trends back him up on this) that the industry is moving in the direction of forcing everyone to accept coverage that is more like the HSA in that they force the insured to shoulder a much larger percentage of the financial burden of their insurance and their care. So those who think they can just sit back and be happy with the coverage they have and not worry about anything are mistaken. In the not too distant future, they're going to be in the same boat as those of us who currently cannot afford adequate insurance/health care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:58 PM If the Postal Service had been operated more efficiently, there would be no Fed Express or UPS today. Ditto, the public school system. This, aside from being arrant nonsense, displays a profound profound ignorance of the history of the U.S. Postal System, of the history and development of private delivery firms like UPS (some of which pre-dated the establishment of the U.S. Post office)and most certainly of the history of education - both public and private - in the U.S. Business as usual for Doug. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:10 PM I'd be willing to bet money the poster criticizing the Postal Service doesn't use any of the private carriers to send their letters and other mail, either (non-parcel mail). I bet that person relies on the US Postal Service to deliver their mail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:11 PM And I'm guessing that poster also benefits from government run health care in the form of Medicare. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:14 PM Not just Britain, Doug. Every wealthy or near wealthy country in the world, and a good few poor countries, have managed to organise a system of universal health care. Various ways of doing it, but the bottom lien is that they manage to do it. You appear to think that the USA is uniquely incapable of doing that. "No we can't.." I'm not clear if the assumption is that the US government is intrinsically inefficient in a way that other countries' governments aren't, or that there is an inevitable pressure to reduce spending on public services to keep taxes lower. I think you underestimate your country, Doug. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:30 PM Not at all, McGrath. Our boy's simply a died-in-the-wool Ronnie Reagan Ayn Rand Franklin Delano Roosevelt hating anti-tax "Government Is The Enemy" and "Government Is The Problem Not The Solution" zealot. No reality need apply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:48 PM I've noticed, though, that a lot of people with that mindset have benefited greatly from holding government jobs and receiving government benefits and services, like our anti-government friend here in this thread. Which kind of makes them socialists, if we accept their definition of "socialism". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Riginslinger Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:59 PM Yes, since Ronald Reagan destroyed America government workers have fared better than anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Bill D Date: 03 Aug 09 - 06:02 PM "If the Postal Service had been operated more efficiently,there would be no Fed Express or UPS today." To echo Carol C and Greg F.....nonsense! The Postal Service is required to do stuff that UPS is not. UPS etc. do ONLY that which turns a profit. With Email taking the place of *gasp* writing letters, most 'mail' is advertising circulars and bills & bill payments, and even those are being done more & more online. Many things...from AMTRAC to USPS will face decisions as to the amount of subsidy they get. NO easy answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Rowan Date: 03 Aug 09 - 06:14 PM Which kind of makes them socialists, if we accept their definition of "socialism". "Socialise the losses and privatise the profits." Quite a common practice. Cheers, Rowan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 03 Aug 09 - 06:41 PM Which kind of makes them socialists, if we accept their definition of "socialism". No, Carol, it makes them jackasses. And they don't HAVE a coherent definition of "socialism". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: DougR Date: 03 Aug 09 - 06:52 PM Greg F: You know the history of the U.S. Postal service? I'm impressed! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Aug 09 - 07:04 PM Does anyone have any figures for how much of the money spent on private heath care insurance in the States gets through to the people actually providing the health care? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Peace Date: 03 Aug 09 - 07:08 PM Per capita, Canada spends half on health care what the US does. The services are about equal. In a word, the US spends too much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 07:12 PM In that interview linked to above, a figure of around 85 percent was quoted as actually going to provide health care, with the rest going to lobbyists, marketing, CEO salaries, executive salaries and percs, profits (obscenely high and getting higher all the time), and gold rimmed plates on the company jets. So fifteen percent of all of that money they're raking in is not going to people who are dying in the thousands every year, but rather to expenses that are non-existent in government run health care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: artbrooks Date: 03 Aug 09 - 07:26 PM DougR asked: "if such a plan is "equal" or "superior" why wouldn't government employees, including the president and members of congress, opt out of the excellent plan you describe and join us "common" folks in the plan Obama is trying to shove down our throats". Perhaps they will - they will probably have that choice - but I think it is rather unrealistic to expect them, or anyone else, to elect to do so before the plan, its cost and its benefits are defined. As of right now, there are 3 separate House plans, which are yet to be reconciled, and there is no final Senate plan. Once each has a plan, and the full House and Senate vote on them, they must go through a set of negotiations. Then, Congress must vote again on whatever compromise is reached. Obama is not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat - the entire process is completely out of his hands, as it should be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: DougR Date: 03 Aug 09 - 07:59 PM Artbrooks: at a recent Town Hall (I forget in which state)Obama was asked if he and Congress would be participating in the government plan if one is adopted. He refused to answer the question and was clearly nonplussed. Simple question. Shouldn't have been too difficult for a guy like Obama to answer. I think, Art, that you must be the only person who has not heard that the Congress and the Executive branch, probably the legislative branch too, are exempt from the proposed program. I would certainly be less apprehinsive If I knew the folks proposing such a program would be required to participate. And why is it not possible for that decision to be made before legislation is passed? That's what is expected of the American people? McGrath: I doubt anyone on this forum can answer your question accurately. Most here will probably reply that the companies make sinfully excessive profits. What is excessive? Well, it's in the eye of the beholder, I guess. However, if a company charges so much more for it's services than a competitor, that company will not be in business very long (unless it's G.M. (Government Motors). DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 08:04 PM No one will be required to participate in the public option. The public option will be entirely optional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: bobad Date: 03 Aug 09 - 08:58 PM Not only is the per capita cost in Canada one half of what it is in the US but outcomes, as measured by life span and infant mortality, are better in Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 03 Aug 09 - 09:07 PM In health care, profits always take money away from needed care. All of the insurance companies are charging excessive premiums, which means that none of them will go out of business for doing so, and all of them are denying care in order to make larger profits. They have the US consumer over a barrel, and that's where the insurance companies would like to keep them. Denying care to their customers so that they can make larger profits is always obscene, especially when people die as a result, as many thousands are now doing every year. The insurance companies are making very large profits at the expense of the people they insure. They are rationing care so they can make larger profits. That means we have rationed care in this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Bobert Date: 03 Aug 09 - 09:11 PM I find it real interesting that the same "haters" who attended Palin rallies and called for Obama to be hanged are now disrupting town meetings all accross the nation... When we leftest did this in the 60's the force of the entire governemnt, including the military, the FBI, and every police agency in the country was called up to try to stop us... Yet the fringe right lunies get a free pass to disrupt these meetings and shout down elected representatives??? Go figure??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 03 Aug 09 - 09:21 PM Greg F: You know the history of the U.S. Postal service? I'm impressed! You shouldn't be. Lots of folks do- historians, numismatists, & just regular folks who are interested in such things as how the U.S. developed as a country. You shouldn't expect everyone to be as ignorant as you are, Douggie-boy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 03 Aug 09 - 09:50 PM CarolC, There have been many times in the past that we may not have agreed but on this you're spot on! Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: artbrooks Date: 03 Aug 09 - 10:09 PM DougR, perhaps you could tell me exactly where, in either one of the versions of the House bill being considered or in any of the provisions of the Senate's proposed legislation, it says that Congress, the President, or any employee of any federal agency (those employees make up the "Executive Branch") are exempt, excluded, omitted, or anything else. Please, tell me. I admit that I've only read the original legislation a couple of times, and something might have snuck in behind my back. However, I suspect that this particular thing is a figment of the imagination of certain TV commentators and bloggers. However, I am entirely willing to be corrected. So - give me a citation to the legislation rather than some BS about my being the only person in the world who doesn't know this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Aug 09 - 07:06 AM "Obama was asked if he and Congress would be participating in the government plan if one is adopted. He refused to answer the question and was clearly nonplussed" I'm puzzled by what Doug is on about there, and am not surpised if Obama was nonplussed by the questrion, because it doesn't really make too much sense. Surely the "government plan" is that a new government backed insurance agency would be set up, in parallel with existing insurance agencies, including the one that operates for members of Congreess, and everyone would have the option of sticking with their existing arrangements or sawitching. That is the "government plan", and by definition everyone takes part in it, whether they switch or not. ............... As for my question about insurance, Mr Potter appears to have answered it (85%), and he would appear to be in a position to know. The thing is, the amount spent per head on health in America is much higher than elsewhere, and I was curious to know how far that reflected more being actually spent on providing the health care, and how much was taken by the insurance companies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Greg F. Date: 04 Aug 09 - 07:48 AM I'm puzzled by what Doug is on about... That situation prevails universally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: katlaughing Date: 04 Aug 09 - 11:41 AM From the Washington POST: Lifting A Burden Of Worry By Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, August 4, 2009 As the political debate about how to pay for and pass health reform grows louder and more contentious, we shouldn't lose sight of the reason we're even having this conversation: We have a huge, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the lives of all Americans, insured and uninsured alike. Health insurance is fundamentally about peace of mind. If you have good insurance, you don't have to worry about an accident or sudden illness. You know that whatever happens, you and your family will be taken care of. We can't eliminate all disease. But through health reform, we can give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance so that if they do get sick, they have the best chance possible of getting better without bankrupting their families. The current health-care system gives insurance companies all the power. They get to pick and choose who gets a policy. They can deny coverage because of a preexisting condition. They can offer coverage only at exorbitant rates -- or offer coverage so thin that it's no coverage at all. Americans are left to worry about whether they'll get laid off and lose their insurance or wake up from surgery with a $10,000 bill because they didn't read the fine print on their policy. By giving Americans choices, health reform will switch the roles. Americans will get peace of mind and insurance companies will start getting nervous. They will know that if they don't deliver a great value, their customers will flee. So they will start offering better coverage. Reform will close the gaps in our current system. When my two sons graduated from college, I had mixed feelings. I was incredibly proud of their accomplishments, but I dreaded the fact that they would lose their health insurance when they left school. The peace of mind that comes with health reform means college graduations can go back to being the celebrations they are supposed to be. Consider the entrepreneur sitting at her desk, dreaming about her idea for a new business. Right now, many entrepreneurs are paralyzed by our fractured health insurance system. They know that if they leave their job, they might not be able to get insurance for their families. So they, and their innovations, stay put. Health reform means unleashing America's entrepreneurs to chase their big ideas. Without reform, we will miss out on these benefits. And our health-care system will still be a fiscal time bomb. Recent estimates indicate that by 2040, health-care costs will eat up 34 percent of our gross domestic product. By comparison, the entire federal budget today is just 20 percent of our GDP. By acting now, we have the chance to slow health-care costs in a way that doesn't slash benefits or reduce care. Instead, we can make investments in prevention, wellness and health information technology that will allow the health-care system to deliver incredible results at prices we can all afford. Imagine a system in which your doctor spends as much time trying to keep you healthy as treating you when you're sick, in which you and your doctor have all the information you need to choose the treatments that work best for you, in which you never have to fill out the same paperwork twice. Health reform is the first step in that direction. President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health-care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring. The urgency behind reform has nothing to do with the schedule of Congress and everything to do with the needs of the American people. Nor should we let ourselves be distracted by attacks that try to use the complexity of health reform to freeze Americans in inaction. We've learned over the past 20 years that "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care" are code words for "don't change anything." With some insurers raising premiums by more than 25 percent and 14,000 people losing their health insurance every day, Americans want to hear something more from their leaders than "wait and see" and "more of the same." People have enough to worry about these days. Americans deserve the peace of mind that only health-care reform can provide. The writer is secretary of health and human services. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: DougR Date: 04 Aug 09 - 12:21 PM Artbrooks: I have skim read only the 1000 page bill in the House. I cannot refer you to any portion of it that addresses choice of health care plans by government employees. You are correct regarding my source of information television news shows. I certainly admire your fortitude for reading the legislation. Were I to read it, I doubt I would understand much of it because I am not a lawyer ...I assume you are, and bow to your knowledge of the subject. Bobert: It's a giant right wing conspiracy and I have heard that it was organized and put in place by Greg F. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Aug 09 - 01:24 PM Wait a minute here, Doug! ". . . the fiasco that resulted from the "Cash for Clunkers" legislation that occurred this weekend is an excellent example of what I mean. . . ." You almost slid that by me. "Fiasco," you say? Quite the contrary. The program has been a spectacular success. Many people have taken advantage of the program to replace their gas-guzzling smog belchers with smaller, more efficient and economical automobiles—to the extent that the program is running out of money, it's that popular! There are moves afoot to re-up the program AND—this should please any conservative—it has been a badly needed stimulus to car sales in the United States, which, prior to the initiation of the program, was in the Dumpster. "Fiasco?" Which Fox News Service commentator did you get that from? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 04 Aug 09 - 02:04 PM I think they're saying its a fiasco because it's been so popular it ran out of money. Now that's a stunning example of double-speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Aug 09 - 02:16 PM "I cannot refer you to any portion of it that addresses choice of health care plans by government employees." Why should there be any such portion addressing "choice of health care plans by government employees" any more than for any other group pf employees? Incidentally, BUPA, the major provider of health insurance in the private sector in the UK, is a non-profit organisation (the initals stand for the British United Provident Association. "...any profit they make is re-invested in better health and care services." Is the same true of the insirance ppoviders in the USA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 04 Aug 09 - 02:21 PM LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: bobad Date: 04 Aug 09 - 02:34 PM Executive Salaries of Insurance Companies Jul 27, 2009 — KZeese NAME, TITLE, COMPANY ANNUAL COMPENSATION H. Edward Hanway, Chair/CEO, Cigna Corp., $30.16 million Ronald A. Williams, Chair/CEO, Aetna Inc., $23,045,834 (2007) David B. Snow, Jr, Chair/CEO, Medco Health, $21.76 million Dale B. Wolf, CEO, Coventry Health Care, $20.86 million Michael B. MCallister, CEO, Humana Inc., $20.06 million Jay M. Gellert, President/CEO, Health Net, $16.65 million Stephen J. Hemsley, CEO, UnitedHealth Group, $13,164,529 (2007) Raymond McCaskey, CEO, Health Care Service Corp., (Blue Cross Blue Shield), $10.3 million (in 2007; up 78% from 2006) Angela F. Braly, President/CEO, Wellpoint, $9,094,771 Michael F. Neidorff, CEO, Centene Corp., $8,750,751 (2007) Todd S. Farha, CEO, WellCare Health Plans, $5,270,825 (2006) Cleve Killingsworth, Pres/CEO, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, $3.6 million (2007) William C. Van Faasen, Chairman, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, $3 million plus $16.4 million in retirement benefits Daniel Loepp, CEO, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, $1,657,555 (2006) Charlie Baker, President/CEO, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, $1.5 million (2006) James Roosevelt, Jr., CEO, Tufts Associated Health Plans, $1.3 million (2006) Daniel P. McCartney, CEO, Healthcare Services Group, Inc., $ 1,061,513 (2007) Sources: 1. Special Report: CEO Compensation, Forbes.com, April 30, 2008: http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/30/ceo-paycompensation-lead-bestbosses08-c... 2. Executive PayWatch Database, AFL-CIO http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm#H 3. The Chicago Business Journal, April 5, 2008: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28855&seenIt=1 4. Equilar, a Redwood Shores, California-based executive compensation research firm. 5. The Boston Globe, November 16, 2007 and February 12, 2009. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Aug 09 - 03:44 PM "Ronald A. Williams, Chair/CEO, Aetna Inc., $23,045,834 (2007)" My wife and I are insured with Aetna, through my wife's job at the Seattle Public Library. They take a substantial wallop out of Barbara's paychecks for that. The coverage is generally pretty good, but—there is an annual allowance of benefits. If you use up all of your benefits for a particular year, they stop paying for your medical care. And they don't pay for certain procedures or medical (orthopedic) equipment, even if it's prescribed by a doctor. I have a scoliosis (spinal curvature), one of the leftovers of polio at an early age. This can cause considerable discomfort between my shoulders and in my lower back. This is relieved by fairly frequent chiropractic adjustments and massage (medical doctors offer only surgery—fusing the vertebrae, which often leaves one worse off as far as pain is concerned, and it's irreversible). Aetna allows only a specific number of chiropractic adjustments per year, and if I need any more than that, I'm on my own. I have two wheelchairs. I have an electric, which I use for long "voyages" (say, to the nearby business district, or on the bus, where I may have to travel long distances on my own) and a manual, which I use around the house and when going someplace where we have to stow the wheelchair in our car's trunk (like when going to Bob Nelson's, where he tilts me back like a hand-truck and lifts me up the two steps to his front porch). The insurance company allows me only one wheelchair (no matter what my doctor says I should have). Since the electric was more expensive, I let the insurance company pay for that (that is, 80% of it. There was a 20% co-pay). I paid for the manual myself (lightweight and foldable, so after stashing me in the car, Barbara can fold it and lift it into the trunk--a little under $2,000). The insurance company's decisions often have little to do with the actual needs of the patient. It has to do with what they are willing to pay for, which is generally what they (not you, not your doctor) deem necessary. I believe most people would call that "rationing," n'est-ce pas? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Aug 09 - 04:21 PM Along with "No we can't", I'd suggest that the right slgan for the begrudgers might be "I'm all right Jack." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad? From: CarolC Date: 04 Aug 09 - 04:34 PM " ...and screw the rest of you!" |
