Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58
Thanks Tree20Thanks

Thread: Health insurers in Florida request premium hikes as high as 71%

  1. #41
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,082
    Thanks
    2756

    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Wall St bankers and people like Warren Buffet buy insurance companies.

    I'll grant that tort reform is required. But it's all part of the same racket; if the insurers have to cover big settlements, they can charge more for premiums, more total revenue passes through their doors, and that whole 80/20% rule...suddenly their 20% is bigger.

    The entire system is completely fucking broken.

  2. #42
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,591
    Thanks
    29796

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    There are huge numbers of people involved, of course. Thousands upon thousands of people working for the insurance companies, the hospital corporations, all would have to be re-structured in order to function in a new system. It's not like it would be easy. But then again, continuing to fund a bigger yacht for insurance companies every year isn't easy, either. In fact it's CRUSHING people. It's time to deal with it.
    The retrofit will need workers, yes, but not as many. Moving to universal health care will likely leave 1 million unemployed.

    AKA new efficiencies captured, for everyone's benefit.

    Nonetheless, displaced workers deserve support. Retraining, relocation, etc.
    Thanks from bajisima

  3. #43
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,591
    Thanks
    29796

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Meh. Only in the short term. We can't keep a situation in place where the middle class is broken up and then squeezed dry by this industry. This is no small part of a process that is dissolving the middle class from the edges. I took a $2,200 increase in one year, and that was BEFORE the ACA was passed. And the year before that it was $1,300. How many years can I handle losing 1%, 2%, 4%, 5% of my earnings to pay for health insurance??? People earning $50,000 whose health insurance bill goes up by $2,000 are going to fucking feel that, big time.

    The problem at this point is systemic. Either we fix it, or it's going to break our entire economy, along with a few other cartel/monopoly scenarios. Either the insurance companies are re-organized to survive, lose some jobs, take some different role in the system, and we move on, or it is going to kill the whole goose.
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Wall St bankers and people like Warren Buffet buy insurance companies.

    I'll grant that tort reform is required. But it's all part of the same racket; if the insurers have to cover big settlements, they can charge more for premiums, more total revenue passes through their doors, and that whole 80/20% rule...suddenly their 20% is bigger.

    The entire system is completely fucking broken.
    Health insurance companies do not pay tort losses. Professional liability insurance is a property line.

    Tort reform -- an evil idea -- has nothing to do with affordable health care. Tort litigation is the consumer's best possible protection against injury or death due to negligent health care.

  4. #44
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41,938
    Thanks
    24686

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    The retrofit will need workers, yes, but not as many. Moving to universal health care will likely leave 1 million unemployed.

    AKA new efficiencies captured, for everyone's benefit.

    Nonetheless, displaced workers deserve support. Retraining, relocation, etc.

    I do have to say after reading what Dianne Feinstein said about UHC, that some democrats fear a "coal like scenario" happening if they implement UHC. They lost all those voters to the republicans. So they fear if even a million lose jobs in the healthcare industry, where will they turn? Most are clerks and customer service reps which already are either going overseas or automated. So they worry it will be too ugly for them politically so they cant get behind it and prefer to save the ACA and for profit healthcare.
    Thanks from Madeline

  5. #45
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,591
    Thanks
    29796

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I do have to say after reading what Dianne Feinstein said about UHC, that some democrats fear a "coal like scenario" happening if they implement UHC. They lost all those voters to the republicans. So they fear if even a million lose jobs in the healthcare industry, where will they turn? Most are clerks and customer service reps which already are either going overseas or automated. So they worry it will be too ugly for them politically so they cant get behind it and prefer to save the ACA and for profit healthcare.
    Selfish, stupid, unpatriotic corporate whores do not usually champion the interests of ordinary people. We need these politicians to fear being voted out of office if they RESIST universal health care. And we all need to vote progressive.
    Thanks from splansing

  6. #46
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,082
    Thanks
    2756

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    In fairness, it's a failure of the for-profit system, not just Obamacare.

    We need universal health care.
    Just a note, a market that was actually competitive, well regulated, limiting the size of the players so that they could not just own the market the way they do now...I don't see why that couldn't work. If insurers were limited to how large they could become, more of them would spring up to serve the market, and their natural inclination to compete would actually compel them to drive costs down. As it stands, it may as well be one company with different hands manipulating the state marketplaces.

    I firmly believe in competition as a productive force for good. Our problem is most people hear "competitive market" and jump to "free market" and without even noticing it, through a series of inaccurate mental equations, they've arrived at No Regulation = Competition.

    Of course, in this particular industry, competition could drive costs down, but it's also got to mercilously punish people who won't pay. No cash, no medicine.

    I think that's going to be a sticking point for most people. So if we're going to mandate the care, we really need to go ahead and pay for it, i.e., socialize the whole thing.

    I have yet to hear anyone advocate for leaving impoverished people outside to die if they can't pay. That being the case, how can we advocate anything but socialism?

  7. #47
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,082
    Thanks
    2756

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Health insurance companies do not pay tort losses. Professional liability insurance is a property line.

    Tort reform -- an evil idea -- has nothing to do with affordable health care. Tort litigation is the consumer's best possible protection against injury or death due to negligent health care.
    That's a fair point. But in the end, it ends up in the same place, doesn't it? The doctors have to cover that insurance, after all. It's a cost they have to cover, and that impacts the whole food chain, right down to how much we pay for things, or how much our insurance pays for things. So in a way, they do indirectly cover those settlements, by paying the doctors' premiums for that insurance.

    Tort reform is an evil idea? Seems like most of the lawsuits against the docs that I see are pretty frivolous, and start from a position of the patient assuming literally zero responsibility for their own health. Sure, if your doctor shows up hungover and amputates the wrong leg, you should be able to fucking bury him. But I don't think truly negligent care is the fact of the matter most of the time, do you? It would be interesting to see how many of those lawsuits end in settlements, because the lawyers are so expensive it's cheaper than defending oneself, how many are actually defended and won, and how many actually go all the way through and negligence is found and punished. I'll bet you that last bit is infinitesimally small.

  8. #48
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,591
    Thanks
    29796

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Just a note, a market that was actually competitive, well regulated, limiting the size of the players so that they could not just own the market the way they do now...I don't see why that couldn't work. If insurers were limited to how large they could become, more of them would spring up to serve the market, and their natural inclination to compete would actually compel them to drive costs down. As it stands, it may as well be one company with different hands manipulating the state marketplaces.

    I firmly believe in competition as a productive force for good. Our problem is most people hear "competitive market" and jump to "free market" and without even noticing it, through a series of inaccurate mental equations, they've arrived at No Regulation = Competition.

    Of course, in this particular industry, competition could drive costs down, but it's also got to mercilously punish people who won't pay. No cash, no medicine.

    I think that's going to be a sticking point for most people. So if we're going to mandate the care, we really need to go ahead and pay for it, i.e., socialize the whole thing.

    I have yet to hear anyone advocate for leaving impoverished people outside to die if they can't pay. That being the case, how can we advocate anything but socialism?
    The enforcement of antitrust laws against insurance companies would be revolutionary. They never have been, just as they were/are exempt from the bankruptcy laws.

    You are suggesting 100 private, for-profit health insurance companies would be able to turn a profit in a market where 5 large companies cannot. But too many costs, such as data processing, are fixed. Multiplying them will not reduce premium rates, and will almost certainly raise them.

    Significantly.

    Private, for-profit health insurance companies are simply the wrong model. The system is irretrievably broken, and ONLY universal health care can work.

    It is almost immaterial whether the poor can get life-saving care. Healthy communities and a healthy economy need healthy workers, with access to such things as prenatal care, preventative care, etc. Only about 25% of Americans will be working age by 2025; we cannot afford to diminish that labor pool by eliminating anyone with a curable illness or injury.

  9. #49
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,591
    Thanks
    29796

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    That's a fair point. But in the end, it ends up in the same place, doesn't it? The doctors have to cover that insurance, after all. It's a cost they have to cover, and that impacts the whole food chain, right down to how much we pay for things, or how much our insurance pays for things. So in a way, they do indirectly cover those settlements, by paying the doctors' premiums for that insurance.

    Tort reform is an evil idea? Seems like most of the lawsuits against the docs that I see are pretty frivolous, and start from a position of the patient assuming literally zero responsibility for their own health. Sure, if your doctor shows up hungover and amputates the wrong leg, you should be able to fucking bury him. But I don't think truly negligent care is the fact of the matter most of the time, do you? It would be interesting to see how many of those lawsuits end in settlements, because the lawyers are so expensive it's cheaper than defending oneself, how many are actually defended and won, and how many actually go all the way through and negligence is found and punished. I'll bet you that last bit is infinitesimally small.
    You are correct that most negligent claims are settled. You are incorrect that most such claims are frivolous. There's a neonatal injury fund in most states because Ob/Gyns wanted to avoid the devastating injuries of babies born with birth injuries, from being too long in the birth canal, dropped by the doctor, etc. IOW, 100% preventable injuries committed by bad doctors.

    Reduce the horrors of negligent health care providers, bad drugs, bad medical devices, missed diagnostic tests, etc. by driving crappy providers out of the medical field, not by making the public self-insure against these risks.

    Do you think a doctor who walks away from a woman in labor, causing her baby to be born with devastating injuries, belongs in the medical profession?

  10. #50
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,082
    Thanks
    2756

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    You are correct that most negligent claims are settled. You are incorrect that most such claims are frivolous. There's a neonatal injury fund in most states because Ob/Gyns wanted to avoid the devastating injuries of babies born with birth injuries, from being too long in the birth canal, dropped by the doctor, etc. IOW, 100% preventable injuries committed by bad doctors.

    Reduce the horrors of negligent health care providers, bad drugs, bad medical devices, missed diagnostic tests, etc. by driving crappy providers out of the medical field, not by making the public self-insure against these risks.

    Do you think a doctor who walks away from a woman in labor, causing her baby to be born with devastating injuries, belongs in the medical profession?
    Mistakes != negligence. Humans make errors and judgement calls. The "horrors" of negligent healthcare look an awful lot like the realities of healthcare delivered by imperfect people...who then get sued. Driving "crappy" i.e., human doctors out of the field is going to leave not a whole lot left to choose from.

    I guaran-goddamn-tee you that EVERY doctor you have ever met has been sued MULTIPLE times for some fucking bullshit that amounts to, "I didn't get better, in hindsight we can see maybe another approach would have worked better, I'm a fat fuck who makes myself sick constantly, so you're negligent and I want my money." The response is, "Fine, shut them up, get them out of here, pay them off, and the doctors go on doing what they do, passing the cost of those claims/their insurance on to us all."

    If you call an IT guy to fix your server and sign up with him, you grant that he will do his best, he might make mistakes or there might be things about your system that are unknown and could cause problems...and you cannot sue him for lost revenue in your company because he makes a mistake. That's standard IT-guy contract language. Now I'll grant that healthcare brings a bit more to the table, people's health is on the line, not their servers. But the analogy works. People make mistakes and they aren't liable for everything and anything that might arise from their best efforts. And really, while a server may not be your life, if you blow up a guy's server trying to fix it and he loses all his data and goes out of business and ends up working in McDonald's living in the poor house...I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've impacted him almost as much as you would if you amputated the wrong finger.

    People should definitely be able to sue for MALPRACTICE. But the notion of what constitutes malpractice seems obscene to me. It's an open invitation to gold-digging scumbags and bitter people who refuse to acknowledge that life comes with some risks and they lost a roll of the dice along the way.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11th August 2017, 06:14 PM
  2. Obama administration confirms double-digit premium hikes
    By excalibur in forum Current Events
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 26th October 2016, 11:16 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 18th November 2015, 07:13 PM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2nd June 2015, 01:05 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed