Posted on 10/17/2007 10:34:27 PM PDT by Lorianne
"The U.S. employer-based health-insurance system is failing," declares a new report by the Committee for Economic Development (CED). The CED is a Washington, D.C.-based policy think tank comprised of business and education leaders. And it is right: Employer-based health-insurance is indeed failing.
Between 2000 and 2007, the percentage of firms offering health insurance benefits fell from 69 percent to 60 percent. The percentage of people under age 65 with employer provided insurance dropped by 68 to 63 percent. In absolute numbers, those covered by job-based insurance fell from 179.4 million to 177.2 million.
Employers are jettisoning health insurance because costs are out of control. Since 2001, premiums for family coverage have increased 78 percent, while wages have gone up 19 percent and inflation is up 17 percent. The consequence is that health insurance is the number one domestic policy issue in the 2008 presidential race.
So what is the CED's prescription for our ailing health insurance system? The report promisingly begins by recommending the creation of "a system of market-based universal health insurance." In order to achieve this, the CED would make health insurance mandatory for every American.
The CED proposal envisions the creation of independent regional exchanges that would act as a single point of entry for each individual to choose among competing private health plans. The exchanges would set minimum benefit plans. The exchanges would also cut through the thickets of state health insurance regulations that add substantially to the costs of insurance. Individuals could purchase insurance above and beyond the minimum benefit plans with after tax dollars.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
yeah but if you are old and sick or something cuts your leg off, you’re going to be whacked with a major bill
Same companies, different divisions. It may be true that their "property and casualty" division might go broke, but that is only because of chained corporations. The "mother ship" is in no such danger.
If you’re old and sick with only one leg, insurance probably doesn’t top the list of worries.
Insurance and pharm companies do not own hospitals. Doesn't happen. In fact, it may currently be illegal to do so (with Medicare Part D). Merck divested itself of even its PBM (as Medco) so as to avoid this conflict. Not that that went smoothly, but the larger point is still true. Hospitals are not owned by either insurance companies or by pharm companies.
Secondly, hospitals are not failing at tremendous rates. In fact, higher hospital bills are one of the fasting growing costs in the healthcare segment. Most hospitals get paid at a percentage rate of the billed charges. So, if the hospital bills $20,000 and gets 80% from the insurance company, they get $18,000. As no one really sees that bill (or more importantly, most likely pays 10% or even a per diem amount of $300), people tend to think hospitals are not expensive. Check out the hospitals in your area. If they're like EVERY hospital in St. Louis, they're constructing something somewhere.
The principal driver of healthcares costs is demand. We utilize healthcare at a much greater rate than other countries. Higher demand, higer prices.
Remove the insurance and the prices will fall in line by supply and demand.
And here we agree.
Indeed (I know better than most). You suppose a major bill because it is what you are conditioned to believe. Veterinarian or veterinary hospital costs are tiny by comparison considering the cost of doctors and hospitals. Yet the service provided is quite similar (as are the pharm).
The dirty little secret behind employer insurance is that it is impacting hiring patterns. A company filled with overweight 50-somethings costs a bunch more to insure than a company with slim 30-somethings.
Incorrect. 1) Hospitals negotiate with insurance companies individually for the rates they will be paid. Their ability to negotiate favorable rates for themselves is based upon the demand for their facility to a large extent. 2) Hospitals are not going "belly up" by and large. Sure, there's some really poorly run facilities which are not doing well. But hospital costs are rising at a faster rate than any other cost in the healthcare segment (I believe it was 18% last year). Don't cry for the hospitals.
Here's an article from a few years back from USA Today.
Hospital costs
well of course. If a dog is very sick, many people will just “put it to sleep.”
it may also explain why poor people, who are insured by medicaid, tend to smoke more than the rest of the population, who are penalized by their private insurance plans.
My last mutt had developed several large benign tumors which were impeding his intestinal flow, heart, and lungs. He went under the knife (cut stem to stern), spent 4 days in doggy intensive care, spent a week total at the vet, and had several prescriptions for almost a month. He recovered to live another 4 years. The price was under $2500.
What do you suppose such a surgery would cost at a hospital, including all of the above?
And before y'all get too amazed that I would spend 2500 on a mutt, he had previously chewed the hell out of a guy breaking into my shop, and killed a dog trying to attack one of my kids. I owed him.
I would disagree. That is what holding companies are for. It is easy enough to play a corporate shell game as you probably well know.
Even so, we agree that insurance is propping up the whole industry (or I believe we agree). If not as I suggest, then what is your belief as to why/how insurance is propping it up (not agitating, honest question)?
Allstate...Blue Cross? I’m not following. Mother ship?
We can agree with this ... as my husband has been battling cancer for the last 10 months [he currently has the diagnosis of complete remission - thank God]. Part of the stress associated with treatment and recovery is always wondering if and hoping his employer does not fire him and he lose coverage.
I read that euthanized dogs account for 52% in cause of death in dogs. That means that if vets don’t offer a low price, most people will just kill their dogs and the vets won’t get any business anyway. If the surgery isn’t profitable, they will tell you that euthanasia is the best option.
Either/ any. Most insurance companies offer health, property and casualty, and etc. It would be surprising if each division wasn't a subsidiary corporation or separate corporation with controlling interests held by a paper-only mother corporation, just as a matter of defense against suit if for no other reason.
Medicaid actually provides better care than many of the low end HMOs.
What I addressed the first time was a quote I had been given to be added to my wife’s policy. Sorry if I misled you.
I don't know how that may be skewed (incl. shelters, pounds?). I would say that the surgery I described was pretty major, and other than a volume discount (we have horses too), I didn't complain about the price.
Same for same,assuming the vet made a reasonable profit, the cost of the same in human terms would be astronomical.
Or what? Prison? A stern talking to?
Or, you listen to the Hillary cackle 24/7 until you submit....
well yeah you have the taxing power of the entire federal government to service that part of the population. Nevertheless, it is not going to give people the right incentives for healthier lifestyles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.