• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health-care industry preps offense against Medicare-for-All (1 Viewer)

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
95,019
Reaction score
83,625
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Health-care industry preps offense against Medicare-for-All

insurance-logos300.jpg


1/22/19
Democrats newly in control of the House are sending quivers of fear throughout the U.S. health-care industry as they begin advancing Medicare-for-All measures that could result in a big financial blow to private health insurers, hospitals and doctors.

Industry leaders — who have united to fight what they view as a threat to the country’s existing patchwork system of public and private payers — told me they're planning to ramp up advertising and lobbying efforts this year to argue against such a dramatic overhaul of the health insurance system, saying education is all that’s needed to turn more Americans against the idea.

Big Healthcare and Big Pharma, who have been fleecing Americans for decades, are beginning to get nervous.
 
Their survival is on the line... we'd need only a small slice of their services under Medicare for all variant that takes insurance companies and their profits out of equation for most services.
 
Health-care industry preps offense against Medicare-for-All

insurance-logos300.jpg




Big Healthcare and Big Pharma, who have been fleecing Americans for decades, are beginning to get nervous.

That really makes me feel for the insurance companies and big pharma. It gives me the same feeling I've been getting from them for years, ef' em'. I can see the republicans once again cheering for their own best interests to be taken from them. Correction...wildly cheering for those two industries to screw them.
 
The federal government is doing such a great job of controlling defense industry price gouging and profit taking - why shouldn't that same group be handed control over all medical care insurance?
 
The federal government is doing such a great job of controlling defense industry price gouging and profit taking - why shouldn't that same group be handed control over all medical care insurance?

Can't be much worse than the healthcare giants have been fleecing us.
 
Can't be much worse than the healthcare giants have been fleecing us.

That remains to be seen. It's one thing for the government to set the "fair price" of X (at 33% lower than it now is?) and quite another to have private industry offer to provide/produce X at that price. If "controlling costs" was as simple as the government setting the "fair price" then defense and public education spending would be far lower than it is.
 
I'm sure phama will fight to the bitter end but it's easier to imagine the insurers finding religion if their seat at the table is secured.

At the end of the day this is about the people, not corporations.
 
The federal government is doing such a great job of controlling defense industry price gouging and profit taking - why shouldn't that same group be handed control over all medical care insurance?

Right, because the free market has done such a wonderful job...said NO ONE EVER.
 
I'm sure phama will fight to the bitter end but it's easier to imagine the insurers finding religion if their seat at the table is secured.

Flashback to a thread from a year and a half ago:_

The part that makes me laugh the hardest is that CIGNA'S own former VP of corporate communications, Wendell Potter, is and has been on the side of single payer for over ten years now.
 
The part that makes me laugh the hardest is that CIGNA'S own former VP of corporate communications, Wendell Potter, is and has been on the side of single payer for over ten years now.

Cigna's also somewhat of an outlier among the Big 5 insurers these days, in that they're still deriving a majority of the operating revenue on their insurance business from commercial business, not government. A quick perusal of their latest quarterly earnings reports suggests the revenue breakdown these days is something like:

CignaAetnaAnthemUnitedHumana
Private77%43%40%32%15%
Government23%57%60%68%85%

That's why you've got players like the Aetna CEO conceding maybe the future is in Medicare/Medicaid business. The present certainly is.
 
Cigna's also somewhat of an outlier among the Big 5 insurers these days, in that they're still deriving a majority of the operating revenue on their insurance business from commercial business, not government. A quick perusal of their latest quarterly earnings reports suggests the revenue breakdown these days is something like:

CignaAetnaAnthemUnitedHumana
Private77%43%40%32%15%
Government23%57%60%68%85%

That's why you've got players like the Aetna CEO conceding maybe the future is in Medicare/Medicaid business. The present certainly is.

That falls right in line with Potter's departure or so it would seem.
Anyway, it's one of the reasons he left CIGNA, and really, the entire business of private sector health insurance representation altogether. He was disgusted with the way the whole business worked and he wasn't quiet about it.
Private sector health insurance operates on the principle of DENYING as much care as possible, any WAY possible.

It's just as simple as that.
 
Of course, having a monopoly in charge would be better - said NO ONE EVER.

Misinterpretation/misrepresentation.
Almost every health insurance company in the country participates in Medicare services.
There's no monopoly at all, as evidenced by all the fierce competition we see every morning on TV.
There's enough advertising for Medicare contracting to choke a horse.

Aetna, United Health, CIGNA, you name it and they're all competing with each other for Medicare dollars.
Single payer does not mean that the government takes over, it just means that you and I aren't alone in the wilderness trying to keep costs in line anymore. One entity, consisting of the largest client pool in the country, namely THE COUNTRY, pays these companies.

So, as I was saying before, it is clear that the last four or five decades is sufficient proof that unregulated private sector markets have not proven to be cost effective or affordable. A majority of Americans are sick and tired of paying Lamborghini prices for a Cadillac...or even a Chevy.

The health insurance companies have been behaving like a fat kid behaves around cheesecake, they want to eat the entire pie instead of just having a slice, and now they're throwing their weight around.
Time to put Tubby on a diet.

Boo ****ing hoo.
 
Misinterpretation/misrepresentation.
Almost every health insurance company in the country participates in Medicare services.
There's no monopoly at all, as evidenced by all the fierce competition we see every morning on TV.
There's enough advertising for Medicare contracting to choke a horse.

Aetna, United Health, CIGNA, you name it and they're all competing with each other for Medicare dollars.
Single payer does not mean that the government takes over, it just means that you and I aren't alone in the wilderness trying to keep costs in line anymore. One entity, consisting of the largest client pool in the country, namely THE COUNTRY, pays these companies.

So, as I was saying before, it is clear that the last four or five decades is sufficient proof that unregulated private sector markets have not proven to be cost effective or affordable. A majority of Americans are sick and tired of paying Lamborghini prices for a Cadillac...or even a Chevy.

The health insurance companies have been behaving like a fat kid behaves around cheesecake, they want to eat the entire pie instead of just having a slice, and now they're throwing their weight around.
Time to put Tubby on a diet.

Boo ****ing hoo.

I have no idea what you are basing your argument (testimony?) on but this Medicare For All bill does not agree with your assertions.

This bill establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.

Only public or nonprofit institutions may participate. Nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities may participate.

Patients may choose from participating physicians and institutions.

Health insurers may not sell health insurance that duplicates the benefits provided under this bill. Insurers may sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

The bill sets forth methods to pay institutional providers and health professionals for services. Financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization are prohibited.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676
 
When we look at Medicare for all we need a law that will fairly tax the wealthy, individuals, and corporations because there may no longer be a need for employee based health insurance. There will no longer be a need for veterans health insurance, medicaid or Medicare. These are expenses that could be subtracted when calculating Medicare for all costs.

I have one concern about Medicare for all. If we are prepared to give up these fifty year old laws for a new law taking care of us all, is the existence of an unfriendly supreme court a danger to all?
 
I have one concern about Medicare for all. If we are prepared to give up these fifty year old laws for a new law taking care of us all, is the existence of an unfriendly supreme court a danger to all?

Probably. The previous presidential election was pretty important.
 
When we look at Medicare for all we need a law that will fairly tax the wealthy, individuals, and corporations because there may no longer be a need for employee based health insurance. There will no longer be a need for veterans health insurance, medicaid or Medicare. These are expenses that could be subtracted when calculating Medicare for all costs.

I have one concern about Medicare for all. If we are prepared to give up these fifty year old laws for a new law taking care of us all, is the existence of an unfriendly supreme court a danger to all?

I don't see how the supreme court could declare that Medicare for some is constitutional but Medicare for all is not.
 
I don't see how the supreme court could declare that Medicare for some is constitutional but Medicare for all is not.

After the recent ruling from a Texas judge on Obamacare, I would think that any new law might be bait for judicial review. There are other rulings such as Janus v. AFSCME which now shows a conservative bias on the court.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom