Because everywhere else where a public health option works is just DIFFERENT. And it Can’t possibly work in the United States because of a gut feeling they have. Don’t confuse them with statistics, because that’s just facts, not a genuine feeling. And also they heard an anecdote about waiting lists somewhere, and that proves that it can never work in the good ol USA.
(oh and things all went to hell after 1968. I missed that one)
This board is just unreal.
Why do you think the mean old insurance company ‘raised the rates’ for malpractice insurance?
Do you suppose it was because they were losing money at the current rates?
Frontier Insurance used to sell a lot of med-mal. They went BANKRUPT!
From your logic you’d think it was a monopoly. It isn’t. There’s plenty of competition, but if they pay more settlements, of course your rates are going to go up.
Unreal.
Our med-mal rates went up! Doesn’t have anything to do with lawsuits. It’s just those greedy insurance companies. Duh.
And a rip-roaring good ride it was, too!
So if Blue Cross is non-profit, where do all the premiums go? If they’re just denying everything anyway, you’d think they have 100% profit margins.
But they don’t.
They jack up salaries and bonuses. That does not go to profit on the ledgers.
Are you one of those simpletons who thinks insurance companies pay benefits out of the premiums they collect?
Question for you folks, just to clear up some ignorance here,
The companies that provide Health Insurance, would they be the same companies that also insure medical practitioners against medical malpractice?
I hope not, because I have seen it mentioned several times in this thread that Healthcare costs are driven up by rising premiums in Medical Insurance, and also because medical practiioners need to pay huge premiums to their insurance companies.
If this is the case, then it look like the insurance companies are winning on both sides, and have little interest in either providing medical care - find ways to get out of honouring terms - and have every reason to bump up the costs of both practitioners and patients, in fact, the greater the number of malpractice claims, the greater they can bump up their margin, and of course I seriously doubt that they would over exagerrate the scale of malpractice suits just to increase premiums now would they?
Just because you can be rude in the BBQ pit, does not mean you have to be.
I believe that many insurance companies take the premiums, and invest them. When the investments do well, the executives are lauded, and given big bonuses. When they make moronic investment decisions, and lose tons of money, the premiums are raised to cover the losses, and the executives are lauded and given big bonuses.
Allowing for the case that at least some insurance providers do honor their terms, this is fairly accurate in its analysis.
And it’s an interesting ethical question. A thoroughgoing Randian would say that the primary responsibility of the company is to maximize its shareholders’ profit. If that is (Case A) by providing excellent service to its clients, and hence retaining and gaining new satisfied clients, all well and good. If it is (Case B) by finding contractual excuses not to pay out while seeking higher premiums, that too is all well and good. The object, as with any retailer of goods and services, is to make the company money.
The solution, from my liberal perspective, is to regulate, including binding arbitration of any rejected or only partially paid claim. I suspect a conservative would claim that the market would favor companies employing Case A in the long run, and that is sufficient market control. (Of course, it does not address the injustices, which present law generally does not permit suit on if I understand correctly, from claims which were rejected in the interim.)
“Reserves”
Also, they are allowed to use that money to buy up other health plans, such as M-Care. My wife worked at BCBSMI, beleive me, there is TONS of waste there. They constantly have teams of consultants there on a revolving door basis, people from Deloitte consulting, etc who are just ther to soak up billable time.
Wonderful. Today we get conflicting reports about Obama’s position on the public option. Here, is it claimed, by his senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, that he’s still fully behind it. But now we get some indications that he’s instead in favor of that lame trigger (all to get Queen Snowe on board to defeat the filibuster). And all the while the leaders of both houses are trying like hell to round up votes (majority in House, 60 in Senate). I don’t know who the fuck to believe anymore, tho I’d sure like The President to give a press conference to help clear all this mess up.
There looking for the tipping point. Even though there’s widespread public support for an option, it doesn’t “poll well”, ask the question the right way, and it can look like the public is about ready to revolt against socialist atheism. People are nervous about public gambles that don’t involve bloodshed and patriotic music.
So the Congresscritters are trying to find the exact point of leverage. If they vote against it, how much will that hurt them with their voters? If they vote for it, they lose any chance of financial support from the insurance industry and the money right. If they vote for it expecting the gratitude of their voters, how much campaign money will he have given away to any prospective opponent?
At what point does the approval of your voters totally outweigh campaign finance issues? It can’t be close, it must be decisive. So they’re all dithering and dodging and waiting to see how it shakes down.
Get 'em nervous enough and they will buy a stall, they will make firm speeches and vote to think about all this some other time. For the Pubbies, a stall is a win, or as close to one as they’re gonna get. For the Dems, its not a defeat, they can claim to need to study the question a bit more than the fifteen years we’ve been arguing so far.
So if the Blue Curs can stall and get away with it, they will. But if the public polling gets enough one-sided so that they think they can or must abandon the insurance company financing, they will suddenly recover their socialist ardor and be hot to Trotsky.
The best thing you can do is a hand written letter to your Senators and representatives. Emails are kind of counted and shoved aside. But if you tell them you are a voter ,and will not allow them to sell us out again, you might help move them. The count has to be clearly one sided. Their most important job is to get re-elected. The big money people have great influence and finance campaigns, but they can not guarantee votes.
If you take the time and trouble to write a letter, they will see you as more serious.
This is posted on my Senator’s website:
I have always gotten responses to my email correspondence with my Congressperson and Senators.
I do them all. I email and write letters and have phoned. I don’t want to let this chance to change health care pass by. I am on my Senators and reps email lists and I get monthly updates.
But I have been told a letter gets more consideration.
Unfortunately the American health care system is not the best one. I am already excited what Obama’s health care reform will change. Hopefully the system will then be better than it is now. Additionally the car insurance system is actually also not the best one. I compared US and German car insurances and saw many differences. It is not that easy to find a good car insurance in the US. Hopefully prospectively it will be easy to get a good health care insurance.