What do health insurance corporations do?

GCTMT · Jun 6, 2009

As far as I can tell, they steal, and lie to people.

blue note · Jun 6, 2009

I see they own large buildings throughout the country. What is getting done in there?

I am sure they are busy devising new ways to just say NO to consumers. And figuring out ways to kill health care reform, or at the very least, water it down as best as they can. Also, spreading propaganda about "socialized health care" ("OMG, it'd be national suicide!"), etc.

wowza · Jun 7, 2009

Please tell me what constructive and/or useful things health insurance companies do.
I see they own large buildings throughout the country. What is getting done in there?

Everyone always points to the negatives about health insurance companies. And while there definitely are some, without these companies no one would be able to afford a catastrophic accident, cancer treatment or the like. Recently so much propaganda has come out decrying the evils of insurance companies, pharma etc. Look, there definitely are some but they are definitely better than giving up your power to choose to the government.

It has become popular for people to support universal or gov't run healthcare and it's proponents act as if fighting it is immoral and only motivated by money. This is not true.

Doesn't anyone else find it concerning congress is trying to push a revolution in health care so quickly? Health care is complex and without proper time and foresight, we will have an even more poorly run health care system controlled by people very removed from the reality of the system they have created. It will take years if not decades to undo. Look at some of the current gov't run programs: the post office, the DMV. Not exactly models of efficiency.

I am not sure if any of you work at the VA, but our VA is a complete nightmare. It is a model of inefficiency. It takes forever for anything to get done and people end up staying in the hospital days if not weeks longer than they should. The main hospital I work at (in the same area as the VA) recieves most of its funding from the state to take care of the indigent population and has few of the problems the VA has. The only difference here is one is gov't run (VA) and one just gets gov't money (not the VA).

The gov't taking such a strong role is exactly why we have a constitution. Sure things are not as good as they could be but having the gov't step in to take control is not the right answer. Our founding fathers, even the most loose constructionalists, would be rolling in their graves if they knew what was going to happen.

Thomas Jefferson warned against such changes saying, "A gov't big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have"

We deferrend to the gov't during the depression and look what catastrophes came out of that: our social security system is a complete mess. Now imagine it on a much larger scale .

I will leave you with another TJ quote: "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

allnurses Guide · Jun 7, 2009

Everyone always points to the negatives about health insurance companies. And while there definitely are some, without these companies no one would be able to afford a catastrophic accident, cancer treatment or the like. Recently so much propaganda has come out decrying the evils of insurance companies, pharma etc. Look, there definitely are some but they are definitely better than giving up your power to choose to the government.
It has become popular for people to support universal or gov't run healthcare and it's proponents act as if fighting it is immoral and only motivated by money. This is not true.
Doesn't anyone else find it concerning congress is trying to push a revolution in health care so quickly? Health care is complex and without proper time and foresight, we will have an even more poorly run health care system controlled by people very removed from the reality of the system they have created. It will take years if not decades to undo. Look at some of the current gov't run programs: the post office, the DMV. Not exactly models of efficiency.
I am not sure if any of you work at the VA, but our VA is a complete nightmare. It is a model of inefficiency. It takes forever for anything to get done and people end up staying in the hospital days if not weeks longer than they should.
The main hospital I work at (in the same area as the VA) recieves most of its funding from the state to take care of the indigent population and has few of the problems the VA has. The only difference here is one is gov't run (VA) and one just gets gov't money (not the VA).
The gov't taking such a strong role is exactly why we have a constitution. Sure things are not as good as they could be but having the gov't step in to take control is not the right answer. Our founding fathers, even the most loose constructionalists, would be rolling in their graves if they knew what was going to happen.
Thomas Jefferson warned against such changes saying, "A gov't big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have"
We deferrend to the gov't during the depression and look what catastrophes came out of that: our social security system is a complete mess. Now imagine it on a much larger scale .
I will leave you with another TJ quote: "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

What your hospital is doing is exactly why many nurses and others want a single payer healthcare plan.

The providers stay the same while the funding is the government.

Then everyone, including elected members of Congress, will have the same insurer.

HR 676 establishes an American-styled national health insurance program.

The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care program that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans, guaranteed by law, will have access to the highest quality and cost effective health care services regardless of ones employment, income, or health care status.

wowza · Jun 7, 2009

What your hospital is doing is exactly why many nurses and others want a single payer healthcare plan.
The providers stay the same while the funding is the government.
Then everyone, including elected members of Congress, will have the same insurer.
HR 676 establishes an American-styled national health insurance program.
The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care program that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans, guaranteed by law, will have access to the highest quality and cost effective health care services regardless of ones employment, income, or health care status.

While I agree that in theory this could be a great good for the citizens of the united states, in practice it goes against many of the core ideals that this country was founded upon:

1) It creates a good for one class at the servitude of another. Providing health care for one group is not more just than taxing another to get it.

an example: If I needed a car, would you feel it was right to be forced to pay for my car?

2) Giving the central gov't the power to supply the money for everyone's health care is a stone's throw away from full control. It will give the gov't the impetus to control how health care is delivered and later to whom. Never before in US history has the gov't been given such power over the life and death of ordinary citizens. This is a disconcerting possibility that we are facing.

Perhaps when it is first created there will be none of these dooms day problems I worry about but allowing your rights to be slowly chipped away will surely lead us there.

CRNA2007 · Jun 7, 2009

Those who cry the loudest for the government entitlements are the ones who will fund it the least. I would love for nurses on here advocating government funded healthcare to have a $1000/ month taken right out of their checks to pay for it. They would be screaming bloody murder but when it is someone else footing the bill it is a moral obligation.

While I agree that in theory this could be a great good for the citizens of the united states, in practice it goes against many of the core ideals that this country was founded upon:
1) It creates a good for one class at the servitude of another. Providing health care for one group is not more just than taxing another to get it.
an example: If I needed a car, would you feel it was right to be forced to pay for my car?
2) Giving the central gov't the power to supply the money for everyone's health care is a stone's throw away from full control. It will give the gov't the impetus to control how health care is delivered and later to whom. Never before in US history has the gov't been given such power over the life and death of ordinary citizens. This is a disconcerting possibility that we are facing.
Perhaps when it is first created there will be none of these dooms day problems I worry about but allowing your rights to be slowly chipped away will surely lead us there.

allnurses Guide · Jun 7, 2009

Those who cry the loudest for the government entitlements are the ones who will fund it the least. I would love for nurses on here advocating government funded healthcare to have a $1000/ month taken right out of their checks to pay for it. They would be screaming bloody murder but when it is someone else footing the bill it is a moral obligation.

What do health insurance corporations do?

I pay about that much for for health insurance now.

The question IS

What do health insurance corporations do?

GCTMT · Jun 7, 2009

Those who cry the loudest for the government entitlements are the ones who will fund it the least.

hmm...I'm not entirely sure about that. 53% of voters who earned over $200k a year voted for Obama in the last election. And one of the pressing issues for him was expanding health care coverage for all Americans. So, they knew that they were going to get a tax increase, but they voted for him anyway. Seems they certainly "cried" loud for change.

allnurses Guide · Jun 7, 2009

I'm not crying. I'm asking a question.

What is being accomplished in all the buildings owened by health insurance corporations?

nicurn001 · Jun 7, 2009

while i agree that in theory this could be a great good for the citizens of the united states, in practice it goes against many of the core ideals that this country was founded upon:
1) it creates a good for one class at the servitude of another. providing health care for one group is not more just than taxing another to get it.
an example: if i needed a car, would you feel it was right to be forced to pay for my car? the "need" for a car is discretionary , wheras the need for healthcare , is usually obligated by a health condition that requires treament , (whatever the cause )
2) giving the central gov't the power to supply the money for everyone's health care is a stone's throw away from full control. it will give the gov't the impetus to control how health care is delivered and later to whom(this is being done at present by the insurance corporations , whose decisions are motivated by their need to creat profit for their shareholders, while the single payer would have no direct influence upon the course of treatment your physician orders . never before in us history has the gov't been given such power over the life and death of ordinary citizens. this is a disconcerting possibility that we are facing.having lived in a country with uhc , i never felt the same level of influence upon healthcare decision then as i do now under a private insurance system , whose decisions are driven by the bottom line .
perhaps when it is first created there will be none of these dooms day problems i worry about but allowing your rights to be slowly chipped away will surely lead us there.

whilst i am not against a system which enables providers to generate enough profit to finance healthcare provision , what i am against , is the existence of a middleman ( the insurance corporations )inserting themselves between the consumer and provider , making a vast profit , professing themselves to be indispensible , but fighting against a system that at least shows a reasonable promise of providing healthcare to all at a reasonable cost .

nicurn001 · Jun 7, 2009

Those who cry the loudest for the government entitlements are the ones who will fund it the least. I would love for nurses on here advocating government funded healthcare to have a $1000/ month taken right out of their checks to pay for it. They would be screaming bloody murder but when it is someone else footing the bill it is a moral obligation.

Whilst ( I guess you don't pay $1000 / month for your health insurance ) your position appears to be I'm alright jack and I don't give a ******** about the uninsured ( or those already paying $1000/ month ) , as long as they don't effect my income .

You appear to feel health insurance is a benefit to be earned either directly from your employer , or paid for directly by the individual from their income . I feel it would be a benifit for all of us if health problems could be adressed early by our PCP , reducing the number of people waiting until their health conditions demand expensive attention at an ER , followed by admission to hospital , which could have been avoided by seeking healthcare earlier .

I have never had to pay anywhere near $1000 / month , for healthcare , even when heaven forbid , I was covered by a UHC system BTW there was much less intrusion into healthcare decisions , there than here with my private insurer .I never once had to seek preapproval for a treatment . When I changed jobs I didn't have to worry that a propective new employer may decide against employing me , because by taking me on their insurance premiums would be jacked up , also there was no break or change in coverage from one employer to another .

No funding system for healthcare is perfect , but at least a single payer system spreads the costs over a larger pool of payers ( all tax payers ) and covers a larger pool of participants ( the whole population of the US)