PDA

View Full Version : (Aug 3, 2009): "What's so great about private health insurance?" (By Michael Hiltzik, LA Times)


CGP
08-06-2009, 01:44 AM
READ IN FULL @ LA TIMES (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik3-2009aug03,0,6650122.column)


Throughout the heroic struggle in Congress to provide a "public option" in health insurance, one question never seems to get answered: Why are we so intent on protecting the private option?

The "public option," as followers of the debate know, is a government-sponsored health plan that would be available as an alternative to, and in competition with, the for-profit health insurance industry, otherwise known as the private option.

On Friday, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce narrowly passed a reform bill incorporating a public option resembling Medicare. It was a bloody fight among members of Congress, some of whom believe that the public option will give the government unwarranted power over healthcare, and all of whom enjoy government-provided healthcare that's a lot better than what most of us get.

But the battle is just beginning. After the committee vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that the health insurance industry will conduct a "shock and awe" campaign to kill the public option when Congress returns from vacation in September and starts debating the measure. We can expect to be overwhelmed with an industry ad campaign worth millions of dollars (remember Harry and Louise?) exhorting us to write our lawmakers to preserve the American way of healthcare.

So it's proper to remind ourselves what that American way entails. For if the insurers have proved anything over the last 15 years as the health crisis has gathered speed like an avalanche roaring downhill, it's that they're part of the problem, not the solution.

The firms take billions of dollars out of the U.S. healthcare wallet as profits, while imposing enormous administrative costs on doctors, hospitals, employers and patients. They've introduced complexity into the system at every level. Your doctor has to fight them to get approval for the treatment he or she thinks is best for you. Your hospital has to fight them for approval for every day you're laid up. Then they have to fight them to get their bills paid, and you do too.

One Wendell Potter reminded a Senate committee in June that health insurance executives had assured Congress in 1993 that they would work to secure universal medical coverage and end denials of coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Then they moved heaven and earth to kill reform.

They've made the same promises now, Potter observed. But they're in an even better position to throttle reform. Mergers and acquisitions have turned the industry into a cartel of huge corporations.

"The industry is bigger, richer and stronger, and it has a much tighter grip on our healthcare system," he said. The last thing they want is a government program set up as their competition.

Potter knows the insurers' ways because he was a top executive in the industry for 20 years. But the hard numbers bear him out. The two largest insurers, WellPoint and UnitedHealth Group, each acquired 11 other insurers between 2000 and 2007. They now control a total of 67 million "covered lives" (that's customers in health insurance-speak).

This consolidation has produced functional monopolies in communities across America. The American Medical Assn. (itself no great fan of reform) found in a 2007 survey that in 76% of the country, defined as its major metropolitan statistical areas, one insurer had a share of 50% or more of the conventional insurance market. This phenomenon gives the companies enormous power to drive up premiums and maximize profits.

Why do we tolerate this? The industry loves to promote surveys indicating that most Americans are "satisfied" with their current health insurance -- 37% are "very satisfied" and 17% "extremely satisfied," according to one such study.

Yet these figures are misleading. Most people are satisfied with their current insurance because most people never have a complex encounter with the health insurance bureaucracy. Medical care generally follows the so-called 80-20 statistical pattern -- 20% of patients consume 80% of care. If your typical encounter is an annual checkup or treatment of the kids' sniffles, or even a serious but routine condition such as a heart attack, your experience is probably satisfactory.

But it's on the margins where the challenges exist. Anyone whose condition is even slightly out of the ordinary knows the sinking feeling of entering health insurance hell -- pre-authorizations, denials, appeals, and days, weeks, even months wasted waiting for resolution.

And that's among people with affordable employer-paid insurance, an ever-shrinking cohort. The percentage of small and medium-sized businesses offering health coverage to employees shriveled to 38% from 67% between 1995 and 2008, according to the National Small Business Assn. Without reform, the number will continue to plummet.

Meanwhile, people employed by big companies that offer a health plan are within a layoff notice of losing coverage for themselves or their families, joining America's 46 million uninsured.

Their only alternative right now is the individual market, where insurers scrutinize applicants' medical histories, looking for reasons to turn them down or charge them exorbitant premiums. Have hay fever, asthma, a cholesterol pill prescription? Are you a woman of child-bearing age? You're virtually uninsurable at an affordable cost.

Even if you're accepted, your carrier reserves the right to cancel your policy retroactively if it finds that you left even a tiny condition from years back off your application.

The public option may be your lifeline -- if it's enacted.

Continues at the link...

Suzan
08-06-2009, 03:26 AM
The firms take billions of dollars out of the U.S. healthcare wallet as profits, while imposing enormous administrative costs on doctors, hospitals, employers and patients. They've introduced complexity into the system at every level. Your doctor has to fight them to get approval for the treatment he or she thinks is best for you. Your hospital has to fight them for approval for every day you're laid up. Then they have to fight them to get their bills paid, and you do too.

Meanwhile, people employed by big companies that offer a health plan are within a layoff notice of losing coverage for themselves or their families, joining America's 46 million uninsured.

Their only alternative right now is the individual market, where insurers scrutinize applicants' medical histories, looking for reasons to turn them down or charge them exorbitant premiums. Have hay fever, asthma, a cholesterol pill prescription? Are you a woman of child-bearing age? You're virtually uninsurable at an affordable cost.

Even if you're accepted, your carrier reserves the right to cancel your policy retroactively if it finds that you left even a tiny condition from years back off your application.

These are some of the reasons why I'm against for-profit private plans--and I have one. I had the same plan when it was non-profit, so I know the difference and it's huge. It cost Blue Cross of California $2 billion to switch to for-profit status and they've been taking it out of the members' hides ever since.

They've tried every sleazy trick in the book, including writing to all the doctors in their system, requesting them to open their files so that BC (now Anthem) could search for pre-existing conditions. The doctors finally stood up to this monolithic bully and refused. Now doctors are leaving the system in droves because of the way Anthem has cut their compensation and meddled with their ability to provide care to their patients.

They're been sued by patients and investigated by the state repeatedly for their unethical practices, which included approving expensive surgeries and then dumping the member afterward for a variety of reasons, including pre-existing conditions. Of course, the patient gets stuck with the sky-high medical bills. Next stop, bankruptcy court.

I'm not for Obama's public plan, either. I'm not against a public plan that makes sense, but the current one is incomprehensible to me. I'm just saying that there have to be options other than for-profit private insurance because that doesn't work. They don't give a damn about your health. They care about their profits.

foxyladi
08-06-2009, 10:45 AM
bump

NanCi1214
08-06-2009, 11:37 AM
These are some of the reasons why I'm against for-profit private plans--and I have one. I had the same plan when it was non-profit, so I know the difference and it's huge. It cost Blue Cross of California $2 billion to switch to for-profit status and they've been taking it out of the members' hides ever since.

They've tried every sleazy trick in the book, including writing to all the doctors in their system, requesting them to open their files so that BC (now Anthem) could search for pre-existing conditions. The doctors finally stood up to this monolithic bully and refused. Now doctors are leaving the system in droves because of the way Anthem has cut their compensation and meddled with their ability to provide care to their patients.

They're been sued by patients and investigated by the state repeatedly for their unethical practices, which included approving expensive surgeries and then dumping the member afterward for a variety of reasons, including pre-existing conditions. Of course, the patient gets stuck with the sky-high medical bills. Next stop, bankruptcy court.

I'm not for Obama's public plan, either. I'm not against a public plan that makes sense, but the current one is incomprehensible to me. I'm just saying that there have to be options other than for-profit private insurance because that doesn't work. They don't give a damn about your health. They care about their profits.

This is so true. There must be a public option and we must get the for-profit insurers out of the business eventually.

I was under employer-paid programs for several years before I became self-employed but never needed to use them. I've been under medicare for several years now and not needed that either until recently. I had taken the bait from Humana when it was necessary to select a provider for Part D but they pulled a "bait and switch" just before I became ill. It was impossible to get a human voice response at Humana that knew anything. My salvation came from my state insurance office, who were knowledgeable and most-helpful who in turn hooked me up with the proper office and personnel at medicare, who were equally knowlegeable and helpful. The private sector? It doesn't work. They are too much concerned with maximizing their profit to fulfill their mission.

NanCi1214

Suzan
08-06-2009, 01:19 PM
I hear you, NanCi. Now, if they'd go back to nonprofit private plans, I'd be fine with that. Blue Cross was excellent insurance before it made the switch. I wonder why no one's considering that? Probably because the insurance companies would refuse to switch their status. As I said, it cost Blue Cross $2 billion to make the switch and that was several years ago.

hobbitt
08-06-2009, 03:47 PM
I hear you, NanCi. Now, if they'd go back to nonprofit private plans, I'd be fine with that. Blue Cross was excellent insurance before it made the switch. I wonder why no one's considering that? Probably because the insurance companies would refuse to switch their status. As I said, it cost Blue Cross $2 billion to make the switch and that was several years ago.


Mutual health insurance companies - why has no one in Congress (or the White House) chatted with them??

Could it be that a successful company does not fit with the Government Control Option?




http://blog.cleveland.com/medical/2009/01/medical_mutual_of_ohio_nabs_re.html


manager of the 11-person financial investigations unit at Medical Mutual.

said it caught a record $6.2 million in fraudulent health-care claims last year, up from nearly $5 million the year before.

OK - so 11 people managed to catch 6 mill in fraudulent claims.


Meanwhile, HCFA voluntarily paid 20 Billion in "erroneous Payments." Not fraud, just boo-boos.

Medicare fraud is currently estimated to cost $40 Billion a year.

HCFA has 5000 employees and over 20,000 private 'consultant' employees.

If they were to operate with the zeal of Mutual of Ohio, HCFA should be able to detect $14,091,000,000 in fraud claims. Not a bad start.

foxyladi
08-06-2009, 04:26 PM
thats a good start cut the waste and fraud.

CGP
08-06-2009, 08:09 PM
Lots of people are very outspoken against the introduction of any "public option" for health insurance, for reasons I am still baffled by...

And to these people I ask: Where is your outrage for the companies that make large profits off the ill-health of American citizens?

I don't get it.

BillDemo
08-07-2009, 08:05 AM
If you want an example of public healthcare, take a look at the UK.
They have long waiting lists, bad doctors and terrible treatment. Their health-care system is a complete mess....

But hey, at least they don't have to pay for it. :p

NativeSun
08-07-2009, 10:08 AM
Lots of people are very outspoken against the introduction of any "public option" for health insurance, for reasons I am still baffled by...

And to these people I ask: Where is your outrage for the companies that make large profits off the ill-health of American citizens?

I don't get it.

Then let me chime in....

Nothing that the government manages is cost effective. Nothing. So why does everyone on board with the public option plan think that this will be the exception? They will have to make up for that revenue shortfall in some shape or form. Moreover, seeing how much SEIU and Obama are in bed with each other, I have know doubt that these workers in the government plan will be unionized. Have you ever tried to fire a government employee for bad work? So what would be the incentive for these workers to provide the best service to its customers? Now Obama talks about the government plan as a way to compete with private insurers. Well, he's half right on that one. Yes, competition is what drives prices down. But the government has never been competitive (cost effectively) with the private sector. Look at the balance sheets of UPS and FedEx. Now look at the balance sheets for the US Postal Service. And what's more important, the government puts restrictions on those other two companies. The USPS can provide all of the same services that UPS and FedEX do, however UPS and FedEx cannot do the same in regards to the USPS.

Now for private insurers. Yes, they are profit driven. Yes, some make huge profits. But that's because their monopolistic. If the government loosens up the restrictions as to who can offer programs in certain areas and who can't, then people will have more choices. More choices means that these providers will have to be more cost competitive. And the bad workers at these providers get their a$$es fired because they become a financial liability to the company. If a patient gets screwed over by the government plan, will they be able to sue the government for damages? It is better for the government to network with the private insurers than to even attempt to compete with them. Isn't this what some states do? They work with private insurers to develope "group" plans which the individual can join into and pay a much better premium than if they did it on their own.

The Rabbi
08-07-2009, 10:31 AM
Well, we can start with, where does the Constitution authorize the government to provide health care? Old fashioned, I know but worth asking anyway.

Second, the country is built on the capitalist form of economy. In that the profit motive is key. It imposes a discipline on companies that cannot be achieved any other way. The flip side of intrusive for profits is massive fraud at government institutions, along with simple mismanagement. Woudl the current economic crisis have been this bad without Fannie/Freddie?

The problem is not the insurers. The problem is the government ("government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem"). Each state sets rates and terms. So companies have to tailor 50 different plans, reducing their possible pools in each one. Allow people to buy plan across state lines and you go a long way to solving the problem.

Private health insurance is not problem-free (what is?) but it beats the tar out of anything the government is going to set up and run.

foxyladi
08-07-2009, 10:52 AM
I hear you, NanCi. Now, if they'd go back to nonprofit private plans, I'd be fine with that. Blue Cross was excellent insurance before it made the switch. I wonder why no one's considering that? Probably because the insurance companies would refuse to switch their status. As I said, it cost Blue Cross $2 billion to make the switch and that was several years ago.

that was my first ins.co.50 years ago.i loved them:thumbsup: