The UHC Battle is Really about Insurance Profits

This debate isn't about health care, it isn't about the cost, it isn't about death panels. The subtext the Rent-A-Republicans aren't talking about, the enormous profits the insurance companies are making while cutting off care to those who need it.

[ame=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32365982#32365982]msnbc.com Video Player[/ame]

The right, paid and bought for by the insurance companies, are paid tools whose agenda is to stop health care reform. Especially dangerous to them and their bosses is a public option.

NDNdancer said:

This debate isn't about health care, it isn't about the cost, it isn't about death panels. The subtext the Rent-A-Republicans aren't talking about, the enormous profits the insurance companies are making while cutting off care to those who need it.

msnbc.com Video Player

The right, paid and bought for by the insurance companies, are paid tools whose agenda is to stop health care reform. Especially dangerous to them and their bosses is a public option.

Click to expand...

Oh joy. More "profit is evil" nonsense. How dare any company actually aspire to earn money! :roll::roll::roll:

celticlord said:

Oh joy. More "profit is evil" nonsense. How dare any company actually aspire to earn money! :roll::roll::roll:

Click to expand...

If they were actually providing a service for what was paid, no problem. BUT, that's not what's happening.

1. No service can be had if you have a pre-existing condition.
2. Caps on services.
3. Getting cut off when you actually start using the service.
4. Delays in getting the service when you actually need it causing the condition to worsen, and even death.

The real death panels are within the insurance companies who decide whether or not your condition is covered.

The real rationing is within the offices of the insurance company who decides if you get care or not, care that you thought you paid for.

Almost %500 profit within a span of 7 years is obscene, especially considering the state of health of American people has declined in that time, while the cost's for consumers has skyrocketed.

NDNdancer said:

The real death panels are within the insurance companies who decide whether or not your condition is covered.

Click to expand...

So you object to insurance companies abiding by the terms of the contract. Actually, you object to insurance companies asking you to abide by the terms of the contract.:doh

NDNdancer said:

The real rationing is within the offices of the insurance company who decides if you get care or not, care that you thought you paid for.

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps if you stopped long enough to actually know what you were about to pay for before you signed on the dotted line, you would have made a better decision. It is hardly the fault of the insurance company if you refuse to read and understand the policy ahead of time.

NDNdancer said:

Almost %500 profit within a span of 7 years is obscene, especially considering the state of health of American people has declined in that time, while the cost's for consumers has skyrocketed.

Click to expand...

Now why do I think you'd find any level of profit "obscene" by insurance companies?:roll:

Companies are supposed to make money. That's why they exist. Companies that don't make money don't exist for very long.

Once you drive the insurance companies out of business, whose left to pay your medical bills? The taxpayers? Thanks, but I prefer to tolerate health insurance company profits; they cost me less than having to pay for your health care.

celticlord said:

Once you drive the insurance companies out of business, whose left to pay your medical bills? The taxpayers? Thanks, but I prefer to tolerate health insurance company profits; they cost me less than having to pay for your health care.

Click to expand...

You already do pay for the uninsured health care.

winston53660 said:

You already do pay for the uninsured health care.

Click to expand...

And I'd like to not pay more. I'm one of those greedy profit-driven capitalist bastards, in case you hadn't noticed.

NDNdancer said:

This debate isn't about health care, it isn't about the cost, it isn't about death panels. The subtext the Rent-A-Republicans aren't talking about, the enormous profits the insurance companies are making while cutting off care to those who need it.

msnbc.com Video Player

The right, paid and bought for by the insurance companies, are paid tools whose agenda is to stop health care reform. Especially dangerous to them and their bosses is a public option.

Click to expand...

Nice theory, only one problem, insurance companies SUPPORT Obama's health care overhaul. How does that factor in, huh?

to this I say: Cool story, bro.

celticlord said:

Well, perhaps if you stopped long enough to actually know what you were about to pay for before you signed on the dotted line, you would have made a better decision. It is hardly the fault of the insurance company if you refuse to read and understand the policy ahead of time.

Click to expand...

This point is not exactly true. Insurance companies can and do, arbitrarily cease to authorize/pay for treatment even if the benefit is available, at their own whim, even if the provider indicates that the treatment is medically necessary. This is why unless the utilization review system is eliminated, and all treatment decisions are in the hands of the provider and the provider alone, no health care system will resolve an issues that might exist.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This point is not exactly true. Insurance companies can and do, arbitrarily cease to authorize/pay for treatment even if the benefit is available, at their own whim, even if the provider indicates that the treatment is medically necessary. This is why unless the utilization review system is eliminated, and all treatment decisions are in the hands of the provider and the provider alone, no health care system will resolve an issues that might exist.

Click to expand...

Are the insurance companies within their contractual rights to do so? Yes or no.

celticlord said:

Are the insurance companies within their contractual rights to do so? Yes or no.

Click to expand...

Gray area. Contratually, if the benefit is available, the subscriber can utilize it. The insurance company can deny the use of those benefits if through the provider's information, the treatment is not deemed medically necessary. However, the gray area is that this gives the insurance company latitude to manipulate the providers decisions...or outright ignore them to deny the use of the benefit. For example, there are certain diagnoses that, even if the benefit is available, and the provider provides information demonstrating that the patient requires treatment to resolve the ailment, the insurance company WILL NOT cover. There is NOTHING written that identifies this. It is understood through experience with the companies that this is what happens. The ability to sue an insurance company for the denial of benefits was not passed as a law, several years ago, so there is little or no recourse. Often the insurance company's response is that they are not denying services...the patient can still receive treatment for an out of pocket cost. So, as you can see, this is a gray area, completely manipulated and controlled by the insurance company.

NDNdancer said:

This debate isn't about health care, it isn't about the cost, it isn't about death panels. The subtext the Rent-A-Republicans aren't talking about, the enormous profits the insurance companies are making while cutting off care to those who need it.

msnbc.com Video Player

The right, paid and bought for by the insurance companies, are paid tools whose agenda is to stop health care reform. Especially dangerous to them and their bosses is a public option.

Click to expand...

YOU ARE SO RIGHT! The government needs to remove the greed from healthcare... we can't let the Insurance companies stay in business, they'll just do it for profit!

SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL!!!

In all honesty i am against government sponsored health care. But lets get serious, they already consume the greater amount of health care expenditure. Costs are simply out of touch with reality, and alot of this has to do with risk of lawsuits, and sheer dead weight loss due to emergency care being used as a doctors office. The demand for health care is tricky to map, due to the fact that the demand curve shifts rather abruptly at time of need. The fact of the matter is this, when someone does become sick, they will go beyond their budgetary constraint to receive care, ie going to the ER, even though they will never have the money to pay for serious issues.

You implement tort reform and medical bankruptcy reform and the costs will drop; there is nothing anyone can say to the contrary. If so, i would really like to debate the issue.... I will even give away my strongest premises, risk management and social dead weight loss in the form of health care price inflation.