--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, "William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> LOL - I think you spotted the motivation!
>
>

Could just be a matter of their own self-interest.

LOL - I think you spotted the motivation!



Bill



From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of fhawontcutit
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:58 PM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] Re: NY Times editorial: Medicare Scare-mongering





--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> This was the first New York Times editorial to state truth with no added
> pro-corporate /insurance company spin or "on the other hand" verbiage.

Maybe the editorial staff figured out that they will need Medicare in their
old age?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, "William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> This was the first New York Times editorial to state truth with no added
> pro-corporate /insurance company spin or "on the other hand" verbiage.

Maybe the editorial staff figured out that they will need Medicare in their old
age?

This was the first New York Times editorial to state truth with no added
pro-corporate /insurance company spin or "on the other hand" verbiage.
Perhaps the wind is shifting in the direction of getting a bill through
Congress.  Of course this editorial does not touch the hot button of
competition via  a public plan.  I wonder if this will move the NYT from
moderate right-center to just center with to the right a tiny bit, or even
move it to just "center".  Left of center will not happen, of course, given
the NYT, despite conservative intimidations of the press claims that it is a
socialist rag, has not been left of center since 1969.



From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of fhawontcutit
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 3:09 PM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] NY Times editorial: Medicare Scare-mongering





http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27sun1.html

EXCERPT:
--------
It has been frustrating to watch Republican leaders posture as the vigilant
protectors of Medicare against health care reforms designed to make the
system better and more equitable. This is the same party that in the past
tried to pare back Medicare and has repeatedly denounced the kind of
single-payer system that is at the heart of Medicare and its popularity.

For all of the cynicism and hypocrisy, it seems to be working. The
Republicans have scared many older Americans into believing that their
medical treatment will suffer under pending reform bills.

The general public believes that, too. The latest New York Times/CBS News
poll of 1,042 adults found that only 15 percent believe changes under
consideration would make the Medicare program better, while 30 percent think
they would make it worse.

That does not mean that Medicare will be untouched under the Democrats'
plans. The Obama administration and Congressional leaders are hoping to save
hundreds of billions of dollars by slowing the growth of spending in the
vast and inefficient Medicare system that serves 45 million older and
disabled Americans. The savings would be used to help offset the costs of
covering tens of millions of uninsured people.

.

But far from harming elderly Americans, the various reform bills now pending
should actually make Medicare better for most beneficiaries - by enhancing
their drug coverage, reducing the premiums they pay for drugs and medical
care, eliminating co-payments for preventive services and helping keep
Medicare solvent, among other benefits.

The main exception, a fully justified one, is that some of the 10 million
people enrolled in private plans that participate in Medicare - the Medicare
Advantage program - might suffer a dilution or elimination of the extra
benefits they get that other beneficiaries do not.

To help them compete against the traditional Medicare fee-for-service
program, Congress granted these plans large overpayments, essentially
subsidies. Most are required to use part of the subsidy to reduce charges to
their beneficiaries or to add extra benefits, such as vision and dental
benefits, or even gym memberships.

This often makes them a better deal for beneficiaries. But it is unfair to
force those enrolled in traditional Medicare to help foot the bill -
currently $43 a year extra for each participant - to help subsidize the
private plans. Federal taxpayers have contributed heavily as well.
--------





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27sun1.html

EXCERPT:
--------
It has been frustrating to watch Republican leaders posture as the vigilant
protectors of Medicare against health care reforms designed to make the system
better and more equitable. This is the same party that in the past tried to pare
back Medicare and has repeatedly denounced the kind of single-payer system that
is at the heart of Medicare and its popularity.

  For all of the cynicism and hypocrisy, it seems to be working. The Republicans
have scared many older Americans into believing that their medical treatment
will suffer under pending reform bills.

The general public believes that, too. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll
of 1,042 adults found that only 15 percent believe changes under consideration
would make the Medicare program better, while 30 percent think they would make
it worse.

That does not mean that Medicare will be untouched under the Democrats' plans.
The Obama administration and Congressional leaders are hoping to save hundreds
of billions of dollars by slowing the growth of spending in the vast and
inefficient Medicare system that serves 45 million older and disabled Americans.
The savings would be used to help offset the costs of covering tens of millions
of uninsured people.

•

But far from harming elderly Americans, the various reform bills now pending
should actually make Medicare better for most beneficiaries — by enhancing their
drug coverage, reducing the premiums they pay for drugs and medical care,
eliminating co-payments for preventive services and helping keep Medicare
solvent, among other benefits.

The main exception, a fully justified one, is that some of the 10 million people
enrolled in private plans that participate in Medicare — the Medicare Advantage
program — might suffer a dilution or elimination of the extra benefits they get
that other beneficiaries do not.

To help them compete against the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program,
Congress granted these plans large overpayments, essentially subsidies. Most are
required to use part of the subsidy to reduce charges to their beneficiaries or
to add extra benefits, such as vision and dental benefits, or even gym
memberships.

This often makes them a better deal for beneficiaries. But it is unfair to force
those enrolled in traditional Medicare to help foot the bill — currently $43 a
year extra for each participant — to help subsidize the private plans. Federal
taxpayers have contributed heavily as well.
--------

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, "William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> Since the insurance company is making the health coverage promise, and the
employee is putting money into an account, an HSA plus high deductible account
has zero liability â€" and any liability that existed before changing to that
type of promise will indeed flow into earnings.  The main effect is on companies
that made promises for retiree health benefits of some sort â€" usually
subsidized supplemental to Medicare or for retirees that retire before age 65.
>

.."any liability that existed before changing to that type of promise will
indeed flow into earnings."

That's what I thought.

Thanks.

FAS 106 is concerned with the earned during the working years but paid out after
this year liability (something actuaries do indeed calculate).



Since the insurance company is making the health coverage promise, and the
employee is putting money into an account, an HSA plus high deductible account
has zero liability – and any liability that existed before changing to that
type of promise will indeed flow into earnings.  The main effect is on companies
that made promises for retiree health benefits of some sort – usually
subsidized supplemental to Medicare or for retirees that retire before age 65.



Those promises are dying at the rate of 2 million to 3 million people each year
that had such a promise finding out they no longer have that promise because
cost has become too great.  The major effect will be on early retirees that find
HSA funding has suddenly become savings account funding of their health care
needs – at $15,000 per year if insured, or praying you don’t go bankrupt if
you can’t afford the $15,000 family cost ($9,000 for a single male in his
early fifties).





================================================================================\
==========

From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
fhawontcutit
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:46 PM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] The truth about high-deductible policies and HSAs





http://www.cbpp.org/files/9-20-06health.pdf

EXCERPT:
---------
A groundbreaking new study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
demonstrates that
Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) â€" tax-favored savings accounts attached to
high-deductible health
insurance plans established under the 2003 Medicare drug law â€" are heavily
skewed toward
affluent individuals. The GAO findings also provide strong indications that HSAs
are being used
extensively as tax shelters. Finally, the GAO data suggest that HSAs can be
beneficial to healthy
individuals with relatively few health care costs, but not to people who have
medical conditions and
incur higher costs.
---------

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/transcript4.html?print
--------
Well, I was beginning to question what I was doing as the industry shifted from
selling primarily managed care plans, to what they refer to as consumer-driven
plans. And they're really plans that have very high deductibles, meaning that
they're shifting a lot of the cost off health care from employers and insurers,
insurance companies, to individuals. And a lot of people can't even afford to
make their co-payments when they go get care, as a result of this
....
And another thing is that the advocates of reform or the opponents of reform are
those who are saying that we need to be careful about what we do here, because
we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. It's
more likely that your employer and your insurer is going to switch you from a
plan that you're in now to one that you don't want. You might be in the plan you
like now.

But chances are, pretty soon, you're going to be enrolled in one of these high
deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is
being shifted to you than you ever imagined.
---------

So, William, does a company book FAS 106 income by switching their retirees to
high-deductible plans?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, fhawontcutit <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Go to ERIC.ORG.
>
> Right-hand column--fourth item down-- right after CASH BALANCE PLANS (gee,
imagine that!) is CONSUMER-DRIVEN HEALTH CARE
>
> That should tell you something.
>

Forgot to add:
CONSUMER-DRIVEN HEALTH CARE refers to high-deductible policies with HSAs

Go to ERIC.ORG.

Right-hand column--fourth item down-- right after CASH BALANCE PLANS (gee,
imagine that!) is CONSUMER-DRIVEN HEALTH CARE

That should tell you something.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/9-20-06health.pdf

EXCERPT:
---------
A groundbreaking new study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
demonstrates that
Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) â€" tax-favored savings accounts attached to
high-deductible health
insurance plans established under the 2003 Medicare drug law â€" are heavily
skewed toward
affluent individuals. The GAO findings also provide strong indications that HSAs
are being used
extensively as tax shelters. Finally, the GAO data suggest that HSAs can be
beneficial to healthy
individuals with relatively few health care costs, but not to people who have
medical conditions and
incur higher costs.
---------

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/transcript4.html?print
--------
Well, I was beginning to question what I was doing as the industry shifted from
selling primarily managed care plans, to what they refer to as consumer-driven
plans. And they're really plans that have very high deductibles, meaning that
they're shifting a lot of the cost off health care from employers and insurers,
insurance companies, to individuals. And a lot of people can't even afford to
make their co-payments when they go get care, as a result of this
....
And another thing is that the advocates of reform or the opponents of reform are
those who are saying that we need to be careful about what we do here, because
we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. It's
more likely that your employer and your insurer is going to switch you from a
plan that you're in now to one that you don't want. You might be in the plan you
like now.

But chances are, pretty soon, you're going to be enrolled in one of these high
deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is
being shifted to you than you ever imagined.
---------

So, William, does a company book FAS 106 income by switching their retirees to
high-deductible plans?

CD,



Great - I am glad it works for you.  As I said, using funds for preventive
care when you self-insure goes against the grain for most people, but if you
can handle it, great.



As to the 100 day limit - at $3000 per day these days before the weekly MRI
of $2000, a serious hospitalization of 100 days is $500,000- but of course
the 100 days in Medicare repeats for new hospitalizations - and of course
while there will not be a weekly MRI, any "serious 100 day" does mean that
there will be other charges that will quickly add a couple of thousand per
week to 10's of thousands per week - or more - to the bill - my 7 day heart
attack plus stent ran over $105,000 and my aunts Medical bills as her organs
failed over 10 years (dying at 96) were well into the millions - my dad was
a cancer treatment for $250,000 and then a heart attack for $50,000 - but
not everyone gets away cheap - although some get found in bed at home dead -
the variation being the reason one gets insurance or gets old and gets
Medicare).  Post the 100 days there are other benefits, although neither
your policy nor Medicare cover long term care, Medicare does cover nursing
home for a while (after which Medicaid kicks in for most as most will have
sent their money downstream years before so as to qualify for Medicaid).
The $5 million lifetime is a good limit, but when I designed these policies
for a living I had internal limits over and above the over-all limit.  You
may want to check the exact language.



My wife is a retired RN who headed various hospital ER nursing, and then
headed insurance claims payment for one of the big 5 companies for a while
until she got disgusted with the standard policy of "tightening" claims
"underwriting" whenever addition earnings were needed for that quarters
company earnings report.  Ins. Companies make money by denying claims - and
you would be amazed by how creative the reasons can be to deny a claim
payment.  Indeed that is why the insurance companies get that 75% to 80%
"satisfied with company rating - most folks do not get into large dollars
where that creative underwriting takes place.  But we also had special
procedures to get approval of a requested by doctor treatment - and they
were effective as delaying approval makes the claim go away when the patient
dies before the decision is made to pay.  Those patients that did get
approval before they died sure were grateful to their doctor and happy with
their insurance company.



As I said at the start of this email, it is great that  that HSA 's works
for you - I hope they continue to work for you.  And as  I said, using funds
for preventive care when you self-insure goes against the grain for most
people, but if you can handle it, great.  As to the reform bill allowing
you're your current arrangement to continue - Yes - it does in all 4 bills
that have passed by committee, and it does in the last bill that is at the
chairmen's mark point in the Senate Finance committee.  The only thing
changing is the welfare check to the insurance companies for selling
"Medicare Advantage" is going to end - insurance companies will have to live
on the same funds per patient that Medicare does (it did seem unfair for
some over 65's to get more out of the Medicare tax than the rest of us), and
this may cause the insurers to stop offering their Medicare Advantage policy
coverage.



So keep your current arrangement - and enjoy - no change is planned for you
in the health reform! J



Bill





From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of capitalistdick
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:33 PM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] Re: Mr. Chirolas-- you still here?





Bill,

I just checked my Health Care Certificate, and there is no annual payout
limit. There is a $5 million lifetime maximum per person.

With elderly parents and having dealt with Medicare, I can tell you I will
take my HDHP/HSA plan over Medicare any day of the week. There is no
comparison. Medicare is helpful for the first 100 days, but after that you
are on your own until you essentially go bankrupt.

You are correct about the out-of-pocket deductibles at the beginning of the
year. If there are insufficient funds in the HSA to meet the annual
deductible, they do need to be paid out of pocket, but can later be
reimbursed when the funds are available in the HSA. In my case, the annual
deductible is $5,800 a year for my family. After that is met, coverage is
100%. As I stated previously, preventive care is covered at 100% with no
deductible.

For most, I would think this inconvenience far outweighs the other
advantages of the HDHP/HSA plan. For those not hitting the annual
deductible, the balance remains in the account and can be used to meet the
following year's deductibles. Any balance in the account can also be used to
purchase other IRS approved medical expenses not covered by the health care
plan, such and dental and vision expenses.

This plan is by far the best medical plan I have ever had. I hope that the
president will keep his promise and allow me to keep this plan if or when
national health care reform takes place.

CD

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> CD -
>
> If you can take a chance of a $200,000 cancer treatment hit to your
wealth,
> the HSA can work for you (high deductible is often matched with a yearly
> payout limit and I am just assuming you go $200,000 over that limit) -
> indeed if you have wealth, despite the fact that when you forgo real
> insurance you assume all the risk, anything can work for you because the
> ultimate hit is not a big deal to your total wealth. Singapore indeed does
> its universal via mandated HSA type accounts (Eighty-five percent of
> Singaporeans have health coverage through Medisave, a national health
> savings account (HSA) program introduced in 1984) and achieves a
Government
> expense of 4% of GDP (compare to our 16% of GDP current cost for all
health
> payments). When you take stock of the compulsory savings accounts, the
> mandatory payroll reductions and the copays, you've got something quite
> weird: A largely government-run program that is ultimately funded mostly
by
> private spending. Indeed, as a percent of total expenditures, private
> spending on health is higher than the United States and three times
greater
> than the UK and Japan. It costs a lot to maintain a private health
> operation, compared to a Medicare for all, and still get a ranking of 6th
> best in the world (France is first).
>
> But there is another problem with turning Singapore into a sexy pin-up for
> health care - it breaks a lot of rules. Conservatives should hate it
because
> the government <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore>
> regulates supply and sets prices and forces all its citizens to put money
> into a health care savings account. It has famously high high co-pays to
> help the government recoup money, because too-high co-pays are supposed to
> discourage the less fortunate to seek preventative care when the illness
can
> be more cheaply treated. As Watson Wyatt
> <http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/healthcare/render2.asp?ID=13850>
> sums up, it's a bizarre combination of a public option and private special
> care where "the private healthcare system competes with the public
> healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions." When you take
> stock of the compulsory savings accounts, the mandatory payroll reductions
> and the co-pays, you've got something quite weird: A largely
government-run
> program that is ultimately funded mostly by private spending. Indeed, as a
> percent of total expenditures, private spending on health is higher than
the
> United States and three times greater than the UK and Japan.
>
> The rather small amount you put into your HSA plus your high deductible
> health plan premium will indeed reduce the wasted monies going to
insurance
> companies now because your HSA administration has nowhere near a 30% cost
of
> overhead. But while it will pay for preventive care, most folks are afraid
> of using up money as they are saving for a major illness - so preventive
> care usage goes down with HSA usage
>
>
>
> Other problems exist such as early in the calendar year health costs may
hit
> before the HSA person has the money on hand to cover the deductible -
> leading in some cases to bankruptcy. And as noted above, many catastrophic
> health plans have a lifetime maximum benefit of either $1,000,000 or
> $5,000,000 or anywhere in between. Once the insurance company pays that
> amount for health care, no more benefits will be paid. Also many HDHPs
> that do not allow for preventive care, so even taking a child to the
doctor
> for immunizations can end up costing several hundred dollars pre-meeting
the
> deductible, and even post meeting the annual deductible if the policy
> provisions for preventive care make it the insured's responsibility.) In
> addition to preventive care, prescription medication is extremely
expensive
> and one prescription can run in the hundreds of dollars. If the plan does
> not cover prescriptions before the deductible is met, keep in mind, the
> insured will need to pay for all prescription costs until the annual
> deductible is met. (However, for plans that do allow for prescription
costs
> prior to meeting the deductible, Health Savings Accounts are not qualified
> for tax purposes.) And as always you must fight with the insurance company
> even under a High Deductible Health Plan because they make their money by
> denying your claim.
>
>
>
> Normally, High Deductible Health Plans are more beneficial to those who do
> not have high annual health care costs and do not have ongoing medical
> conditions - and can depend on either getting lucky as to health, or have
no
> problem throwing their cost of very large problem medical onto the backs
of
> their neighbors and taxpayers.
>
>
>
> So the fact that it is your credit union that makes the fee is nice - your
> deposit adds to their happiness and better them than an insurance company,
> and if you can force yourself to actually get preventive care, despite
> seeing the balance in your account go down as you pay for it, you are
> unusual but you are doing the right thing - so congratulations.
>
>
>
> Now back to what is the best solution for the country, Medicare for all,
and
> the small effort in that direction called the public plan option. I'm
> afraid Singapore control of prices and supply so as to make HSA's work
will
> never get past our conservative citizens! J
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
> Of capitalistdick
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:33 PM
> To: andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [AndyLang] Re: Mr. Chirolas-- you still here?
>
>
>
>
>
> I have had a high deductible healthcare plan (HDHP) along with a health
> savings account (HSA) for a couple of years. The HSA is at a credit union
so
> it is not a capital accumulation means for the health insurance company.
>
> Another piece of incorrect information is that preventive care is not
> covered under the HDHP. In fact, preventive care is encouraged. Preventive
> care is covered at 100% with no deductible. No HSA dollars are used to pay
> for preventive care.
>
> I don't understand the antagonism against HDHPs and HSAs.
>
> CD
>
> --- In andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "William Chirolas" <chirolas@> wrote:
> >
> > Outside brain trusts have scored single payer as an immediate 15%
savings
> > (for individual and small business a 30% savings) with further savings
> over
> > time (of about 33%) as we come back from 16-17%% of GNP to 10-11%.
> >
> >
> >
> > The CBO has never scored single payer - and if it did it would not get
> much
> > more than a 15-20% final savings as they give no credit ("as savings")
to
> > the change to more preventative care, and they undervalue the ability of
> > governments to bargain for drug prices, the savings from replacement of
> the
> > current 600 forms the insurance companies require with the handful under
> > single payer, and the savings from the government's ability to hold down
> > the cost per day of hospital stays. Indeed the MD's in medical
specialties
> > would see their fees come back closer to the fees charged by primary
care
> > MD's by a greater extent than the CBO would admit. But the CBO is
correct
> > and in my opinion the brain trusts wrong when they get that final 1% of
> > savings from the idea that we would finally stop expecting our kids to
> > assume $250,000 in debt just to get through medical school and
internship.
> > With that kind of debt overhead, MD service fees must be high just for
the
> > MD to get a car loan for a used car. I am not sure government aid for
> > medical education (and relief for prior education loans for current
> medical
> > school graduates) would come with single payer passage.
> >
> >
> >
> > High Deductible policies are more profitable than low deductible
policies
> in
> > terms of rate of return - but the premium brought in is less so the
> dollars
> > are obviously less. The concept is a step to the patient paying more for
> > their coverage over time and for the coverage costing in total more to
> > society despite the canard that there will be savings as patients choose
> to
> > remain sick and die if they must pay a higher percentage of the bill.
The
> > Medical savings accounts that are to replace the premium dollars not
spent
> > are really just an asset accumulation product for the health insurers.
The
> > health insurers were jealous of the life insurance and annuity asset
> > accumulation involved in whole life and group pension policies (and to a
> > much smaller extent IRA's) - jealous of the fees involved that the
health
> > insurers were not getting - and got the Congress to give the tax break
to
> > savings accumulations for health costs provided you saved via a health
> > insurer (casualty ins company) who could charge you a fee. The end
result
> > is one more health insurance company (casualty insurance company) fee
> income
> > producing method that reduces the percentage of our medical payment that
> > actually goes to health care - but with the additional problem of
> increased
> > costs to society as preventive care is avoided and our death rate
> increases
> > over the rest of the world (we already, in part due to the Medical
Savings
> > accounts that began under Reagan and the corresponding reduction in
> > preventive care, now die 3 years earlier on average compared to the rest
> of
> > the industrial world's average age at death - other things are involved
in
> > life span length including genes, exercise, environmental pollution, and
> > diet, but lack of preventive care and increased daily stress from
> > unnecessary worries brought on by lack of universal medical care are
major
> > factors).
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill Chirolas
> >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill,

I just checked my Health Care Certificate, and there is no annual payout limit. 
There is a $5 million lifetime maximum per person.

With elderly parents and having dealt with Medicare, I can tell you I will take
my HDHP/HSA plan over Medicare any day of the week.  There is no comparison. 
Medicare is helpful for the first 100 days, but after that you are on your own
until you essentially go bankrupt.

You are correct about the out-of-pocket deductibles at the beginning of the
year.  If there are insufficient funds in the HSA to meet the annual deductible,
they do need to be paid out of pocket, but can later be reimbursed when the
funds are available in the HSA.  In my case, the annual deductible is $5,800 a
year for my family.  After that is met, coverage is 100%.  As I stated
previously, preventive care is covered at 100% with no deductible.

For most, I would think this inconvenience far outweighs the other advantages of
the HDHP/HSA plan.  For those not hitting the annual deductible, the balance
remains in the account and can be used to meet the following year's deductibles.
Any balance in the account can also be used to purchase other IRS approved
medical expenses not covered by the health care plan, such and dental and vision
expenses.

This plan is by far the best medical plan I have ever had.  I hope that the
president will keep his promise and allow me to keep this plan if or when
national health care reform takes place.

CD

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, "William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> CD -
>
>  If you can take a chance of a $200,000 cancer treatment hit to your wealth,
> the HSA can work for you (high deductible is often matched with a yearly
> payout limit and I am just assuming you go $200,000 over that limit) -
> indeed if you have wealth, despite the fact that when you forgo real
> insurance you assume all the risk, anything can work for you because the
> ultimate hit is not a big deal to your total wealth.  Singapore indeed does
> its universal via mandated HSA type accounts (Eighty-five percent of
> Singaporeans have health coverage through Medisave, a national health
> savings account (HSA) program introduced in 1984) and achieves a Government
> expense of 4% of GDP (compare to our 16% of GDP current cost for all health
> payments). When you take stock of the compulsory savings accounts, the
> mandatory payroll reductions and the copays, you've got something quite
> weird: A largely government-run program that is ultimately funded mostly by
> private spending. Indeed, as a percent of total expenditures, private
> spending on health is higher than the United States and three times greater
> than the UK and Japan.  It costs a lot to maintain a private health
> operation, compared to a Medicare for all, and still get a ranking of 6th
> best in the world (France is first).
>
> But there is another problem with turning Singapore into a sexy pin-up for
> health care - it breaks a lot of rules. Conservatives should hate it because
> the government  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore>
> regulates supply and sets prices and forces all its citizens to put money
> into a health care savings account. It has famously high high co-pays to
> help the government recoup money, because too-high co-pays are supposed to
> discourage the less fortunate to seek preventative care when the illness can
> be more cheaply treated. As Watson Wyatt
> <http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/healthcare/render2.asp?ID=13850>
> sums up, it's a bizarre combination of a public option and private special
> care where "the private healthcare system competes with the public
> healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions."  When you take
> stock of the compulsory savings accounts, the mandatory payroll reductions
> and the co-pays, you've got something quite weird: A largely government-run
> program that is ultimately funded mostly by private spending. Indeed, as a
> percent of total expenditures, private spending on health is higher than the
> United States and three times greater than the UK and Japan.
>
> The rather small amount you put into your HSA  plus your high deductible
> health plan premium will indeed reduce the wasted monies going to insurance
> companies now because your HSA administration has nowhere near a 30% cost of
> overhead.  But while it will pay for preventive care, most folks are afraid
> of using up money as they are saving for a major illness - so preventive
> care usage goes down with HSA usage
>
>
>
> Other problems exist such as early in the calendar year health costs may hit
> before the HSA person has the money on hand to cover the deductible -
> leading in some cases to bankruptcy.  And as noted above, many catastrophic
> health plans have a lifetime maximum benefit of either $1,000,000 or
> $5,000,000 or anywhere in between. Once the insurance company pays that
> amount for health care, no more benefits will be paid.  Also many  HDHPs
> that do not allow for preventive care, so  even taking a child to the doctor
> for immunizations can end up costing several hundred dollars pre-meeting the
> deductible, and even post meeting the annual deductible if the policy
> provisions for preventive care make it the insured's responsibility.) In
> addition to preventive care, prescription medication is extremely expensive
> and one prescription can run in the hundreds of dollars. If the plan does
> not cover prescriptions before the deductible is met, keep in mind, the
> insured will need to pay for all prescription costs until the annual
> deductible is met. (However, for plans that do allow for prescription costs
> prior to meeting the deductible, Health Savings Accounts are not qualified
> for tax purposes.)  And as always you must fight with the insurance company
> even under a High Deductible Health Plan because they make their money by
> denying your claim.
>
>
>
> Normally, High Deductible Health Plans are more beneficial to those who do
> not have high annual health care costs and do not have ongoing medical
> conditions - and can depend on either getting lucky as to health, or have no
> problem throwing their cost of very large problem medical onto the backs of
> their neighbors and taxpayers.
>
>
>
> So the fact that it is your credit union that makes the fee is nice - your
> deposit adds to their happiness and better them than an insurance company,
> and if you can force yourself to actually get preventive care, despite
> seeing the balance in your account go down as you pay for it, you are
> unusual but you are doing the right thing - so congratulations.
>
>
>
> Now back to what is the best solution for the country, Medicare for all, and
> the small effort in that direction called the public plan option.  I'm
> afraid Singapore control of prices and supply so as to make HSA's work will
> never get past our conservative citizens!  J
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of capitalistdick
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:33 PM
> To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AndyLang] Re: Mr. Chirolas-- you still here?
>
>
>
>
>
> I have had a high deductible healthcare plan (HDHP) along with a health
> savings account (HSA) for a couple of years. The HSA is at a credit union so
> it is not a capital accumulation means for the health insurance company.
>
> Another piece of incorrect information is that preventive care is not
> covered under the HDHP. In fact, preventive care is encouraged. Preventive
> care is covered at 100% with no deductible. No HSA dollars are used to pay
> for preventive care.
>
> I don't understand the antagonism against HDHPs and HSAs.
>
> CD
>
> --- In andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "William Chirolas" <chirolas@> wrote:
> >
> > Outside brain trusts have scored single payer as an immediate 15% savings
> > (for individual and small business a 30% savings) with further savings
> over
> > time (of about 33%) as we come back from 16-17%% of GNP to 10-11%.
> >
> >
> >
> > The CBO has never scored single payer - and if it did it would not get
> much
> > more than a 15-20% final savings as they give no credit ("as savings") to
> > the change to more preventative care, and they undervalue the ability of
> > governments to bargain for drug prices, the savings from replacement of
> the
> > current 600 forms the insurance companies require with the handful under
> > single payer, and the savings from the government's ability to hold down
> > the cost per day of hospital stays. Indeed the MD's in medical specialties
> > would see their fees come back closer to the fees charged by primary care
> > MD's by a greater extent than the CBO would admit. But the CBO is correct
> > and in my opinion the brain trusts wrong when they get that final 1% of
> > savings from the idea that we would finally stop expecting our kids to
> > assume $250,000 in debt just to get through medical school and internship.
> > With that kind of debt overhead, MD service fees must be high just for the
> > MD to get a car loan for a used car. I am not sure government aid for
> > medical education (and relief for prior education loans for current
> medical
> > school graduates) would come with single payer passage.
> >
> >
> >
> > High Deductible policies are more profitable than low deductible policies
> in
> > terms of rate of return - but the premium brought in is less so the
> dollars
> > are obviously less. The concept is a step to the patient paying more for
> > their coverage over time and for the coverage costing in total more to
> > society despite the canard that there will be savings as patients choose
> to
> > remain sick and die if they must pay a higher percentage of the bill. The
> > Medical savings accounts that are to replace the premium dollars not spent
> > are really just an asset accumulation product for the health insurers. The
> > health insurers were jealous of the life insurance and annuity asset
> > accumulation involved in whole life and group pension policies (and to a
> > much smaller extent IRA's) - jealous of the fees involved that the health
> > insurers were not getting - and got the Congress to give the tax break to
> > savings accumulations for health costs provided you saved via a health
> > insurer (casualty ins company) who could charge you a fee. The end result
> > is one more health insurance company (casualty insurance company) fee
> income
> > producing method that reduces the percentage of our medical payment that
> > actually goes to health care - but with the additional problem of
> increased
> > costs to society as preventive care is avoided and our death rate
> increases
> > over the rest of the world (we already, in part due to the Medical Savings
> > accounts that began under Reagan and the corresponding reduction in
> > preventive care, now die 3 years earlier on average compared to the rest
> of
> > the industrial world's average age at death - other things are involved in
> > life span length including genes, exercise, environmental pollution, and
> > diet, but lack of preventive care and increased daily stress from
> > unnecessary worries brought on by lack of universal medical care are major
> > factors).
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill Chirolas
> >

CD -

  If you can take a chance of a $200,000 cancer treatment hit to your wealth,
the HSA can work for you (high deductible is often matched with a yearly
payout limit and I am just assuming you go $200,000 over that limit) -
indeed if you have wealth, despite the fact that when you forgo real
insurance you assume all the risk, anything can work for you because the
ultimate hit is not a big deal to your total wealth.  Singapore indeed does
its universal via mandated HSA type accounts (Eighty-five percent of
Singaporeans have health coverage through Medisave, a national health
savings account (HSA) program introduced in 1984) and achieves a Government
expense of 4% of GDP (compare to our 16% of GDP current cost for all health
payments). When you take stock of the compulsory savings accounts, the
mandatory payroll reductions and the copays, you've got something quite
weird: A largely government-run program that is ultimately funded mostly by
private spending. Indeed, as a percent of total expenditures, private
spending on health is higher than the United States and three times greater
than the UK and Japan.  It costs a lot to maintain a private health
operation, compared to a Medicare for all, and still get a ranking of 6th
best in the world (France is first).

But there is another problem with turning Singapore into a sexy pin-up for
health care - it breaks a lot of rules. Conservatives should hate it because
the government  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore>
regulates supply and sets prices and forces all its citizens to put money
into a health care savings account. It has famously high high co-pays to
help the government recoup money, because too-high co-pays are supposed to
discourage the less fortunate to seek preventative care when the illness can
be more cheaply treated. As Watson Wyatt
<http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/healthcare/render2.asp?ID=13850>
sums up, it's a bizarre combination of a public option and private special
care where "the private healthcare system competes with the public
healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions."  When you take
stock of the compulsory savings accounts, the mandatory payroll reductions
and the co-pays, you've got something quite weird: A largely government-run
program that is ultimately funded mostly by private spending. Indeed, as a
percent of total expenditures, private spending on health is higher than the
United States and three times greater than the UK and Japan.

The rather small amount you put into your HSA  plus your high deductible
health plan premium will indeed reduce the wasted monies going to insurance
companies now because your HSA administration has nowhere near a 30% cost of
overhead.  But while it will pay for preventive care, most folks are afraid
of using up money as they are saving for a major illness - so preventive
care usage goes down with HSA usage



Other problems exist such as early in the calendar year health costs may hit
before the HSA person has the money on hand to cover the deductible -
leading in some cases to bankruptcy.  And as noted above, many catastrophic
health plans have a lifetime maximum benefit of either $1,000,000 or
$5,000,000 or anywhere in between. Once the insurance company pays that
amount for health care, no more benefits will be paid.  Also many  HDHPs
that do not allow for preventive care, so  even taking a child to the doctor
for immunizations can end up costing several hundred dollars pre-meeting the
deductible, and even post meeting the annual deductible if the policy
provisions for preventive care make it the insured's responsibility.) In
addition to preventive care, prescription medication is extremely expensive
and one prescription can run in the hundreds of dollars. If the plan does
not cover prescriptions before the deductible is met, keep in mind, the
insured will need to pay for all prescription costs until the annual
deductible is met. (However, for plans that do allow for prescription costs
prior to meeting the deductible, Health Savings Accounts are not qualified
for tax purposes.)  And as always you must fight with the insurance company
even under a High Deductible Health Plan because they make their money by
denying your claim.



Normally, High Deductible Health Plans are more beneficial to those who do
not have high annual health care costs and do not have ongoing medical
conditions - and can depend on either getting lucky as to health, or have no
problem throwing their cost of very large problem medical onto the backs of
their neighbors and taxpayers.



So the fact that it is your credit union that makes the fee is nice - your
deposit adds to their happiness and better them than an insurance company,
and if you can force yourself to actually get preventive care, despite
seeing the balance in your account go down as you pay for it, you are
unusual but you are doing the right thing - so congratulations.



Now back to what is the best solution for the country, Medicare for all, and
the small effort in that direction called the public plan option.  I'm
afraid Singapore control of prices and supply so as to make HSA's work will
never get past our conservative citizens!  J



Bill









From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of capitalistdick
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:33 PM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] Re: Mr. Chirolas-- you still here?





I have had a high deductible healthcare plan (HDHP) along with a health
savings account (HSA) for a couple of years. The HSA is at a credit union so
it is not a capital accumulation means for the health insurance company.

Another piece of incorrect information is that preventive care is not
covered under the HDHP. In fact, preventive care is encouraged. Preventive
care is covered at 100% with no deductible. No HSA dollars are used to pay
for preventive care.

I don't understand the antagonism against HDHPs and HSAs.

CD

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> Outside brain trusts have scored single payer as an immediate 15% savings
> (for individual and small business a 30% savings) with further savings
over
> time (of about 33%) as we come back from 16-17%% of GNP to 10-11%.
>
>
>
> The CBO has never scored single payer - and if it did it would not get
much
> more than a 15-20% final savings as they give no credit ("as savings") to
> the change to more preventative care, and they undervalue the ability of
> governments to bargain for drug prices, the savings from replacement of
the
> current 600 forms the insurance companies require with the handful under
> single payer, and the savings from the government's ability to hold down
> the cost per day of hospital stays. Indeed the MD's in medical specialties
> would see their fees come back closer to the fees charged by primary care
> MD's by a greater extent than the CBO would admit. But the CBO is correct
> and in my opinion the brain trusts wrong when they get that final 1% of
> savings from the idea that we would finally stop expecting our kids to
> assume $250,000 in debt just to get through medical school and internship.
> With that kind of debt overhead, MD service fees must be high just for the
> MD to get a car loan for a used car. I am not sure government aid for
> medical education (and relief for prior education loans for current
medical
> school graduates) would come with single payer passage.
>
>
>
> High Deductible policies are more profitable than low deductible policies
in
> terms of rate of return - but the premium brought in is less so the
dollars
> are obviously less. The concept is a step to the patient paying more for
> their coverage over time and for the coverage costing in total more to
> society despite the canard that there will be savings as patients choose
to
> remain sick and die if they must pay a higher percentage of the bill. The
> Medical savings accounts that are to replace the premium dollars not spent
> are really just an asset accumulation product for the health insurers. The
> health insurers were jealous of the life insurance and annuity asset
> accumulation involved in whole life and group pension policies (and to a
> much smaller extent IRA's) - jealous of the fees involved that the health
> insurers were not getting - and got the Congress to give the tax break to
> savings accumulations for health costs provided you saved via a health
> insurer (casualty ins company) who could charge you a fee. The end result
> is one more health insurance company (casualty insurance company) fee
income
> producing method that reduces the percentage of our medical payment that
> actually goes to health care - but with the additional problem of
increased
> costs to society as preventive care is avoided and our death rate
increases
> over the rest of the world (we already, in part due to the Medical Savings
> accounts that began under Reagan and the corresponding reduction in
> preventive care, now die 3 years earlier on average compared to the rest
of
> the industrial world's average age at death - other things are involved in
> life span length including genes, exercise, environmental pollution, and
> diet, but lack of preventive care and increased daily stress from
> unnecessary worries brought on by lack of universal medical care are major
> factors).
>
>
>
> Bill Chirolas
>
>
>
>
>
> From: andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
> Of fhawontcutit
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:46 AM
> To: andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [AndyLang] Re: Mr. Chirolas-- you still here?
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "William Chirolas" <chirolas@> wrote:
> >
> > At one time I tried to price for a 12% return - and had my head taken
off
> > (15% to 18% was demanded). These are therefore quite profitable -
>
> Thanks for the info. How does the 15-18% return compare to the return on a
> policy that is not high-deductible?
>
> Also, did the CBO ever score a single-payer option?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have had a high deductible healthcare plan (HDHP) along with a health savings
account (HSA) for a couple of years.  The HSA is at a credit union so it is not
a capital accumulation means for the health insurance company.

Another piece of incorrect information is that preventive care is not covered
under the HDHP.  In fact, preventive care is encouraged.  Preventive care is
covered at 100% with no deductible.  No HSA dollars are used to pay for
preventive care.

I don't understand the antagonism against HDHPs and HSAs.

CD

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, "William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> Outside brain trusts have scored single payer as an immediate 15% savings
> (for individual and small business a 30% savings) with further savings over
> time (of about 33%) as we come back from 16-17%% of GNP to 10-11%.
>
>
>
> The CBO has never scored single payer - and if it did it would not get much
> more than a 15-20% final savings as they give no credit ("as savings") to
> the change to more preventative care, and they undervalue the ability of
> governments to bargain for drug prices, the savings from  replacement of the
> current 600 forms the insurance companies require with the handful under
> single payer,  and the savings from the government's ability to hold down
> the cost per day of hospital stays.  Indeed the MD's in medical specialties
> would see their fees come back closer to the fees charged by primary care
> MD's by a greater extent than the CBO would admit.  But the CBO is correct
> and in my opinion the brain trusts wrong when they get that final 1% of
> savings from the idea that we would finally stop expecting our kids to
> assume $250,000 in debt just to get through medical school and internship.
> With that kind of debt overhead, MD service fees must be high just for the
> MD to get a car loan for a used car.  I am not sure government aid for
> medical education (and relief for prior education loans for current medical
> school graduates) would come with single payer passage.
>
>
>
> High Deductible policies are more profitable than low deductible policies in
> terms of rate of return - but the premium brought in is less so the dollars
> are obviously less.  The concept is a step to the patient paying more for
> their coverage over time and for the coverage costing in total more to
> society despite the canard that there will be savings as patients choose to
> remain sick and die if they must pay a higher percentage of the bill.  The
> Medical savings accounts that are to replace the premium dollars not spent
> are really just an asset accumulation product for the health insurers.  The
> health insurers were jealous of the life insurance and annuity asset
> accumulation involved in whole life and group pension policies (and to a
> much smaller extent IRA's)  - jealous of the fees involved that the health
> insurers were not getting - and got the Congress to give the tax break to
> savings accumulations for health costs provided you saved via a health
> insurer (casualty ins company) who could charge you a fee.  The end result
> is one more health insurance company (casualty insurance company) fee income
> producing method that reduces the percentage of our medical payment that
> actually goes to health care - but with the additional problem of increased
> costs to society as preventive care is avoided and our death rate increases
> over the rest of the world (we already, in part due to the Medical Savings
> accounts that began under Reagan and the corresponding reduction in
> preventive care, now die 3 years earlier on average compared to the rest of
> the industrial world's average age at death - other things are involved in
> life span length including genes, exercise, environmental pollution, and
> diet, but lack of preventive care and increased daily stress from
> unnecessary worries brought on by lack of universal medical care are major
> factors).
>
>
>
> Bill Chirolas
>
>
>
>
>
> From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of fhawontcutit
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:46 AM
> To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AndyLang] Re: Mr. Chirolas-- you still here?
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "William Chirolas" <chirolas@> wrote:
> >
> > At one time I tried to price for a 12% return - and had my head taken off
> > (15% to 18% was demanded). These are therefore quite profitable -
>
> Thanks for the info. How does the 15-18% return compare to the return on a
> policy that is not high-deductible?
>
> Also, did the CBO ever score a single-payer option?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, "William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>

>
> The Medicare program is in effect self insurance - we "insure" our old age
> care via taxes. Indeed it is better viewed as Medical has no medical
> instance risk - we KNOW that a certain number of folks will get sick and use
> the service - the only "risk" is inflation in the cost of services - which
> begs the question of a national health budget and "rationing" by procedure
> covered, or extent of gov payment of the bill.

Yes, that's what I was getting at -- healthcare reform should be an extension of
Medicare to all.  We self-insure as a country.

Yes - very true



The banks know the current extreme spreads (high profit margins as cost of
funds from Fed are so much smaller than rate earned on loans) can not
continue - so they are chasing fee income so as to get that increase in
earnings from qtr to qtr.



From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of fhawontcutit
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:05 AM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] Re: Mr. Chirolas-- you still here?





--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
>
The
> Medical savings accounts that are to replace the premium dollars not spent
> are really just an asset accumulation product for the health insurers. The
> health insurers were jealous of the life insurance and annuity asset
> accumulation involved in whole life and group pension policies (and to a
> much smaller extent IRA's) - jealous of the fees involved that the health
> insurers were not getting - and got the Congress to give the tax break to
> savings accumulations for health costs provided you saved via a health
> insurer (casualty ins company) who could charge you a fee. The end result
> is one more health insurance company (casualty insurance company) fee
income
> producing method that reduces the percentage of our medical payment that
> actually goes to health care - but with the additional problem of
increased
> costs to society as preventive care is avoided and our death rate
increases
> over the rest of the world (we already, in part due to the Medical Savings
> accounts that began under Reagan and the corresponding reduction in
> preventive care, now die 3 years earlier on average compared to the rest
of
> the industrial world's average age at death - other things are involved in
> life span length including genes, exercise, environmental pollution, and
> diet, but lack of preventive care and increased daily stress from
> unnecessary worries brought on by lack of universal medical care are major
> factors).

Thanks for the info.
Here is a WSJ article that mentions how banks are battling for health
savings accounts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125313235899717143.html

"More than 2,000 banks, credit unions and brokerage firms offer HSAs."

"Savings not needed to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses can accumulate in
HSA for years, attracting the attention of firms seeking to manage these
accounts."

Just think of the windfall to the institutions that manage health savings
accounts if everyone moved to a high-deductible policy with health savings
accounts as "consumer-driven" healthcare.

Really stinks, doesn't it?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Federal Gov self-insures its casualty loss risk - but not its life
insurance risk (a massive program called Federal employee life insurance -
FEGLI - shifts millions of dollars to the life insurance industry in the
name of private enterprise - ???!!!!!!?????   No one said logic explained
our government.



The Medicare program is in effect self insurance - we "insure" our old age
care via taxes. Indeed it is better viewed as Medical has no medical
instance risk - we KNOW that a certain number of folks will get sick and use
the service - the only "risk" is inflation in the cost of services - which
begs the question of a national health budget and "rationing" by procedure
covered, or extent of gov payment of the bill.  Currently the private
insurers do the rationing for the under 65 crowd.  We are the only country
in the world where you are likely to be on the phone to your insurance
company, begging that they agree to pay for a procedure that your policy
seems to say they will pay, on the day you die. A rational list of
procedures - as in Oregon on Medicaid, or Great Britain in their national
health, etc. - seems a more rational approach rather than "claims
underwriting" where "loses" are "controlled" so as to make the quarterly
profit goal, via "tightening up on the claims underwriting", with the
"tighten" rules changing every quarter.



Bill





Below is some info that I thought interesting as I watched the talking heads
on Fox Cable tell me about how great our current system is and how health
reform with a public plan option should be tossed in favor of "minimal
change" "reform".



No. 37 is where the United States' health status was ranked by the World
Health Organization. Here's how U.S. health care stacks up in other ways (in
most recent statistics available http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
our lousy system cost twice the per capita of the rest of the world):

. No. 1 in total health costs as a percentage of gross domestic product
(almost twice the Per capita cost of the rest of the world).

. $878 per person spent on pharmaceuticals -- the most among the world's 30
largest economies.

. 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people in the United States. Countries
with fewer physicians per 1,000 are Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand,
Poland, South Korea and Turkey.

. 3.1 hospital beds per 1,000 people -- the fewest beds per 1,000 among the
world's 30 largest economies, except for Mexico, where there are 1.7 beds
per 1,000.

. 34.3 percent of Americans are obese (with a body mass index of 30 or
higher), the most of any developed country.

. 25.9 magnetic resonance imaging units per million people makes the United
States No. 1 among the world's largest economies. The United Kingdom, in
contrast, has about one third the number of the U.S.

. 84.5 coronary bypasses per 100,000 people makes the U.S. the second most
bypassed among developed nations, topped by Germany which has 131.8 bypasses
for every 100,000 people.

. 15.4 percent of the U.S. population are daily smokers -- the second
smallest percentage among the world's 30 largest economies (only the Swedes
smoke less).

SOURCES: World Health Organization, Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development

AngryAngryAngry


A great read is "The inevitability of an American single-payer health
system".
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t
<http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F7_0_s_1_1_aa&usg=AFQjCNHp8wD9
8FZWGfxA4D-OgGRpyBipeA&cid=1316272907&ei=bNa2SsDzGKHvlQeCn5dY&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm
=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrueslant.com%2Frickungar%2F2009%2F09%2F20%2Fthe-
inevitability-of-an-american-single-payer-health-system%2F>
&ct2=us%2F7_0_s_1_1_aa&usg=AFQjCNHp8wD98FZWGfxA4D-OgGRpyBipeA&cid=1316272907
&ei=bNa2SsDzGKHvlQeCn5dY&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrueslant.
com%2Frickungar%2F2009%2F09%2F20%2Fthe-inevitability-of-an-american-single-p
ayer-health-system%2F

the above from trueslant.com made it to the Goggle news front page - Amazing
in our corporate controlled media world.



From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of fhawontcutit
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:09 AM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] Capitalist health insurance for all





http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4882/capitalist_health_insurance_for_all
/

EXCERPT:
-------
Here's what corporations know, but don't want you to find out: Private
insurance is for suckers.

Armies of healthcare industry flacks, lobbyists and bought-and-paid-for
legislators rant that nonprofit, public insurance is a slippery slope to
socialist hell, will limit your choice of physicians to Doc Watson and Dr.
Kevorkian, and bankrupt the country. But, in fact, most U.S. Fortune 500
companies wouldn't touch private insurance with a 10-foot colonoscope.

When they need to insure their financial health against fire, terrorism, and
liability lawsuits sparked by defective products and polluting factories
that kill people, they don't call State Farm. Instead, corporations
routinely insure themselves by creating a "captive" insurance company as a
wholly-owned subsidiary. "The parent company is insuring its own risk," says
Sandy Bigglestone, of Vermont's Captive Insurance division.

But when we the people need health insurance against the high cost of
staying alive, we, or our employers, pay private insurers-corporations that
are more devoted to protecting their profits than our health. The premiums
we pay go not only for our pills and treatments, but also for lobbyists (on
whom the health insurance industry currently spends $1.4 million per day for
the U.S. Congress alone), campaign contributions, stratospheric executive
salaries, private jets, lawyers hired to fight legitimate claims, and, of
course, profits.
--------

Companies self-insure. Why don't we self-insure as a country?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4882/capitalist_health_insurance_for_all/

EXCERPT:
-------
Here's what corporations know, but don't want you to find out: Private insurance
is for suckers.

Armies of healthcare industry flacks, lobbyists and bought-and-paid-for
legislators rant that nonprofit, public insurance is a slippery slope to
socialist hell, will limit your choice of physicians to Doc Watson and Dr.
Kevorkian, and bankrupt the country. But, in fact, most U.S. Fortune 500
companies wouldn't touch private insurance with a 10-foot colonoscope.

When they need to insure their financial health against fire, terrorism, and
liability lawsuits sparked by defective products and polluting factories that
kill people, they don't call State Farm. Instead, corporations routinely insure
themselves by creating a "captive" insurance company as a wholly-owned
subsidiary. "The parent company is insuring its own risk," says Sandy
Bigglestone, of Vermont's Captive Insurance division.

But when we the people need health insurance against the high cost of staying
alive, we, or our employers, pay private insurers—corporations that are more
devoted to protecting their profits than our health. The premiums we pay go not
only for our pills and treatments, but also for lobbyists (on whom the health
insurance industry currently spends $1.4 million per day for the U.S. Congress
alone), campaign contributions, stratospheric executive salaries, private jets,
lawyers hired to fight legitimate claims, and, of course, profits.
--------

Companies self-insure.  Why don't we self-insure as a country?

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, "William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
>
The
> Medical savings accounts that are to replace the premium dollars not spent
> are really just an asset accumulation product for the health insurers.  The
> health insurers were jealous of the life insurance and annuity asset
> accumulation involved in whole life and group pension policies (and to a
> much smaller extent IRA's)  - jealous of the fees involved that the health
> insurers were not getting - and got the Congress to give the tax break to
> savings accumulations for health costs provided you saved via a health
> insurer (casualty ins company) who could charge you a fee.  The end result
> is one more health insurance company (casualty insurance company) fee income
> producing method that reduces the percentage of our medical payment that
> actually goes to health care - but with the additional problem of increased
> costs to society as preventive care is avoided and our death rate increases
> over the rest of the world (we already, in part due to the Medical Savings
> accounts that began under Reagan and the corresponding reduction in
> preventive care, now die 3 years earlier on average compared to the rest of
> the industrial world's average age at death - other things are involved in
> life span length including genes, exercise, environmental pollution, and
> diet, but lack of preventive care and increased daily stress from
> unnecessary worries brought on by lack of universal medical care are major
> factors).

Thanks for the info.
Here is a WSJ article that mentions how banks are battling for health savings
accounts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125313235899717143.html

"More than 2,000 banks, credit unions and brokerage firms offer HSAs."

"Savings not needed to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses can accumulate in HSA
for years, attracting the attention of firms seeking to manage these accounts."

Just think of the windfall to the institutions that manage health savings
accounts if everyone moved to a high-deductible policy with health savings
accounts as "consumer-driven" healthcare.

Really stinks, doesn't it?

Outside brain trusts have scored single payer as an immediate 15% savings
(for individual and small business a 30% savings) with further savings over
time (of about 33%) as we come back from 16-17%% of GNP to 10-11%.



The CBO has never scored single payer - and if it did it would not get much
more than a 15-20% final savings as they give no credit ("as savings") to
the change to more preventative care, and they undervalue the ability of
governments to bargain for drug prices, the savings from  replacement of the
current 600 forms the insurance companies require with the handful under
single payer,  and the savings from the government's ability to hold down
the cost per day of hospital stays.  Indeed the MD's in medical specialties
would see their fees come back closer to the fees charged by primary care
MD's by a greater extent than the CBO would admit.  But the CBO is correct
and in my opinion the brain trusts wrong when they get that final 1% of
savings from the idea that we would finally stop expecting our kids to
assume $250,000 in debt just to get through medical school and internship.
With that kind of debt overhead, MD service fees must be high just for the
MD to get a car loan for a used car.  I am not sure government aid for
medical education (and relief for prior education loans for current medical
school graduates) would come with single payer passage.



High Deductible policies are more profitable than low deductible policies in
terms of rate of return - but the premium brought in is less so the dollars
are obviously less.  The concept is a step to the patient paying more for
their coverage over time and for the coverage costing in total more to
society despite the canard that there will be savings as patients choose to
remain sick and die if they must pay a higher percentage of the bill.  The
Medical savings accounts that are to replace the premium dollars not spent
are really just an asset accumulation product for the health insurers.  The
health insurers were jealous of the life insurance and annuity asset
accumulation involved in whole life and group pension policies (and to a
much smaller extent IRA's)  - jealous of the fees involved that the health
insurers were not getting - and got the Congress to give the tax break to
savings accumulations for health costs provided you saved via a health
insurer (casualty ins company) who could charge you a fee.  The end result
is one more health insurance company (casualty insurance company) fee income
producing method that reduces the percentage of our medical payment that
actually goes to health care - but with the additional problem of increased
costs to society as preventive care is avoided and our death rate increases
over the rest of the world (we already, in part due to the Medical Savings
accounts that began under Reagan and the corresponding reduction in
preventive care, now die 3 years earlier on average compared to the rest of
the industrial world's average age at death - other things are involved in
life span length including genes, exercise, environmental pollution, and
diet, but lack of preventive care and increased daily stress from
unnecessary worries brought on by lack of universal medical care are major
factors).



Bill Chirolas





From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of fhawontcutit
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:46 AM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] Re: Mr. Chirolas-- you still here?





--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com <mailto:andylang%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> At one time I tried to price for a 12% return - and had my head taken off
> (15% to 18% was demanded). These are therefore quite profitable -

Thanks for the info. How does the 15-18% return compare to the return on a
policy that is not high-deductible?

Also, did the CBO ever score a single-payer option?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, "William Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> At one time I tried to price for a 12% return - and had my head taken off
> (15% to 18% was demanded).  These are therefore  quite profitable -

Thanks for the info.  How does the 15-18% return compare to the return on a
policy that is not high-deductible?

Also, did the CBO ever score a single-payer option?

At one time I tried to price for a 12% return - and had my head taken off
(15% to 18% was demanded).  These are therefore  quite profitable - and
indeed the "claims underwriting" - note that it is not claims payment the
way it is in other countries - guarantees whatever profit the CEO wants, as
it is easy to get more money without an excessive amount of complaint to the
State via having the policy wording interpreted in a way that denies more
claims - saying the claim was out of network after someone tells the person
that where they want to go was in network - treatment was experimental and
then they denied treatment payment after telling doctor to go ahead, saying
claim submission "lost" please resubmit and then submission is too late to
meet last year's deductible and will only apply to this year, saying policy
application forgot to note nose bleed 10 years ago so today's cancer is
pre-existing or entire policy was obtained via sick person's fraud and is
not an inforce policy, etc.



In 8 years profits are up 400% - G W Bush was a very good 8 years for the
health insurance companies - esp after the Medicare advantage welfare check
from the government as the ins co's  are subsidized via being paid 14% more
than the average Medicare person costs the gov - and that is after - in some
cases but not all - cherry picking only the healthy older folks!



Unlike life insurance and annuities where there is tight regulation, health
and long term care are into loss ratio disclosure and that is it.  You mix
and match benefits so there are many knobs and switches to play with - and
so that the person does not see how little each switch actually provides -
and then good marketing gets you sales.  In drug research the cost of
research is so little a percentage of drug company revenue that the canard
that cut US prices means cutting research does not pass the laugh test - a
small drop in the marketing/sales/advertising budget doubles the research
budget - indeed the major health discoveries these days are coming from
overseas - where they pay less than half what we do - indeed those joint
replacements are a gift from the French, X-Rays a gift from the Germans,
etc.



But the GOP lies which are broadcast via Fox Cable News seems to have killed
the public option - the very modest beginning of cost containment - so we
are left with the exchanges - offering policies from many insurers (each
state is currently a near monopoly of one or two - as in 85% of Alabama
being Blue Cross) without a broker's hype perhaps increasing competition
-but do not hold your breath as current pricing process is to see what the
fellow with the largest market share is charging - and then charge the same
but with a different set of "switches" so your benefit package sells at
least a few policies.



I really wish Hillary had made it to the Whitehouse as I can not see how she
could have done worse than Obama and I really think she meant it when she
promised health care - not health insurance - change - and I think she had
what Obama appears to lack - the ability to get it done.



But as always that is just my opinion.



From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of fhawontcutit
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 11:13 PM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] Mr. Chirolas-- you still here?





At one time I think you had provided some info on the profitability of
high-deductible health insurance policies. Could you share your expertise?
How profitable are these things for the insurance companies?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At one time I think you had provided some info on the profitability of
high-deductible health insurance policies.  Could you share your expertise? How
profitable are these things for the insurance companies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwlB3FZQ7go

Indeed the knives are out for the public option.



And as Bob note - and indeed the following report the same info he does -
even using his wording more or less on occasion - Dear sweet Olympia Snowe,
Republican, well-respected, and considered non-partisan, is selling herself
as a cover for Democrats and at her Thursday June 6 private gathering of
members/staff of Congress discussed the proposals of Pharma (11% of the
nation's heath bill) and the Insurance companies.  She is pushing the
"trigger" idea - no public option ever because there would be a trigger as
to how much insurance companies must bring down healthcare costs and expand
coverage that is set so low for turning the public plan off, that the
effects of the welfare check to the insurance companies as to cost of
medical delivery - the computerization of the industry - will take care of
the required slowing down in the increase over the next few years and the
mandate requiring everyone to have coverage will automatically expand
coverage. She's already gained the tentative support of several Democrats
(including Ron Wyden and Thomas Carper).



Other kill public plan proposals are to break up the public option into
small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would
have little or no bargaining leverage (or the equivalent of setting up one
in each state since buying the state legislature is seen as not a tough job
for the insurance companies - many state reps being former insurance
employees), or to bind the public plan not to the Senator Schumer fair
competition rules, but to rules making the public plan charge the same as
private insurers so as to have no competitive pressure.  Like Bernie
Sanders, Eric Massa, and John Conyers, we should oppose a fake reform that
fails to include a genuine public option. The let down of no bill will be
less than the let down of a GOP plan passed by Democrats.



If one needs a refresh on the issues, PBS at
http://www.pbs.org/video/video/1050712790/subject/957383245 is not bad. Then
go to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml and find your elected
officials (by zip code) and write to them that you want any health care
reform bill to include a "full public option", without any of the triggers
proposed by Sen. Snowe.  For those that want to take direct action against
there is a Defeat Baucus campaign at
https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/309/donate.asp?formid=meet&c=8161321



Right now we get none of the benefits of a government-managed plan (such as
negotiated fees for services and for prescriptions) and all of the downsides
as we as taxpayer get our pockets lightened by 8 percent of our families'
2009 health care premiums - $1,100 because our system doesn't provide
continuous coverage for all
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/03/cost_shift.html - as we
pay for the medical care of the uninsured  (a nearly $100 billion per year
cost for what is often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians
could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis." (see
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml). Other Western European countries
seem to always record provide better outcomes at half the cost (or less) of
U.S. health care).  Meanwhile medical bills underlie 60% of US bankruptcies
as noted at http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5530Y020090604, as
US Doctors support universal health care as noted at
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31432035 where the journal
Annals of Internal Medicine reports that of more than 2,000 doctors
surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national
health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it.



The garbage that there can be no "fair competition rules" because the public
plan has a line to the Treasury ignores the current insurance company
overcharge up front followed by "claims underwriting" (denying claims you'd
think the language of the policy said you were covered for, or delaying the
approving new treatment or the payment of old until you are dead and there
is no need for further procedures and a less interested person is asking the
insurance company for money).  The current insurance company no regulations
on price or performance model makes a mockery of the idea that "competition"
always leads to improved delivery and quality of products and services, at
lower cost to the consumer. That is exactly the opposite of what is
happening in the insurance-based model adopted by the United States.  We've
already got examples to draw from - Medicare and VA hospitals - that show us
what can be done with limited dollars.  One does not see insurance companies
wanted to take over the Medicare and VA - that is not unless they can get
their 10% of Medicare Cost additional welfare check - the one they now get
when they "compete" with Medicare.



the "American Health Choices Act") has been circulated (6-05 DRAFT) to allow
the members to suggest changes before the bill goes to mark-up.



PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS:

-Eliminates health status rating

-Requires guaranteed issue and renewability

-Requires all insurers to report MLRs (Loss Ratio is a value of premium
concept that is just the ratio of the claims paid to the premiums collected
- thereby exposing overhead and profit) to the Secretary (private insurers
would have to pay out a specified percentage of their premium revenues in
benefits).

-Requires coverage of certain preventive services

-Increases the age at which dependents are required to be offered coverage
to 26

-Prohibits annual or lifetime limits on coverage



STATE-BASED INSURANCE GATEWAYS:

-Provides grants to states to create "gateways" (discussed below) through
which individuals and small businesses may purchase insurance

-Provides reinsurance funding for plans participating in the gateway

-Establishes a Medical Advisory Council that will define, among other
things, "essential health care benefits" that gateway plans must offer and
"minimum qualifying coverage" that individuals must purchase

-For states that do not initially adopt the reforms in the bill, the
insurance market provisions of the American Health Choices Act would
automatically apply

-Would establish (but this draft leaves blank) the benefit levels
(coinsurance, etc.) that gateway plans must adopt

-Would establish (but left blank) minimum MLRs (again the loss ratios -
percent of premium paid to insureds as opposed to overhead and profit) for
gateway plans

-Provides subsidies up to 500% of FPL (this poverty level reference seems to
mean $110,000 for a family of four) for the purchase of insurance

-Establishes small business credits for purchasing insurance (with the size
of "small business" to be determined)

-Gateway plans made available to employees if their employer does not offer
"qualified coverage" or if plan options are not "affordable" (terms to be
defined)

-Includes a play-or-pay employer mandate and possibly an individual mandate
(perhaps similar to the Massachusetts pay or play rules that Republican
Governor Romey approved)

-Establishes HIT program for electronic enrollment in gateway plans



OTHER PROVISIONS:

-Increases Medicaid eligibility to 150% of FPL (150% of the poverty level -
$33,075 - but the eligibility change is in very general language since the
Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the program)

-Establishes a Community Living Assistance Support Service (CLASS) for the
10 million disabled, homebound, and institutionalized individuals

-Provides a credit for employers who auto-enroll their employees into
offered health plans

-Suggests new coverage options for retirees which I hope is a reference to a
Medicare buy-in

- And appears to provide a public plan option, with the Secretary of Health
and Human services establishing the new government-sponsored plan, which
would compete directly with private insurers. The new government-run program
would pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, plus 10 percent.



People would be exempt from the pay or play penalties if "affordable health
care coverage is not available" or if the premium payments would cause "an
exceptional financial hardship" just as Obama recommended. The Secretary of
Health and Human services would establish a panel of experts, the Medical
Advisory Council, to recommend a minimum package of insurance benefits where
the "essential benefits" would include doctors' services, hospital care,
maternity and newborn care, prescription drugs and mental health and
substance abuse services.. If Congress did not disapprove the
recommendations, insurers would generally have to provide the benefits.
Private group or individual insurance company health plan would be required
to provided coverage for children and their parents with the child's
coverage inforce through age 26 unless no longer "dependent".



Grants would be made to the states to establish insurance marketplaces or
exchanges called "health benefit gateways" that would put out information
about premiums and benefits, and assist people in enrolling - again similar
to the current Massachusetts Plan. Reinsurance - the sharing of the risk
that one insurer enrolled more sick persons than the others - would be
subsidized by subsidy payments from the government, with the government
doing the administration of the reinsurance - moving the reinsurance premium
from the companies that enrolled mainly healthy persons to those that
enrolled the more sickly.  All of this reinsurance of course is currently
done by reinsurance insurance companies but would now be the responsibility
of the government, with those reinsurance insurance companies no doubt doing
the administrative services - the same way the insurance companies currently
do the administrative services for Medicare Part B.



From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of fhawontcutit
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:57 AM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] How Pharma and Insurance intend to kill the public
option








http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/06/public-option-smokescreens-and-what-
you.html

EXCERPT:
--------
I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who
confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their
campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.

You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete
with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates
with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give
more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance,
"unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.

So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of
so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option
to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their
proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple
regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining
leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big
Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as
they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same
rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible
for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.
-------





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/06/public-option-smokescreens-and-what-you.\
html

EXCERPT:
--------
I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who
confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their
campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.

You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with
private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with
drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more
people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is
anything that undermines their profits.

So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of
so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to
support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals
is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional
third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A
second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big
Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing
for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers
have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put
competitive pressure on the insurers.
-------

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, "Chirolas" <chirolas@...> wrote:
>
> seriously undermine its ability to make money??? L
>
>
>
> God bless - they are allowed to exist in the Obama plan as insurance
> companies, rather than being forced to convert to claims payment
> administering service companies.  The fact is the country can not afford
> their increasing profit needs.  That is why we need reform.
>

I thought these guys loved competition.

Another interesting article from "The New Yorker":

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=\
all

EXCERPT:
-------
One afternoon in McAllen, I rode down McColl Road with Lester Dyke, the cardiac
surgeon, and we passed a series of office plazas that seemed to be nothing but
home-health agencies, imaging centers, and medical-equipment stores.

"Medicine has become a pig trough here," he muttered.

Dyke is among the few vocal critics of what's happened in McAllen. "We took a
wrong turn when doctors stopped being doctors and became businessmen," he said.
-------

seriously undermine its ability to make money??? L



God bless - they are allowed to exist in the Obama plan as insurance
companies, rather than being forced to convert to claims payment
administering service companies.  The fact is the country can not afford
their increasing profit needs.  That is why we need reform.



From: andylang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:andylang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of fhawontcutit
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:38 AM
To: andylang@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AndyLang] Blue Cross Blue Shield to Launch Ad Campaign Against
Obama Health Plan








http://medheadlines.com/2009/05/25/blue-cross-blue-shield-to-launch-ad-campa
ign-against-obama-health-plan/

EXCERPT:
-------
President Barack Obama has issued the call for the medical insurance
industry to produce significant reform so millions of Americans still
uncovered or underinsured by the healthcare insurance industry can obtain
affordable medical care and to rein in the skyrocketing cost of premiums for
the individuals who do have access to it. In response, Blue Cross Blue
Shield has notified the Washington Post that it has an ad campaign in the
development stage that will lambaste many of the reforms advocated by the
president.

According to the president, in the next decade, the United States will be
investing as much as 20% of the nation's economy on healthcare expenses
while getting less benefit from the expenditure. He's also expressed the
opinion that the current state of medical care in the US is one reason for
the current economic crisis.

Many medical industry leaders have become active participants in the
government's on-going discussion of healthcare reform but the medical
insurance industry has remained in strong opposition to some issues
currently being debated, especially the possibility of a
government-sponsored healthcare plan. Insurance industry leaders say a
government-based plan would put the industry in competition with the
government and seriously undermine its ability to make money. According to
Lew Borman, a Blue Cross Blue Shield spokesperson, there are better ways to
go.

The insurance industry giant proposes instead to build on the current
employer-based healthcare plans that cover approximately 160 million
Americans at the moment. To broadcast their opposition to a
government-sponsored program, Blue Cross Blue Shield has hired a media firm
to produce videos that will be posted on the internet later this year.
--------

They want to "build on the current employer-based healthcare plans".
Current employer coverage is VOLUNTARY.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In andylang@yahoogroups.com, fhawontcutit <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> They want to "build on the current employer-based healthcare plans".
> Current employer coverage is VOLUNTARY.
>

...unless you have a contract.

http://medheadlines.com/2009/05/25/blue-cross-blue-shield-to-launch-ad-campaign-\
against-obama-health-plan/

EXCERPT:
-------
President Barack Obama has issued the call for the medical insurance industry to
produce significant reform so millions of Americans still uncovered or
underinsured by the healthcare insurance industry can obtain affordable medical
care and to rein in the skyrocketing cost of premiums for the individuals who do
have access to it.  In response, Blue Cross Blue Shield has notified the
Washington Post that it has an ad campaign in the development stage that will
lambaste many of the reforms advocated by the president.

According to the president, in the next decade, the United States will be
investing as much as 20% of the nation's economy on healthcare expenses while
getting less benefit from the expenditure.  He's also expressed the opinion that
the current state of medical care in the US is one reason for the current
economic crisis.

Many medical industry leaders have become active participants in the
government's on-going discussion of healthcare reform but the medical insurance
industry has remained in strong opposition to some issues currently being
debated, especially the possibility of a government-sponsored healthcare plan. 
Insurance industry leaders say a government-based plan would put the industry in
competition with the government and seriously undermine its ability to make
money.  According to Lew Borman, a Blue Cross Blue Shield spokesperson, there
are better ways to go.

The insurance industry giant proposes instead to build on the current
employer-based healthcare plans that cover approximately 160 million Americans
at the moment.  To broadcast their opposition to a government-sponsored program,
Blue Cross Blue Shield has hired a media firm to produce videos that will be
posted on the internet later this year.
--------

They want to "build on the current employer-based healthcare plans".
Current employer coverage is VOLUNTARY.