Why are the health insurance companies so opposed to the "government" option?

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
http://www.usps.com/postallaw/...SOExecutiveSummary.pdf

You're either an idiot or a liar, take your pick.

Hey, you forgot the option for "both".

To ensure funding of the USO, Congress and the President established the
Private Express Statutes (PES) and the mailbox access rule, which together comprise the
postal monopoly.

That's why the USPS has to get permission from Congress to raise prices. They don't have private sector competition for delivering regular mail. In fairness to the USPS, they also don't have the option to just eliminate unprofitable routes like a private business would -- they have to service the whole country.

Back to the OP topic though: private insurance companies know they can never compete with a government program because a) the government program will essentially have limitless resources (yes, they have a buget, but since when does the government stay within the budget on anything), b) the government will have the advantage of passing legislation and creating rules to give its plan(s) an advantage. Ultimately, it's a losing proposition, to the private companies would become niche providers much like FedEX and UPS. In essense, if you've worked with the USPS, would you want an organization like that in charge of your health care? I sure don't.

I think you missed the point. Fedex and US are delivering mail. And no one in the government has stopped them.

They are delivering premium mail if you want to call it mail. As in next day, signed for, or saturday ect. Try to have UPS or Fedex deliver your 1st class mail with a stamp and see how far you get.

If you wanted you could make a FedEx box and sit it next to your mailbox.

Postage certificate = stamp.

Put FedEx postage on your letter and it will get as far as the person you are delivering too.

My point is Fedex and UPS are barred by law from delivering 1st class mail.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: techs
I think you missed the point. Fedex and US are delivering mail. And no one in the government has stopped them.

It is actually not considered "mail" legally. Instead, they deliver parcels and freight, areas where the USPS doesn't have a legal monopoly. I'd suggest you drop the point anyway since it is being used to divert your thread from the real topic of why health insurance companies are afraid Uncle Sam will kill their cash cow.

This is not derailment, it's one of the few relevant available examples of a government version of a privately available function.

Edit:
Ryan, the same would apply to your comment.

While I understand the point you are trying to make, and agree, the fact of the matter is that all of you have been bickering and calling each other names for pages about the postal service. It has really gone well beyond making the point.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Title: Why are the health insurance companies so opposed to the "government" option?

Government doesn't have to run for profit. It is tax payer subsidized. Ergo, it'll soon become the ONLY option.

Well, if they aren't adding enough value to compete with government plan, I won't miss them. I don't see why we need to worry about preserving health insurance industry profits.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Title: Why are the health insurance companies so opposed to the "government" option?

Government doesn't have to run for profit. It is tax payer subsidized. Ergo, it'll soon become the ONLY option.

Well, if they aren't adding enough value to compete with government plan, I won't miss them. I don't see why we need to worry about preserving health insurance industry profits.

You are seeking to destroy competition, to destroy options, and you call that a good thing? You've done the church of government proud.

Being tax payer subsidized is not a good thing, you'll soon figure that out.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Title: Why are the health insurance companies so opposed to the "government" option?

Government doesn't have to run for profit. It is tax payer subsidized. Ergo, it'll soon become the ONLY option.

Well, if they aren't adding enough value to compete with government plan, I won't miss them. I don't see why we need to worry about preserving health insurance industry profits.

You are seeking to destroy competition, to destroy options, and you call that a good thing? You've done the church of government proud.

Being tax payer subsidized is not a good thing, you'll soon figure that out.

If the option is overpriced, doesn't cover everyone, and can't compete, I'll gladly destroy it.
Also, you can stop with the warnings, it's not like we can't go on a plane to a country with UHC and see for ourselves. It's not perfect, but sun will still rise tomorrow if we have UHC.

 

[miketheidiot]

holy fucking derail

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Because the government is outside the realm of private competition - they can offer any package they want because they have bottomless pockets.

The government does NOT have "bottomless pockets," or we wouldn't have deficits and a national debt. The insurance companies have raped the public while paying themselves zillion dollar salaries and bonuses and supporting a serious cadre of lobbiests in their quest to keep it that way.

Free healthcare for everyone is something the government can offer that no private company can ever compete with.

What fiction have you been reading, or what have you been smoking? Personally, I'd love to see a single payer health care system if it could be well managed, but that's not even on the table. What is proposed is a publicly financed OPTION, similar to Medicare, that would provide an alternative to private health insurance, not a replacement.

They are offering it for free, we provide the health care, then the government does not pay us. Link from my hometown

We had a company meeting with our CEO, and he states that we expect to receive less than 10% of the money the state owes us. Ok, so it is not free, but I somehow doubt that 10% of our reimbursement will cover our costs.

I remember somewhere that the lower the % of total patients that are on medicare, the better it is for the hospital financially. Also, some studies show that the better off a hospital is financially the less chance for severe complications as a result of the hospital stay. This is off the top of my head, because I don't have time to confirm my memory during lunch.

Please note my argument is as follows, government health care is less dependable as a payer, hospitals who have cash flow problems are more likely to have mistakes that harm the patient. If we move to make government a larger part of the payment system, are we willing to accept the harm it may cause to patients? Are we even going to look at it, if it does turn out to cause more harm are we able to undo the change without making things worse?

 

[senseamp]

"I remember somewhere that the lower the % of total patients that are on medicare, the better it is for the hospital financially. Also, some studies show that the better off a hospital is financially the less chance for severe complications as a result of the hospital stay."

Which basically just means that old people are more likely to have severe complications as a result of hospital stay. It's not rocket science.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Title: Why are the health insurance companies so opposed to the "government" option?

Government doesn't have to run for profit. It is tax payer subsidized. Ergo, it'll soon become the ONLY option.

Well, if they aren't adding enough value to compete with government plan, I won't miss them. I don't see why we need to worry about preserving health insurance industry profits.

You are seeking to destroy competition, to destroy options, and you call that a good thing? You've done the church of government proud.

Being tax payer subsidized is not a good thing, you'll soon figure that out.

If the option is overpriced, doesn't cover everyone, and can't compete, I'll gladly destroy it.
Also, you can stop with the warnings, it's not like we can't go on a plane to a country with UHC and see for ourselves. It's not perfect, but sun will still rise tomorrow if we have UHC.

It doesn't cover everyone because it's not a mandate that everyone is covered. What, everyone can't afford a Toyota Prius? That's ok, the government now will gladly make a $1 hybrid electric car for you.

Can't compete?

Blue cross/Blue shield can't compete, which is why a lot of elderly people ON MEDICARE elect to add on BC/BS or Kaiser or UnitedHealthCare or whatever provider they've gone with. Gee. Medicare is so great isn't it. It's CHEAP I admit, but like some others pointed out it pushes costs elsewhere, and this is why the coverage is incomplete. It's like having a slimmed down basic private healthcare plan with virtually no coverage. You know those 50 minute cell phone plans with no mobile to mobile or nighttime/weekend minutes? Then there's the full fledged 450 plan that's more like private health care. More expensive, but it gives you more?

If you showed me that Medicare covered everything my private insurer covered (more or less) and was comparable on every other level then yeah I would be convinced UHC could work.

This is not even about keeping competition for the sake of competition. Keeping options open just to have options? Do you know the perfect example of that? GM and Chrysler. Our health insurance system is NOT like that. They offer perfectly good services, and even for Medicare to compete you would have to add on costs here and there which make the overall package roughly the same if not more expensive. Like I said, you can only call the private plans terrible if there's an alternative that can do better. Right now there isn't. There's clearly alternatives to GM and Chrysler (other car brands) that sell quality vehicles and make a profit. This is why bailing out GM and Chrysler caused a lot of people to scratch their heads.

 

[Xellos2099]

Originally posted by: sunzt
USPS anyone? HEEEEELLLOOOOO!!!! They're just pissin about losing profits due to better government pricing. I mean the USPS offers lower prices, delivers to every US address nearly everyday and is a pretty efficient organization. Does that mean private delivery companies are out of business? FexEx and UPS haven't been forced out of business due to the USPS.

USPS main function is to deliver letter, which UPS not allow to do.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Except it isn't really free. It's just paid for by higher taxes somewhere else.

Exactly my point. The key is that it's not really the government's money, so it's free to the government. The government can never pay for anything itself - it can only spend someone else's money.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Except it isn't really free. It's just paid for by higher taxes somewhere else.

Exactly my point. The key is that it's not really the government's money, so it's free to the government. The government can never pay for anything itself - it can only spend someone else's money.

You do realize that this is how health insurance works? I am paying a shit load of money for health insurance and currently I receive no services for all this money I pay in. My money pays for other peoples health care.

I have never had a major illness, I have no children, and I do not family history of cancer or heart disease. The last time I went to the doctor was a 15 minute appointment to make sure I didn't have hernia. But my coverage costs around $4,000 per year. I can only assume that is paying for the dialysis treatments of some 400lb woman with type II diabetes, who smokes.

Health insurance is the one area industry it makes sense to have government intervention. Money is collected from every one centrally pooled and used to pay for those that get sick or are injured.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Title: Why are the health insurance companies so opposed to the "government" option?

Government doesn't have to run for profit. It is tax payer subsidized. Ergo, it'll soon become the ONLY option.

Well, if they aren't adding enough value to compete with government plan, I won't miss them. I don't see why we need to worry about preserving health insurance industry profits.

You are seeking to destroy competition, to destroy options, and you call that a good thing? You've done the church of government proud.

Being tax payer subsidized is not a good thing, you'll soon figure that out.

If the option is overpriced, doesn't cover everyone, and can't compete, I'll gladly destroy it.
Also, you can stop with the warnings, it's not like we can't go on a plane to a country with UHC and see for ourselves. It's not perfect, but sun will still rise tomorrow if we have UHC.

It doesn't cover everyone because it's not a mandate that everyone is covered. What, everyone can't afford a Toyota Prius? That's ok, the government now will gladly make a $1 hybrid electric car for you.

Well, the whole point of this reform is to expand coverage to everyone. Now you may think having health care is same as having a Toyota Prius, but we just had an election, and the people who I voted for and who won don't share that view.

Can't compete?

Blue cross/Blue shield can't compete, which is why a lot of elderly people ON MEDICARE elect to add on BC/BS or Kaiser or UnitedHealthCare or whatever provider they've gone with. Gee. Medicare is so great isn't it. It's CHEAP I admit, but like some others pointed out it pushes costs elsewhere, and this is why the coverage is incomplete. It's like having a slimmed down basic private healthcare plan with virtually no coverage. You know those 50 minute cell phone plans with no mobile to mobile or nighttime/weekend minutes? Then there's the full fledged 450 plan that's more like private health care. More expensive, but it gives you more?

If you showed me that Medicare covered everything my private insurer covered (more or less) and was comparable on every other level then yeah I would be convinced UHC could work.

This is not even about keeping competition for the sake of competition. Keeping options open just to have options? Do you know the perfect example of that? GM and Chrysler. Our health insurance system is NOT like that. They offer perfectly good services, and even for Medicare to compete you would have to add on costs here and there which make the overall package roughly the same if not more expensive. Like I said, you can only call the private plans terrible if there's an alternative that can do better. Right now there isn't. There's clearly alternatives to GM and Chrysler (other car brands) that sell quality vehicles and make a profit. This is why bailing out GM and Chrysler caused a lot of people to scratch their heads.

I am not sure how this advances your argument. You are saying that even with Medicare, seniors have options to get extended coverage through private insurance, so these wails that government plan is going to eliminate private options don't hold water. If they can add value beyond the public plan, they'll stay in business. If they don't they'll got he way of the dodo. No skin off my back either way.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Harvey
The insurance companies have raped the public while paying themselves zillion dollar salaries and bonuses and supporting a serious cadre of lobbiests in their quest to keep it that way.

Link please

Executive Compensation of Health Care Providers

Some highlights:

Atena CEO: total compensation about $24 million
WellPoint CEO: total comp about $10 million
CIGNA CEO: total comp about $12 million
Coverntry Health Care: about $9 million

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Harvey
The insurance companies have raped the public while paying themselves zillion dollar salaries and bonuses and supporting a serious cadre of lobbiests in their quest to keep it that way.

Link please

Executive Compensation of Health Care Providers

Some highlights:

Atena CEO: total compensation about $24 million
WellPoint CEO: total comp about $10 million
CIGNA CEO: total comp about $12 million
Coverntry Health Care: about $9 million

So basically 0.00000000000001% of revenue

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Harvey
The insurance companies have raped the public while paying themselves zillion dollar salaries and bonuses and supporting a serious cadre of lobbiests in their quest to keep it that way.

Link please

Executive Compensation of Health Care Providers

Some highlights:

Atena CEO: total compensation about $24 million
WellPoint CEO: total comp about $10 million
CIGNA CEO: total comp about $12 million
Coverntry Health Care: about $9 million

So basically 0.00000000000001% of revenue

Less because a lot of it is coming from stock options which don't technically cost the company any money.

For Aetna its .0775% of revenue

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest
You do realize that this is how health insurance works? I am paying a shit load of money for health insurance and currently I receive no services for all this money I pay in. My money pays for other peoples health care.

I have never had a major illness, I have no children, and I do not family history of cancer or heart disease. The last time I went to the doctor was a 15 minute appointment to make sure I didn't have hernia. But my coverage costs around $4,000 per year. I can only assume that is paying for the dialysis treatments of some 400lb woman with type II diabetes, who smokes.

Health insurance is the one area industry it makes sense to have government intervention. Money is collected from every one centrally pooled and used to pay for those that get sick or are injured.

So you have chosen a poor plan for you and are paying accordingly. You don't think it's fair that the plan you selected doesn't work for you and want me to be forced to join your plan to subsidize you, even though you see it as unfair that you're subsidizing the 400 pound diabetic smoker. The solution for you is obvious: choose a different plan. The solution you propose will inevitably lead down the path to no options as the government option puts competitors with finite resources out of business. Or are you ok with subsidizing the 400 pound diabetic smoker with your taxes, just not with your discretionary income?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Title: Why are the health insurance companies so opposed to the "government" option?

Government doesn't have to run for profit. It is tax payer subsidized. Ergo, it'll soon become the ONLY option.

Well, if they aren't adding enough value to compete with government plan, I won't miss them. I don't see why we need to worry about preserving health insurance industry profits.

You are seeking to destroy competition, to destroy options, and you call that a good thing? You've done the church of government proud.

Being tax payer subsidized is not a good thing, you'll soon figure that out.

If the option is overpriced, doesn't cover everyone, and can't compete, I'll gladly destroy it.
Also, you can stop with the warnings, it's not like we can't go on a plane to a country with UHC and see for ourselves. It's not perfect, but sun will still rise tomorrow if we have UHC.

It doesn't cover everyone because it's not a mandate that everyone is covered. What, everyone can't afford a Toyota Prius? That's ok, the government now will gladly make a $1 hybrid electric car for you.

Well, the whole point of this reform is to expand coverage to everyone. Now you may think having health care is same as having a Toyota Prius, but we just had an election, and the people who I voted for and who won don't share that view.

The whole point of reform is to try to control health care costs, not to expand coverage to everyone.

 

[StageLeft]

Money is collected from every one centrally pooled and used to pay for those that get sick or are injured.

Sounds exactly like what you're doing with the 400lb smoker who pisses you off. So you can pay for no return as you do now or the same with taxes.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Title: Why are the health insurance companies so opposed to the "government" option?

Government doesn't have to run for profit. It is tax payer subsidized. Ergo, it'll soon become the ONLY option.

Well, if they aren't adding enough value to compete with government plan, I won't miss them. I don't see why we need to worry about preserving health insurance industry profits.

You are seeking to destroy competition, to destroy options, and you call that a good thing? You've done the church of government proud.

Being tax payer subsidized is not a good thing, you'll soon figure that out.

If the option is overpriced, doesn't cover everyone, and can't compete, I'll gladly destroy it.
Also, you can stop with the warnings, it's not like we can't go on a plane to a country with UHC and see for ourselves. It's not perfect, but sun will still rise tomorrow if we have UHC.

It doesn't cover everyone because it's not a mandate that everyone is covered. What, everyone can't afford a Toyota Prius? That's ok, the government now will gladly make a $1 hybrid electric car for you.

Well, the whole point of this reform is to expand coverage to everyone. Now you may think having health care is same as having a Toyota Prius, but we just had an election, and the people who I voted for and who won don't share that view.

The whole point of reform is to try to control health care costs, not to expand coverage to everyone.

Says you. The goal of reform should be both to control costs and cover everyone.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest
You do realize that this is how health insurance works? I am paying a shit load of money for health insurance and currently I receive no services for all this money I pay in. My money pays for other peoples health care.

I have never had a major illness, I have no children, and I do not family history of cancer or heart disease. The last time I went to the doctor was a 15 minute appointment to make sure I didn't have hernia. But my coverage costs around $4,000 per year. I can only assume that is paying for the dialysis treatments of some 400lb woman with type II diabetes, who smokes.

Health insurance is the one area industry it makes sense to have government intervention. Money is collected from every one centrally pooled and used to pay for those that get sick or are injured.

So you have chosen a poor plan for you and are paying accordingly. You don't think it's fair that the plan you selected doesn't work for you and want me to be forced to join your plan to subsidize you, even though you see it as unfair that you're subsidizing the 400 pound diabetic smoker. The solution for you is obvious: choose a different plan. The solution you propose will inevitably lead down the path to no options as the government option puts competitors with finite resources out of business. Or are you ok with subsidizing the 400 pound diabetic smoker with your taxes, just not with your discretionary income?

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Money is collected from every one centrally pooled and used to pay for those that get sick or are injured.

Sounds exactly like what you're doing with the 400lb smoker who pisses you off. So you can pay for no return as you do now or the same with taxes.

Exactly!

The point was it does not matter to me. The government can take my money or a private company can. They are both doing the same thing with my money (giving it to other people). I am going to choose which ever provides a better service at a lower cost.

Government health care is one area where the government has the potential to be more efficient than a private company. A private health insurance company's motive is profit, to pay out as few claims as possible. The governments motive is to pay out the claims as fairly as possible.

I do see your side I don't want to have only one shitty government option. However, I am for sure willing to hear what ever ideas get cooked up in Congress.

Most of the arguments against Government run health care are the following:
1. It will drive other companies out of the market.
2. It will provide hideous government style DMV quality service.

Both these arguments cannot simultaneously be true. If the government is providing terrible service I would pay more to not get DMV style medical treatment, so would a lot of people.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099

Originally posted by: sunzt
USPS anyone? HEEEEELLLOOOOO!!!! They're just pissin about losing profits due to better government pricing. I mean the USPS offers lower prices, delivers to every US address nearly everyday and is a pretty efficient organization. Does that mean private delivery companies are out of business? FexEx and UPS haven't been forced out of business due to the USPS.

USPS main function is to deliver letter, which UPS not allow to do.

But they also beat the snot out of UPS and FedEx on parcel prices and make quite a bit of money on it.

 

[StageLeft]

Both these arguments cannot simultaneously be true. If the government is providing terrible service I would pay more to not get DMV style medical treatment, so would a lot of people.

Well, they can be, because some people wouldn't pay more, which would reduce the size of the private. Nobody has (yet) talked about a system like in Canada, but there the government by fiat has said absolutely no private enterprise can compete with us. It's illegal. Is this possible to see here? I don't want to sideline this with the USPS argument from the other thread, but we can see precedent for the government dictating that its entity has a monopoly, so at that point it doesn't matter how sh*ty its service is, it may be the only dog in town.

Don't forget, also, that Obama is already talking about using private industry to pay for this, so in such an example you could have a) sh*ty public care and b) terrible private because private is being robbed directly to pay the public. This would be like Gm staying afloat by legally stealing profits from Toyota.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Both these arguments cannot simultaneously be true. If the government is providing terrible service I would pay more to not get DMV style medical treatment, so would a lot of people.

Well, they can be, because some people wouldn't pay more, which would reduce the size of the private. Nobody has (yet) talked about a system like in Canada, but there the government by fiat has said absolutely no private enterprise can compete with us. It's illegal. Is this possible to see here? I don't want to sideline this with the USPS argument from the other thread, but we can see precedent for the government dictating that its entity has a monopoly, so at that point it doesn't matter how sh*ty its service is, it may be the only dog in town.

Don't forget, also, that Obama is already talking about using private industry to pay for this, so in such an example you could have a) sh*ty public care and b) terrible private because private is being robbed directly to pay the public. This would be like Gm staying afloat by legally stealing profits from Toyota.

Yes some people would not pay more and yes the government plan would pick up customers and private industry would lose customers which is the kind of competition I want to see!

Your other points are all valid and scary. I don't want a government monopoly on health care, and I don't want the government taxing non-related crap to pay for health care.

If the government is going to provide I want it to be run like a private company the only source of funds are direct payments made by the recipients of the benefits.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Both these arguments cannot simultaneously be true. If the government is providing terrible service I would pay more to not get DMV style medical treatment, so would a lot of people.

Well, they can be, because some people wouldn't pay more, which would reduce the size of the private. Nobody has (yet) talked about a system like in Canada, but there the government by fiat has said absolutely no private enterprise can compete with us. It's illegal. Is this possible to see here? I don't want to sideline this with the USPS argument from the other thread, but we can see precedent for the government dictating that its entity has a monopoly, so at that point it doesn't matter how sh*ty its service is, it may be the only dog in town.

Don't forget, also, that Obama is already talking about using private industry to pay for this, so in such an example you could have a) sh*ty public care and b) terrible private because private is being robbed directly to pay the public. This would be like Gm staying afloat by legally stealing profits from Toyota.

Yes some people would not pay more and yes the government plan would pick up customers and private industry would lose customers which is the kind of competition I want to see!

Your other points are all valid and scary. I don't want a government monopoly on health care, and I don't want the government taxing non-related crap to pay for health care.

If the government is going to provide I want it to be run like a private company the only source of funds are direct payments made by the recipients of the benefits.

This wouldn't ever happen. You cannot promise people cheap affordable health insurance to everyone. The government wouldn't be able to sustain it. There would be no way to pay for it with "direct payments".