Health care e-mail from the White House

[Kelly the Dog]

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522qpmd.html

 

Raw numbers are useless without context. When people quote total profits, they are relying on people being too dumb to look at the actual books.

 

 

Also, health insurance is the 86th most profitable industry in America. Not to mention $12.9 billion is fairly minuscule when you are talking in hundreds of billions to over a trillion.

Wellpoint made 2.5 billion after taxes last year. Humana 1.34 billion. After tax profit is not profit?

[Kelly the Dog]

do you want to bet if it passes that the bill will look drastically different than it is today?

 

Considering there isnt a bill yet that would be difficult. It also depends on what you consider drastically different, and what you think are the most important elements.

[Fingon]

Wellpoint made 2.5 billion after taxes last year. Humana 1.34 billion. After tax profit is not profit?

What were their expenditures? The average cost for a single person to buy a health insurance plan is $4700. If you reduced insurance company profit by 2/3's the savings would only be $94 a year.

[The Dean]

What were their expenditures? The average cost for a single person to buy a health insurance plan is $4700. If you reduced insurance company profit by 2/3's the savings would only be $94 a year.

 

 

In every business in every industry I have worked in, "made" means after expenditures.

[Fingon]

In every business in every industry I have worked in, "made" means after expenditures.

Apparently profit margins are lost on you people.

[Kelly the Dog]

What were their expenditures? The average cost for a single person to buy a health insurance plan is $4700. If you reduced insurance company profit by 2/3's the savings would only be $94 a year.

 

First, I am not saying insurance companies are the sole culprits, and a lot of their expenditures are not their fault and they need to be reformed too, in a dramatic way. I also agree that their margins are small, but that doesn't mean they don't make a killing. They spend way too much money on administration, too.

[DC Tom]

Wellpoint made 2.5 billion after taxes last year. Humana 1.34 billion. After tax profit is not profit?

 

I think he's arguing it's not extortion. Humana's net profit margin is 2.8%. Wellpoint and United Health, 4%. Cigna's, 3.2%. The industry average is 3.3%.

 

That is not an excessive profit margin. For comparison, IBM's is 13%. Microsoft's is 25%. Kaiser Aluminum's was about 10% last time they made a profit. Lockheed Martin and DuPont, 7%. Plenty of companies have higher.

[DC Tom]

First, I am not saying insurance companies are the sole culprits, and a lot of their expenditures are not their fault and they need to be reformed too, in a dramatic way. I also agree that their margins are small, but that doesn't mean they don't make a killing. They spend way too much money on administration, too.

 

How much?

[IDBillzFan]

I think he's arguing it's not extortion. Humana's net profit margin is 2.8%. Wellpoint and United Health, 4%. Cigna's, 3.2%. The industry average is 3.3%.

 

That is not an excessive profit margin. For comparison, IBM's is 13%. Microsoft's is 25%. Kaiser Aluminum's was about 10% last time they made a profit. Lockheed Martin and DuPont, 7%. Plenty of companies have higher.

Yes, but facts like that don't work for liberals. Because excessive profits are bad, mmmkay? Corporations that make profits are greedy, mmmkay? Only the government can fix (fill in the blank) and the fastest way to do that is to let people who have NO experience runnining a company or understanding of what a profit margin really is rant about a ridiculous number like 428% and yell "Look at the greedy company! They're the reason for your problems in life, and windfall profits must be taken from these greedy bastards by the government because only the government can save you."

 

Lost in all of this is that every person who even remotely finds it necessary to promote a government-run public option ignores history and simply wants the government option to begin the steps toward more government intrusion and control of the masses, as well as the economy, all based on the absurd concept that profits are bad, government is smarter, people are stupid, and if you aren't willing to help the clueless, you clearly aren't American.

 

ANY option that involves the government having ANY involvement in ANY care should be abandoned. And it's obvious that the liberals are having a hard time getting away with this because they control the entire US government and can't pass a damn thing because America may not be as stupid as they think they are.

 

You really need to be some kind of blind fool to see a company have a profit jump of 428% and find a way to not only villify it, but use it as a reason to bring more government into the lives of American individuals simply because of a small group that needs a leg up.

[Magox]

First, I am not saying insurance companies are the sole culprits, and a lot of their expenditures are not their fault and they need to be reformed too, in a dramatic way. I also agree that their margins are small, but that doesn't mean they don't make a killing. They spend way too much money on administration, too.

Fingon's argument is on point. The profit margin on the companies in question are way below most of the major industries. A 3% profit margin is very little and there really isn't too much room for them to cut down their costs.

 

This is actually a fantastic point that Fingon brings up, and that is that it isn't Health Care Insurance where the problem lies, it is in the excessive cost expenditures from the Health Care Industry that needs to be reformed.

 

The thesis behind the governments argument is that if the government steps in to provide health insurance to the general public that it will compete with the private sector therefore lowering the cost of health insurance. Considering the profit margin is less than 3.5%, that doesn't leave too much room for the health insurers to drop their price. This tells me that reform is needed with the health care providers as opposed to the insurers.

[Kelly the Dog]

You really need to be some kind of blind fool to see a company have a profit jump of 428% and find a way to not only villify it, but use it as a reason to bring more government into the lives of American individuals simply because of a small group that needs a leg up.

I have a better idea. Insurance companies should raise their premiums on everyone across the board and make a 956% jump in profit. That's capitalism! Greed is good. It doesn't matter that health care causes more bankruptcies than everything. We should make the most money we can off the sick and dying and vulnerable.

[Kelly the Dog]

The thesis behind the governments argument is that if the government steps in to provide health insurance to the general public that it will compete with the private sector therefore lowering the cost of health insurance. Considering the profit margin is less than 3.5%, that doesn't leave too much room for the health insurers to drop their price. This tells me that reform is needed with the health care providers as opposed to the insurers.

There is not one main element of our health care system and how we charge and pay for it that doesn't need extensive fixing, and that includes the government. Hospitals and facilities, doctors/nurses, drug companies, insurance, the government, supply companies, and the general public themselves all need major fixing. The entire system is completely out of hand and unsustainable.

[IDBillzFan]

I have a better idea. Insurance companies should raise their premiums on everyone across the board and make a 956% jump in profit. That's capitalism! Greed is good. It doesn't matter that health care causes more bankruptcies than everything. We should make the most money we can off the sick and dying and vulnerable.

It's almost scary how easily you fall into the trap of "crisis, crisis, crisis," followed quickly by pointing at someone OTHER than the government for the problems in this world.

 

Here's a tip: even if health care DOES cause more bankruptcies than anything else in the world, WHY...just tell me WHY is a government-run option at any level the best way to fix things? Why do we need MORE government micromanagement in our everday lives in order to fix the problems the very government is, in part, responsible for creating?

 

We both know the answer to that question: because liberals need control of the people and the economy (and they don't have the nutsack to address tort reform when their pockets are lined with money from lawyers). Only then can they keep the control they so desperately need to fill their pockets while pretending that they're really looking after this or that unfortunate group of people.

 

Unfortunately, even in the face of a completely screwed up Republican party, the liberals can't get out of their own dysfunctional way because the efforts they're presenting are NOT about helping people, but rather about grabbing more power before 2010. But you keep telling us how their REAL goal is to help the group that goes bankrupt because of illnesses. You keep telling us about that group of 47 million we need to cover, even though we're only really going to cover 10 million, even though what is being proposed may work, or may not work, or who knows if it'll work, but anything is better than nothing even if the anything that is being proposed is so embarrassingly ridiculous that not a SINGLE liberal elected official can even explain what the !@#$ it's designed to do.

 

Better yet, why don't you round up the group of people who went bankrupt, let us know how much they owe to clear their debt, and then we'll see if we just can't take that irresponsible $634 BILLION downpayment to cover their costs and maybe help out the next bankruptcies for the next billion years before you force the government into yet ANOTHER aspect of the lives of the individual American. As Dennis Miller says, I have no problem helping the helpless. It's the clueless I don't want to help.

 

You really want to help Americans? Get the government out of their everyday lives, treat them as individuals (not as a poor, ignored, unfortunate group), and stop telling them that the only way their problems can go away is if the inept people in Washington, driven only by greed, have the answers to their problems. Let individual Americans win or lose on their own, and America can once again be about the individual effort instead of the ridiculous efforts now to save a particular group that suddenly needs saving.

 

But no...profit is bad. Greed is bad. We must take the money because THAT will fix the problem.

 

You're smarter than that.

[Kelly the Dog]

LA, please do me a favor and answer a question for me seriously. What percentage of small and big size companies who choose to pay for their employees health care, are going to CHOOSE to screw over their employees by giving them clearly inferior care (the government run system) to save 10% on their health care costs in the public plan? I'm talking about the ones that voluntarily pay health benefits now? What percentage of these companies would choose to give their employees crappy coverage? 2% 5% 10% 25% 50% 75%? How many?

[swede316]

LA, please do me a favor and answer a question for me seriously. What percentage of small and big size companies who choose to pay for their employees health care, are going to CHOOSE to screw over their employees by giving them clearly inferior care (the government run system) to save 10% on their health care costs in the public plan? I'm talking about the ones that voluntarily pay health benefits now? What percentage of these companies would choose to give their employees crappy coverage? 2% 5% 10% 25% 50% 75%? How many?

I'd say probably not many...BUT my company is constantly tasked by our customer...Find 10% efficiencies (savings) every year on the current contract. While this might not be health care...It usually equates to positions being not filled, people being let go, etc. A 10% savings on health care might be viewed as a win/win by the company. Just the way it is.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'd say probably not many...BUT my company is constantly tasked by our customer...Find 10% efficiencies (savings) every year on the current contract. While this might not be health care...It usually equates to positions being not filled, people being let go, etc. A 10% savings on health care might be viewed as a win/win by the company. Just the way it is.

Medicare's administration/overhead/profit costs are 4%. The private insurers is 20%. That's where all the money is.

[DC Tom]

Medicare's administration/overhead/profit costs are 4%. The private insurers is 20%. That's where all the money is.

 

And yet, Medicare's monthly costs amount to almost $900 per member. Private insurance, about $300/month/member.

 

My point basically being: any numbers you read on either's cost structure are likely to be wrong, inaccurate, incomplete, or not directly comparable. People will crunch the accounting numbers either way according to their predetermined bias.

[X. Benedict]

We both know the answer to that question: because liberals need control of the people and the economy (and they don't have the nutsack to address tort reform when their pockets are lined with money from lawyers). Only then can they keep the control they so desperately need to fill their pockets while pretending that they're really looking after this or that unfortunate group of people.

 

Do you really think Tort reform is at the heart of it all?

 

I thought insurance companies took Malpractice Premiums and invested them...which is a big source of income for them.

 

Could tort reform actually hurt insurance profits...and thereby not create dynamic for lower premiums (Texas is much discussed here)...and not really get rid of all the unnecessary tests defensive doctors seem to love either.

 

Just wondering if there is any evidence that Tort reform has lowered premiums and made health care more accessible?

[IDBillzFan]

LA, please do me a favor and answer a question for me seriously. What percentage of small and big size companies who choose to pay for their employees health care, are going to CHOOSE to screw over their employees by giving them clearly inferior care (the government run system) to save 10% on their health care costs in the public plan? I'm talking about the ones that voluntarily pay health benefits now? What percentage of these companies would choose to give their employees crappy coverage? 2% 5% 10% 25% 50% 75%? How many?

I'm not sure of the relevance of this question since my argument is for less government intrusion in the lives of individual Americans, but I'll play along this morning (thought I have to actually work today).

 

First, it depends on a couple of things, including how long unemployment hangs out at 10%, 11%, 12%, which could be a very long time. Since health care is not a right and is only an employee benefit in our discussion, we need to understand that employers primarily offer it to entice the hiring of the best possible employees. When you team a really good salary with really good bennies, you attract really good employees. If there is a glut of good employees, as you are seeing now, you don't need to offer up all the goods to attract them because with a high unemployment comes people just happy to get a paycheck. So if an employer can shed health care costs and still get good employees, many may. How many? Who the hell knows. Neither you nor I for sure. But you overlook one obvious reality here: a company can change it's health insurance policy any time it wants. As an example, my company currently provides health care coverage for all employees and their families, however if there is a public option available in the near term, I would change my policy to say we'll only cover the new employee, and his/her family can jump on the public option.

 

Another factor is how much a company spends on health care. Since you think a 3% profit margin is "making a killing," you would have to agree that larger companies would pick up that 10% in a NY minute because you are talking about millions of dollars in savings, assuming the government isn't double-dipping and charging the company 5% tax for not covering employees. On the other hand, I'm not sure where you come up with the 10% savings number since no one has any clue what this is really going to cost. No one. What we do have is history on our side to show us what will likely happen, and you don't need to be a conservative to realize that the government's ability to forecast costs is embarrassing at best.

 

But again...even if only 2% of businesses opt out and let their employees take on the public plan today, what if more companies stop allowing new employees to have company-provided care. What about 10 years from now? Or 15 years from now? Will the public option go down the road of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and be on the verge of bankrupting our country like those three programs? Or will it suck MORE taxpayer dollars faster than expected like the Clunkers program, which as of this morning is suffering yet another embarrassing setback due, apparently, to rushing through yet another program the government not only miscaculated, but also was not ready to manage. You seem to trust government to the extent that you want and need them in your life. That's probably where we differ. The more I read, the more I want them to get further out of my life.

 

There are things we can do to reform health care (such as tort reform and national competition for policies, to name a couple) without more government involvement in the lives of individual Americans, but the current administration seems to want no part of that.

[Kelly the Dog]

And yet, Medicare's monthly costs amount to almost $900 per member. Private insurance, about $300/month/member.

That stat doesn't seem to say or prove anything in this debate other than employers pay for their employee's health care and older people's health care costs more per person, two things everyone knows.

 

I agree with you in generic terms about statistics of course but some are a lot more meaningful than others and some are a lot more misleading or applicable, etc. than others.

 

Another interesting one to me is that in the early 90s when Clinton was trying to push health care, 95 cents of every dollar from private insurance went towards paying for care. Today, only 80 cents of every dollar does. That's an enormous difference.

[Magox]

Another interesting one to me is that in the early 90s when Clinton was trying to push health care, 95 cents of every dollar from private insurance went towards paying for care. Today, only 80 cents of every dollar does. That's an enormous difference.

Could the increasing costs of malpractice suits have anything to do with that? The bottom line is if you look at WellPoint's or some of the other large insurers, their profit margins are less than 3.5% . So it's not as if that they are pocketing a huge % of their gross revenues.

[X. Benedict]

Could the increasing costs of malpractice suits have anything to do with that? The bottom line is if you look at WellPoint's or some of the other large insurers, their profit margins are less than 3.5% . So it's not as if that they are pocketing a huge % of their gross revenues.

 

The guy who would know would probably be Henry Waxman...he authored all the California caps on non-economic damage.

 

Actually, as much as this has turned into a liberal/conservative wrastling match....I don't think there is a well defined

position in either party.

 

Wouldn't lower medical liability premiums hurt insurance companies?

Or is this liberals attacking profit again?

[Magox]

Actually, as much as this has turned into a liberal/conservative wrastling match....I don't think there is a well defined

position in either party.

I can agree with this

[IDBillzFan]

Do you really think Tort reform is at the heart of it all?

 

I thought insurance companies took Malpractice Premiums and invested them...which is a big source of income for them.

 

Could tort reform actually hurt insurance profits...and thereby not create dynamic for lower premiums (Texas is much discussed here)...and not really get rid of all the unnecessary tests defensive doctors seem to love either.

 

Just wondering if there is any evidence that Tort reform has lowered premiums and made health care more accessible?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it's imperative to consider tort reform (in addition to other ideas, like national competition) when considering health care reform, and not just say "We need a public option as the only way to bring costs down." It seems the only answer any more is "Only the government can fix (fill in the blank)" and for those of us who prefer less government in our lives, that's simply a terrible answer when other options are not being considered.

[X. Benedict]

I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it's imperative to consider tort reform (in addition to other ideas, like national competition) when considering health care reform, and not just say "We need a public option as the only way to bring costs down." It seems the only answer any more is "Only the government can fix (fill in the blank)" and for those of us who prefer less government in our lives, that's simply a terrible answer when other options are not being considered.

 

I can't say I disagree....(geez it's too big for me)...but tort reform is by definition a type of regulation.

 

I really don't see the Obama initiative going anywhere at this point...but the country will probably try it again every 10 years.

[Fingon]

That stat doesn't seem to say or prove anything in this debate other than employers pay for their employee's health care and older people's health care costs more per person, two things everyone knows.

 

I agree with you in generic terms about statistics of course but some are a lot more meaningful than others and some are a lot more misleading or applicable, etc. than others.

 

Another interesting one to me is that in the early 90s when Clinton was trying to push health care, 95 cents of every dollar from private insurance went towards paying for care. Today, only 80 cents of every dollar does. That's an enormous difference.

According to the CBO, medicare is extremely wasteful.

[stuckincincy]

The very idea that an Administration feels the need to send out personal communications to the public is chilling.

 

Pimping for popular support...how weak.

[DC Tom]

That stat doesn't seem to say or prove anything in this debate other than employers pay for their employee's health care and older people's health care costs more per person, two things everyone knows.

 

Neither does your post I responded to. I was just demonstrating that the numbers can be sliced-and-diced every which way, and hence don't prove anything.

 

The numbers I gave, by the way, were administrative costs per patient. You could read the numbers, combined with yours, as demonstrating Medicare's ineffeciency - they cost more per patient to insure, but overall admin costs are less simply because they have fewer participants who consume more. It would demonstrate your numbers as a fallacy...though to be honest, I'd consider any numbers fallacious.

 

Another interesting one to me is that in the early 90s when Clinton was trying to push health care, 95 cents of every dollar from private insurance went towards paying for care. Today, only 80 cents of every dollar does. That's an enormous difference.

 

That is interesting. Personally...I blame attempts at cost control via justifying every little thing. See the "transparency" thread...

[Kelly the Dog]

Neither does your post I responded to. I was just demonstrating that the numbers can be sliced-and-diced every which way, and hence don't prove anything.

I think the 4% versus the 20% is a very important number because somewhere in between 4% and 20% is where all of the money needs to come from if insurance premiums are going to come down, due to the relatively small percentage the insurers make on each enrollee that we discussed. The co-ops, btw, (some) come in at around 12% which would be a good start.

 

A great deal of the problem with insurers is the big guys keep buying up a lot of small guys and they have to keep their shareholders (mostly hedge funds and the like) and Wall Street guys happy, so their need to make more profit comes at the expense of their enrollees. That's part of why the 95 cents has dropped to 80 cents.

[Kelly the Dog]

According to the CBO, medicare is extremely wasteful.

 

It is, and some of the reform bill addresses that, although not nearly enough. In the last decade, however, Medicare costs on a percentage basis have risen a lot less than private insurers and we know how wasteful Medicare is, and how much fraud there is, and how inept the government can be. Yet the private industry is doing significantly worse.

[Magox]

I think the 4% versus the 20% is a very important number because somewhere in between 4% and 20% is where all of the money needs to come from if insurance premiums are going to come down, due to the relatively small percentage the insurers make on each enrollee that we discussed. The co-ops, btw, (some) come in at around 12% which would be a good start.

 

A great deal of the problem with insurers is the big guys keep buying up a lot of small guys and they have to keep their shareholders (mostly hedge funds and the like) and Wall Street guys happy, so their need to make more profit comes at the expense of their enrollees. That's part of why the 95 cents has dropped to 80 cents.

You are absolutely correct in your first paragraph, if I'm understanding you correctly. Somewhere in between the 4-20% range is where the problem needs to addressed, and from my understanding a lot of that comes from the claims department and consumer services, administrative costs, government payments and compliance.

 

If the problem was mainly overinflated profits in the health insurance industry, competition would solve that problem. Since a 4% profit margin seems to be right around the industry standard for the health insurers, I don't see what further competition would do to lower these costs.

 

Here's an interesting report from Wellpoint, it's a little long, but informative.

 

http://www.wellpoint.com/pdf/Premium%20Cost%20Drivers.pdf

 

http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blo...rance-industry/

[DC Tom]

I think the 4% versus the 20% is a very important number because somewhere in between 4% and 20% is where all of the money needs to come from if insurance premiums are going to come down, due to the relatively small percentage the insurers make on each enrollee that we discussed. The co-ops, btw, (some) come in at around 12% which would be a good start.

 

Or in other words: the money needs to come from the $300 per person per month in administrative costs the insurers spend.

[Magox]

You are absolutely correct in your first paragraph, if I'm understanding you correctly. Somewhere in between the 4-20% range is where the problem needs to addressed, and from my understanding a lot of that comes from the claims department and consumer services, government payments and compliance.

 

If the problem was mainly overinflated profits in the health insurance industry, competition would solve that problem. Since a 4% profit margin seems to be right around the industry standard for the health insurers, I don't see what further competition would do to lower these costs.

 

Here's an interesting report from Wellpoint, it's a little long, but informative.

 

http://www.wellpoint.com/pdf/Premium%20Cost%20Drivers.pdf

 

http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blo...rance-industry/

 

 

Here is also a list of what most other industry profit margins are

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...stries/profits/

 

If you read the second link from the previous thread you will see that the Health insurance number that is listed is actually much lower than it shows because it is combined with Life and Health (stock).

 

It's pretty clear that it isn't the insurers that are the greedy one's here.

 

Government seems to be barking up the wrong tree.

[Kelly the Dog]

Or in other words: the money needs to come from the $300 per person per month in administrative costs the insurers spend.

 

Yes. But that's not what you said, you made the comparison between Medicare spending three times more per person as if to say that private insurance is not overspending, but relatively cheap compared to public insurance.

[DC Tom]

Yes. But that's not what you said, you made the comparison between Medicare spending three times more per person as if to say that private insurance is not overspending, but relatively cheap compared to public insurance.

 

And you're saying that Medicare spends three times more, but 80% less.

 

Of course, that three times more per patient per month, but 80% less on an overall "cost of goods sold" [sic] basis. Or, to put it another way, per individual Medicare spends $900/month on admin, representing 4% of expenditures; while private insurance spends $300/month representing 20%. Stop for a minute and think about what that actually means.

[Kelly the Dog]

And you're saying that Medicare spends three times more, but 80% less.

 

Of course, that three times more per patient per month, but 80% less on an overall "cost of goods sold" [sic] basis. Or, to put it another way, per individual Medicare spends $900/month on admin, representing 4% of expenditures; while private insurance spends $300/month representing 20%. Stop for a minute and think about what that actually means.

 

Where do you get these numbers? How is it that Medicare spends $900 per person per month on administration? That's $10,800 a year just on administration per person? So it costs the government $270,000 per person on Medicare?

[DC Tom]

Where do you get these numbers? How is it that Medicare spends $900 per person per month on administration? That's $10,800 a year just on administration per person? So it costs the government $270,000 per person on Medicare?

 

And what's wrong with those numbers? You would expect Medicare to have higher administrative expenses - people enrolled in Medicare tend to be older and thus consumer more health care resources...and thus, generate more administrative overhead. You'd also expect Medicare's administrative expenese to be proportionally lower, because while their admin expenses are more, their direct health care expenses are a HELL of a lot more.

 

My point being that you're argument that Medicare's somehow more efficient because their overall administrative costs are 4% compared to 20% for insurers is a completely fallacious one. You're comparing completely different programs based on a simple ratio rather than the very complex (and probably different) accounting standards of each. You simply can't get to your conclusion from your information.

[Taro T]

Where do you get these numbers? How is it that Medicare spends $900 per person per month on administration? That's $10,800 a year just on administration per person? So it costs the government $270,000 per person on Medicare?

Don't know where those #'s come from, but for a Heritage Foundation / Paul Krugman biatchslap contest, the administrative #'s being bandied about for 2005 were $509/yr for Medicare and $453/yr for private health insurance.

 

Those sound a bit closer to realistic as they put the costs of coverage for each more into the ~$10k/yr for Medicare and ~3k/yr for private insurance range. I doubt either is correct, but as mentioned they do seem more realistic.

[DC Tom]

Don't know where those #'s come from, but for a Heritage Foundation / Paul Krugman biatchslap contest, the administrative #'s being bandied about for 2005 were $509/yr for Medicare and $453/yr for private health insurance.

 

Those sound a bit closer to realistic as they put the costs of coverage for each more into the ~$10k/yr for Medicare and ~3k/yr for private insurance range. I doubt either is correct, but as mentioned they do seem more realistic.

 

My point was less the numbers than it was that comparing Medicare to private insurers is an apples-to-oranges comparison made doubly stupid when no one knows the real numbers anyway, and triply stupid when one uses a single data point for comparison.

 

Though the $300/$900 numbers don't seem out of line to me - in my own health plan, I'm healthy, my wife's not comparatively, and I'm sure her admin costs are at least that much more than mine because of it. I can think of three easy reasons they'd be right - and three they'd be wrong (first on the list being: they're from the Heritage Foundation).

[DC Tom]

That you're saying it costs Medicare $900 per month per person, which is $10,800 per person in administrative costs alone -- and yet acknowledging that Medicare's administrative costs are 4% of its total cost. So the math says it costs the US government $270,000 per person on Medicare.

 

There are about 40,000,000 Americans on Medicare. We spend $10,800,000,000,000 (almost 11 trillion a year) on Medicare?

 

So how much is it then? What are the actual per person administrative costs of Medicare, that they're a fifth as much as provate insurance?