The Truth about the proposed Health Reform Costs

[Magox]

The $829 Billion Baucus plan is deceptive, and unfortunately most people won't get to hear the truth about the impact it will have. Not only would it make our premiums go higher, but it will DEFINITELY add to the deficit.

 

Here goes:

 

1) Through accounting trickery, on paper, the Baucus Bill appears to be Deficit neutral, but when you dig deep into it, you discover that it is very deceptive.

 

The CBO recently tagged a 10-year cost estimate of $829 billion to the Baucus bill, which fits the presidents criteria of being "deficit neutral." However, through budgetary trickery, the plan includes a start year of 2010, even though no money is spent that year and just $14 billion through 2013. If you cost the plan out from 2011 through 2020 it suddenly becomes a trillion-dollar plan. The average annual cost from 2015 through 2019 is $150 billion a year.

 

So, in other words, out of the first 10 years of the plan, only $13 Billion will be used for health care, which means it won't fully be implemented until 2014, but they will start generating revenues beginning next year. So if the study were to go out 15 years, then the deficit numbers would be drastically different.

 

2) A big part of the bill is to cut Medicare by $400 Billion (without cutting quality of care ), Without this huge cut there is no chance of this Bill coming remotely close to not adding to the deficit. Anybody who knows anything about how some of these things work knows that there is no chance in hell that Congress or the W.H would deny doctors, hospitals etc. from receiving medicare reimbursements. Specially considering the Baby boomers havn't even peaked yet in regards to receiving medicare funds. Previous congressional promises to cut reimbursements haven't ever come to fruition and there is no reason to believe they will now. Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, has just introduced a bill that would actually increase Medicare fees to doctors by $247 billion over the next decade. That $247 billion should, by all rights, be added to the cost of the Baucus bill.

 

Now get this, the reason why they don't want to add it to the Baucus bill is (drum roll please), it will make Health Reform NOT DEFICIT NEUTRAL!!! So, in attempt to try to make this bill deficit neutral, they are pondering not adding it to the final health reform bill, and then create another new bill with the $247 billion price tag for Medicare. In other words, cut $400 billion from the Health reform bill, just so that they can add $247 billion to another new bill.

 

3) There will be many hidden fees in the Baucus bill as it imposes a $200 billion tax on cadillac insurance plans. Also in the plan there is a $6 Billion excise tax that could begin next year which would according to blue cross blue shield would add $500 a year in premiums to each family of 4. You don't need a study to tell you the obvious, just think about it, if you have an industry that's total profit for the year was $20 billion and you take away a third of it through taxes, those costs will get passed down to the consumer. Another part of the bill is a $40 Billion tax on medical equipment and devices. That means doctors and hospitals will have to pay more for equipment, which means that consumers will have to what?

For some reason, people don't understand the concept that if you take away a source of revenue or tax a company further, and you eat away at their bottom line, that costs get passed down to the consumers, ALWAYS!!! Nearly 90 percent of people who would make under $200,000, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, would have their premiums negatively affected.

 

4) Another area that people fail to realize is that if the government and private sector start covering 30 million more people, that somehow it won't add to people's premiums. As the demand for medical equipment, doctors, nurses, administrators etc goes up, what happens to the price of goods and services? Only in Utopian, pink unicorns and purple farts land does this translate into lower costs.

 

5) And you can bet your bottom dollar that few taxpayers understand that many of these subsidies that the government is providing to lower income people will get phased out as their incomes rise. The result is a huge effective tax increase. As the CBO puts it: "Marginal tax rates would go up by about 22 percentage points for all families whose income was between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level."

 

 

People understand something needs to be done, and what is happening is that politicians are playing on the emotions of people with sympathetic personal stories, urging people that something needs to be done. They are right, something does need to be done, but just because you recognize there is a problem, doesn't equate to having the right solution.

 

If you really want health care costs to go down and are worried about the Deficits that this country is accumulating, than I urge people to use common sense, and look at the details of the bill before it is passed, and if it doesn't make financial sense, then write your congressman and urge them not to support this Bill.

 

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!

[PearlHowardman]

 

Health care plans and costs of health care plans is one thing.

 

Sorry, folks. I have NO confidence in the competence of President Obama and the Democrats to actually RUN any health care plan, much less a trillion dollar one. (Yeah, a trillion dollars NOW).

 

I am seriously scared to death!

 

A President who's claim to fame is 129 "Present" votes in the Illinois State Legislature, and doing nothing in the US Senate for two years before deciding to run for President, ought NOT be doing anything other than sharpening pencils his first year in office.

 

Second year in office, and we can show Obama how to run the copier.

 

But NO trillion dollar plans of any kind - no health care plans, no education plans, - NOTHING!

 

[Magox]

So there is an all out war right now, Democrats against the health insurers. I've said it before, the game plan from this administration is "when you can't beat'em, demoniz'em".

 

They are making the health insurers out to be Evil, greedy companies, that want to squeeze every last dollar that they can from the sick, when the profit margins in the health insurance industry paint a different picture. There is no denying facts, it's in the numbers.

 

Here is the latest:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/1...ml?hpid=topnews

 

Obama Decries Health-Insurance Industry Effort to "Kill Reform at Any Cost"

 

President Obama hailed the progress Congress is making toward restructuring the nation's health-care system Saturday but warned that the health-insurance industry is among those determined "to kill reform at any cost."

 

Obama accused the health-insurance industry of using deceptive advertising and self-serving studies in a last-ditch effort to derail reform.

 

"The insurance industry is rolling out the big guns and breaking open their massive war chest - to marshal their forces for one last fight to save the status quo," Obama said. "They're filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads.They're flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they're funding studies designed to mislead the American people."

 

Health insurers released two reports this week warning that the reform legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee would result in soaring premiums. The White House and congressional Democrats have dismissed both reports as misleading efforts to stop the legislation -- a charge Obama repeated in his address. Independent analysts have criticized the reports for not taking into account or underestimating key sections of the health-care bill in reaching its conclusions.

 

"It's smoke and mirrors. It's bogus. And it's all too familiar," Obama said. "Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, 'Take one of these, and call us in a decade.' Well, not this time."

 

I've never seen an administration that is so hell-bent on trying to gag, quiet or attack any politician, news network or industry as this one has for having opposing views. They are attacking Fox news (which is a horrible idea), wall street, health insurers, banks, credit card companies, hedge funds, GM bond holders, oil companies (soon, when cap and trade go through) and now even the medical device makers. What are they so afraid of? That's part of what makes this country what it is, to have lively discussions with opposing views on the direction the country is heading.

 

But I see that they are now backing off from trying to gag the health insurers from warning their clients that costs may go up and medicare benefits will be cut with the health reform bill that is being proposed so far.

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healt...position=recent

 

Obama admin backs away from ban on Medicare cuts warnings

 

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration Friday backed away from a ban on insurance company mailings to seniors warning of dire Medicare cuts if health care overhaul legislation is approved.

 

In a late afternoon memo to health plans, Medicare said insurance companies may lobby seniors, provided they first get permission from beneficiaries, and no federal funds or data are used. Last month, Medicare had ordered a halt to such mailings after a Democratic lawmaker complained about a misleading flyer.

 

The controversy quickly escalated, with Republicans calling the ban a "gag order" that violated free speech rights. GOP senators threatened to block Obama’s health nominees unless Medicare withdrew the ban.

 

 

Medicare officials say no gag order was ever issued. They said their directive Friday only clarifies a long-standing policy that protects seniors from nuisance mailings and abusive marketing.

 

But Republicans claimed a political victory.

 

"Basically, they are reversing the gag order," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. "They had blocked all the plans from communicating with beneficiaries. I think they overstepped their bounds."

 

In the background are concerns among seniors about using Medicare cuts to finance Obama’s health care overhaul plan.

 

Specifically at issue are benefits for more than 11 million seniors enrolled in private insurance plans through a popular program called Medicare Advantage. Because of a funding formula dating from when Republicans controlled Congress, the plans are paid more than it costs to care for seniors in traditional Medicare. Insurers use the money to provide more comprehensive benefits than regular Medicare.

[Doc]

I'm all for anyone trying to prevent the government from getting their clutches on every aspect of my life. Especially with an albatross like this.

[pBills]

Of course the Health Care industry does not want reform in any. They have been able to do things their way with no regulation or anything. What industry wouldn't want that?

 

Bottom line is that reform is needed. Not to sure if I buy into a Public Option or anything that has really been thrown out there yet. Everything seems to be to expensive.

[Magox]

Of course the Health Care industry does not want reform in any. They have been able to do things their way with no regulation or anything. What industry wouldn't want that?

 

Bottom line is that reform is needed. Not to sure if I buy into a Public Option or anything that has really been thrown out there yet. Everything seems to be to expensive.

Yes, Reform does need to happen. But intelligent reform, a reform that makes sense. One of the biggest points that the administration is trying to communicate to the public are skyrocketing costs, right?

 

So why in the hell are you going to tax their profits by approximately %30 if you want to bring down costs? Why are you going to tax the hell out of medical devices and equipment if you want to bring down costs? Don't they know that those costs will get filtered down to the consumer.

 

There are so many things wrong with the proposals, you should read what I wrote up top, none of this is stuff that I just made up, a lot of thought and research went into it, and it makes good common sense.

[Alaska Darin]

Of course the Health Care industry does not want reform in any. They have been able to do things their way with no regulation or anything. What industry wouldn't want that?

Neither do Democrats or Republicans. That's why things like Prescription Drugs and Tort reform were completely off the table BEFORE anything was even typed.

Bottom line is that reform is needed. Not to sure if I buy into a Public Option or anything that has really been thrown out there yet. Everything seems to be to expensive.

Everything IS expensive, especially because for the last 40+ years the special interests and lobbyists have owned Washington. You're not turning around a battleship in a phone booth and the current administration has absolutely no interest in reigning in people who give them tons of money to stay in power.

 

But you keep blaming the industry, lemming.

[Magox]

Support for the Democrats health care plan continues to lose steam.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...lth_care_reform

 

Now that the Senate Finance Committee has passed its version of health care reform, 42% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and down four from the week before.

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% are opposed to the plan.

 

The numbers have been remarkably stable throughout the debate. With the exception of bounces following presidential television appearances, support for the plan has stayed in a very narrow range from 41% to 46%. Currently, 24% Strongly Favor the legislative effort and 42% are Strongly Opposed.

 

While voters are skeptical of the plan working its way through Congress, 54% say that major changes are needed in the health care system. Sixty-one percent (61%) say it’s important for Congress to pass some reform.

 

Just 36% of the nation’s senior citizens favor the current legislative effort while 59% are opposed. Support is highest among voters under 30, the age group least likely to use the nation’s health care system. These generational dynamics also have been stable and consistent over the past several months. Rasmussen Reports is tracking support for the plan on a weekly basis.

 

But the number who expect the congressional plan to pass has grown to its highest level year. Fifty-six percent (56%) now say passage of health care reform is likely while 32% say it is not. Those figures include 21% who say passage is Very Likely and eight percent (8%) who say it is Not at All Likely.

 

 

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

 

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters say passage of the plan will make the cost of health care go up while 18% say it will make costs go down. As a recent commentary by Michael Barone noted, “The Trouble With Health Care Is Paying for It.” Most (59%) favor putting a provision in the plan that would prohibit any new taxes, fees or penalties on families who make less than $250,000 a year to pay for the reform initiative. Most also say that middle-class tax cuts are more important than new spending on health care.

 

In addition to cost concerns, a Rasmussen video report shows that 53% of those with insurance believe it’s likely they would have to change coverage if the congressional plan becomes law.

 

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" health insurance company.

 

As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”

 

If the congressional plan passes, 23% of voters now say the quality of health care will get better, and 51% say it will get worse. In August, the numbers were 23% better and 50% worse.

 

The version of the plan working its way through the Senate includes a proposal that requires young and healthy Americans to either buy health insurance or pay a $750 annual penalty for not having it. Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters oppose that proposal.

 

Only 18% expect the final health care plan to be bipartisan. Yet 42% of all voters attribute Republican opposition to partisan politics rather than substance.

 

Thirty-nine percent (39%) say that health care costs will go down only when Americans change their lifestyle.

 

 

If they incrementally addressed Health Care Reform, there would be much more public support, and I'm sure it would be much more effective.

 

If you want to promote competition:

 

1) Open up the state borders for intrastate competition

 

If you want to bring down costs:

 

1) Effective Tort Reform

2) promote more competition by opening up borders

3) Tax benefits for those who purchase health insurance

 

If you want to expand coverage:

 

1) I do believe it is a good idea to subsidize for those who don't have the means to pay higher health insurance premiums. I am for this idea.

 

2) Create an Exchange exclusively for those who are dropped from their insurance plan or are denied because of pre existing conditions. If you force the health insurers to insure these people, then premiums will go up across the board, so this isn't a good idea to force them to do so.

[Magox]

Politicians will be politicians.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=ao9dG2a.w8es

 

Reid Leads Democrats In Carving Out Favors for States on Health

 

Nevada would get help with its Medicaid bills. The elderly in Florida and New York would receive additional Medicare benefits. And workers in so-called high-risk professions such as firefighting and construction would get a break on a new insurance tax.

 

Those are provisions that Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, put in an $829 billion health-care bill to shield constituents from measures intended to pay for the biggest overhaul of the medical system in four decades.

 

The result is the new policies may be unevenly administered, with some U.S. states getting preferential treatment, a possibility that has given Republican lawmakers ammunition to attack the legislation.

 

“It’s going to hurt the bill and raise the level of cynicism about Washington politics,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican. “The provisions ought to be applied to all of the states.”

 

The number of special provisions is likely to grow as the full Senate begins debating the measure in coming weeks. Because Democrats are unlikely to win many Republican votes, individual lawmakers will have leverage to demand changes to satisfy parochial interests.

 

 

Democrats such as Senators Bill Nelson of Florida and Ron Wyden of Oregon secured provisions setting aside $5 billion to shore up benefits for constituents who participate in Medicare Advantage. That program allows private insurers to contract with the government to provide Medicare benefits.

 

 

Help for Unions shocker

 

Lawmakers such as Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey pushed for exceptions to a tax on expensive insurance plans. The tax would be phased in more slowly in states the government determines have the highest costs.

 

Democrat John Kerry, whose state of Massachusetts is likely to end up on the list, said the tax may disrupt his state’s own efforts to expand health coverage.

 

“If you change the way it’s working, you automatically upset people’s expectations,” Kerry said.

 

Those in professions deemed high risk like mining would also get a break. For them, the tax would kick in for family insurance plans worth $26,000 not $21,000.

 

Menendez said that was designed to protect those “who gave up money at the table in order to get better health-care packages,” referring to Democratic-supporting unions. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois last week said lawmakers are considering additional changes to reduce the tax hit on union members.

Full Funding

 

Reid secured provisions to ensure his state of Nevada won’t face higher Medicaid costs.

 

Democrats want to expand coverage by loosening eligibility rules for the joint federal-state health-care program for the poor. Some governors say that could saddle them with higher bills. State spending would increase by $33 billon under Baucus’s plan, the Congressional Budget Office says.

 

“We cut special favors for special states, not based on need or requirements but on the influence of the individual senator,” said Arizona Republican John McCain.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

Want to reduce health care costs to Americans? Install government health care for all working Americans.

 

Ohh, that's right, extremists say that is "inefficient" and it will create "death panels". All of this rhetoric is just aimed to maintain the status quo so those who make billions off of the misery of others continue to do so.

 

OK then smart guy, what plan will REDUCE costs for medical care and cover those who need it if you are so informed?!

[Magox]

Want to reduce health care costs to Americans? Install government health care for all working Americans.

 

Ohh, that's right, extremists say that is "inefficient" and it will create "death panels". All of this rhetoric is just aimed to maintain the status quo so those who make billions off of the misery of others continue to do so.

 

OK then smart guy, what plan will REDUCE costs for medical care and cover those who need it if you are so informed?!

First you should read before you reply.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1607423

 

 

but since I know that you are "challenged", I will make it easy for you:

 

If they incrementally addressed Health Care Reform, there would be much more public support, and I'm sure it would be much more effective.

 

If you want to promote competition:

 

1) Open up the state borders for intrastate competition

 

If you want to bring down costs:

 

1) Effective Tort Reform

2) promote more competition by opening up borders

3) Tax benefits for those who purchase health insurance

 

If you want to expand coverage:

 

1) I do believe it is a good idea to subsidize for those who don't have the means to pay higher health insurance premiums. I am for this idea.

 

2) Create an Exchange exclusively for those who are dropped from their insurance plan or are denied because of pre existing conditions. If you force the health insurers to insure these people, then premiums will go up across the board, so this isn't a good idea to force them to do so.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

First you should read before you reply.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1607423

 

 

but since I know that you are "challenged", I will make it easy for you:

 

If they incrementally addressed Health Care Reform, there would be much more public support, and I'm sure it would be much more effective.

 

If you want to promote competition:

 

1) Open up the state borders for intrastate competition

 

If you want to bring down costs:

 

1) Effective Tort Reform

2) promote more competition by opening up borders

3) Tax benefits for those who purchase health insurance

 

If you want to expand coverage:

 

1) I do believe it is a good idea to subsidize for those who don't have the means to pay higher health insurance premiums. I am for this idea.

 

2) Create an Exchange exclusively for those who are dropped from their insurance plan or are denied because of pre existing conditions. If you force the health insurers to insure these people, then premiums will go up across the board, so this isn't a good idea to force them to do so.

 

 

You calling me challenged is like the guy who insulted Stephen Hawking a couple of weeks ago...

 

Tort reform? Hmm.. seems like you left out insurance industry reform as well! You could not possibly have complete reform without also reforming the insurance industry.

 

Tax benefits... you mean the government is losing revenue for those who purchase health insurance? How does that reduce costs? It seems to me it just passes it on to the federal government for costs to be distributed later, and adding to this deficit you keep going on and on about.

 

It isn't a good idea to FORCE them to? How else do these people get coverage? Talk about "death panels"- I guess then they either pay up by selling all they have or dying- what a choice.

[DC Tom]

You calling me challenged is like the guy who insulted Stephen Hawking a couple of weeks ago...

 

Tort reform? Hmm.. seems like you left out insurance industry reform as well! You could not possibly have complete reform without also reforming the insurance industry.

 

Tax benefits... you mean the government is losing revenue for those who purchase health insurance? How does that reduce costs? It seems to me it just passes it on to the federal government for costs to be distributed later, and adding to this deficit you keep going on and on about.

 

It isn't a good idea to FORCE them to? How else do these people get coverage? Talk about "death panels"- I guess then they either pay up by selling all they have or dying- what a choice.

 

Did you even read his post? You seem to be having a completely different discussion.

 

You're both rather retarded anyway. Health care and health insurance costs are not the same thing.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

Did you even read his post? You seem to be having a completely different discussion.

 

You're both rather retarded anyway. Health care and health insurance costs are not the same thing.

 

They are intertwined, though... a system built upon shutting out millions of people, working people, and then charging those who do extremely high costs to get vital care is a corrupt and broken system. The reform he was talking about is a shell game, and not a real solution- it maintains the status quo with respect to the insurance industry and medical suppliers and drug companies while limiting the rights of those who are most harmed under the system. It is wrong, and there is a better way.

[Magox]

They are intertwined, though... a system built upon shutting out millions of people, working people, and then charging those who do extremely high costs to get vital care is a corrupt and broken system. The reform he was talking about is a shell game, and not a real solution- it maintains the status quo with respect to the insurance industry and medical suppliers and drug companies while limiting the rights of those who are most harmed under the system. It is wrong, and there is a better way.

so once again, ya got nothin

"shell game", instead of making **** up and making blanket statements, why don't you specifically tell me why it wouldn't work, and how it is maintaining the "status quo".

 

I systematically broke down why the proposals that are out there from congress wouldn't bring down costs, how about you try.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

so once again, ya got nothin

"shell game", instead of making **** up and making blanket statements, why don't you specifically tell me why it wouldn't work, and how it is maintaining the "status quo".

 

I systematically broke down why the proposals that are out there from congress wouldn't bring down costs, how about you try.

 

Like you told me, READ. I address the 'shell game' of tax benefits' and other issues. YOU read.

 

You calling me challenged is like the guy who insulted Stephen Hawking a couple of weeks ago...

 

Tort reform? Hmm.. seems like you left out insurance industry reform as well! You could not possibly have complete reform without also reforming the insurance industry.

 

Tax benefits... you mean the government is losing revenue for those who purchase health insurance? How does that reduce costs? It seems to me it just passes it on to the federal government for costs to be distributed later, and adding to this deficit you keep going on and on about.

 

It isn't a good idea to FORCE them to? How else do these people get coverage? Talk about "death panels"- I guess then they either pay up by selling all they have or dying- what a choice.

[Magox]

Like you told me, READ. I address the 'shell game' of tax benefits' and other issues. YOU read.

The reform he was talking about is a shell game, and not a real solution- it maintains the status quo with respect to the insurance industry and medical suppliers and drug companies while limiting the rights of those who are most harmed under the system.

 

Tax benefits would lower health insurance costs for individuals. Tort Reform would lower health insurance costs for individuals. Intrastate competition would lower health insurance costs for individuals.

 

How is that the status quo, when none of this has even been implemented?

 

do you not know what "status quo" means?

[EasternOHBillsFan]

The reform he was talking about is a shell game, and not a real solution- it maintains the status quo with respect to the insurance industry and medical suppliers and drug companies while limiting the rights of those who are most harmed under the system.

 

Tax benefits would lower health insurance costs for individuals. Tort Reform would lower health insurance costs for individuals. Intrastate competition would lower health insurance costs for individuals.

 

How is that the status quo, when none of this has even been implemented?

 

do you not know what "status quo" means?

 

Status quo as in those who earn exorbitent profits off of misery still are untouched, while those who suffer injuries under the system as penalized for wanting restitution. Is that fair? No, that is not fair... and you know it.

 

The definition of a shell game is making it seem as if something is so when it simply has been moved around, i.e. deception. All your tax benefits do is pass on the costs to the government, and we pay for those costs later on, either through this deficit you talk about, or higher taxes, or costs somewhere else. THAT is the shell game, and you cannot deny it, no matter how hard you try.

[DC Tom]

They are intertwined, though... a system built upon shutting out millions of people, working people, and then charging those who do extremely high costs to get vital care is a corrupt and broken system. The reform he was talking about is a shell game, and not a real solution- it maintains the status quo with respect to the insurance industry and medical suppliers and drug companies while limiting the rights of those who are most harmed under the system. It is wrong, and there is a better way.

 

Yes, they're intertwined...along with two other insurance segments (liability for medical providers, and personal injury coverage), the pharmaceutical industry, medical equipment manufacturers, most major universities (both for research and training medical providers), the entire hospital industry, a slew of advocate and special interest groups, at least two federal departments and a slew of lesser programs (both state and federal, and a good number of counties and cities - so that number easliy goes into the thousands), and a large chunk of the legal profession dedicated to sorting all that bull **** out. Oh, and the entirety of corporate America, who have a vested interest in controlling the costs of both care and insurance as well.

 

So you really believe that the key to reducing the cost of health care is to beat the living **** out of the insurance industry?

 

Tell you what...find an OB/GYN, and ask them how they run their practice, and for a breakdown of their accounting. I guarantee you, you'll find it's not the evil insurance companies that are driving up their cost of doing business.

[Magox]

Status quo as in those who earn exorbitent profits off of misery still are untouched, while those who suffer injuries under the system as penalized for wanting restitution. Is that fair? No, that is not fair... and you know it.

 

The definition of a shell game is making it seem as if something is so when it simply has been moved around, i.e. deception. All your tax benefits do is pass on the costs to the government, and we pay for those costs later on, either through this deficit you talk about, or higher taxes, or costs somewhere else. THAT is the shell game, and you cannot deny it, no matter how hard you try.

why don't you back up your information with facts.

 

"exorbitent" profits??? Man, you sure do know all the liberal talking points don't you?

 

Once again, I will disprove you with facts, not just empty blanket statements.

 

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

 

I guess yahoo is distorting the numbers right?

 

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health...nks-86-by.html#

 

hmmm, ranks 86th in profit margins at 3.3% . Ya, that's "exorbitent"

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aci3ct0e9J8w

 

 

“There are other sectors whose profits dramatically exceed our modest profits,” Williams said.

Publicly traded insurers generated about $11 billion in net income in 2008 and nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield plans made less than $2 billion, said Carl McDonald, an Oppenheimer & Co. analyst in New York, in a July note issued when Democrats first raised the idea of industry fees.

 

Obama’s proposal to tax health insurance plans may lead to an increase in premiums paid by consumers, especially union members who often have the most expensive plans, said Uwe Reinhardt, professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University.

Passing the Buck

 

“When you tax the corporation, no matter what the tax is, it will be passed on to somebody,” Reinhardt said in an interview with Bloomberg. “In this case, it will be passed on to premiums.”

 

Reinhardt also said that Obama’s proposed cost of $900 billion over ten years won’t be enough to provide universal health coverage, which he estimates would cost more than $1.5 trillion.

 

Obama hasn’t given a fair portrait of the industry, or the true reasons for rising medical costs in the U.S., said Binns, the spokeswoman for Indianapolis-based WellPoint. UnitedHealth Group Inc., of Minnetonka, Minnesota, is the largest provider.

 

“We disagree with the president’s continued mischaracterization of the health-care industry,” she said in an e-mail. “Health insurer profits account for less than 1 percent of every health-care dollar.”

 

Man, that was fun

 

I'll be awaiting your next blanket statement, backed up by nothing other than the typical talking points you hear from the W.H, Congress and MSNBC