Could this signal the beginning of a change in the basic terms of the healthcare debate?
I have often wondered what the benefit was of having for-profit insurance companies administer/gatekeep basic medical care.
Certainly a step in the right direction and away from the lies.
“He’s an MSNBC stoolie. No true Conservative would say such a thing”
that’s all that will be said on that
Is the video different? Cause that’s not what your quote material says.
I haven’t played the video. If you don’t think Weiner’s statements constitute “logical argument,” please explain.
When I started reading this, I had Scarborough and Hannity confused in my head.
If this had happened to Hannity, I’d have heavied my pants. Joe, though, isn’t a flailing demagogue of lies and hatred like Hannity is, he’s just a confused little forest critter.
It does constitute “logical argument”, and Scarborough complements him on presenting it well, but that doesn’t mean the Scarborough changed his mind and was won over.
There isn’t any indication that Scarborough thinks single payer is the best option. He simply complemented Weiner on a good presentation of his side.
I heart Anthony Weiner.
Right. I just watched the clips myself, and the article is misleading. I think that Weiner explained his position well, and I think that Scarborough was polite, but Weiner didn’t change Scarborough’s mind.
I’d like to see a cite for private insurers spending 30% on administrative costs. I know here BCBSMI talks about only spending something like 6%.
Scarborough has many faces. Watch his morning joe program and try to square that with what he says on his talk radio program. The two types of media are very different but he seems to have different opinions on his two shows.
Seems their own website only claims 9% and perhaps they’re aided by being a non-profit.
It’s kind of an apples to oranges thing. The 4% vs 30% is based on money payed out vs money payed for administration costs. Because Medicare has a very high payout for fewer people (seniors, etc), it seems more efficient measured that way. Private plans have far more healthy people, with lower average payouts. They still need people to administer the accounts, but they don’t actually make any payments. As a result they look inefficient when measured that way.
A better way to measure the efficiency is administration costs per person enrolled. When measured in this way, private plans are actually more efficient than Medicare.
but they don’t actually make any payments…BUSINESS PLAN!..but they don’t actually make any payments…BUSINESS PLAN!..but they don’t actually make any payments…
Imagine that, private insurers have skewed the ratio of administrative costs to total costs by limiting the amount of money they pay out for claims. Seems like that’s their entire business plan.
Oh, by the way, nothing the Heritage Foundation says should ever be trusted because they are soulless cash whores who will drum up “research” to support any conclusions that they’ve been paid to come to.
Yeah, I worded that poorly. Private plans have a lot more healthy people who don’t even file claims, as a result, the plan doesn’t have to cut a check. I don’t know about refuted claims, but would think they are pretty neglible compared to the total amount of money flowing in and out.
Well, it should be easy to refute their numbers, then.
Ok so that accounts for some variation. Maybe that’s why BCBS has higher administration costs than Medicare, but does it account for a 750% increase?
Of note, here is United Healthcare’s latest 10Q. As you can plainly see, the administrative costs are no where close to 30%. I chose United Healthcare as I believe it is the largest health insurance provider. It is worth mentioning, however, that they do sell other products and services besides health insurance so the numbers won’t exactly be apples to apples.
For the six month period ending 6/30/09, the total revenues were $43.659 billion with operating costs (which likely primarily consists of general and administrative costs) of $6.165 billion. Therefore, the percentage of G&A to revenue is closer to 14%.
The same would be true of a single-payer system.