Gallup: Health care plan gains favor 49-40

[bamacre]

Folks,
One final question to ask yourself. Do you really think that a private for profit Corporation is more concerned about your health, than its bottom line profits?

Jim

Oh, Jim has hit the ball out of the park with that question.



No he hasn't. Using that same logic, Intel and AMD aren't worried about making fast processors, they're worried about their bottom line. FedEx and UPS aren't worried about delivering packages on time safely, big profits are what they care about. Anand doesn't care about putting out quality product reviews, just the bottom line. But this isn't the same as health care, I know. It's different. Intel, AMD, FedEx, UPS, Anandtech, they all operate under a very capitalistic system.

 

[Carmen813]

Oh, Jim has hit the ball out of the park with that question.



No he hasn't. Using that same logic, Intel and AMD aren't worried about making fast processors, they're worried about their bottom line. FedEx and UPS aren't worried about delivering packages on time safely, big profits are what they care about. Anand doesn't care about putting out quality product reviews, just the bottom line. But this isn't the same as health care, I know. It's different. Intel, AMD, FedEx, UPS, Anandtech, they all operate under a very capitalistic system.

Being for profit does not immediately make you evil. The problem comes when companies focus exclusively on maximizing profit, which is often something their shareholders want them to do. I think there is sufficient evidence that some health insurance companies have acted in the interest of maximizing profit instead of their customers health.

If Anand decides to put out some biased product reviews or Intel some crappy processors it's unlikely to get me killed.

 

[Patranus]

Being for profit does not immediately make you evil. The problem comes when companies focus exclusively on maximizing profit, which is often something their shareholders want them to do. I think there is sufficient evidence that some health insurance companies have acted in the interest of maximizing profit instead of their customers health.

If Anand decides to put out some biased product reviews or Intel some crappy processors it's unlikely to get me killed.

And if you do not like your current insurance company, nothing is stopping you from making a "choice" and selecting "competition".

The only problem is in states where there is only 1 company allowed to operate. Hate to break it to you but that is the fault of YOU and YOUR legislatures, not mine.

 

[Carmen813]

And if you do not like your current insurance company, nothing is stopping you from making a "choice" and selecting "competition".

The only problem is in states where there is only 1 company allowed to operate. Hate to break it to you but that is the fault of YOU and YOUR legislatures, not mine.

Now you know that this statement is blatantly false, so why did you make it?

If you get employer based coverage you either go with what the employer has, or your are basically shit out of luck. In theory you could buy a private policy, but that choice does not exist if you have a pre-existing condition. Irregardless, the cost for a private policy typically is much more expensive than keeping your employer based solution.

A choice made with a gun to your head isn't much of a choice.

 

[bamacre]

Being for profit does not immediately make you evil. The problem comes when companies focus exclusively on maximizing profit, which is often something their shareholders want them to do. I think there is sufficient evidence that some health insurance companies have acted in the interest of maximizing profit instead of their customers health.

If Anand decides to put out some biased product reviews or Intel some crappy processors it's unlikely to get me killed.

LOL, yeah, I'm sure Intel and FedEx aren't trying to "maximize" their profits.

 

[Vette73]

LOL, yeah, I'm sure Intel and FedEx aren't trying to "maximize" their profits.

How many die due to them when they "maximize" their profits?

 

[nageov3t]

I saw them discussing this poll on CNN last night.

the results are fascinating... basically, it seemed like people who benefit from the bill support it and people who don't benefit from the bill don't

 

[Carmen813]

LOL, yeah, I'm sure Intel and FedEx aren't trying to "maximize" their profits.

You are not understanding my position.

It's fine for Fedex or Intel to attempt to maximize their profits. There is really no harm that can come from it. I suppose toxic chemicals or some such, but basically, no one is going to die if Intel sacrifices some chip performance.

An individual's ability to carry health insurance has a direct correlation with their ability to survive a life-threatening illness. Part of the reason the U.S. has some of the highest young adult cancer death rates in the entire world is that this group is by far the most under-insured.

Ideally, I think insurance should be run by non-profits. However, I understand that a lot of people disagree with me there. I think that insurance can be run as a profit-driven industry, and that there are some benefits to doing so. However, running it as an industry that is focused entirely on maximizing profits at the expense of their customers health is something I find morally reprehensible. Nothing will change my opinion on that.

It's the same mentality wall-street had that led us into this economic crisis. "We must do everything we can to maximize profits or else our shareholders will punish us." Well, that mentality is in part due to what caused the housing collapse. The ultimate irony is that these individuals did more harm to their shareholders by this drive the maximize profit than they would have if they had sacrifices a little bit of profit and considered the potential long term repercussions.

Hence, why I support the idea of social responsibility. I wish people would think about how their decisions can harm others.

If you disagree with me, then that's perfectly okay. Just don't lump me with the capitalism haters, because that isn't my position at all. I'm just saying that the drive to make as much money as possible shouldn't be what drives health insurance.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Now you know that this statement is blatantly false, so why did you make it?

If you get employer based coverage you either go with what the employer has, or your are basically shit out of luck. In theory you could buy a private policy, but that choice does not exist if you have a pre-existing condition. Irregardless, the cost for a private policy typically is much more expensive than keeping your employer based solution.

A choice made with a gun to your head isn't much of a choice.

So you don't support the mandate?

 

[her209]

And if you do not like your current insurance company, nothing is stopping you from making a "choice" and selecting "competition".

Hmmm... interesting... your contention is that people should have foresight if their insurance is going to cancel their policy when they try to use it, disapprove certain medical tests for illness they don't yet have, jack up their premiums by double digits for no reason in the coming years.

 

[jstern01]

I think we can all agree that certain industries should not have profit as motive and need to either be tightly regulated or run by the government. Certainly nobody wants the defense of US to be run by a corporation as an example. Or privatizing police and fire departments. Those are best run in a non profit orient mode. It really wasn't until the 1960's that health care became a profit making industry. What has private insurance done in the past 50 years to improve health care? Certainly not advances in treatments for cancer, heart disease or diabetes. In fact these conditions have become pre-existing exclusions to maximize their profits.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield were founded as non profit insurance companies to provide quality health insurance for the average joe, but it is hard to find a single BC/BS that is still non profit, why? Because they could not compete with private insurance companies that could subsidize their health insurance with auto/home/business sales, and undercut BC/BS until either BC/BS folded or was brought out.

 

[alphatarget1]

the results are fascinating... Basically, it seemed like people who benefit from the bill support it and people who don't benefit from the bill don't

lol

 

[alphatarget1]

I think we can all agree that certain industries should not have profit as motive and need to either be tightly regulated or run by the government.

Yes, but without profit there would be no motivation to develop new treatments and drugs.

Part of the problem is that the new treatments/medical devices/everything is so expensive (and I'm sure someone is making a lot of $$$). Case in point, a crappy hearing aid cost close to if not more than 2k. I'd think it's more like a money printing machine after the R&D costs are recovered and the cost of manufacturing those things are probably close to nothing.

 

[bamacre]

How many die due to them when they "maximize" their profits?

Well, that's not a fair question, and for two reasons. One, that isn't what I was arguing against, i.e., you're missing the point, or trying to divert it. Two, those companies aren't in the business of saving lives. Same goes to Carmen813.

 

[Descartes]

I think we can all agree that certain industries should not have profit as motive and need to either be tightly regulated or run by the government. Certainly nobody wants the defense of US to be run by a corporation as an example. Or privatizing police and fire departments. Those are best run in a non profit orient mode. It really wasn't until the 1960's that health care became a profit making industry. What has private insurance done in the past 50 years to improve health care? Certainly not advances in treatments for cancer, heart disease or diabetes. In fact these conditions have become pre-existing exclusions to maximize their profits.

Though I know many people would in fact have everything privatized, I get your point and mostly agree. Still, admittedly, there's no question in my mind that private innovation creates the best possible end-product for consumers and businesses. It's the extremes, the exploitation of those innovations at the sake of others that leads us into trouble and the lack of privatization.

Also, I don't think you give people enough credit. For-profit innovation no doubt creates a lot of results driven from the perspective of corporations, but it's the individuals that create those results that ultimately matter; and, it's those individuals that *don't* ultimately profit from much of their work. How many scientists hold patents on their work? How many engineers hold patents on their innovations? Very few. Instead, they spent their careers making $80k/yr (on average) while management manipulates their results for the sake of greater profit.

So, I think whatever system takes advantage of the inherent passion and energy of these Americans is best. People will still go to medical school no matter what, because it's their passion. People will still create new medicines, because it's their passion (Jonas Salk?). People will still fight injustices in journalism because it's their passion to get the truth to the people, and all of these people will do so without ultimate consideration for profit.

It's up to corporations, or the government, to provide the framework through which these people can be productive. The reality is that corporations are now standing in the way of progress by looking at a for-profit-at-all-costs lense. The balance is lost.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield were founded as non profit insurance companies to provide quality health insurance for the average joe, but it is hard to find a single BC/BS that is still non profit, why? Because they could not compete with private insurance companies that could subsidize their health insurance with auto/home/business sales, and undercut BC/BS until either BC/BS folded or was brought out.

I'm not familiar with the history of why they ultimately gave up the non-profit vision, but I will say that there are a ton of non-profit healthcare organizations throughout the US, run very reliably and providing excellent care. This is especially true in the palliative care market, though that has seen its fair share of problems as well.

 

[Vette73]

Well, that's not a fair question, and for two reasons. One, that isn't what I was arguing against, i.e., you're missing the point, or trying to divert it. Two, those companies aren't in the business of saving lives. Same goes to Carmen813.

It is a fair question and goes straight to the point. Their profits can, and do, cost lives.

 

[Descartes]

Yes, but without profit there would be no motivation to develop new treatments and drugs.

Part of the problem is that the new treatments/medical devices/everything is so expensive (and I'm sure someone is making a lot of $$$). Case in point, a crappy hearing aid cost close to if not more than 2k. I'd think it's more like a money printing machine after the R&D costs are recovered and the cost of manufacturing those things are probably close to nothing.

You're correct. But what's the problem with that? All products are created this way. If you've ever taken a product to market (we've done a dozen or more), you'v been through the financial models that ultimately lead to what you're saying. The cost curve has to flatten out in order for any capital expenditure to be worth the risk. If you don't, you'd have no new investments and no one willing to take the risk.

So, if you look at a typical pro forma in any capex situation, the point isn't to look at it like "When can we flatten the price for the consumer?"; instead, it's "How can we scale? What will our costs look like in 1, 2, 3 years? When will we be profitable?", etc. and the price is ultimately determined.

And that's the case it is with everything, including health insurance policies when you're in a group (and we're ALL in a group whether we know it or not, even self-employed people on individual plans). Like toll booths around the US, its purpose is to recover costs, but good luck on watching any change in price after that. You need consumers to drive the price down, and without competition (public option?) that just won't happen.

/long-winded-reply

 

[jstern01]

You're correct. But what's the problem with that? All products are created this way. If you've ever taken a product to market (we've done a dozen or more), you'v been through the financial models that ultimately lead to what you're saying. The cost curve has to flatten out in order for any capital expenditure to be worth the risk. If you don't, you'd have no new investments and no one willing to take the risk.

So, if you look at a typical pro forma in any capex situation, the point isn't to look at it like "When can we flatten the price for the consumer?"; instead, it's "How can we scale? What will our costs look like in 1, 2, 3 years? When will we be profitable?", etc. and the price is ultimately determined.

And that's the case it is with everything, including health insurance policies when you're in a group (and we're ALL in a group whether we know it or not, even self-employed people on individual plans). Like toll booths around the US, its purpose is to recover costs, but good luck on watching any change in price after that. You need consumers to drive the price down, and without competition (public option?) that just won't happen.

/long-winded-reply

Actually very few innovations or drugs come from the private sector, most are developed in universities with public tax dollars, then licensed by Pharma companies. The big expense is the length of time it take to test those new drugs or innovations. But even still Pharma companies often recoup their costs with tax write offs during testing. I wish I could find that article, but basically every new drug brought to market that does not kill people right off the bat, makes money with a year of introduction, otherwise it never makes out the door.