dagblog - Comments for "The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act"

Good point, Sir. My mistake,

Overreach THIS! — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:47:45 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

Good point, Sir. My mistake, you are right.

http://money.cnn.com/magazine

Zipperupus — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:08:28 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/performers/industries/profits/

Um, Fred... click that link. Insurance is one of the top ten industry performers for profits in 2008. That's just one link. Google tells me that even the %10.8 percent profit margin is a fudged lowball number. The other top industries inclued pharmaceuticals and health care itself.

If you are going to engage in insurance apologetics, don't manufacture numbers.

But Fred, let's be realistic.

oleeb — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:38:44 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

But Fred, let's be realistic. It isn't worth doing the incremental stuff without at least a public option because whatever benefits there might be are negated by the boondoggle of billions in subsidies paid as tribute to the political power of the insurance industry.

The politics of it all just suck for the people without at least a strong public option. It isn't worth the marginal gains that might be realized (there's no guarantee we'll see any of them) unless there is a direct benefit to citizens in the form of an alternative to private insurance and that is the public option.

The half measures otherwise proposed for the healthcare system just aren't worth doing from the perspective of the average citizen without the hope of a public alternative coming available to all in our lifetimes. A strong public option and only a strong public option holds out that promise. Anything less and it is as clear as can be that the public is going to get screwed and therefore any bill without at least a strong public option should be killed.

Impressive amount of work

oleeb — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:27:35 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

Impressive amount of work Beetlejuice. Thanks!

Agreed!

oleeb — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:25:38 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

Agreed!

I love this idea, but let me

twoviragos — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:40:56 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

I love this idea, but let me put on my PR cap for a moment (it's a lovely cap -- black velvet with rhinestones). The most simple questions we need to answer are: Why are we doing this? What statement are we trying to make?

And then, we have to consider how this will appear. What arguments will the other side have? How do we anticipate those arguments and prepare to answer them? Will it look like we are against labor (after all they are the people who work in the businesses we will not be patronizing)?

I think you have a kernel of a very powerful idea, but it needs to be filled in with details. Sorry if it seems like I'm raining on your parade. I'm not trying to; rather I'm saying, think it through a little more before moving forward.

Just found it. Nope it was

matyra — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:24:18 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

Just found it. Nope it was from him. Rock on.

Thanks for posting this. I

matyra — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:23:00 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

Thanks for posting this. I worked pretty hard on a message to Bingaman and got back a terse, but (I think), true response from him (or most likely an aid who reads and answers for him :( ). "He" kind of side-stepped the single payer issue, and focused on a vague kind of response. ("

Even so, a well thought out statement seems to get read. I was so happy that I'd finally gotten something different than a form letter that's only marginally related to what I'd written.

I've managed to get through

Fred Moolten — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:27:22 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

I've managed to get through all 223 pages of the Baucus draft by skimming. It's a mixed bag of some very good proposals and some very inadequate ones. I particularly deplore the 5:1 ratio of permissible charges based on aging, and I find the premium subsidies for low income earners to be insufficient. I expect that negotiations with other committees in Congress may lead to some improvements.

Like others, I would prefer a public option to the proposed non-profit cooperatives, but as I've stated elsewhere on multiple occasions, I don't consider this issue central to reform efforts. I won't belabor the point here, as anyone interested can visit my blog for my reasoning.

Probably the point I believe most needs emphasis, because it's most often misunderstood, relates to the causes of our current healthcare crisis and the consequent need for reform. They can be divided into two categories - inequitability and cost.

Inequitability refers to denial of insurance to individuals based on health status, discriminatory rates based on health status for those insured, recissions, lifetime caps on coverage, and a number of other practices.

Cost refers to the unsustainable trajectory we are on, which currently causes the healthcare system to consume 17 percent of GDP, and which threatens to make adequate care unaffordable for all but the wealthiest Americans.

Inequitability is an insurance industry problem, and requires insurance industry reform (as proposed in the various bills).

Cost is a healthcare system problem and requires healthcare system reform, with the various bills taking only tentative steps in that direction.

To conclude that excessive cost is attributable to insurance industry excess is simply incorrect, and many of the current denunciations therefore seem to me to be mistargeted. Similarly, the current Baucus proposal, for example, can't legitimately be accused of designed to facilitate insurance industry profiteering. In fact, the insurance industry has consistently recorded low profit margins (about 3-4 percent of budgets, reflecting less than 2 percent of total healthcare costs), and their overhead costs, while higher than optimal, are not exorbitant.

It is true that insurance reform and health system reform are linked, in that insurers currently pass excessive healthcare system cost on to subscribers, but that vexing problem is one that requires complex long-term solutions that focus primarily on healthcare itself, and would not be solved simply by adding a public option, or otherwise squeezing insurers. There is some room for squeezing, but not as much as some commenters imagine.

Sleepin says: And then they

JohnW1141 — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:37:16 +0000

In reply to The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act

Sleepin says:

And then they will wrap a bow around this stinking pile of shit and applaud the successful outcome of their health reform....."

Sleepin proves again to be an astute observer of Congress.