Government co-op insurance? WTF?!

[ZorroSF]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32437468/


well whether you were for or against this gov't healthcare reform, it's dead in the water now. They bailed out AIG, and now they bailed out the health insurance industry and bug Pharma. There's nothing preventing co-ops from becoming predatory insurance companies that don't allow pre-existing conditions or recind their decision to pay for a medical procedures based on flimsy evidence of a prior condition. There's also nothing from preventing them to demand large sums of money for premiums and co-pays.

All those predatory mortgage companies and investment banks that started going under in 2007/2008 can breathe a sigh of relief that they now have some new scam they can invest all their loot into.

Back to our insurance coverage fight...

[rhatzy]

The problem with health care is that government have been involved in it too long. They should just get the heck out of it. Do they think there is an endless supply of MDs? The GP's are leaving in droves for specialties and no one want s to be one. Let the insurance companies operate where they want.

Mark

[Jack]

In many ways, I agree with Mark. Especially about the doctors.

I had a family member who worked for a drug company. They were one of the successful ones. Their profit was 6% at the time. It was not the cost of the medicine, it was the R&D that eat up profits. One of their most profitable items was birth control pills. The hard cost of the containers (cardboard and plastic), cost more than the pills inside. Factor in the R&D, the fact that many drugs never make it out of FDA trials and the bulk of the time their patten is in effect has already expired once it hits the market. They sell these drugs as fast as they can for as much as they can to cover R&D, their sales force to get the new drugs out there in a hurry, plus liability from lawyers. This is one reason why the costs varies so much from state to state and country to country.

One of their products was a vaccine for kids. The FDA told them how to make it. One kid in 100,000 gets a drug reaction that wipes out the kids nervous system. The drug company could still be sued. The lawyers venue shop to find a part of the country where the jury pool is most likely to give a big reward. The jury sees these kids who now require 24 hour care. They figure the kid and there parents deserve something so big $$$ is rewarded not because the drug company did anything wrong, the government told them the formula and how to make it, but because they sympathize with the parents. Ultimately the laws were changed but to only cover this particular vaccine as no manufacturer was willing to make the vaccine until they did.

I have no problem with a well thought out law, with recourses in case something doesn't work. When Congress doesn't even read the bill, I'm concerned. When Congress doesn't know how to pay for it I'm concerned. When the costs are based on 10 years, and Congress figures it will take three years to get it up and running, I get the feeling the public is being snowed on the actual costs. Break it down to what it is projected to cost each year, don't put three years at minimal costs to bring the cost over ten years down.

A couple of things I feel would help right away. Let health insurance companies cross state lines like car insurance. Do something about tort reform.

Can't sit any longer. Off my soap box now. If you feel different about anything I have said, speak (write) up. I won't be offended. At my barber shop, this is how we solve the problems of the world.

[Jack]

An article about Canada's health care system from a Canadian newspaper. http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...335rGu_Z3KXoQw

Note the sentence at the bottom about unsustainable. "(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

[ZorroSF]

not sure I conveyed my point properly. Obama had met with the insurance industry before drafting this up. They all got what they wanted, so you can pretty much figure by the time it gets to congress, it's not in the people's interest anymore. None of the information was advertised properly and it was way too easy for critics to attack it.

Essentially Obama had done the same stupid thing Clinton did except obama didn't hire his wife. How is that Change?

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/1..._insurers_have

It was reported by early summer the insurers had already won by removing the non-profit portion out of healthcare insurance. They also made sure that anyone signing up for these co-op insurance companies would be paying roughly 35% of their total coverage. I'm not sure what kind of coverage any of you have, but I doubt you pay that much in total. I think it's usually between 10-20%, maybe I could wrong. How's that for "Change" when you are still able to be bankrupted from healthcare costs?

If I had known it was this fishy I would've criticised it from day one. It really sounds like all they would do is fund the for-profit managed state health plans with subsidies. that's not cost effective. In fact I made a comment about this earlier this year somewhere on this board. I had noticed that the predatory insurance companies were managing state healthcare plans. the idea was that they had a bigger medical group who would see the patient, but it was pretty much a ruse. The doctors weren't being paid enough and all specialists pretty much dropped the plan as quickly as it was drafted. those insurance companies were making money off the state for administrative costs, but not really doing anything to earn it.

[Harrison]

Good points all around, y'all. I share your concerns and then some. I'll try to find the time this weekend to dig up some of the topics that relate...