patrick.net

This is from a guy who postd on PolitiFact. From Edward Delperdang, a regular poster on the facebook link: (I could not have said this any better, thus my quote)

"A Lesson in…

Health Care in America 101

Current health care in America is very simple and extremely profitable. It is premised upon the indisputable fact that younger Americans are statistically healthy and incur very little health care costs. These young, healthy Americans pay insurance companies approximately $6,000.00 per year for individual coverage and approximately $12,000.00 per year for family coverage. Of course, such premiums are often substantially more and can indeed double and even triple as these young, healthy Americans age.... See More

Americans pay these premiums from approximately age 25 thru age 65, at which age they retire and go on Medicare, which effectively ends or substantially replaces their employer provided private insurance coverage at the precise time their need for healthcare begins. Thus, from the approximate ages 25 to 65 (i.e., 40 years) Americans pay the insurance industry approximately $240,000.00 to $480,000.00 or more for coverage they are statistically unlikely to use.

From 50 to 65, those unfortunate disposable employees who lose their jobs before retirement age face denial of health care and possible bankruptcy should they actually receive care at their own expense. Those who survive until retirement age 65 then receive their primary healthcare from the government Medicare Program at taxpayer expense for the remainder of their lives during which they are statistically most likely to actually require health care (i.e., not from the insurance companies they have paid for 30-40 years.)

In summary, the insurance industry reaps massive revenues by insuring those who statistically do not need it, by selectively pruning even those insured by denying and dropping coverage should they actually require health care, and subsequently – ultimately – dumping their pilfered clientele onto the government funded health care programs at the very age when real health care needs actually begin to prevail in the senior years. This is obviously why Medicare and Medicaid exists in the first place – politically engineered by the insurance industry and their corrupt politicians to pass the real cost of health care onto the taxpayers.

Thus, the real issue is not a government takeover of healthcare as the government already provides such healthcare. Rather, the real issue is a government takeover of the REVENUE -- the billions of dollars paid to the insurance industry by the young and healthy prior to actually needing health care.

Yet that is not the message we hear from our corrupt, corporate-owned representatives. No, all we hear is the frightening “untenable” costs of health “insurance” reform. However, if we look to the actual 2009 federal budget, we see that Medicare and Medicaid represent $408 billion and $224 billion, respectively, for a total of $632 billion. This $632 billion constitutes the taxpayer funded plan already and historically successfully actually paying for health care costs in America.

Compare this amount to the premiums currently being paid by young, healthy Americans. If we project approximately 100 million households, paying the insurance industry an average of $9,000.00 per year (i.e. the average between individual and family coverage), we can easily see where the American people are currently paying approximately $900 BILLION per year to a parasitic insurance industry IN ADDITION TO the $632 BILLION in taxpayer funding of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. That’s $1.53 TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR the American people all currently paying.

Why in the world would Americans knowingly choose to continue this level of funding for the illusion of health care insurance while young and healthy???

The answer is: They would not!

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.

Again, the real issue is not a government takeover of health care. The government already provides (i.e., pays for) health care in America. No, the real issue is a government (i.e., the people) takeover of the REVENUE -- the billions, indeed TRILLIONS, of dollars being paid to the insurance industry by the young and healthy prior to actually needing health care.

Now that the insurance industry has openly and arrogantly displayed their unmitigated control over their bought-and-paid-for corrupt politicians -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- there remains no further restraint to gouging their victims for all they're worth. There is no longer any concern for any further pretense or appearance of legitimacy or propriety in their looting of the American people. Indeed, the insurance industry may even be displaying a sense – an awakening – their strangle hold on the health care of the American people may be weakened and, perhaps, soon broken. Hence the 40% increase in premiums proposed by BC/BS of CA, and similar premium gouging throughout the country.

The insurance industry has exposed for all to see its true nature – a parasitic industry leeching trillions in revenues from our country while providing no real value dumping the real costs of actual health care onto the American taxpayers.

It is called "ersatz” capitalism – the flawed version of capitalism we’ve ended up with, an unfair system that socializes economic losses and privatizes the gains. Yep, that pretty much sums up “Health Care in America”.

Thus endeth the lesson."

these young, healthy Americans pay insurance companies approximately $6,000.00 per year for individual coverage

I'm a 40yo fattie and paying $230/mo to Blue Shield for their PPO w/ $1700/yr deductible.

Uh, obviously the contraption won't work. Your dish must be pointing UP! Do I have to tell you everything, Nomo?

The simple reason health insurance costs so much is because Insurance companies are allowed to act as criminal enterprises above the law. The government enables them by letting them get away with murder and forcing employers to purchase these criminal enterprise's services for their employees. It's a huge mess and there is no easy fix short of destroying 99% of the health insurance companies in existence today. I worked on and off in a medical billing office for years. A health insurance company's strategy to not pay you involves never calling you back. It can take up to a year to get your money and that's if you don't give up. If you want to take them to court, they have an army of lawyers who will drag the case out for years and leave you bankrupt in legal fees. The other side of the coin is Medicaid/Medicare. They just pay you no questions asked. And that's part of the problem. Doctors routinely abuse that system because it allows them to provide unnecessary services (or as we found it, sometimes no services at all) and consistently get paid from the giant piggy bank that is Medicare. Both systems are inherently flawed. The best performing model I've seen is the one employed by Singapore. Everyone has MANDATORY health savings accounts and they have the option of going to a public or private hospital. Doctors are required to publish their fees and prices. And there is a government program for catastrophic illnesses. Singapore delivers the highest quality care to the most people at the lowest price for any industrialized nation. Every other single payer system that is in existence today has severe problems when it comes to the solvency and sustainability of the system in place.

Troy says

these young, healthy Americans pay insurance companies approximately $6,000.00 per year for individual coverage
I’m a 40yo fattie and paying $230/mo to Blue Shield for their PPO w/ $1700/yr deductible.

Are you paying for the entire premium yourself or is your company picking up the majority of it?

Between my employer and I, it's $850/month for family ($170/month is my share) and it's the cheapster version as I pay 30% of everything and I think my deductible is around $3K/person. Just hoping to god we dont' need it this year!!! Last year the premium was twice that as I paid for the "Premium" version so I only had to pay 10% of my delivery. Ended up paying $2500 out of pocket for a noncomplicated birth and that's with the best insurance coverage my company offers. How do people afford to have babies?!?!!

Leigh says

Are you paying for the entire premium yourself or is your company picking up the majority of it?

Quarterly transfer out of my business checking.

>>ObamaCare at Ramming Speed

It's about time.

Blue Swan says

What is wrong with the American system? When you examine as a whole (not isolated worse case situations like Michael Moore), not much. It works really well.

What's wrong is it costs too much and only yields mediocre results.

Almost the entire "healthcare" system we have is a rigged game. Instead of being involved in teaching people about prevention (not much money in that), our system simply repairs the abuse Americans inflict on their own bodies. I've seen studies that indicate that up to 70% of all disease and health problems are directly related to lifestyle, i.e. poor eating & drinking habits, lack of exercise, smoking, overweight, etc. The system the government is attempting to force all of us into does not address the problem of individuals abusing themselves, nor does it reward those that strive to live a healthy life. What's wrong with this picture?

Ray, I'm pretty sure everyone knows the Big Mac is bad for them. They also know that smoking will kill them. Americans just don't care.

theoakman says

Ray, I’m pretty sure everyone knows the Big Mac is bad for them. They also know that smoking will kill them. Americans just don’t care.

Americans don't care because they truly believe that there is a pill for every illness. I can't tell you how many times I've cared for someone who has abused his/her body over 40+ years, are near death with multi-organ failure and the family asks "Can't you give them a shot for that?"

Even worse, the 80 y.o. with cardiovascular disease and recent cancer diagnosis with mets throughout the body and the family has chosen full speed ahead on care, full code, do what you can.

Simply amazing how much blind faith folks have in health care. Is TV/movies to blame? Are folks that ignorant?

How do you convince folks to take better care of themselves? How do you get folks to accept death as a natural part of living to be 75 y.o. plus!?!//!?!

Leigh says

Simply amazing how much blind faith folks have in health care. Is TV/movies to blame? Are folks that ignorant?

Yes.

Leigh says

How do you convince folks to take better care of themselves? How do you get folks to accept death as a natural part of living to be 75 y.o. plus!?!//!?!

The problem is that many people do take care of themselves, yet become ill anyway. Who decides who lives & who dies? Whose life is more important? Do we decide a cut-off date? If you're 74 and 364 days old you'll get to live, but 75 years you're gone...

I'm not saying that people shouldn't take better care of themselves - they should. But I've seen lifelong smokers who were overweight that lived well into their 90's and healthy young people die. Too many questions & options.

Leigh says

Americans don’t care because they truly believe that there is a pill for every illness.

And big pharma does everything they can to foster this belief. I'm sure their motive$ are pure though.

elliemae says

I’ve seen lifelong smokers who were overweight that lived well into their 90’s and healthy young people die. Too many questions & options.

I've heard this argument a million times over the years. It's usually made by those that are abusing themselves in some known way. Everyone knows someone that has abused themselves their entire life and live to a relatively old age. These people are the exception, not the rule. Most people that abuse themselves pay the price eventually, either by experiencing life long poor health or by a premature death. The odds are pretty high that a person that lives a healthy lifestyle will avoid many illnesses and will live longer than those that abuse themselves in a variety of ways too numerous to mention here. Fact remains that this healcare system is a fraud that, for the most part, doesn't actually "heal" anyone ... it only temporarily fixes a problem and almost never addresses the root causes. This is a system that penalizes people that strive to live a healthy lifestyle and rewards those that refuse to take any responsibility for their own health related choices. Sounds like the perfect government program.

RayAmerica says

elliemae says

I’ve seen lifelong smokers who were overweight that lived well into their 90’s and healthy young people die. Too many questions & options.

I’ve heard this argument a million times over the years. It’s usually made by those that are abusing themselves in some known way. Everyone knows someone that has abused themselves their entire life and live to a relatively old age. These people are the exception, not the rule. Most people that abuse themselves pay the price eventually, either by experiencing life long poor health or by a premature death. The odds are pretty high that a person that lives a healthy lifestyle will avoid many illnesses and will live longer than those that abuse themselves in a variety of ways too numerous to mention here. Fact remains that this healcare system is a fraud that, for the most part, doesn’t actually “heal” anyone … it only temporarily fixes a problem and almost never addresses the root causes. This is a system that penalizes people that strive to live a healthy lifestyle and rewards those that refuse to take any responsibility for their own health related choices. Sounds like the perfect government program.

Um, yeah, right RA...

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.

Life's a crap shoot. I've done both in my life. I've smoked and I've quit. I've eaten for health and I've binged. And guess what? For the most part I'm healthy yet I'm 40. And at 40 some things just don't work as well as they used to and for no real reason, like my heart.

I have an electrical issue that developed out of nowhere (ask my cardiologists who study these things) that shows up when you are born or when you reach your 30's. Mine showed up in my 30's. Without health insurance, I would be living a much shorter life. My heart rate would be 130-160 all the time and eventually I'd develop cardiomyopathy and die. All the while I'd act and feel like I was a 90 year old man who couldn't walk more than a few blocks without sitting down due to pain and over-exertion.

They did 2 catheter ablations in my heart. The first one failed and so did the second one. Why? Well because the cells that are causing the trouble in my heart are either inside the wall of the heart or the outside of my heart. 85-95% of people experience a complete cure though catheter ablation for what I have because their rogue cells are on the inside wall of the heart. I was unlucky. The surgeries for the ouside of the heart and the inner wall of the heart are extremely experimental now and not recommended for me.

These two failed catheter ablations came to a grand total of $225,000. Even with insurance I had to pay premiums and copays and it took me almost two years to pay off my medical debt. And I allegedly have had "good insurance." I'd hate to see what "bad insurance" looks like.

So, what do I do? I have to take a drug that regulates my heart rate for however long it takes for someone to find a way of killing the rogue cells in my heart without killing me. So far it's been almost 3 years on this medicine. I'd be unable to pay for the treatment, follow up, care, and drugs necessary to keep a quality of life that is acceptable (actually quite good in fact) without health insurance, and I still struggle.

With my copays and premiums I still struggle to pay for everything so I can have a healthy lifestyle that allows me to take exercise without feeling and acting like a 90 year old man. I can take care of myself well enough so long as I have my medication. Without it, I can't exercise. I atrophy. I get cardiomyopathy. I gain weight due to inactivity. And I suffer a long lingering death.

In order to get the treatment I need my health insurance. It's not a luxury for me. It's a necessity.

This could happen to anyone at any time no matter what you do or don't do to your body. Believe me, they've tried to find answers. There are none at present. All I can hope for now is good maintenance and if I keep up with maintenance I have a great quality of life with a long life span (possibly) ahead of me.

So, BS.

Health care is necessary for me to live my life with an acceptable quality of life. Without it, I'd be miserable and I'd die more quickly and painfully. And what I have, anyone can get whether or not you take care of your body.

Everyone should have access to decent health care as a right. Any one of us is at risk for developing any condition at any time and for no apparent reason at all. All of us need health care to be there for us "just in case." And we need it when we die to help that transition pass more easily, actually.

The current No Health Care Cartels we call "Health Insurance Companies" rip us off, cheat us, and leave us in a ditch to suffer and die while they make record profits. It needs to end now.

rileybryan says

Old people look miserable. They hurt all the time, all their friends are dead, and their shits falling apart. I’d rather have 10 years of food gobbling beer chugging chain smoking pub crawling american freedom than twenty years of pain throbbing pill popping tv watching family inheritance war boredom fighting. You get one life, and you’re going to die anyways. I say F**K it, living a long life is over rated. Plus you’ll probably die in car accident or a war or something so why ruin the life you could be living for some bed pissing diaper changing hell of a future?

Please define "old." I know many people who are in their 80's and 90's still having lots of quality. They don't hurt all the time, etc.

People should live happy, healthy lives. It's really hard to do that without quality healthcare. I don't care how old you are. Sure, there are lifestyle diseases, but there are many that just plain happen. There doesn't have to be a family inheritance war if people live their own lives and spend their money while they're alive.

rileybryan says

I say F**K it, living a long life is over rated

Tell me that when you've been told you're dying. Then I'll believe you.

EllieMae, you bring up an excellent point: quality of life and I am so happy to hear the doctors mention quality of life when discussing health care decisions with patients and family members. One has to look at all the co-morbidities that are present (morbid obesity and heart or lung disease, cancer and extend of the cancer, COPD, etc) and the activity level of the pt before the latest hospital admission. Many expect grandma to jump right up after the initial stroke or heart attack is resolved but even a healthy 30 year old will have weeks of rehab after spending a week or 12 in the ICU. Many often end up on ventilators due to overall poor health. Imagine a 70 year with little muscle mass and now just spent 1-12 weeks in the ICU. Imagine the rehab. Likely will go to a nursing home and will be damn lucky to get out alive.

Sure grandma survived the heart attack or stroke but now her remaining months or years are spent in a nursing home. Heck, if that's what they chose go for it but often it's the family members left making the decisions. I think it is of utmost importance that every one have a living will, advanced directive and more importantly discuss your wishes with your family. I'm talking DNR/Full Code status folks.

My husband knows that if he continues care on me with little chance of meaningful recovery and that a nursing home is my near future, he knows to discontinue care or my brother will come and shoot him in front of me so I can witness it and then shoot me. Yes, a joke, but he gets the picture.

Too many times I see everything and the kitchen sink thrown at pts because the family refuses to give up. At what point is it inhumane to keep someone alive?

But I stress, one has to look at the whole picture, the severity of the current illness, other underlying conditions...QUALITY of life.

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.