patrick.net

But then you find articles like this!

Obese people, smokers cost the health system less than healthy do, study finds

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/15293006.html

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday.

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense: If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

Why do we need universal healthcare?

http://consumerist.com/2010/02/humana-is-being-a-little-dramatic-about-alexs-health.html

I am a generally healthy 24-year old male. I had medical coverage hrough my employer, but when I was laid off in 2009, I opted to seek out some cheaper insurance, as COBRA coverage was both unaffordable and excessive for my needs. In December, I applied for a Humana One high-deductible plan through e-healthinsurance.com. After filling out the online forms, I received a call to confirm the information I'd filled online. That went OK. Then I received an e-mail that my application was about to be rejected because they hadn't received my medical records release form yet. This was strange because I didn't receive the form in the mail for another couple days. I shrugged and mailed in that form after receiving it.

After roughly two more months of waiting with no response, I received a letter in the mail today, explaining that they'd rejected my application for coverage. They had apparently managed to get my medical records, although they have inexplicably and continually misspelled my doctor's name. Based on the medical records, they rejected my application because of "...a medical history of bursitis, tendonitis, osteoarthritis, palpitations and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)," I'd say this rejection was deplorable but not unusual, except for the fact that I've never been diagnosed with or treated for any of these conditions. At my last checkup I mentioned occasional knee pain, occasional indigestion, and the fact that I experienced palpitations extremely rarely. The doctor gave me an EKG (seemed excessive at the time) and it came out totally normal. This was all reflected accurately in my records, so I'd say it takes quite a leap of imagination to say that I actually have the history they cited.

Is it common for people to be rejected for having a minor symptom that is nominally shared by a totally different and more serious condition? It seems akin to calling a stress headache "migranes" or a mole "melanoma"...

I'm pretty baffled but not that surprised. Any thoughts or advice over there?

elliemae says

I’m pretty baffled but not that surprised. Any thoughts or advice over there?

Blue Cross rejected my insurance application in 2004 because when I was on COBRA I had seen a knee specialist in late 2003, who just took an xray of some sort of tear I had.

Of course insurers can't just take anyone on for health insurance. You've got to be completely healthy, otherwise with the cost of medicine you're going to blow through your premiums pretty quick.

One trip to the ER for a chest pain in late 2008 cost BlueShield $3000, more than a year's premiums from me. My co-pay was $500 or so on that. I took a taxi so they and I were paying for all the uninsured I guess.

Actually, that quote was from the Consumerist.

But let us not forget that the goal of insurance is to deny, deny, deny.

I was rejected by United Healthcare and Blue Cross/Blue Shaft when I was only 27 and looking for basic coverage instead of having to pay COBRA. They both rejected me due to an "unspecified pre-existing condition" vaguely bringing up the 1 HIV test that I had that my family doctor ordered for me out of concern that turned out to be negative (and still is today). When I threatened Blue Cross/Blue Shaft with a lawsuit because I had no pre-existing conditions they slapped together the "perfect" plan for me. They put an exclusion in it for any "auto-immune disorder." That meant that any "auto-immune disorder" wouldn't be covered on that plan with a high deductible and a ridiculously high premium. Of course they were trying to hint that I had HIV or AIDS. I have neither still today and I'm 40. But by stating "any auto-immune disorder" they could deny treatment for allergies, asthma, Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Osteo-Arthritis, Gout, Grave's Disease, and others besides HIV or AIDS. I told them where to put their policy and I kept my COBRA until my next job's insurance kicked in.

That was 1997. It's only gotten worse since then. It's time for the criminals that call themselves "Health Insurers" be put in their place and be forced to compete for my business for a change. Then maybe their executives would spend less time on some Caribbean Island on "retreats" paid for with my health care dollars.

simchaland says

I call BS. I can show you examples from my own family of people who abused alcohol and cigarettes to excess and were morbidly obese and lived well into their 80’s and people who never smoked, drank, or ate poorly or were overweight who died at 60 or even 50 of unexpected and unexplained causes.

First of all, I'm sorry to hear that you're having health problems. But your experience and your family members' doesn't trump the OVERALL evidence that a healthy lifestyle does in fact INCREASE your odds of living a healthier and longer life. In no way was I even remotely implying that there aren't exceptions to this rule. I've known quite a few young people that have died from diseases, etc. that had nothing to do with their lifestyle, etc. I too have known people that abuse themselves and live a fairly long life. However, studies and statistics prove these people are not the rule but the exception.

RayAmerica says

simchaland says

I call BS. I can show you examples from my own family of people who abused alcohol and cigarettes to excess and were morbidly obese and lived well into their 80’s and people who never smoked, drank, or ate poorly or were overweight who died at 60 or even 50 of unexpected and unexplained causes.

First of all, I’m sorry to hear that you’re having health problems. But your experience and your family members’ doesn’t trump the OVERALL evidence that a healthy lifestyle does in fact INCREASE your odds of living a healthier and longer life. In no way was I even remotely implying that there aren’t exceptions to this rule. I’ve known quite a few young people that have died from diseases, etc. that had nothing to do with their lifestyle, etc. I too have known people that abuse themselves and live a fairly long life. However, studies and statistics prove these people are not the rule but the exception.

Sure, lifestyle choices may increase one's ability to remain healthy. But health insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to deny benefits simply because one has a disease that's beyond his control. Currently, they can.

A society should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. And currently, we treat sick people horribly. Should insurers be able to deny benefits to women just because they have a higher incidence of osteoporosis as they age? No, but they do.

Say what you want, you're wrong. We need to look to the exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself.

How's this for an example? Living on the coast of Hawaii is usually safe, but today there's a chance that there will be a tsunami that could possibly cause millions of dollars worth of damage. Hasn't happened since the 60's and before that, the 40's. Should be outlaw beach communities merely because there's a chance there might be a tsunami? Should we make everyone move from Florida or deny them emergency services merely because there might be a hurricane?

That's what denials for healthcare coverage can be compared to. And until you have been diagnosed with an illness that severely impedes your quality of life, you won't understand. You'll stand on your soapbox and scream that you're superior because you don't smoke, drink, or go to a whorehouse for "fun."

Just don't break your ankle jumping down off it and expect treatment for a compound fracture. You should have known, and used a ladder to get down. If you used a ladder to get off your soapbox, you should have had someone hold it. If they did and you were hurt anyway, you should have drug tested them. And if you did drug test them & they came up clean, they held the ladder and you fell getting off your soapbox anyway, you should have realized that they had tremors from not drinking and given them treatment prior to jumping down...

capiche?

Should taxpayers all across America be forced to subsidize the cost of homeowners insurance for those living in known high risk area's? If they want to live there fine...just pay for your own insurance, don't force others to help finance your choices or your "situation - regardless of what it is.

Take whatever you want in life...then pay for it.

elliemae says

Should be outlaw beach communities merely because there’s a chance there might be a tsunami? Should we make everyone move from Florida or deny them emergency services merely because there might be a hurricane?

That's what progressives and totalitarians would do. The answer to every problem is to make having a problem illegal.

Earth is warmer than 20 years ago, make fire illegal.

People are murdering others, make all weapons illegal.

People sell a crappy product, make selling illegal.

People have low wages, make low wages illegal.

People don't vote for the right candidate, make voting for the wrong candidate illegal.

People can't pay for their medicine, make selling medicine illegal.

People can't afford to live on their devalued dollars, force everyone else to pay for their living expenses and lifestyle choices.

You see the state can solve all these problems. You just gotta have faith. In Gubmint We Trust.

How about we let everyone suffer their own consequences? And Ellie May if you want to help those in need please do, with your own time and resources. Until then please don't fall off your soapbox.

Honest Abe says

Should taxpayers all across America be forced to subsidize the cost of homeowners insurance for those living in known high risk area’s? If they want to live there fine…just pay for your own insurance, don’t force others to help finance your choices or your “situation - regardless of what it is.

yeay, me and Honest Abe here agree on something. Housing the Bay Area would be a lot more affordable if everyone was required to carry structural insurance -- we'd essentially get the insurance for free.

This is just another reiteration of the usual argument I make here.

Honest Abe says

Should taxpayers all across America be forced to subsidize the cost of homeowners insurance for those living in known high risk area’s? If they want to live there fine…just pay for your own insurance, don’t force others to help finance your choices or your “situation - regardless of what it is.
Take whatever you want in life…then pay for it.

Makes me laugh because I remember in 2001-2002, post 9/11, insurers were warning that home owner's insurances rates were going up and I'm thinking Portland, Oregon is a heck of a long way from any major terrorists targets. Well, come to find out the rates were going up because the insurance companies investments were doing poorly in the stock market due to the economy. It had nothing to do with covering other people's arses but the insurance companies arses.

Leigh says

Makes me laugh because I remember in 2001-2002, post 9/11, insurers were warning that home owner’s insurances rates were going up and I’m thinking Portland, Oregon is a heck of a long way from any major terrorists targets. Well, come to find out the rates were going up because the insurance companies investments were doing poorly in the stock market due to the economy. It had nothing to do with covering other people’s arses but the insurance companies arses.

Same thing happened after Katrina with flood insurance. Those rates skyrocketed and vast areas that NEVER flooded were suddenly declared "Flood Zones" which, under the Federal Gov't regulations forced these homeowners (provided they had mortgages) to acquire expensive flood insurance. Nothing other than blatant robbery on behalf of the insurance companies.

The original pasted article says things like:'

"Current health care in America is very simple and extremely profitable." [assumedly for the insurance companies since a follow-on statement is:]

"In summary, the insurance industry reaps massive revenues ..."

And yet, the same article states something like this....

"But the American people have not been told the truth. They have been misled, manipulated, and deliberately distracted from the relatively simple mathematical concepts discussed above."

Very simple indeed... It is very simple for those with an agenda to conflate revenues with profits by intentionally NOT including the concept of profit margin! That's why it starts off with the premise that insurance companies are "extremely profitable" but then makes revenue the focus of the remainder of the article, more or less completely ignoring "profit" from that point further.

The average health insurance company profit margin is between about 2% and 4%. Want to confirm? Go to Yahoo Finance, search for some of the bigger insurance companies, and divide their net profit by their revenue for any given quarter.

A 2% to 4% profit margin.... Wow, that is particularly egregious, despite the fact that in regular times, anyone making that type of measly return from a broad-based market mutual fund would be complaining about it.

It's sad, but funny, that an author who talks about people being misled, distracted, and manipulated attempts that very same thing on his readers within the very same article!

Hint: Anytime someone starts an article with a general, unsubstantiated comment about "profit," but then switches to "revenue" for the focus of the actual article, is trying to "manipulate" or "mislead" you.

Hmmn? A "2% to 4% profit margin"? Isn't "profit margin" AFTER Jack Donahue (Aetna CEO) buys his private island in Naples with his own, private 18-hole golf course and helipad? Wouldn't want to confuse anyone what "profit margin" really means, would we?

Paralithodes says

the average health insurance company profit margin is between about 2% and 4%. Want to confirm?

yeah, you're full of shit on this assertion too.

WellPoint took in $65B in FY09
SG&A was $9.7B (15%)
Shareholder profit was 4.7B (7%)

Company paid $2.7B (4%) in taxes, if we had single payer that would be the overhead and everyone's premiums would be 22% lower, and that's not even counting the efficiencies single payer brings on the provider side.

And don't forget--that's after they paid all the execs outrageous salaries too...

Tat - you will be FORCED to purchase health insurance through a government-run "exchange"...but look who gets to "opt-out" of that system: The President and his family, the Vice-President, cabinet secretaries, White House staff and other administrative officials, Congressional members and special congressional staff.

So I ask, if socialized health care is good enough for you, so good in fact, they are going to force it on you whether you want it or not, then why is it not good enough for the President, his family, and all his political buddies?

Why do our public servents place themselves above the law?

Honest Abe says

Tat - you will be FORCED to purchase health insurance through a government-run “exchange”…but look who gets to “opt-out” of that system: The President and his family, the Vice-President, cabinet secretaries, White House staff and other administrative officials, Congressional members and special congressional staff.

Can you smell the bullshit? I can.

Nobody is "forced" to buy through the exchange. You simply must have insurance. That insurance can come from your employer (most likely it will, since any employer with more than 50 employees has to provide it), you can buy directly from a provider, you can get it from some professional association, or, if none of those options are available, you can get it from the exchange.

The president and his family aren't "excluded" in any way -- they get their insurance from their employer.

If you're going to spread lies, at least go for lies that can't be refuted with facts right in front of your face. I suppose you could actually believe this BULLSHIT, which just makes me sad for you.

Liberals in government, returning the nations wealth to it's rightful owners...the dependent class. In other words, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Gee, where have I read that before?

Shit, I thought it was the super wealthy that were stealing all of our money, now it's poor people?

Why is it that I always see these arguments from the least productive people?

"I-90 will be closed tomorrow across South Dakota. They are hauling a 200 ton lump of coal so they can add Obama to Mount Rushmore."

It's funny because he's BLACK like a piece of coal see? Get it?

Actually Obama is cocoa brown, but let's not quibble when we
have FoxNews humor it's so very rare!

"Change" in governmnet always means more of the same: more regulation, more inflation, more looting of Americans, more police state measures, more unnecessary war and more centralization of power.

Actually, real change would mean the opposite of those things, wouldn't it? It might even involve following our own Constitution, something the President swore he would protect and defend.

There is an alternative to national bankrupcy, bailouts of failing businesses at the expense of successful ones, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that acts like a parasite on the productive energies of the American people. Its called Freedom. [The Revolution, by Ron Paul]

Ouch, I bet that hit a nerve with some of you. What is that saying - "The truth hurts"? Have a nice day.

Abe

Nomograph says

Why not just say you hate uppity Negroes? It would be a refreshing bit of intellectual honesty.

Can't recall the name of the racist asshole who was deleted from the board, but twelc is either edition 2.0 or one of his aryan brethren.

Nomo - how can you 'guarantee' I am part of the dependent class????

Please elaborate, and be specific. Thank you, Abe

Vicente says

It’s funny because he’s BLACK like a piece of coal see? Get it?
Actually Obama is cocoa brown, but let’s not quibble when we
have FoxNews humor it’s so very rare!

Where did you see this on FoxNews? Please be specific and provide the link. LOL

Nomograph says

Honest Abe says

Nomo - how can you ‘guarantee’ I am part of the dependent class????

Your beliefs, behaviors, and blind devotion to ideology pretty much give you away as an undereducated, lower-performing individual. It’s virtually impossible to attain success as an ideological, black-or-white thinker. As such, you are largely supported by the tax dollars of people like myself.
In other words, you take more from society than you put in, and are as such part of the dependent class.

Eh, I also see this mentality from the people who, through sheer dumb luck, never actually had to work for anything. They think that being born into a wealthy family and inheriting the company business is "hard work".

Looks like hard work to me:

Nom - you're right, my beliefs, behaviors and devotion are to the Constitution. How about you? Do you believe in the Constitution? I find it funny that you speak in black and white statements, haha. Your assumptions are entirely incorrect (as usual).

Todays book: The road to Serfdom. I recommend this book for everyone, especially you radical liberals.

Honest Abe says

Todays book: The road to Serfdom. I recommend this book for everyone, especially you radical liberals.

look, pa! He's gonna give us some of that thar larnin! Oh, please, Honest Abe, next can you teach us all the story of the man named Jed...

There are some on this site that ARE trying, really trying to help teach others the benefits of sound money, freedom, personal responsibility, capitalism, small constitutional government, the evils of centralized planning, creeping socialism and the like. BTW, have you read it?

Honest Abe says

There are some on this site that ARE trying, really trying to help teach others the benefits of sound money, freedom, personal responsibility, capitalism, small constitutional government, the evils of centralized planning, creeping socialism and the like. BTW, have you read it?

Honestly, Abe, do you really think that people are here to learn from you? You're here "trying, really trying" while the rest of us truly believe that you're a joke. We don't take you seriously; it's pathetic but like a train wreck we cannot look away...

But do feel free to go on. You're outwitted on every level, and the more that you try the greater that fact is evident.

elliemae says

Honest Abe says

Todays book: The road to Serfdom. I recommend this book for everyone, especially you radical liberals.

look, pa! He’s gonna give us some of that thar larnin! Oh, please, Honest Abe, next can you teach us all the story of the man named Jed…

...he was a poor mountaineer who barely kept his family fed. Just helpin' you out, with the larnin' thang.

No I don't think people are here to learn from me. But if the knowledge is there why reject it? You refuse to answer simple questions like: did you read The Road to Serfdom? (No answer is an answer). And I get empowered by your personal attacks. It means I'm right on target.

I don't think I've seen a single book recommendation by any of you progressives, liberals, big government advocates, socialists, do-gooders or what ever you call yourselfs. No, I'm not being outwitted, not in the least.

Honest Abe says

I don’t think I’ve seen a single book recommendation by any of you progressives, liberals, big government advocates, socialists, do-gooders or what ever you call yourselfs.

I call myselfs elliemae.

Now is my turn to ask a question (answer yes or no): Do you still beat your wife?

Honest Abe says

(No answer is an answer).

You didn't read "The Road to Serfdom"...did you? Hahaha.

Honest Abe says

You didn’t read “The Road to Serfdom”…did you? Hahaha.

Interesting comment about it on Wikipedia:

"The Road to Serfdom is among the most influential and popular expositions of classical liberalism and libertarianism."

What you doing reading LIBERAL propaganda? Did you wash your hands afterwards?

Your "classical liberalism" sounded great to robber barons, right up until it led to a series of CRUSHING DEPRESSIONS, at which point it was largely abandoned.

Honest Abe says

You didn’t read “The Road to Serfdom”…did you? Hahaha.

Contrary to your apparent beliefs, this isn't high school, you're not my teacher, and I don't do assigned readings. The only parallel I can see is your childish insistence that you're always right, and that the rest of the world just doesn't understand you...

Honest Abe says

There are some on this site that ARE trying, really trying to help teach others the benefits of sound money, freedom, personal responsibility, capitalism, small constitutional government, the evils of centralized planning, creeping socialism and the like. BTW, have you read it?

Yeah, because some random jackass on the internet preaching the same small government rhetoric that has been flung around since the founding of the union is really going to change people's opinions on things.

Ummm, more personal attacks - without substance. I must be on target.

lets see: DURING
DURING the campaign, Obama was in trouble because of his radical CHRISTIAN pastor... but actually, he is a Muslim...

Ok, what you idiots make up your mind which way you hate him? for his radical christian religion? or radical muslim?