Headphones, Running and the Government

Expert

3126

Boise, ID

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

I was happy to hear Obama mention tort reform in his state of the union. A lot of costs are bound up in malpractice insurance.

My sister is a physical therapist and a malpractice policy for just her would run around $25,000 a year. Her current income is right at $40,000 a year. With her student loans, house payment and a brand new baby there is no way they would be making it if she had to carry the insurance.

It's ridiculous that a doctor has to live like a poor person to afford insurance to pay ridiculous lawsuits because when things go wrong people see dollar signs. So I think tort reform would be a nice place to start.

I also wonder about our expectations of health care. I know this is all personal decision and that I am not the norm, but I don't go to the doctor unless I absolutely have to. I used to be a government employee so I had the best in health insurance and I never used it. If I am sick I buy OJ, stay in bed and deal with it. The only times I have been to a doctor are when bones are broken and even then it is the doc in a box, not the ER. My wife on the other hand comes from a family where you go to the doc if you have a runny nose for two hours. She had a cold right before we got married, went to the doc in a box, he said "you have the crud go home" and charged her $500 for the office visit. Insurance paid $200, she paid $300. Needless to say she hasn't been to the doc since we got married and she is still alive.

I had a GF force me into the ER once because I was having really bad chest pains and I didn't want to go. I walked in and said I am uninsured and I don't want to be here so do whatever you can do for free. They offered to check my blood pressure, I agreed. I sat in the ER for over two hours waiting for an available nurse and I watched droves of stomach aches, sunburns, bruises, coughs, colds, etc. walk through the ER and be treated.

Insurance, nor medicare can afford to pay for everyone's stomach ache and sunburn. If you have a sunburn, got get some aloe and deal with it. I'm not sure how to fix that problem. Perhaps tighten up the insurance and make people pay cash for petty things and only cover big stuff (which would probably save a lot in medicare funds).

A quandry indeed. I just wonder if the government got out of it all together and let the private sector take over if we wouldn't be better off. I paid over a grand in medicare taxes this year. I would much rather give that money to a private organization that I trusted would use the money for people who really needed it.

My Race Log

Expert

3126

Boise, ID

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

Scooby and Core,

I was referring to the pre-existing condition being included in the healthy people pool.

Someone who was uninsured and suffered the "one catastrophic event" should not be suddenly thrust into the pool of healthy people who sometimes get sick or might suffer that event.

I understand that some will get more than they put in and some will never get anything back. But someone who is not in the pool, who then suffers an event that would be covered by the pool, should not be entitled to entry into the pool after the fact.

Unfortunately the way the bill is currently written (according to the Idaho Department of Insurance) if you chose to opt out of having health insurance you will owe a penalty of between $250 and $750 a year. A policy for my wife and I would easily run $5,000 a year. But with no limit on pre existing conditions I can't be denied health insurance (entrance to the pool). So I pay the penalty, wait till I find out I have cancer, and then enter the pool because I can't be denied access.

The system can't sustain itself in that fashion.

My Race Log

Champion

6056

Menomonee Falls, WI

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

coredump - 2011-01-26 4:17 PM

< If the healthy are unwilling to help the sick, the strong unwilling to help the weak, is that really the society you want us to strive to become? It absolutely means that some will bear more burden than others, yes, I don't understand why that is looked down upon as something bad.

This is where we disagree, because in most cases I see it as the responsible being forced to help the irresponsible. There is no "right" to healthcare and I'll never be convinced otherwise. It is up to the individual to provide for their own care and their own insurance, just as it their responsibility to put food on their own table and a roof over their own heads. If an individual does not want to accept that responsibility, then, well, they've made their bed and they can lay sick in it.

Edited by scoobysdad 2011-01-26 4:58 PM

My Race Log

Expert

1146

Johns Creek, Georgia

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

My SWIM P3 is off limits, and my IPOD doesn't work underwater anyway

My Race Log

Expert

1416

San Luis Obispo, CA

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

"I'll give you my gun headphones when you take it them from my cold, dead hands ears!"

My Race Log

Resident Curmudgeon

25290

The Road Back

Gold member

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

blbriley - 2011-01-26 5:39 PM "I'll give you my gun headphones when you take it them from my cold, dead hands ears!"

I think that was said back on page 1.

My Race Log

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

mr2tony - 2011-01-26 1:54 PM Well, at least we all agree that change is needed. It's the type of change that's in question. Surely there's a happy medium somewhere. We can't, as a civilized society, let people die or suffer from lack of healthcare because private insurance is too expensive, yet we can't let a percentage of people bear the burden for those who aren't willing, or can't pay for their own. Quite a quandary.

Lots of good points in the last few posts.

One thing worth mentioning is that it's NOT the insurance that's too expensive (relatively speaking) it's the cost of the medical care/treatment. For the most part the unaffordable insurance is being blamed on the insurance companies, all they are doing is paying the bills sent to them by the helath care providers.

As far the catastrophic costs go, I think the insurance companies need to be able to have a cap, I don't know what it should be, possibly having a cap and an option that people could purchase a higher cap.

My Race Log

Master

2946

Centennial, CO

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

crusevegas - 2011-01-26 11:15 PM

One thing worth mentioning is that it's NOT the insurance that's too expensive (relatively speaking) it's the cost of the medical care/treatment. For the most part the unaffordable insurance is being blamed on the insurance companies, all they are doing is paying the bills sent to them by the helath care providers.

As far the catastrophic costs go, I think the insurance companies need to be able to have a cap, I don't know what it should be, possibly having a cap and an option that people could purchase a higher cap.

Actually, the insurance companies make a tremendous amount of profit. They are not just paying bills, but hoarding money so as to protect themselves from losing money on a customer.

Secondly, insurance companies are just as big or bigger organizations that could cut tremendous amounts of fat from their organizations, thus eleminating the amount that they have to take from customers.

And yes, you are right, the beurocracy of health care organizations (hospitals, private medical clinics and doctors) are just as bad. How often are we subjected to tests to protect the doctors from misdiagnosis or law suits.

I believe we could definitely make strides if we: 1. Capped law suit limits. 2. Did not allow for the public trading of insurance stock. 3. Had more competition and options for health care coverage.

My Race Log

Champion

34263

Chicago

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

velocomp - 2011-01-27 7:16 AM

crusevegas - 2011-01-26 11:15 PM

One thing worth mentioning is that it's NOT the insurance that's too expensive (relatively speaking) it's the cost of the medical care/treatment. For the most part the unaffordable insurance is being blamed on the insurance companies, all they are doing is paying the bills sent to them by the helath care providers.

As far the catastrophic costs go, I think the insurance companies need to be able to have a cap, I don't know what it should be, possibly having a cap and an option that people could purchase a higher cap.

Actually, the insurance companies make a tremendous amount of profit. They are not just paying bills, but hoarding money so as to protect themselves from losing money on a customer.

Secondly, insurance companies are just as big or bigger organizations that could cut tremendous amounts of fat from their organizations, thus eleminating the amount that they have to take from customers.

And yes, you are right, the beurocracy of health care organizations (hospitals, private medical clinics and doctors) are just as bad. How often are we subjected to tests to protect the doctors from misdiagnosis or law suits.

I believe we could definitely make strides if we: 1. Capped law suit limits. 2. Did not allow for the public trading of insurance stock. 3. Had more competition and options for health care coverage.

We need to stop being such a litigiuos society. Ask any doctor on here and I can pretty much guess they'll say their biggest expense is malpractice insurance. Well, right behind those stethoscopes they use that were designed by top engineers at NASA to stay perpetually cold.

My Race Log

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

velocomp - 2011-01-27 5:16 AM

crusevegas - 2011-01-26 11:15 PM

One thing worth mentioning is that it's NOT the insurance that's too expensive (relatively speaking) it's the cost of the medical care/treatment. For the most part the unaffordable insurance is being blamed on the insurance companies, all they are doing is paying the bills sent to them by the helath care providers.

As far the catastrophic costs go, I think the insurance companies need to be able to have a cap, I don't know what it should be, possibly having a cap and an option that people could purchase a higher cap.

Actually, the insurance companies make a tremendous amount of profit. They are not just paying bills, but hoarding money so as to protect themselves from losing money on a customer.

The "hoarding" is called reserves and a necessary thing to prevent them from going out of business and leaving their customers without any coverage or having hughe swings in premiums. Most health insurance companies operate on less than 5% profit I believe.

Secondly, insurance companies are just as big or bigger organizations that could cut tremendous amounts of fat from their organizations, thus eleminating the amount that they have to take from customers.

I don't know what you consider "tremendous" but here is a good exercise for you, what is the percent that insurance companies pay out in claims for every dollar collected? I believe you will find that to be be greater than80%. Even if you eliminate every employee, every bit of profit every thing that they pay for including fraud prevention and eleminate all of that you would still have over 80% of the premium (and probably closer to 88%) to be paid, but we both know that claims wouldn't pay themselves. What do you say is a reasonable amout/percent for administration? What is a reasonable percent for them to have in their reserves/hoarding fund?

And yes, you are right, the beurocracy of health care organizations (hospitals, private medical clinics and doctors) are just as bad. How often are we subjected to tests to protect the doctors from misdiagnosis or law suits.

This was the main reason that I felt Obama care which passed last year was BS, if they were serious about reducing health care costs that would have been part of it.

I believe we could definitely make strides if we: 1. Capped law suit limits. 2. Did not allow for the public trading of insurance stock. 3. Had more competition and options for health care coverage.

1. capping law suits would have some effect but not as much as if the courts had the system of loser pays for all costs including the other parties expenses. The cost to defend or the defensive medicie would still be alive and well with the cap only solution.

2. Not allowing Health Insurance companies to be traded publically would just reduce competition I don't see how that would have a positive affect on health care costs.

3. Agreed which is why I believe that your #2 is #2

Edited by crusevegas 2011-01-27 10:05 AM

My Race Log

Expert

3126

Boise, ID

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

velocomp - 2011-01-27 6:16 AM

crusevegas - 2011-01-26 11:15 PM

One thing worth mentioning is that it's NOT the insurance that's too expensive (relatively speaking) it's the cost of the medical care/treatment. For the most part the unaffordable insurance is being blamed on the insurance companies, all they are doing is paying the bills sent to them by the helath care providers.

As far the catastrophic costs go, I think the insurance companies need to be able to have a cap, I don't know what it should be, possibly having a cap and an option that people could purchase a higher cap.

Actually, the insurance companies make a tremendous amount of profit. They are not just paying bills, but hoarding money so as to protect themselves from losing money on a customer.

Secondly, insurance companies are just as big or bigger organizations that could cut tremendous amounts of fat from their organizations, thus eleminating the amount that they have to take from customers.

And yes, you are right, the beurocracy of health care organizations (hospitals, private medical clinics and doctors) are just as bad. How often are we subjected to tests to protect the doctors from misdiagnosis or law suits.

I believe we could definitely make strides if we: 1. Capped law suit limits. 2. Did not allow for the public trading of insurance stock. 3. Had more competition and options for health care coverage.

I would be interested to see some actual data on this "tremendous amount of profit" that insurance companies are making.

There are two major companies in Idaho and they both spend more than 80% of the money they take in on paying claims. That leaves 20% for operating costs, agent comissions and reserves.

There are already good regulations in place for insurance companies. Any rate charged has to be filed with the state department of insurance and that department make sure that the insurance company isn't ripping people off to make huge profits.

Any money they "horde" is as vegas said, reserves that they are required by state law to have.

Health insurance companies have been demonized by politicians and the media, but I think the scrutiny should be aimed at the courts and the hospitals.

My friend's wife just had a baby in the hospital and it cost him $15k out of pocket as he has no insurance. $15k is a bit ridiculous in my opinion and that has nothing to do with insurance company profits, that is just high cost of health care.

My Race Log

Veteran

698

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

Ask any doctor on here and I can pretty much guess they'll say their biggest expense is malpractice insurance.

While I agree that this is a problem, the flip side is that more care is taken. In England they are much less prone to running to courts then in the US, and I have seen paramedics there act in such ways that in New York would get them fired on the spot. The same crap would NOT be attempted in the states because the medics and their service would be in court so fast their heads would spin. And for damn good reason. In Canada, some of those "unnecessary" tests would have saved me a few days of severe pain.

Have the courts make it harder to succeed with frivolous claims perhaps, but unfortunately, I do see an advantage of doctors realizing that their screw-ups could cost them. Perhaps an outside panel who would investigate wrongdoings?

Champion

34263

Chicago

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

Aarondb4 - 2011-01-27 10:17 AM
I would be interested to see some actual data on this "tremendous amount of profit" that insurance companies are making.

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- UnitedHealth Group Inc. , the largest U.S. insurer by sales, reported fourth-quarter profit higher than analysts’ estimates and gave its chief financial officer responsibility for the company’s health-services businesses.
Net income climbed 10 percent to $1.04 billion, or 94 cents a share, the Minnetonka, Minnesota-based insurer said in a statement today. The results beat the average estimate of 84 cents by 13 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg, as mandates from the health-care overhaul weren’t as demanding as the company expected and U.S. unemployment lessened use of medical care.

Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- WellPoint Inc. , the largest U.S. health insurer by enrollment, reported fourth-quarter profit that rose more than analyst estimates as a national jobless rate above 9 percent kept Americans out of doctors’ offices.
Profit excluding one-time items climbed to $1.33 a share, beating the average estimate of $1.22 by 21 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Net income fell to $548.8 million, or $1.40, from $2.74 billion, or $5.95, a year earlier, when earnings were boosted by the $4.7 billion sale of a drug-benefits unit, WellPoint said. Net income for 2011 is expected to be at least $6.30 a share, the insurer said. Analysts had estimated a forecast of $6.59.

Humana and Aetna shares also rose year-over-year as fewer Americans visited doctors because of the sluggish economy.

I would say that's pretty `tremendous' but that's just me.

Edited by mr2tony 2011-01-27 12:21 PM

My Race Log

Subject: RE: Headphones, Running and the Government

mr2tony - 2011-01-27 10:20 AM

Aarondb4 - 2011-01-27 10:17 AM I would be interested to see some actual data on this "tremendous amount of profit" that insurance companies are making.

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- UnitedHealth Group Inc. , the largest U.S. insurer by sales, reported fourth-quarter profit higher than analysts’ estimates and gave its chief financial officer responsibility for the company’s health-services businesses. Net income climbed 10 percent to $1.04 billion, or 94 cents a share, the Minnetonka, Minnesota-based insurer said in a statement today. The results beat the average estimate of 84 cents by 13 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg, as mandates from the health-care overhaul weren’t as demanding as the company expected and U.S. unemployment lessened use of medical care. Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- WellPoint Inc. , the largest U.S. health insurer by enrollment, reported fourth-quarter profit that rose more than analyst estimates as a national jobless rate above 9 percent kept Americans out of doctors’ offices. Profit excluding one-time items climbed to $1.33 a share, beating the average estimate of $1.22 by 21 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Net income fell to $548.8 million, or $1.40, from $2.74 billion, or $5.95, a year earlier, when earnings were boosted by the $4.7 billion sale of a drug-benefits unit, WellPoint said. Net income for 2011 is expected to be at least $6.30 a share, the insurer said. Analysts had estimated a forecast of $6.59. Humana and Aetna shares also rose year-over-year as fewer Americans visited doctors because of the sluggish economy. I would say that's pretty `tremendous' but that's just me.

Could you put those #'s into perspective for me Tony?'

1. How many insured do they have?

2. What was the Premium collected?

3. What was their percent of profit, the 10% increase if they were making 3% profit would get the up to a whopping 3.3%

4. What were the non claims expenses paid per dollar collected?

5. How many people does that carrier employ?

While your "facts" are interesting they are for 1/4 of one year, and tell a very small story of the whole picture, but as most media today, it does look shocking and "tremendous" from the limited data you provided.

Edited by crusevegas 2011-01-27 2:46 PM

My Race Log

Headphones, Running and the Government (Page 4)

REGISTER TODAY