Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Are insurance co's against the public option because they're afraid the gov't might actually run health care BETTER than they have? - post by John Watson

Soraya Navarez - Afraid they may have to cut profits 750%
8 hours ago

Holly Kittleman  Nope.
7 hours ago

John Watson - I don't know why everyone just assumes the government would do a bad job. Look at the mess insurance co's got us into. Maybe it's time to give someone else a chance.
about an hour ago

John Watson@Holly: doesn't the military have a govt-run health plan?
about an hour ago
 
Bill Fulbright
John, there is a misconception here. The insurance companies did not get us here. I used to sell group insurance with my family's general agency during the mid-70's. Health insurance used to cost about 30.00 per family in a group, and about 50.00 for non-group family coverage.

Lawyers started taking cases and encouraging a litigious atmosphere where huge settlements were obtained for relatively normal malpractice suits. Sure, there were some crappy doctors who left sponges and scissors in people, but these low level cases made it harder and more expensive to settle the cases that were serious. Due to the huge increase in numbers of medical malpractice suits levied by less than ethical lawyers (and there were and are some very ethical ones - so no bashing here), the cost of settling these suits began an upward spiral of costs, covered by insurance companies, including the cost of medical malpractice insurance. The doctors were shocked, but in order to keep their practices open, they passed the cost along to the insurance buyer by raising their cost schedule. I watched the state of Texas have to create a pool of insurance for basic limits of liability for Doctors only available at 100/300 for basic limits. This initial level of coverage was no longer offered by insurance companies. Once obtained, the Doctors had to go out to the second and third layers of liability umbrella providers of medical malpractice insurance to get the limits of coverage needed to stay open for business.

If that wasn't enough the Auto Workers Unions and the Oil and Chemical Workers Unions were going on strikes for more benefits, the Arab Emirates were raising the price of oil - in short prices were starting to soar....

In my opinion the upward spiral of costs in the health insurance begain due to uncontrolled/non-regulated medical malpractice suits.... hence the need now some 40 years later to press for Tort Reform.

Insurance works on the law of numbers, where many pay a lower cost for the coverage received by a few.. all actuarially proven.

Sure, the insurance companies make a profit, and they should. Did you want to support the beginning of a dis-incentive program that will affect lawyers, doctors, insurance companies - effectively chasing away the good guys because some bad guys went nutty and greedy? (this is now underway with the banks not even in the TARP program) . If the talented people are chased away due to no incentive, and the reins of the institutions are left in the hands of the less capable...... what do you think will be the case? Better quality or less quality?

Look, there is a happy balance for it all, and I think we will find it, but not at the point of a gun. We are being asked to accept a half-baked plan that may not be so good at the moment. There are some very good examples of social health care in europe, from which we can learn alot, and implement a lot.

We are being rushed into a second or third rate solution due to politics, rather than the realistic assessment of real health reform, for which I am in favor.

I have been out of work and dependent upon unemployment insurance, but was not allowed to receive any medical care because I had earned too much money previously. So because I worked for many years and had contributed into this public system, when I needed it for me and my family, it was not there for me.

I do not challenge you lightly, but with real world experience.

No comments:

Post a Comment