Skip to main content

View Diary: House Republicans prepare the next Obamacare repeal bill, in disguise (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Isn't it time to admit that ObamaCare (3+ / 0-)

    was a fool's errand from the start?

    Why work so hard on a federal system where the government ensures 20% profit to Big Insurance when everyone could be covered by Medicare for a 4-6% overhead.

    Big Insurance provides exactly zero added benefit to the system. People hate this profiteering.

    Why the desperate attempt to keep the moneychangers in the Temple of Health?

    Let's just admit ObamaCare is a disaster and get moving towards the logical solution that will eventually solve this problem, single payer.

    Time to kick insurance out of the sector, entirely.

    "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

    by greendem on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 10:17:10 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with everything you've said, (5+ / 0-)

      Except for the "it's time" part.  Folks need time to acclimate to and become used to the idea that your government will subsidize your healthcare.  And they need time to discover the expensive drawbacks to the system.  Once you've got a large majority who see that we're wasting taxpayer money on insurance company profits, AND you've got a large majority who have become used to the idea that healthcare is a right, then we will have reached the tipping point where progress to a single payer system is possible.  It's going to take awhile, years probably, but the insurance companies have planted the seeds of their own demise, in part by being such dicks.

    •  When i look at google finance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hmi, coffeetalk

      Most major insurers have 5-6% net income/sales.   That is, there is a .05-.06 added on to every insurance bill for their profit.  

      Insurance companies do not do anyone any favors, but I essentially view them as a pass-through mechanism.   It is simply a .05-.06 mark-up.   As to whether we get a combination of "efficient" and "fair" rationing of care for this .06 on the dollar is unknown.   My guess is not.

      I have had some rational experiences and irrational ones too with insurance (when seeking fertility treatment they made me go first, not my wife, this ended saving a ton of money, when seeking noninvasive treatment for fibroids, they wouldn't pay, we did and no hospital stay).

      The problem here is that almost 20% of GDP is health-care and Medicare has grown 6-7% a year in costs just like the rest of the health care system.   I think the problem is a lot harder to solve than just the big bad insurance companies.  

      •  Ever hear of the Franken Amendment? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greendem, sotiredofusernames

        The Franken Amendment requires insurance companies to rebate excess profits back to policyholders every year -- meaning the insurance companies have to spend 80% of premiums on direct health care benefits each year.  The first year, they rebated about $115 per policy-holder.  Last year, it was around $85 per policy-holder.  That ain't five to six percent mark-up.  That means they exceeded Twenty percent profit in each of the last two years since PPACA was passed and found Constitutional.  

        •  You forgot some things... (0+ / 0-)

          The companies spend 10-15% on building networks, software, advertising, salaries, taxes, etc.   They have to do a lot more than just set prices like Medicare and that is why they have 10-15% costs instead of 4%.  Of course, simply read an income statement of say, Cigna, on google finance.   There is a line that says SG&A that amounts to 10-15% of premium.  Taxes account for the rest.  

          Just read the income statements.  You can learn a ton about our health care system.

          By the way, 80% Medical Loss ratios are not generally binding at the current time.  Most loss ratios are slightly higher.  The Franken law is not currently binding.  Companies earn a 5-6% net profit margin with 80-85% medical loss ratios.   Oh, they would love to be at 80!

          But it is the height of folly to think that insurance companies simply keep the difference between 100 and the Medical Loss Ratio.   Not even non-profits.  There are some costs involved.

        •  and how is $85 and $115 per policy holder .. (0+ / 0-)

          mean anything when you don't know the the face value of the policy.   Mark-ups involve division.  You need a denominator.  

          If the average policy was $12,000 a year, the these rebates would be less than 1%.  

          Again, math is fuzzy.

    •  One problem... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr MadAsHell

      Without Obamacare today, there won't be a Single Payer plan tomorrow.

      We are currently fighting just to take that single step forward towards an eventual Single Payer system. The Republicans want us to give up and go back to the way it was.. chaos. That won't bring us closer to Single Payer. It will extend the old damaging system of health insurance.

      But once Obamacare becomes accepted as the norm then the next logical step to improve it will be to go into a Singel Payer system I believe. We almost had it as a done deal but they balked out of fear and political posturing. Once they see that Obamacare is an improvement they will accept that the Single Payer system might be the best way to further improve our system.

      "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

      by Wynter on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 11:20:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The ACA moves us further fron single-payer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It entrenches the private insurance companies further into the system by forcing everyone in America to give them money. It's pretty much the exact opposite of single-payer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site