Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee. - page 7

"So, let me get this straight you have fifteen seats at the table but not one for single-payer?" Priceless.... Read More

  1. by   tntrn
    Quote from herring_RN
    With single payer expanded and improved Medicare will be the insurance company. There will be no shareholders or multimillion dollar compensation.

    The good smart people who work for the for profits can do something useful for a living.
    Maybe go to nursing school?

    http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/facts
    Useful, in your opinion. I am sure they think they are doing useful things now.

    That being said, I do have a problem with the CEO's making millions, but also have a problem with the no profit concept. And nothing the government has ever run has run smoothly, or on budget, so why would we be foolish to think this would be any different?
  2. by   herring_RN
    Quote from tntrn
    Useful, in your opinion. I am sure they think they are doing useful things now.

    That being said, I do have a problem with the CEO's making millions, but also have a problem with the no profit concept. And nothing the government has ever run has run smoothly, or on budget, so why would we be foolish to think this would be any different?
    What useful things are the for profit insurance corporations doing?
    Seriously I can't even guess.

    The United States needs to come up with the times.
    We once had the best public schools, safest food and water supply. Built railroads, delivered mail more reliably and less costly than other countries. Had parks, recreation, and protected our finest natural places with National Parks.
    Whe we realize that government is not the problem or, if it is, that WE are the problem government; we CAN make life better for us all.
  3. by   tntrn
    Quote from herring_RN
    What useful things are the for profit insurance corporations doing?
    Seriously I can't even guess.

    The United States needs to come up with the times.
    We once had the best public schools, safest food and water supply. Built railroads, delivered mail more reliably and less costly than other countries. Had parks, recreation, and protected our finest natural places with National Parks.
    Whe we realize that government is not the problem or, if it is, that WE are the problem government; we CAN make life better for us all.
    [I] guess one anyswer would be to go the way some want: Pay through the nose with taxes. But only those nasty rich people have to do that. The others just get to enjoy the benefits of their good fortune.

    If everybody had to help pay, it would be something to consider, but the way it's going, with 40+% already not paying any income tax at all, I don't see it happening in any kind of workable manner.

    And I would have to add that just throwing money at a problem (like public schools, for example) rarely fixes anything.
  4. by   RN4MERCY
    Quote from GCTMT
    Here is a news story relevant to the initial discussion. I am glad to see that it is getting some press.


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...29823#30629823
    I hope everyone will forward this and invite their peers, family, and friends to watch it; then, let's keep the discussion going. The personal is political; profit has no place in health care. The insurers are coming between patients who need care and the nurses and doctors who provide it. How long are we going to let this go on? We have an ethical duty, as patient advocates, to change this circumstance, and reclaim our moral legacy to be in control of the delivery of health care.
  5. by   Honnte et Srieux
    Quote from herring_RN
    What useful things are the for profit insurance corporations doing?
    Seriously I can't even guess.

    The United States needs to come up with the times.
    We once had the best public schools, safest food and water supply. Built railroads, delivered mail more reliably and less costly than other countries. Had parks, recreation, and protected our finest natural places with National Parks.
    Whe we realize that government is not the problem or, if it is, that WE are the problem government; we CAN make life better for us all.
    First, thanks for the list of single-payer advocates. It might frustrate the people who were arrested to find out that they didn't need to get arrested because the AFL-CIO testified at the hearings.

    Second, I'd like to point out that in criticism of for-profit corporations, I saw several other institutions mentioned, and I had to point this out; as we have 'socialized' our schools, they have deteriorated. I don't know what our gov't has done to prove that they won't make the same mess out of our healthcare system. The post office? Another gov't run debacle, same with our state and national parks.

    I hope it's clear why I don't want the gov't taking my money and then making decisions about healthcare. They can't sustain medicare or social security, a far more simply scheme. I hardly think that these people who can't figure out their own taxes can figure out how to run a socialized healthcare system.

    The gov't is the problem...flat out. They need to get out of the way.

    BTW, my health-care insurance provider is NOT-FOR-PROFIT!!!!
  6. by   herring_RN
    The "Blues" give us the blues wiyth their shell game of for profit subsidiaris.
    http://www.putmipeoplefirst.com/pdfs...-AF-411608.pdf

    They still deny needed care. Google this site to find lawsuits they lost if you don't believe me.

    Premiums paid for healthcare goes to overhead including millions for individual executives.

    Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida's chief executive drew $4.7 million in total compensation last year - http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/...pensation_not/

    The salary and bonus paid to Cleve L. Killingsworth, chairman and chief executive of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, increased 26 percent last year, to $3.5 million, even though the health insurer's membership declined and its net income fell 49 percent.
    Based on previous years' retirement benefits - which Blue Cross-Blue Shield did not report for 2008 - Killingsworth's total pay package was likely about $4.3 million, making him by far the highest paid healthcare executive in Massachusetts...
    http://www.boston.com/business/healt...s_pay_rose_26/
    William C. Van Faasen, the long-time chairman and chief executive of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, was paid $16.4 million in retirement benefits in January 2006, even though he didn't leave the company....
    http://www.boston.com/business/globe...etirement_pay/
  7. by   GCTMT
    Quote from herring_RN
    The "Blues" give us the blues wiyth their shell game of for profit subsidiaris.
    http://www.putmipeoplefirst.com/pdfs...-AF-411608.pdf

    They still deny needed care. Google this site to find lawsuits they lost if you don't believe me.

    Premiums paid for healthcare goes to overhead including millions for individual executives.


    Isn't Blue Cross Blue Shield not-for-profit?
  8. by   Honnte et Srieux
    Quote from herring_RN
    The "Blues" give us the blues wiyth their shell game of for profit subsidiaris.

    They still deny needed care. Google this site to find lawsuits they lost if you don't believe me.
    So will the gov't...and they do.
  9. by   tntrn
    Quote from GCTMT
    Isn't Blue Cross Blue Shield not-for-profit?
    I don't know for sure, but we are covered by Premera, a BCBS plan. And they have many plans under their umbrella. Never have we been denied coverage for something that is covered by our plan, but if the plan we signed on to says no coverage, well, there you go...no coverage. And no surprises either. The plan outline is very clear.

    And when my DH had his prostate cancer; from the first office visit, through surgery and 3 days in the hospital, plus 37 radiation treatments several months later, I think our out of pocket was no more than $300. That's for over $125K in billable fees.

    I have no interest in all hospitals and health care facilities being run by one entity: the government. Where would the impetus to compete and improve be? There wouldn't be any. I can see an even great use of foreign health care facilities who provide top notch and cutting edge procedures by Americans who are disgruntled over what would be cookie cutter stuff here.
  10. by   Jolie
    Quote from herring_RN
    They still deny needed care. Google this site...you don't believe me.

    Premiums paid for healthcare goes to overhead including millions for individual executives.
    I think there is an important distinction getting lost in the discussion, and that is this: Are insurance plans denying needed care (quite possibly) or are they denying uncovered care (likely)? Is a plan obligated to pay for something that is needed, if that item is specifically excluded from coverage. The answer, of course, is no.

    I have read a number of cases over the years of private and public outrage over insurance plans denying payment for care that was clearly excluded in the language of the policy. I don't argue that some of that care was quite necessary for the well-being of the patient.

    But I don't undertand the outrage over the denial of something that has been specifically excluded, and therefore not paid for. We can't go into the grocery store and take items we haven't purchased. We can get outraged, but no one will pay any attention if our auto policy fails to provide a brand new Mercedes when we wreck our 10-year old Honda Civic, on which we have been paying premiums.

    Nor do we have a legitimate cause for outrage when our plan denies coverage for a specifically excluded type of care. That is the beauty of our current system. If we don't like the coverage our employer offers, we have the opportunity to change employers or purchase alternate coverage on our own. Is that expensive as hell? Of course, but the right and opportunity exist. We are not forced into a one-size fits-all plan that doesn't meet our needs.

    The notion that a government mandated plan will cover all "needed" care is naive and unrealistic. Pierette recently posted a thread about 2 cancer treatments that the British NHS has specifically excluded, despite clear evidence of their benefit, because they are too expensive. Any nationalized plan here will be no different. Necessary care for someone will be excluded, because of cost. Just as we get what we pay for in the grocery store and with our auto insurance policies, we will have similar limits with any kind of healthcare insurance system. At least now, with private plans, the participants know up front what those limits are (if they bother to read their policies, which most don't), and can take steps to address them thru other sources of insurance, if they so desire.
    Last edit by Jolie on May 13, '09
  11. by   tntrn
    Quote from Jolie
    I think there is an important distinction getting lost in the discussion, and that is this: Are insurance plans denying needed care (quite possibly) or are they denying uncovered care (likely)? Is a plan obligated to pay for something that is needed, if that item is specifically excluded from coverage. The answer, of course, is no.

    I have read a number of cases over the years of private and public outrage over insurance plans denying payment for care that was clearly excluded in the language of the policy. I don't argue that some of that care was quite necessary for the well-being of the patient.

    But I don't undertand the outrage over the denial of something that has been specifically excluded, and therefore not paid for. We can't go into the grocery store and take items we haven't purchased. We can get outraged, but no one will pay any attention if our auto policy fails to provide a brand new Mercedes when we wreck our 10-year old Honda Civic, on which we have been paying premiums.

    Nor do we have a legitimate cause for outrage when our plan denies coverage for a specifically excluded type of care. That is the beauty of our current system. If we don't like the coverage our employer offers, we have the opportunity to change employers or purchase alternate coverage on our own. Is that expensive as hell? Of course, but the right and opportunity exist. We are not forced into a one-size fits-all plan that doesn't meet our needs.

    The notion that a government mandated plan will cover all "needed" care is naive and unrealistic. H&S recently posted a thread about 2 cancer treatments that the British NHS has specifically excluded, despite clear evidence of their benefit, because they are too expensive. Any nationalized plan here will be no different. Necessary care for someone will be excluded, because of cost. Just as we get what we pay for in the grocery store and with our auto insurance policies, we will have similar limits with any kind of healthcare insurance system. At least now, with private plans, the participants know up front what those limits are (if they bother to read their policies, which most don't), and can take steps to address them thru other sources of insurance, if they so desire.
    If I could put more than thank you at the bottom of your post, I would. Freedom, again, is what it comes down to. Will a government plan give you the freedom to pick and choose what coverage you want, or are you stuck with what they want you to have? Again, no thanks to that idea.
  12. by   hypocaffeinemia
    Quote from tntrn
    Playing devil's advocate here, and I've had to fight with my insurance company too, but if an insurance company is not allowed to make a profit, somebody is not going to get paid for their work. Which you seem to think is okay.
    What do you think "profit" means?

    My hospital is non-profit, yet somehow we all get paid for our work.
  13. by   GCTMT
    But those with the stamina to endure the many exhausting steps of internal review sometimes win. Even if you lose, completing the formal written internal appeal makes you eligible for an independent external review in 43 states and the District of Columbia. State reviews overturn about half of insurers' decisions, and in most states that's final. Nancy Nielsen, president of the America Medical Association and a former chief medical officer of a nonprofit insurance plan, says, "If health insurers are making coverage decisions that are fair and compassionate, very few will be overturned by the state's external appeal process." The numbers speak for themselves.
    http://health.usnews.com/articles/he...ying-care.html

    Katie Hebert, age 4, is a very sick little girl. She gets severe seizure-like attacks that can last 11 hours from an undiagnosed neuro-developmental disorder. She is deaf in one ear, has a feeding disorder and requires daily medication for asthma. In her short life, she has been rushed to the emergency room six times and hospitalized twice. Her health was put at even greater risk when she lost her health coverage -- which meant no more regular doctor's visits, weekly therapy or attention from specialists.
    To deal with this crisis, Katie's father tried to buy private insurance, but he couldn't afford the roughly $1,000 a month, about 30 percent of his salary, to pay for the insurance plan offered by his employer. And even if he could have afforded the insurance, it would not have covered all of Katie's health needs. On top of that, other private insurers would not accept Katie in their programs because of her pre-existing conditions.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian..._b_201473.html

    "Pacificare rejected me because I'm an expectant father. Blue Shield rejected me because I got a spider bite. And then this one rejected me because of asthma," Svonkin said.

    Last year one nationwide survey, the Commonwealth Fund, found that 89 percent, or 52 million, of those looking for individual health insurance didn't get it because it was too expensive or they were turned down. "Insurers are getting double the profit that they make in the group market. Why is it so lucrative? Because they exclude anybody and everybody who has even a remote sense of risk associated with their health care," says Dr. Bryan Liang, who has studied the insurance industry for more than a decade.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2843007.shtml

close