House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned insurance companies on Thursday that health-care reform could cost the industry dearly through new fees, fewer regulatory protections and fresh competition from the federal government.
The blunt admonition echoed a round of harsh statements Wednesday from senior Senate Democrats, and came in response to the insurance’s lobby’s aggressive campaign to block reform legislation from advancing. An internal industry study released earlier this week found that the Senate reform bill would cause premiums to rise sharply, but the report’s findings have been widely disputed.
The tactic now appears to have backfired, as Democrats vow to redouble their efforts to crack down on insurer’s practices. Health-care negotiators are working behind closed doors to merge different pieces of legislation into separate bills that are expected to reach the House and Senate floors next month.
“It is absolutely clear that it is an unsustainable situation as we go forward, and it is well known to the public that the health insurance companies are the problem,” said Pelosi.
Pelosi said the House may adopt a Senate provision that would assess a flat fee on insurance companies that is expected to generate about $40 billion over 10 years, as a way to pay for its reform bill. She advocated House language that would require health-insurance companies to to spend 85 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on benefits.
Seems very clever to me…
#19–phydeau==thank you. Sad to see intelligent people thinking “the market” will step in and a for profit enterprise will compete based on lower prices to the consumer AS IF THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED ONCE === when as in healthcare the anti-monopoly rules have specifically exempted insurance companies. Why would you go into business to make “less money” when the law says you can talk to and agree with your competitors to charge the same and both look good to your “investors?”
But lies build up from there by industry shills claiming that the MediCare 4% overhead is less efficient than the insurance co’s with their 30-40 % overhead. Yes, even math fails to establish the truth when shills can make money at it otherwise==as long as congress can be bought off and not lose their offices, this fraud/stupidity will continue.
VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE, and all status quo conspirators into jail.
I’m still banking on the insurance companies to win.
Remember, we’re talking about a $500,000,000,000 PER YEAR being skimmed off the delivery of health care.
Just a lousy billion dollars ( 1/500th) of that can line the pockets of MANY MANY republicans.
The insurance company motto:
You CAN fool all the people all the time if you have a big enough advertising (lobbying) budget.
So the Democrats are admitting that Insurance companies won’t be able to compete with the Government plan because of new regulations and laws (and not because the Government will run things more efficiently).
So much for having a choice of keeping your current insurer. Instead, your insurer will quit you, probably by getting out of the “main” health insurance business and providing “supplementary” insurance to cover all the things the government won’t pay for.
What the people that want a government run system don’t understand is that this will not only destroy the insurance industry (which they admit they want to do) but also the biotech industry, which is the engine of drug/therapeutics development in the world.
Venture capitalists will see what Pelosi and Co are all about and small biotechs will simply not go forward. Who in their right mind will invest in drug development when at the end of the process the democrats will deem them greedy and break their patent, or refuse to pay for the R&D? So then it will be up to government to develop new drug technologies, test them, manufacture them, bring them to market, market them, and support the drugs with the doctors.
And the government will do this for 300,000,000 people, when we know (and they are happy to admit this) that their current system that covers 100,000,000 in medicare is bankrupt? When has government ever shown it is capable of doing this? The “stellar” examples of how the system is working in Europe are hemorrhaging their biotech companies and people to the US where they can actually make a living. Do those that want to take over health care even talk about this? Of course not because they don’t care, they just want the power. docstoc.com/docs/1952835/How-To-Plug-Europes-Brain-Drain
The point about letting the left take on these things is that they will slowly put you and your economy out of business one sector at a time, until they control everything. It’s just what they do, and if you don’t like it, they will put you out of business too.
#26–shitty==you are making a good study in bullshit on the hoof. Moving the target around. So, USA should spend twice the GDP % on healthcare in order to fund the bio tech industry?
Is that your argument now snuggums? Really? Hah, hah. What a dolt.
Lets see. Is socialistic/spends half as much/provides universal coverage/gets better results EUROPE still developing new drugs/treatments for the ill? Why yes it is.
Can new drug development be separately funded? Why yes it can.
Seems like nothing but rational choices are possible independent from how much money is stolen out of healthcare.
Shill.
#1, FINALLY..
—-
“require health-insurance companies to to spend 85 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on benefits.”
Lets see. 15% of 65 billion?? still not a bad pay check.
—-
#5
this is middle man syndrome.
where the GUY in the middle gets all the money. This was setup about 30 years ago, when it was decided that the CONSUMER was not supposed to buy DIRECT from a maker. It was figured tha it would make more jobs and make things cheaper with a TIER’D system..
First group buy in 1000′s
2nd can buy in 100′s
Third group in 1-10..
Then you the consumer get to buy something.
Now look up SRP. and try to figure out how they came up with that number.
—-
#6,
And what happens when all the health organizations DONT compete? when they are all owned by 4 people and they are ALL friends.
Insurance is no better then ANY corp. For those on top to make money, they FIRE those below and over work the ones left. AFTER that they start cutting corner and benefits..
—-
#7,
you want to make it work? Then regulate it so that 1 person can only RUN/own 1 company.
Look up GE and all its subsidiary..
—-
most of the problems in medical come with FEW regulations, and the cost of goods.
The medical community is SELF regulated like lawyers.
And costs are STUPID. The machines used cost so much that it takes YEARS to pay off 1 machine.
Then add to that a doctor that thinks that operating on 1 person should PAY him for the month??
Then lets look at LAND costs and Medical insurance..WOW.
TAKe all that away, and things get cheap.
#15 “I was always of the opinion that if a business is not doing something right or not giving their consumers what they need someone else would start up a business that would meet that demand.”
In order to start an insurnace company (doesn’t matter what type) one needs large amounts of money to back it. Much more than any small business breaking into any other established market.
You can’t start a Blue Cross in your basement (unless you are Bill Gates) because the amount of cash-on-hand or cash-on-demand (e.g. fast credit lines) is too high of a bar for “garage based business”. Thus it is hard for “someone to do it better,” since any idea to improve it can’t be as grass roots as other sectors. Thus limiting any improvements from happening outside of pre-existing insurance companies to drive the costs down.
With that stated what is occuring is companies appearing trying to figure out semi-cheap (and preferible subscription style) ways of selling “better health” to people so they can avoid using insurance, and I’m not sure that is always a good thing.
- Ben
Back in the 50s through the 70s, in the city where I lived as a kid, the three biggest hospitals in town were not-for-profit organizations. They provided the best health care in that city. The smaller for-profit hospitals didn’t do so well because they were too expensive. The not for profits were eventually bought up by for-profits, and fees went up and quality went down (bottom line was more important). Need I say more?
What’s the old saying. If it takes too much coaxing to get done. Then maybe it should not be done? It seems as though the Democrats are on some sort of god like mission. In fact this is much like the stimulus that was passed without pause. As one put it when that was done. Nothing good comes from government when its done in a hurry. Why so much haste in getting the health care past? What is the hurry? I think something if its going to be done should at least be heard from all sides and debated on.
I am a health insurance agent in Utah and run two websites that sell insurance http://www.benefitsmanager.net and http://www.dentalinsuranceutah.com. I mention this because in Utah it would be great to have a guaranteed public option to put people that the private insurers will decline for health conditions. Plus the way Weiner discribes the public option, it will be priced competitively. So what this means in my industry (I’ve been at it 18 years) is that all my unhealthy clients that get charged more or declined can be put onto the public option now. All my healthy clients can stay on the private option. Hmmmmm follow me yet???? How long can the public option stay affordable?? Who is going to pay for the losses of a big sick pool of people….taxpayers?????
The biggest myth going around is that somehow a “public option” will create a “level playing field”. Assuming that people who visit this website are somewhat logical (key word “somewhat”), let’s put this to a hypothetical test.
Company A is “for profit”. It now has competition from Government B, a non-profit.
Both Company A and Government B have squeezed every conceivable bit of efficiency possible out of their respective systems, and are now matching core costs for health services.
Problem: Company A needs to tack on a profit margin to stay in business. Government B doesn’t need to.
Outcome: Consumers, not being stupid, opt for Government B’s plan because it costs less. Company A (and all other for-profit health care companies) are forced out of business. Government B is the only player left, and we now have “Single Payer” by default.
There’s no two ways about it. Anyone who argues otherwise is being totally disingenuous.
Now, there will be those who argue “we shouldn’t have private for-profit health care insurance companies!” But here’s the rub: That’s not how this is being presented by Obama and the Democrats. It’s “you can keep your current insurance”. Of course, what they’re not saying is it’s going to cost you more because actual companies that don’t have the luxury of taxpayer subsidies cannot, repeat, cannot compete with the government entity. No company can, and we all know it.
So, they’re lying, plain and simple. Plus, there are Democrats on record who are saying outright that the public option is the best stepping stone to single payer.
So my question is, why stop at health insurance? Let’s have government “compete” with private industry everywhere. Let’s have a government airline, government cars (oops, we already have GM!), government grocery stores. You could make moral arguments for all that stuff.
#31–jescott==this is a democracy. The polls consistently show that above 50% of the people want single payer/universal access (sic==as in phrase it your own way)
Under what system of government do you think the majority will should not be implemented?
#33–Datruth==lets hope so. Way to straw man the argument though. NO ONE has ever argued lets do away with insurance co==except that they stand in the way of/interfere with constructing single payer/universal coverage. Private Pay will continue to exist in the future–at reduced levels.
What on gods green earth makes you think “society” has an interest in making sure for profit insurance carriers have a viable business? Isn’t the real issue that all people should have actual use of decent quality healthcare???
Does it make sense to you that some should get the best care possible while others get none? Is that your view of a just society?
#33 Which is it? At various times, opponents of health care reform have offered two totally inconsistent rationales for their opposition.
1. Government health insurance will be so ruthlessly efficient that it will drive all private insurance companies out of business.
2. Government health insurance will be so bloated and inefficient (the government can’t do anything right) that it won’t be any better than private insurance.
I suppose it would be too much to ask for y’all to agree on one argument?
So my question is, why stop at health insurance? Let’s have government “compete” with private industry everywhere. Let’s have a government airline, government cars (oops, we already have GM!), government grocery stores. You could make moral arguments for all that stuff.
Government “competes” with private industry all the time. We have government-run police and fire departments, for example. Wherever the free-market competition model doesn’t work, government-run is better. And health care is one of those situations.
The bastards claim that the industry doesn’t need the public option because they already operate in a highly competitive environment. Let’s make it so by taking away their antitrust exemption.
I see no reason not to hit the entire insurance industry with this, even if it is just the health insurers being bastards right now.
Until yesterday, I was not even aware that the insurance industry was exempt from The Sherman Antitrust Act.
I’d hit ‘em with that and still create a public option. If the insurers can’t compete with the government option, then we know which one’s better. If they are better, they’ll have no trouble with a little competition.
#6 – srgothard,
The problem with health insurance now is government regulation. Why isn’t health insurance competitive like life insurance, car insurance, identity theft insurance? Because of government involvement.
Are you out of your mind? What involvement? No antitrust, no rule that pre-existing conditions must be covered, no rule that you can’t drop someone when they get sick, no rules that life-sustaining treatments must be covered?
Where is there any government involvement in health insurance?
The only government involvement is that if you’re lucky enough to live to 65, then and only then, can you get good health insurance … provided by the government.
Do you guys want to know why health care is so high? Federal and state government.
Tort reform brought the cost of insurance down in California by 40%. Howard Dean says we can’t fix that because the trial lawyers are to important to the party as in we sold out.
Requiring insurance for non catastrophic events shoves up the cost of insurance.
Government waste shoves up the cost of insurance.
The government okaying price fixing among insurance companies had driven up the cost of insurance.
Medicare and Medicaid are the poster children for waste, corruption and abuse while still not covering the full cost of many treatments with the difference being paid by everybody else! Yeah they’re going to save 500 million in waste! If they these smart people actually had a clue how to save six cents why aren’t they doing it?
Sure the government is going to fix it health care. When you know where freezes over and the locals all go ice skating they’ll make it more efficient and cost effective.
A few more people will get some level of coverage from the government. A lot of people are going to face much lower rates of reimbursement with most people left just wondering who rammed the hoe handle up their butts and caused them to loose their insurance.
Get this through your heads. Incompetents can’t fix anything. just because some long legged mac daddy told you some fairy tales to get elected doesn’t mean he has a clue how to deliver. This is beyond their level of understanding and most politicians are way to bought out, corrupt, partisan, and ignorant to fix anything other than their own nest egg! They are great at that.
First, they came for the insurance companies…
What bvllsh1t!
Aside from the fact that the federal gub’mint has NO BUSINESS in the insurance business, the only difference between private company arrogance and federal gub’mint HUBRIS is that the federal gub’mint can threaten to EXTORT money from those private companies which dare to object to gub’mint legislation.
And Uncle Dave is OK with this fascism???
.