No: Canadian style health care won't help the USA

[Mindstorm]

How many European countries have single payer government health care?

[mrcommonsensenow]

Focus Spends $400 K Fighting Healthcare Reform
For an organization that has been laying off hundreds of staffers left and right, Focus on the Family sure seems to have a lot of money to burn. In addition to the tens of thousands of dollars they've spent fighting equality in Maine and Washington, they've also reportedly spent some $400,000 fighting healthcare reform:
Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs family group, has spent more than $400,000 fighting the Obama Administration’s federal health care proposal, according to Focus Action senior vice president Tom Minnery.

Focus Action says the proposal subsidizes abortion, will ration health care for the elderly and will create a huge tax burden.

Here are some of the results Focus Action has had by reaching out to the general public through various media campaigns that impugn Obama’s health care proposal, according to a Focus Action news letter released today:

* Generated 52,000 phone calls into the offices of 10 key senators

* Generated 43,000 phone calls into the offices of 10 key congressmen.

* Online phone-a-thon in which thousands of Focus supporters called their senators, congressman and the White House.

* In late October, Focus Action delivered about 150,000 petitions to Capitol Hill.

[mrcommonsensenow]

A Simpleton Tries to Understand the Health Care Debate
Sunday 25 October 2009
by: William Fisher

Now, the first thing I want you to know is that I'm no health care policy expert. Far from it.

But, like the rest of us, I have a body and a mind that can get sick. So, I'm a participant in the debate whether or not I want to be.

And being about to mark my 81st birthday gives me a shorter time to participate but, arguably, a heightened motivation.

Over these past months, I have been drowning in seas of data and analysis and opinions and lies and spin about health. But very little of it has actually been about health. A lot of it has been about process, such as the process in the sausage factory through which legislation gets crafted. But mostly it has been about money - money headed for so-called health insurance companies.

Now, maybe I have a simplistic mind, but frankly I don't understand why health care and insurance companies keep appearing in the same sentences.

After all, these two things are not the same. Insurance companies are not in the health care business. They are in the risk business. They assess risk and then charge you a fee - it's called a premium - to protect you against that risk. Just like your car or your home insurance. If your car gets wrecked, the insurance company doesn't make it better; it gives you money so that you can make it better. Same with home insurance; if a storm tears your roof off, your insurance company will send a contractor to fix it.

So it is with health insurance. Health insurance companies don't do a thing to make you well if you're sick. That's the work that's done by physicians, nurses, hospitals and clinics. And these two groups - health care professionals and health insurance companies - are far from buddies. In fact, they're pretty intense enemies.

The reason is that the health insurance companies, being in the risk business, do whatever they can to reduce their risk. So, they are more than likely to deny all or parts of the care your doctor is prescribing to make you better. Their loyalties are to their shareholders. Shareholders who've seen a run of great profits, based on ever-rising premiums, based in turn on generous government subsidies and an almost total lack of competition among all these companies.

Oh, I forgot to mention that our Congress, in its infinite wisdom, gave these health insurance companies the same antitrust exemption enjoyed by major league baseball. This means they can fix prices with impunity. Trouble is, they haven't been staying fixed for long; premiums have been increasing exponentially year after year. And there's been no noticeable improvement in our health; in fact, our health has gotten steadily worse.

These companies go still further to reduce their risk. For example, if you get sick your insurance is quite likely to be dropped - an action the insurance companies antiseptically call "rescission." They rescind a lot. In other words, just when you're sick and need coverage the most, that's when they tell you "you're out!"

Then there's the "pre-existing condition" gambit. I just read about three denials that seem really gross. One was refusing coverage to a victim of domestic violence, which the company ruled was a pre-existing condition. The second refusal involved a newborn, who the insurance company claimed was too fat. And that was followed by a third refusal - because the infant was too skinny.

Maybe, like me, you've been reading Karen Tumulty's pieces in TIME on the health care issue. She captures the facts as well as anyone I've read. And she has assembled one hell of a chamber of horrors - about people with serious but treatable illnesses who were told, essentially, to find a charity to help because we, the insurance company you've been paying to reduce your risk, have been too busy reducing our own. Very few happy endings here: patients have died as a result.

Same thing happens if you get health insurance at work, but lose your job. You can buy something called COBRA - if you can afford to pay three or four times what you were paying when you had a job.

Gee, it must be wonderful to run a company set up to take risks on people getting sick - but which has only healthy customers!

Now, here's another wrinkle to think about. How'd we get to this place where employers provide health insurance to their employees? And take it away when they fire you. Well, I'm told this practice started back in World War II when the US had wage and price controls. Your wages couldn't be increased, so along came health insurance to make up the difference - and give employers even more economic power over those who work for them.

Seems downright un-American to me.

In fact, seems to me this whole health care debate is struggling to reconcile two contradictory narratives we Americans invented to help us understand ourselves and our history. One is the narrative of rugged individualism. In this bit of mythology, everyone is John Wayne and nobody needs anyone's help to meet tough challenges - least of all the government's help.

Then there's that other bit of American mythology, the part that talks about how, when the going gets rough for our fellow citizens, we all rally round and share our energy and our wisdom and our compassion to make things right again.

Neither of these narratives is true, but we like to believe both of them anyway, even if they are myths and contradictory myths at that.

Now, it seems to me there's a third bit of American mythology that's getting overlooked. That's the bit that talks about certain inalienable rights we all have, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's from our Declaration of Independence, written by our founding fathers.

I like to think of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not as states of being, but as goals. That's because we've never achieved 100 percent of any of these three freedoms. So they - and we - are works in progress.

But it's pretty hard to imagine pursuing much happiness if you happen to get sick, get cut off by your health insurance company and find yourself on your way to medical bankruptcy. Isn't that the point where we invoke that other piece of great American mythology - the one that says now we circle the wagons, pool our resources and find a way for all of us to help all our fellow citizens?

Well, there's only one way to do that and that way is to use our government. The government is us; we pay for it; we own it. We need to make it work for us.

Sure, there are a lot of folks out there who are telling us we can't go down this road because it will lead us into the dreaded socialized medicine: A government takeover of health care.

So what? Forget the labels; that's propaganda. It's the same sleazy accusation that was used against FDR's New Deal in the '30s and again in the 1960s in the right-wing efforts to demolish LBJ's Great Society.

But, in fact, it's exactly what we're already doing for our seniors under Medicare, for our men and women in uniform, for our veterans through the VA - and for every member of Congress. Seems to work just fine for these folks.

So, why is it going to be such a disaster for the rest of us?

When you think about how much we pay for health care and health insurance in America - many times more than the most advanced countries in the rest of the world - and understand that we get substantially worse results, one has to conclude we must be doing something wrong.

We need to fix a bunch of things beyond predatory, uncompetitive, profit-centered health insurance companies. But neutering these vultures would be a start.

Maybe it's time to tell our Congresspersons how we feel.

[Humanist]

The reason is that the health insurance companies, being in the risk business, do whatever they can to reduce their risk. So, they are more than likely to deny all or parts of the care your doctor is prescribing to make you better. Their loyalties are to their shareholders. Shareholders who've seen a run of great profits, based on ever-rising premiums, based in turn on generous government subsidies and an almost total lack of competition among all these companies.

When a person writes an opinion piece he has the right to say what he wants; however, if he wants to be taken seriously he must back up his claims with a few facts even if they are misleading. This statement above in on its face a lie. The insurance companies in the U.S. have an ROI of less than 4%. That is not the mark of a company getting rich.

So where is that run of great profits? They simply don't exist.

[planck]

The reason is that the health insurance companies, being in the risk business, do whatever they can to reduce their risk. So, they are more than likely to deny all or parts of the care your doctor is prescribing to make you better. Their loyalties are to their shareholders. Shareholders who've seen a run of great profits, based on ever-rising premiums, based in turn on generous government subsidies and an almost total lack of competition among all these companies.

When a person writes an opinion piece he has the right to say what he wants; however, if he wants to be taken seriously he must back up his claims with a few facts even if they are misleading. This statement above in on its face a lie. The insurance companies in the U.S. have an ROI of less than 4%. That is not the mark of a company getting rich.

So where is that run of great profits? They simply don't exist.

That's right Jim Beam. That's exactly what was revealed yesterday.

Health insurance companies’ profits lower than critics think

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.

Health insurance profit margins typically run 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That is anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. That partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant or shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. That would “keep insurance companies honest,” says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

The insurers may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

The claims

“I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers’ “obscene profits.”

“Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade, and their profits have skyrocketed.” — Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

“Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.” — A MoveOn.org ad.

The numbers

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th of 53 industries on the Fortune 500 list. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That’s a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which achieved a 4 percent margin. UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers? Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry’s overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; and Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent.

[mrcommonsensenow]

The reason is that the health insurance companies, being in the risk business, do whatever they can to reduce their risk. So, they are more than likely to deny all or parts of the care your doctor is prescribing to make you better. Their loyalties are to their shareholders. Shareholders who've seen a run of great profits, based on ever-rising premiums, based in turn on generous government subsidies and an almost total lack of competition among all these companies.

When a person writes an opinion piece he has the right to say what he wants; however, if he wants to be taken seriously he must back up his claims with a few facts even if they are misleading. This statement above in on its face a lie. The insurance companies in the U.S. have an ROI of less than 4%. That is not the mark of a company getting rich.

So where is that run of great profits? They simply don't exist.

True, not GREAT but not bad for the worst economy since the great depression, eh?
Anyone want to do the math?

Second quarter: $859 million + $435 million + $282 million + $347 million +

I wonder what the profits for the whole year would be?


Insurance Co. Profits: Good, But Not Breaking Records
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/insura ... g-records/

UnitedHealth Group had reported its earnings for the second quarter of 2009, which beat analysts’ expectations with profit of $859 million. Still, other quarters have been more profitable for the insurer, such as the first quarter of 2008, when profit rang in at $994 million.

CIGNA’s balance sheet showed second quarter profit of $435 million, which was better than anytime in the last couple of years, but the company saw higher numbers in, say, 2004 and 2005. In the quarter ending June 30, 2005, for instance, the company’s net income, or profit, came in at a sizable $720 million.

Humana Inc. logged a quarterly profit of almost $282 million. But in the third quarter of 2007, it rang up $302 million in profits. Aetna came in at $347 million in profit for the quarter, which lagged behind its $480 million of a year earlier.

Health Net logged a $40 million profit in the spring quarter, compared with $77 million a year earlier. Wellpoint’s $693 million for the quarter paled next to its third quarter 2008 profit of nearly $821 million. And Coventry Health Care Inc. wasn’t breaking any records, with second quarter profit of about $18 million compared with $83 million a year earlier.

[mrcommonsensenow]

Michele Bachmann: "Page 92 of the House health care bill "says specifically that people can't purchase private health insurance after a date certain."

Truth-o-meter says:

She should read the other 1,989 pages.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -private-/

[mrcommonsensenow]

Patrick Kennedy: "One-third of the health care dollar goes to no such thing as health care; it goes to the insurance companies."

Truth-o-mater says:

Insurance companies don't get that much.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -spending/

[Humanist]

Patrick Kennedy: "One-third of the health care dollar goes to no such thing as health care; it goes to the insurance companies."

Truth-o-mater says:

Insurance companies don't get that much.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -spending/

Mrcommonsensenow, your hero's are simply lying.

Even my old company, the railroad, is doing much better.

When are Peloci and Reed going to start telling the truth instead of lying to justify their needs?

[mrcommonsensenow]

Mrcommonsensenow, your hero's are simply lying.

My hero? Looks like mindfart's and Fox news proneness to embellish is rubbing off on you H.

When are Peloci and Reed going to start telling the truth instead of lying to justify their needs?

You just described the vast majority of career politicians.

[Humanist]

Mrcommonsensenow, your hero's are simply lying.

My hero? Looks like mindfart's and Fox news proneness to embellish is rubbing off on you H.

When are Peloci and Reed going to start telling the truth instead of lying to justify their needs?

You just described the vast majority of career politicians.

hell I guess I just described myself!

The great thing about the explosion of news sources, including blogs, is that if you go to enough sources you can find the news. All one has to do is filter it though you own mind.

I do not see Fox news embellishing the news, nor CNN. MSNBC is Obama news and every sentence is filtered to perfectly fit in with Obama's agenda. CNN just leaves a lot out if it is counter-Obama and in rare instances simply lies to make a point as they did in the Tea Party coverage.

I watch Fox and CNN extensively and in my view Fox presents a 'right wing' balanced view of the world. CNN presents a 'left wing' balanced view of the world. But I cannot understand the attacks on Fox news because it is 'right wing' when there are no similar attacks on the 'left wing' NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and ABC. What is wrong?

[Yohan]

hell I guess I just described myself!

The great thing about the explosion of news sources, including blogs, is that if you go to enough sources you can find the news. All one has to do is filter it though you own mind.

I do not see Fox news embellishing the news, nor CNN. MSNBC is Obama news and every sentence is filtered to perfectly fit in with Obama's agenda. CNN just leaves a lot out if it is counter-Obama and in rare instances simply lies to make a point as they did in the Tea Party coverage.

I watch Fox and CNN extensively and in my view Fox presents a 'right wing' balanced view of the world. CNN presents a 'left wing' balanced view of the world. But I cannot understand the attacks on Fox news because it is 'right wing' when there are no similar attacks on the 'left wing' NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and ABC. What is wrong?

People who are addicted to Fox news are the brain lazy 'Joe the Plumber' red-neck rough-neck types. Why do you, being a well educated man, watch it so 'extensively'?

Watch pure news and form your own opinions rather than agenda fronts like Fox News spoon-feeding you. Have your own brain!

[Humanist]

hell I guess I just described myself!

The great thing about the explosion of news sources, including blogs, is that if you go to enough sources you can find the news. All one has to do is filter it though you own mind.

I do not see Fox news embellishing the news, nor CNN. MSNBC is Obama news and every sentence is filtered to perfectly fit in with Obama's agenda. CNN just leaves a lot out if it is counter-Obama and in rare instances simply lies to make a point as they did in the Tea Party coverage.

I watch Fox and CNN extensively and in my view Fox presents a 'right wing' balanced view of the world. CNN presents a 'left wing' balanced view of the world. But I cannot understand the attacks on Fox news because it is 'right wing' when there are no similar attacks on the 'left wing' NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and ABC. What is wrong?

People who are addicted to Fox news are the brain lazy 'Joe the Plumber' red-neck rough-neck types. Why do you, being a well educated man, watch it so 'extensively'?

Watch pure news and form your own opinions rather than agenda fronts like Fox News spoon-feeding you. Have your own brain!

Where do you get your 'pure news' Yohan? From MSNBC?

[Yohan]

People who are addicted to Fox news are the brain lazy 'Joe the Plumber' red-neck rough-neck types. Why do you, being a well educated man, watch it so 'extensively'?

Watch pure news and form your own opinions rather than agenda fronts like Fox News spoon-feeding you. Have your own brain!

Where do you get your 'pure news' Yohan? From MSNBC?

I watch ABC, NBC, and BBC news. I watch the news analyis on PBS. I read NY TImes. I form my own opinions, as expected of a well educated person. I sometimes watch CNBC and Fox news for entertainment value.

It is sad to see you, an educated person, descend into extensively watching trash news channels like Fox news, as Joe the plumber would.

[Idesigner]

hell I guess I just described myself!

The great thing about the explosion of news sources, including blogs, is that if you go to enough sources you can find the news. All one has to do is filter it though you own mind.

I do not see Fox news embellishing the news, nor CNN. MSNBC is Obama news and every sentence is filtered to perfectly fit in with Obama's agenda. CNN just leaves a lot out if it is counter-Obama and in rare instances simply lies to make a point as they did in the Tea Party coverage.

I watch Fox and CNN extensively and in my view Fox presents a 'right wing' balanced view of the world. CNN presents a 'left wing' balanced view of the world. But I cannot understand the attacks on Fox news because it is 'right wing' when there are no similar attacks on the 'left wing' NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and ABC. What is wrong?

People who are addicted to Fox news are the brain lazy 'Joe the Plumber' red-neck rough-neck types. Why do you, being a well educated man, watch it so 'extensively

Watch pure news and form your own opinions rather than agenda fronts like Fox News spoon-feeding you. Have your own brain!

Where do you get your 'pure news' Yohan? From MSNBC?

Its still lot better to watch FOX news than to listen to ranting and raving of that pumpkin head , white supremacist drug addict from Florida.

[mrcommonsensenow]

"Mitt Romney ... gave you government health care that is now bankrupting the state" of Massachusetts.
-Glenn Beck


Thruth-o-meter says:
It's the economy, actually
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -massachu/