E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe health insurance industry presented itself as a key ally of President Barack Obama’s health care law while at the same time making hefty contributions to members of Congress who are trying to get rid of it, according to contribution records.
Between January of 2007 and August of 2012, the political action committees of the 11 largest health insurance companies and their primary trade group gave $10.2 million to federal politicians, with nearly two-thirds of the total going to Republicans who oppose the law or support its repeal, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of Federal Election Commission filings.
The 11 top companies, according to the Fortune 500 list, controlled 35 percent of the industry in 2011, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The top industry trade group is America’s Health Insurance Plans.
Much of the money rolled in as health insurance industry leaders lauded the Democrats’ reform efforts.
“We are ready to be accountable to these [new] rules,” Karen Ignagni, AHIP’s president and CEO told the Senate Finance Committee in May 2009, roughly almost a year before Obama’s landmark legislation was signed into law. And when a month after Obama’s Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, Ignagni said her organization was “strongly committed” to [its] “successful implementation.”
Likewise, Ron Williams, then chairman and CEO of Aetna, the country’s fifth-largest health insurance company, also spoke favorably about the bill — at first.
“I believe that President Obama and this Congress have charted a course of change,” Williams said in a June 2009 statement. “I want to make clear that we too are committed to expanding access, controlling costs and improving the quality and value of care people receive.”
But Williams, who left Aetna in April 2011, has since changed his mind. This past June, Williams penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for health care reform at the state level and criticizing the federal law’s mandate.
Cantor, Ryan among top beneficiaries
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., ranks as the top recipient of PAC money from the top insurers since 2007, according to the Center’s analysis. Cantor, a tea party favorite and one of the law’s most vocal critics, has received about $258,000 from AHIP and the top industry PACs.
In January 2011, Cantor introduced the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,” the first of 33 repeal efforts that have reached the House floor.
That same year, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint — which together control 28 percent of the health insurance market — maxed out to Cantor, giving $10,000 apiece to his campaign committee. That doesn’t include additional sums that went into the congressman’s leadership PAC.
Behind Cantor, Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., ranks second in health insurance industry contributions. The chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee has pulled in more than $234,000 from these PACs since 2007.
“The American people have told us they don’t want to be forced to buy health insurance that they don’t want and they can’t afford,” Camp declared in February 2010. A year later, Camp sponsored a bill that would cut $11.6 billion in funding for the law.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., now the Republican nominee for vice president Mitt Romney’s running mate, is also among the top recipients of funds from health insurance companies and a leader in House’s efforts to repeal the health care law.
The dozen PACs studied by the Center donated $187,000 to Ryan between 2007 and 2012, placing the Wisconsin congressman fourth on the list. Just this year, Ryan, who chairs the influential House Budget Committee, has sponsored two major budget plans that have called for the law’s repeal.
Other top recipients of health insurance PAC money during this period include House Speaker John Boehner ($209,500), Republican House Whip Kevin McCarthy of California ($149,700), Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is the ranking GOP member of the Senate Finance Committee ($151,500), and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. ($142,400).
Why back the repeal?
So if the health insurance industry was in favor of key parts of the law, why is it supporting members of Congress who are so bent on killing it?
Part of the reason is that the legislation’s centerpiece, the requirement that almost everyone sign up for health insurance or pay a penalty, is expected to benefit the health insurance industry. Democrats supported the provision; Republicans despise it — despite its origins as a conservative idea.
More than a decade ago, an individual health insurance mandate was proposed by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation. During the 1993 health care debate, Republican lawmakers supported legislation that included an individual mandate. And the idea was endorsed by Republican Mitt Romney during his reforms as governor of Massachusetts.
During Congress' recent debate over health care reform, the industry was "playing supporters because there is nothing the health insurance industry wanted more than an individual mandate to force people to buy their product," says Carmen Balber, who monitors health policy at the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog.
At the time the reform law passed, the Democratic Party controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. By supporting the law, the industry was able to stay in the game on a very complex piece of legislation.
While the industry certainly did support parts of the law — such as the individual mandate — there were plenty of provisions it did not like and would like to see repealed.
AHIP and WellPoint — the industry’s top PAC contributor — did not reply to the Center’s telephone or email inquiries requesting comment. Representatives from Aetna, Amerigroup, Cigna and Humana declined to comment for this story.
Rome said he suspects the industry views support of Republican candidates — who will undoubtedly vote for deregulation — as a long-term investment.
For example, under the new law, insurance companies must spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on medical care for individual and small business policyholders — and 85 cents for large groups. That’s a provision the industry would like to see repealed.
Insurers must send policyholders or their employers rebate checks if the ratio drops below those levels.
In recent statements, AHIP claims the provision, known as the “medical loss ratio requirement,” could inhibit innovation and drive up administrative costs because of new reporting requirements.
Indeed, AHIP has lobbied extensively for a new bill that — according to Consumer Watchdog’s Balber — “would effectively gut the medical loss ratio requirement,” by allowing insurance companies to include broker compensation as a medical care cost in the ratio.
This legislation, introduced as H.R. 1206, is sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and was forwarded to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Sept. 11. Rogers ranks 19th on the Center’s list of top health insurance beneficiaries, receiving $90,500 over the nearly six-year period. AHIP supports Rogers' bill, as do several trade associations representing brokers and agents, claiming broker salaries commissions are not necessarily administrative costs, but rather a “human resource” expense because independent brokers and agents help patients select plans.
But to Balber, factoring insurance broker salaries as a medical cost — and thus, part of the 80 percent requirement — is “absurd.” Such a shift in premium calculation would negate the cost-cutting benefits of the medical loss ratio provision — what she considers the law’s strongest consumer protection.
Looking forward
Since the Democrats’ Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the political environment has changed dramatically.
Democrats no longer hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the House is controlled by Republicans and the president is in a tight race for re-election.
Despite his party’s unified attack on the health care law, Romney, whose own health insurance reforms in Massachusetts were a model for Obama’s plan, has recently hinted at willingness to compromise on some of its politically popular elements.
“Well, I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform,” Romney, the GOP's presidential nominee, said in a Sept.9 interview with David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press.
While the individual mandate is widely viewed as unpopular, the opposite is true for many provisions such as the prohibition on companies refusing to cover patients with pre-existing conditions, the closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug “donut hole” and the option for young adults to stay on their parent’s plan until age 26. According to Bob Laszewski, an insurance industry consultant, a Romney administration would not be able to secure enough votes in the Senate to repeal the law, even if it wanted to.
A more realistic legislative outcome is that congressional Republicans will attempt to defund the law through budget reconciliation rules — a scenario that would likely hurt insurance company balance sheets, he said.
GOP defunding efforts would leave insurance companies subject to the law’s politically popular insurance regulations — like covering patients with pre-existing conditions — but without government subsidies that are provided in some parts of the plan.
“If Romney wins, I think you’re going to see the insurance industry very concerned about Republicans trying to choke health care reform,” Laszewski said.
Andrea Fuller, Lydia Mulvaney and Michael Beckel contributed to this report.
The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, non-partisan investigative news organization in Washington, DC.
For more of its stories on this topic, please go to http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/consider-source.
More from Open Channel:
- Homeland Security 'fusion' centers intrusive, ineffective, report says
- Ex-Penn State football aide McQueary files $4 million whistleblower suit
- Energy firm uses 'land grabs' to obtain fracking rights, pays landowners zero
- Environmentalists, Persian Gulf oil barons have common enemy: fracking
- Wild horses sold by US later ending up at slaughterhouses?
- Class-action suit against FEMA trailer makers settled for $42.6 million
- RNC cuts ties with firm over voter registration allegations
- Big GOP donor among 2 indicted in Dominican resort scam
- Black youths exposed to more alcohol advertising, study finds
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Reality has a Liberal Bias.
Healthcare? Not on big insurance company's watch.
TP/GOP? Insurance Company's shills.
Likewise, Ron Williams, then chairman and CEO of Aetna, the country’s fifth-largest health insurance company, also spoke favorably about the bill — at first.
“I believe that President Obama and this Congress have charted a course of change,” Williams said in a June 2009 statement. “I want to make clear that we too are committed to expanding access, controlling costs and improving the quality and value of care people receive.”
Only recently has insurance companies leaned GOP, traditionally the Democrats have been the shills for them.
Maybe they are leaning GOP now because the Democrats had a chance to get the healthcare bill right but @!$%#ed it up. A proper healthcare bill would have actually benefited the insurance companies.
To paraphrase: "The health insurance industry speaks with forked tongue". If Romney's state run health plan becomes law it will look like a bed quilt. Some states will do it right others will run it on the cheap. Either way the health insurance industry will continue to cherry pick who they will and will NOT insure.
Keep in mind that Obama Care allows large corporations to pick and choose which employees it will cover.
For each employee not covered there will be a fine of $2000k.
You can't just blame Ins. Cos there are a lot of guilty parties here & our government is one too
When big business supports a liberal law and GOP is fighting against those big businesses, we should have known something had gone horribly wrong.
Did they suddenly realize that there are billions more to be made with Romney's
vulturevoucher plan?? Anyone who has not had to deal with medical insurance companies and their predeterminations of coverage, denials of coverage, endless waits on the phone to finally talk to a human about a problem, endless requests for documentation, etc. etc. must be living in Nirvana..........tell me where that is so I can partake of the impossible dream you must be livingHaving insurance does not translate into healtcare. It just means that you have insurance. I personally cannot afford to purchase my own insurance for $600 per month, so I will be charged a tax. Is this fair? Say yes and you are a liar.
if insurance companies want to kill it, this bill just has to be good for the American people.
Francle, you said "I personally can't afford to purchase my own insurance for $600 per month, so I'll be charged a tax? Is this fair?"
Well, from your persepctive obviously NOT. However, from MY perspective, having higher insurance premiums and higher tax rates to cover you because you choose not to take responsibility for your health insurance needs should NOT be my responsibility either. In other words, it's not fair to me either.
So, the law says buy it or be taxed. And, if you meet income requirements, you'll get covered.
Now, you can argue that I'm paying for you that way also. That's partially true. However, I'm paying for you at a much lower overall cost. After all, going to the ER is the most costly wy to treat anything. So, I win out with lower overall costs.
If you are too poor to afford insurance, Obamacare won't fine you. The fine is for those who have plenty of money but can't pay.
Insurance companies wrote Baucus's healthcare plan: they are the sole campaign donors for that Senator from Montana, and Obamacare is the insurance companies' plan. They wrote it to take effect several years after 2009 on purpose, so that they can kill it.
The elderly will have more coverage, not less, because it is the hospitals that agreed they would make more if everybody is insured, and more prescriptions will also be covered. My pastor told the whole congregation that Obamacare is killing one of the clergy, but he didn't look into the fact that Medicare was going to be put to an end by the Republicans, and also the fact that everybody will have more coverage in the plan, including the elderly. If one state has a good health plan, and the next state has a bad one, all the sick people will move to the better state plan, undermining it. Romney's plan would fall apart, and he has promised no plan. Remember that the Republicans didn't even want to vote on any plan at all? They won't vote on a plan, except to take away Medicare and Medicaid.
(Medicaid covers nursing for elderly; not just nursing homes, and that is necessary if an elderly patient has several health conditions that need more than a middle-class family can afford. Add up 24 hour 7 day nursing care compared to nursing homes and the nursing homes are cheaper, but if a family member tries to help an elderly family member, that is O.K. provided that they are awake 24/7/365, and they can lift, feed slowly, clean and bathe, constantly change sheets, and put their life on hold. Those who think "welfare queens" do not have elderly family members. The two-minute forum was not enough to really show the face of this problem.)
Congress is key to this election: vote democrat for the House and Senate, and keep healthcare.
P.S.: I won't go back to my church, where I am called "selfish" because I believe that Obamacare is better for the clergy than the present mess. They don't need our money apparently; we won't donate another dime to our church.
Fancle - no more fair than my insurance rates going up, because you dont have insurance but still end up getting healthcare via the ER and then dont pay your bill, because if you cant afford insurance...I doubt you can afford that bill.
Im not saying YOU personally will do something like that, but many uninsured people do.
it's not fair to me, not fair to you...so fairness cant be part of this conversation, can it?
TP/GOP? Insurance Company's shills?! AARP was pushing so hard to get obamacare passed because they are going to make billions! Dems are insurance company shills!
Elizabeth: Apparently you don't go to church for the right reasons. Please show me WHERE it was said that the republicans want to do away with Medicare and Medicaid??? No one party can or would do that so you're just spinning the lies the liberals tell you. So I guess you shouldn't go to church as you can't sort truth from fiction and going to church on Sunday then lying the rest of the week doesn't make you a good christian anyhow. Until you read, completely, the Obamacare law you shouldn't just take the spin you hear as gospel. I have read parts of it, parts are good, parts are not. Like the tax on prostetic (sp?) makers (they make the hip/knee replacements, pacemakers, etc) so the price of those parts will increase with tax, making those more expensive. Reduce payouts to hospitals and drs - which both have said some of them will not take new medicare patients, same with some nursing homes. That good for you???? Romeny said he would REPEAL Obamacare and work ACROSS the isle to come up with a comprehensive workable, affordable plan. As he said last night I'm not going to write up a list and say "It's my way or the highway" I'll work with both parties. Just like he did in Mass when he worked with the 87% majority held by the dems to pass Mass healthcare.
What I find interesting is that with all this talk about health care reform the MAIN cause seemsto have escaped the dialog - Tort reform, to stop specious law suits. Of course could it be because the majority of our elected officials from both parties are lawyers? If tort reform were enacted then they and their associates would lose money. Essentially they are saying f the people we'll enact laws that FORCE people to buy insurance and if they don't we'll penalize them - essentially a new tax.
Wake up people we are being taken to the cleaners by BOTH parties.
First is The Affordable Health Care Act perfect? No, is it a good start YES. If you are one of those that want it gone you should look into it more instead of listing to sound bites. First you are already paying for the uninsured(higher insurance premiums and higher costs from the hospitals). Next, it gives money back in form of a tax break to business that cover their employees health care cost. You also are covered with pre-existing conditions(Huge benefit). You have a job get diagnosed with something and loose your job find another job but you will not be able to covered for that condition before the AHCA. Just a couple of the great things it does. Look into yourself and you will see it is a good start.
I love when people who say they can't afford a health insurance are also against a national healthcare system that every industrialized country in the world - except America - already has. This is a classic brainwashing effect most people in US don't even see happening. American healthcare industry is nothing but a giant scam. Americans on average pay almost twice as much for healthcare as any of the next 10 countries on the list, and all these 10 countries have 100% coverage for their citizens, while almost 20% of Americans have no health coverage at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
Obamacare 3000 pages that was approved by Congress, sign by Obama, but nobody read the entire Law. Pelosi said pass the law , then you can read it, a guess what....SURPRISE. 700 billions stealing from Medicare, dead panels, people will lose their health benefits and now companies that support Obamacare now they face the facts, Obamacare is a disaster. Insurance Companies will accept patients with pre-existing conditions and young adults can stay in the family plan up to 26 years old. Do we need this Governemet take over for those talking points.....NO . kill Obamacare , let each State create their own plan like Romney did in Massachusetts not a Government take over, they can do better.
As you can see, we have in this country certain Americans who cry poor mouth while they drive around in gas guzzlers they spend $200 a tankful for gas. Yet, they bitch they can't afford healthcare. As for the economic crisis, that too was BS. It was a major scam set up by the biggest Madoffers in the US to fill in for the losses and hits they took on their high risk investments. They simply do not like to lose a dime of THEIR money. So they WILL help themselves to your bailouts and then when they get what they want from you, they suddenly need salary increases and bonuses over and above the $10 million per hotcha mark. Is there really a US CEO worth $10 million a year or is this just their own overblown egos pushing for limitless wealth you'll have to provide for them by reducing the taxes they pay, thereby increasing your own.
These are the hoochie coochie Americans who are just too too too elite to pay taxes toward road and bridge repair...when your Middle Class salary stagnating for over a half decade now can squeeze, squeeze and squeeze more tax dollars to pay for it.
Wake up people. You are being snookered by ritzy titzies out there who believe they and only they have the right to life, liberty, prosperity, limitless happiness and wealth. Max out CEO salaries before they max out your lives PDQ.
Roofin Reality . . . so you know another person's budget better than that person? Reality is that most average people CANNOT afford another big chunk out of their pay check. For that, they should not be penalized in the form of a tax. It has noting to do with evading responsibility. Perhaps the roof is so high you cannot see reality.
The issue with the insurance companies is what constituites "fair profit." In legal situations, going back to the 16th century, "fair profit" in common law has been defined as 6% until the late 1980's when the common law term was replaced by the vague and undefined "reasonable profits." The reason the actual percentage was important was as a basis for legal awards. If you cause a company to lose money through misdeed, what was the "fair profit" that they would otherwise have made? "Punitive profits" (the common law amount of profits awarded in case of intentional infliction of damages) was double that or 12%. Treble damages are a modern extension for especially egregious wrongs --- 18%.
The problem here is that ACHA tries to control health care costs by limiting the amount of profits that insurance companies remove from the medical care system. By flowing one of the country's largest personal expenses (medical care --- about 1/6 of the entire economy) through insurance companies, they remove a slice without prividing a single benefit to the patient. They contribute nothing to treatment or cure of illness or disease, but actually take the second-largest slice of the pie (after pharmaceutical companies.) AHCA sets the permissible profits plus overhead at 15%. That's 15% of 1/6th of the economy for shuffling paperwork --- a sweet deal if you can find it.
This dispute goes back to the OLD Blue Cross Blue Shield companies. There were true not-for-profit health insurance companies. Physicians and hospitals hated Blue Cross/Blue Shield because they used "usual and customary rates" to determine physician and institutional reimbursement. This tended to force costs toward an average cost and helped to contain cost increases pretty successfully for three decades. But for-profit insurance companies hated the BSHC plans even worse because they felt that as a not-for-profit that it gave BCBS plans an "unfair" advantage since they did not have to produce profits for their shareholders.
I worked for the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee plan for about ten years before the Reagan years. The plan was very proud of the fact that for most of that period they had ZERO overhead and ZERO profits. This is because BCBST processed Medicare and CHAMPUS claims for the federal goverment and ran a hospital accounting system for small hospitals and clinics to pay its overhead. This was a good deal for the government because it meant that BCBST processed claims for free for the last half of the year because as a non-profit they could not make profits and they could not charge the government, per contract, more than their poverhead. The result was that for every dollar that came in in premiums, a dollar went out to direct patient services.
The insurance industry appealed this "unfairness" to the Reagan administration who "fixed" it for them. Every BCBS plan was required to set aside one full year of cash "reserves" --- a requirement not made for for-profit insurance companies. Physicians and hospitals hated BCBS, so they kept quiet as this happened. As not-for-profits whose charges were experienced-based, every BCBS plan in the country (72 of them) instantly went out of business. They resurected themselves as for-profit companies, but now they were just one of many sources of for-profit medical insurance scrambling for profits in a massively escalation of medical costs.
My point is that when we had the old BCBS plans, their overhead plus profit was in the range of zero to around eight percent. Some plans were more adept than others at finding ways to keep overhead down. Private insurance overhead plus profits at the time was around 12-15%. Medicare overhead has historically run around 2-3%. Medicaid is very variable because of the differences from state to state, but is in the 5-7% range for the most part. The Veterans Administration has about a 2% overhead, but that is not a very usable number because they are so overloaded and under-budgeted.
The for-profit insurance plans got their first bug hit from ACHA when the Medicare Advantage plans were cancelled. These MA plans had been set up by the GOP in the assumption that "competition in the private insurance marketplace" would result in private insurance companies being able to deliver the same level of treatment at such a lower cost that it provided them with a 20% profit at no cost to the government. There were no such effieicncies. Instead the private insurance marketplace was costing the government 28% MORE to deliver the same service as MEDICARE. By simply eliminating MA, Medicare was able to provide the same services at its 2-3% base cost.
For profit insurance companies have a vested interest in medical costs going through the roof. They simply attach a percentage for overhead and profit and the more the services cost the more profit they make. It is an incentive to continue skyrocketing medical costs as a way of "growing" profits.
Every country that has a "decent" healthcare system (I would describe decent as above the USA in WHO healthcare ratings that have the USA currently at 42nd in the world) has had to struggle with the same issue. And 100% of all of these countries have found that the only way to provide decent healthcare is through a universal single-payer not-for-profit system. No country has ever found a for-profit model that actually works.
I am 69 in a few weeks and retired. But I took a pass on Medicare because my wife is still working and I am on her insurance. Her health insurance is better for a senior because it supports three areas of critical need to seniors much better than Medicare --- dental, vision, and prescription drugs. Eventually I will probably end up on Medicare, but when I do subscribe to Part D, I will face a $5,000 fine and a 1% PER MONTH for every month since I turned 65 in "penalty" surcharges on my Part D premiums. I will actually be fined for saving the taxpayer money! The fine and surcharges will be taken out of my Social Security checks at 100% until it is paid.
I find it very curious that the GOP is so against AHCA when it is based on both Romney's Romneycare in Massacheusetts and on Bush's Medicare Part D mandate to buy private for-profit medical insurance. The GOP didn't speak up against Romneycare or against Part D. What is different? Very little.
Personally I get virtually all my prescriptions (illegally, thanks to the GOP) from Canada where the price, including shipping, is less than for the same drugs' co-pays here. This is true for all except a small number of generics where the shipping exceeds the co-pay.
This is a strangew world where people cannot face the facts and must make up BS like the ads that have the Canadian woman claiming that cancer surgery in the US, denied to her in Canada, saved her life. In fact she didn't have cancer and only a benign cyst between her scalp and skull that was never life-threatening and required only needle aspiration once every couple of years (for cosmetic reasons.)
IMHO-2730490
Are you nutts??? Obamacare just added to the big insurance companies profits.
I believe we need a national healthcare plan, one that does not give the insurance companies billions of dollars of our money.
The citizens of Libya under Gaddafi had 100% free healthcare and America can't do that much for our citizens??
Stop being brainwashed by idiots like Barack Obama and lets do what is right for America.
ewent
Stop drinking the Obama-aid he is the worse person to ever sit in the oval office.
Blaming people that drive SUV's what a lame excuse for doing a poor job.
Obamas plan for America is like owning a car and leaving it in the driveway and going to Avis and renting one to drive around it.
Keep following that loser and the 47% will end up with nothing. Obama has America on track to go bankrupt in about a year and all the checks and food stamps will stop when it happens.
You can't spend your way out of a financial disaster and Obama is borrowing 60 cents of every dollar he is spending.
Try it yourself and see how fr you will get.
FORWARD????????
what the health insurance companies like is the mandated care policy where everyone has to buy the insurance. what they dont like is the provision in it that if they spend more on administration then on providing coverage, and that if they go over a certain profit margin they have to reimburse that difference back to the people paying them for coverage. that is the bottom line of what is going on.
hey max why are countrys with socialized med all going bankrupt?
The medical insurance industry in this country is a scam. 28% of premiums are retained for profits, salaries, administrative costs, bloated bonuses and, of course, K-Street. The overhead on Medicare/Medicaid is said to be at about 9.5% which is in line with most national health plans around the world.
I think that Medicare/Medicaid should be expanded to include a payee option. That way, those of us that want to subscribe to Medicare can do so. This way, those of us who believe in a single payer not for profit system can exercise this right with our money! Also, we can then work towards maintaining the solvency of medicare.
Heath insurance? Does anyone proof anything ever??
The ACA is an albatross that is doing little for us except accelerate the upward trend in prices and saddle us with worse options.
This plan needs to be scrapped altogether.
okie, that is either you being completely stupid or completely uneducated, every other industrialized nation has socialized medicine. Only a few European ones are going bankrupt, we are the only country who views the good of the 1% over the good of the 100%. Until people stop voting to funnel up all the money to the top 1%, we are stuck in a terminal stupid cycle.
Nice little fox news worthy talking point Phil but the ACA limits profit making ability of companies. When thirty percent of the nation isn't covered at all, and the emergency room is their only health care, it isn't a better option. We are now paying more in healthcare than the nations that have socialized medicine, because of stupidity like your irrational reasoning.
Insurance companies will support whichever makes them the most money. PERIOD
Wow Frank, looks like you and Willard must have atteneded the same school. The school of pathological liars. Get a clue, genius!!!!
Health insurance agencies have been skyrocketing premiums to give themselves bigger bonuses and executive pay. With Obamacare, they can no longer do that. So now these same companies are against it.
Well, if the companies who have screwed us over on premiums are against it . . . it must be doing something right.
Okie: "hey max why are countrys with socialized med all going bankrupt?"
1. We are already as good as bankrupt, having more debt as percent of GDP than Spain and other countries considered to be on the verge of bankruptcy - and we blew all of that money mostly on useless wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
2. Very few countries with a national healthcare system are close to bankruptcy - most of them are doing better than US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
The health insurance companies supported the bill because it included the individual mandate, but when they found out that the money they collect has to be spent on health care they oppose it. Now, that's our free enterprise system at work. They lobbied for a law that brings millions more in revenue, but oppose the provision that requires spending a certain amount on benefits for the people paying the premiums. No wonder the insurance industry is supporting the Republicans. They thought they saw a chance to make a killing, but it turned out they actually have to provide some benefits. That's way outside their business model.
US spends the most money per capita on healthcare yet is 38th in the life expectancy statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
So what do you get for all this extra money spent on healthcare in US? Completely unnecessary tests and procedures that only lower your life expectancy but make money for the healthcare industry.
You have to be really stupid to fall for the lies the medical industry is feeding Americans.
The way I red law it is opposite.
Government does not depend on the success of citizens. Private insurance companies do.
And speaking of "plenty of money" that is my biggest trouble with Mr. Obama as a person.
He and his most outspoken supporters make it their business to count money in someone else's pockets.
To Ewent:
The CEO of my company makes $20 mil/year. We haven't had raises in years because of "budgets." We have offices all over the country which used to employ hundreds of ee's in IT, payroll and accounting. Not anymore - they've all been outsourced to the Philippines where the workers are paid $1.50/hr. Every year our insurance benefits offer less and less and cost more and more. We honestly have to wait until we're direly sick before going to the doctor because of the expense, even though we have insurance. With over 30,000 employees, our insurance premiums should be low, right? When our office is outsourced, and it will be, I worry about the insurance coverage for my family. If Obamacare was already in place, a huge burden would be lifted off my shoulders and I might be able to sleep at night.
The FACT That OUR America has NO American Universal HealthCare System like the happy and sane countries do is a National DISGRACE. Looking at MittTaxPittanceRommel wanting Yet Another $2Trillion war with iran this time, while debating with Prez O is Ludricous. Face It, We Americans are at a crossroads. Mitt's taxes?? 14% on an EEEZZZ $42,000,000 and counting while We pay this Scoundrel's tax bill of $10,500,000. This republicanCrimeCartelSoldier is dedicated to keeping YOU, US, WE Americans paying OUTRAGEOUS "healthInsurance" Premiums like $1500.00 for a family, while One of the best HealthCare System in the World: Health- the Body, Psychiatric - the Mind And And AND!!! Dental - Full!!!!! is available to israelis FREE FREE FREE!!! And WE American Taxpayers Pay for israel's incredible healthCare System!!! Come vote day You'll KNOW who to vote for and Please Wake Up. Here is a helpful link:
to Dorothy
Ishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og35U0d6WKY&feature=player_detailpage
folks... take some time read the AFHCA online.. yes it its over 2,000 pages but if you just skim through it and read those sections that are pertinent to your needs at present you will see it in a different light..
A man told me yesterday that there is a major realestate tax for all in the health care bill.. I almost fell off the chair..
instead our elected represenatives should take time and discuss AFHCA with their constitutents, regardless of their party affiliation..
the bold face lies being spread , and the levels of ignorance would stop once and for all
this is a bill that we need.. millions of kids are already safer and healthier from this bill
ewent .. perhaps some one will read your post and understand it's truths..
Chris -
There are few who actually remember when the Blues were non-profits and were "demutualized" in large chunks. Thanks for the review.
What is pathetic is that it is "conventional wisdom" that the role of insurers is as large as it is.
As is said, "it takes 2 to tango". Just take that farther.
There is virtually no reason for anyone in the health care "industry" to reduce costs. Consider the "players"...
1. Insurers - pass along the bills and add your predetermined profit, overhead costs, etc.
2. Hospital conglomerates that now employ a huge quantity of physicians/providers as employees (vertical integration). Patients within systems like this are highly discouraged from going outside the "system". Each division is managed as a "cost center" to maximize profit. There is absolutely no incentive NOT to grow larger unless there are external factors (payment limitations).
3. Big Pharma. How many times are "new" drugs actually reformulated older drugs (with no therapeutic advantage but many times the cost of drugs off-patent. This is not to say that industry should not be rewarded for taking risks in R&D, but there are very few people who actually pay retail.
4. Medical Device manufacturers and Durable Medical Equipment. Again, huge markups for often simple devices (a $300 aluminum walker?) Again This is not to say that industry should not be rewarded for taking risks in R&D, but there are very few people who actually pay retail.
5. - 100. Add your favorite "bad guy"....
We have "hit the wall". There is a limited amount of the GDP that we as a country can afford. As it is, health care "rationing" already takes place - drug formularies, utilization review, etc.
The "feeding trough" has only so much "slop" in it, there are way too many pigs to feed. Some pigs will go hungry, some will die, some will get stomped to death, and some will get incredibly fat.
Welcome to healthcare in America (and yes, I did read the entire ACA which in reality was about 200 standard-margined single-spaced pages).
@Chris-749391 - I do not know where you are getting your information from but Medicare Advantage plans have not been eliminated, I have one right now. They are far better than having to deal with both Medicare, a supplemental insurance plan, and a prescription drug plan - it gives you one company to deal with for everything. The costs are very reasonable and the premium is cheaper than having to get a supplement plan and a prescription drug plan separately. There is even an option to add dental and vision to the plan for an additional premium.
The ACA is going to be a disaster when it is fully implemented. I keep hearing about all the benefits but I do not see it. With the planned reduction in payments to doctors and hospitals under Medicare that is part of the ACA many are threatening to stop taking Medicare patients. This will lead to a two tier health care system where those on Medicare are relegated to second rate doctors and hospitals as they will be the only ones who are still willing to accept what Medicare pays out. In the mean time, those with private insurance will still have access to the top doctors and hospitals. This is one of the ugly truths about the ACA that the administration has been hiding from people. I am not saying this as theoretical either, I have been advised by one of my doctors already that is the planned cuts happen I will need to find a new doctor. As it stands now he barely breaks even on Medicare patients and in some cases for some services actually loses money. I have also heard how the ACA was supposedly going to help with prescription drug costs under Medicare and get rid of the donut hole. So far that is a lie, next year the donut hole is actually getting bigger, not smaller. The increase in the percentage paid by insurance through the donut hole is being more than offset by rising drug costs and the hole itself is bigger. In addition, with the ACAs new rules my premiums are going up while my deductibles are increasing as well. On top of this, the cost to businesses associated with the implementation of the ACA has many businesses stockpiling cash reserves to cover it. This is killing business growth and hiring because the uncertainty about the final costs has companies keeping these reserves instead of using that money to hire more people and grow their businesses.
This is called "betting on all horses."
After the 1st debate,
Now the insurance companies are bailing out on Obama.
They see an opportunity with Romney to repeal everything they believed they had no choice but to accept.
Just wait and see the day after it is announced that Romney won the Presidency.
Enjoy the circus on the mean time.
I don't have health insurance, but I don't need one either, for the most part I keep a healthy lifestyle, free of drinking, smoking and sugary or fatty fast foods.
In our household, the money we don't spend on insurance every month, is been spend in healthy foods.
And when I we sick I just cross the border in TX to Mexico, and get 1st class medical treatment for a 3rd of the cost here in the US.
That includes dental cleanings, fillings and vision.
Unfortunately not all of you in the US are able to do this, let alone the language barrier.
So, it's a matter of choice .........................you choose, come Npv 2nd 2012
With the ACA the insurance parasites got to write large parts of the law and obtained 90% of what they wanted. The insurance industry's control of the healthcare system was written into law and everyone is forced to become their customers. They are just trying to buy the other 10% and will probably succeed as our politicians are hopelessly corrupt.
Oh really? Tell that to Empire BCBS, which is barely hanging on since the enactment of the PPACA. They were SO mismanaged, they had to cut 80% of their small group product portfolio, AND 80% of small group broker commissions to stay afloat. Additionally, Empire BCBS has not been competitive in the large group market for years. Meanwhile across the Hudson River, Horizon BCBS met their 2011 MLR requirements (no rebates handed out to their groups per PPACA law).
As you can see, free enterprise will take care of itself. No need for the PPACA (aka: ObamaCare).
AQ, wtf are you talking about. Premiums have not went down and healthcare cost more than ever. The private industry has failed. It's time to realize that health care should have never been a business in the first place. Single payer is the only smart way to go. Everyone pays for something that everyone will use.
Phil, that might be fine if EVERYONE using it were paying for it. But we all know this is not true. The Middle class, the vast majority of those PAYING for it will be PAYING for much more than just themselves.
I am a firm believer in everyone being eligible for health insurance. That no one should be turned away because of pre-existing conditions. If they PAY for it.
We support enough welfare programs as it is. We don't need another.
Over the past couple of years through all this debate I've been reading posts about people who complain about those who are overweight, or smokers having the same access to insurance as everyone else does.
I wonder how many of the so called "Uninsureable" that Obozocare will cover are Uninsureable because of the illnesses created by Smoking or being overweight.
There are many, many overweight people in the U.S. and it would be great if those who need to lose weight, did. But, while it's easy for some to get in shape, it's not so easy for others. Some may be facing difficult emotional situations, others may have metabolic disorders, others may have inherited a tendency to gain weight. Losing weight should be a discussion between patients and their health care providers, just as other ailments are. There are other factors that influence how much your health care will cost down the road - stress, not sleeping enough, playing football, running, exposure to second hand smoke, being female, being male, your inherited genes - should we rank everyone on their risk for poor health in the future and charge based on that risk? That's the path you're heading down.
@ Phil - ACA has accelerated the premium increases for the small business market, the market who needed the most help. There is nothing "affordable" about the ACA, and when the uninformed finally "get it," then we will be all much better off when we demand what we really wanted in the first place, true reform, not a poorly written govt. take over.
Janine: Are you suggesting that we ban tobacco, because lots of smokers blow their tobacco in other people's faces. Are you suggesting that food companies not be allowed to use corn syrup and other sweeteners, artificial colors and flavors, and other carcinogens and plastics that cause weight gain? Do you think that gasoline is non-toxic and non-carcinogenic and pumping your gas won't cause you to get cancer? Do you think that the earthquake and tsunami causing a nuclear disaster at Fukushima won't cause a worldwide rise in leukemia? Do you think that the work hours and no vacations for those who do have jobs do not cause heart problems? Do you think that the PVCs (poly vinyl chlorides) in our water and fish don't cause severe reproductive system diseases including cancer in men and women? These conditions affect EVERYONE Janine, including yourself, but try to get some of those major cancer causers to pay: I would rather that all the people pay something and then regulate the heck out of those polluting businesses.
willowbrook: If you look at the day by day record of what Congress did in 2009, you will see that the better health care plans were rejected. Even past Republican plans were rejected by the same people who had at first proposed them. Nobody televised the hearings into the healthcare issue, and not even the President went to those hearings in support of them, because he wanted this bill to come from Congress, but that meant that there was almost no publicity into the details of the needs of people or of the plan as it was being composed. The Republicans offered no ideas, just rejections and blocked votes. Just to get the crippled plan that we got took more effort than it should have. Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan was ONLY enacted because there are so many Democrats in Massachusetts, but nobody in Massachusetts will vote for him now, because he did nothing for business there. If the present healthcare plan is rejected by Republicans in Congress or the Presidency, there will be NO REPLACEMENT PLAN. What they are doing right now is a big bluff. If you are not a multi-millionaire, you will be receiving no healthcare in a few years if we don't keep the healthcare plan. Vouchers will not cover you if you or any family member actually has an expensive condition. But no, America won't be better off; even if we rounded up and killed all our sick people, most nations would equate that to death camps, and at the very least they won't do business with us. Could we just become isolationists and only do business with ourselves? Well, it would test our "resolve" for sure, but it would also remove a lot of allies we presently have. Most people don't realize that healthcare reform was considered in the first place not to help Americans, but to keep other countries from questioning our integrity, because they rejected eugenics in World War II.
Once again, the HMO industry is showing just how much moolah it is profitting from the premiums we pay. There are really only two ways to look at the healthcare issue. Keep it as it is. Costs will continue to rise until the US has the costliest healthcare in the world no one but the ultra rich will afford. Reform it so that it no longer is a profit driven industry in the hands of private HMOs who have little or no regulations.
Until 2009, when the ACA was passed, how many of us knew exactly where all HMO revenues were going? How many of us knew that Prudential and others were investing in high risk investments like real estate, housing and land development using our premiums to cover those costs plus increased CEO salaries and bonuses up to 1/10th of the annual incoming revenues? Then you wonder why your claims are rejected so quickly? Your premiums cover less and less and continue to rise?
How is it when the middle men HMOs didn't exist, your medical costs were between you and your physician or hospital or diagnosticians and not the hawks of the HMO Industry? What does it take for people to get it through their thick heads that a corporation is a profit driven entity and your healthcare is not?
So there are only 2 options...keep healthcare without a single hint of reform and allow the Madoffers in HMOs industries to continue their pigging out on your premiums or reform the whole damn mess once and for all so that healthcare is no longer a profit driven industry your health must depend on.
@AQ -
You do realize that Empire is a division of WellPoint (in many places known as Anthem), which is one of the largest and most profitable of the now-for-profit Blues.
See Chris' post 1.20 about the history of the Blues.
Elizabeth, you are somewhat misinformed. I will not have health care no later than 2014, and it is due to ACA. Why? 1.There is no limits placed on increases in the small market, so if you have a bad year, they can ask for as much as they wish. 2nd. When our company gets to 2014, we will have to decrease our deductible from $5000 to a max of $2500 and will also have the impact of the tax increase the insurance company will receive on all their fully insured plans (recently projected at $500 per employee.) This is an increase no small business can take, and we will be done. I will not be able to afford to pay for my own, as the cost will be more than my mortgage. I currently pay 25% of my mortgage in health care cost on my employer plan. It will be the first time in my life when I am working and not have a health plan. ACA is not affordable, nor will it insure all Americans. I will be part of the new "working poor." And shoved into the lower classes by this. It is not the right of the govt. to impoverish the people of the US. There is something really wrong in this country when it is more important to give EVEN MORE to those who are getting their care for free at the expense of those PAYING for the freebie care, to the point of taking the Payors care away from them.
P.S. I am the Plan Administrator for our company, we have no choice left, nor the money to pay the Obama way. Our only benefit is the company will not have to pay the fine for not insuring since we are a small employer.
I used to be for Obama's healthcare act. My rationale was that, I'm already paying for my own insurance, adding more payers should lower my total cost.
A few weeks ago, my opinion changed when I found out that my companies current health insurance plan (which is very good) is considered a "Cadillac plan" and would be subject to additional fees. Because these fees were so large, my company decided to drop the coverage down to avoid them. Our new plan will feature a 20% co-insurance rate. That means I will have to pay 20% of whatever medical costs I incur (capped at ~$2,500 for a single person $5,000 for a family). The premiums are a few dollars less per month (~$80/year less for a single person) but that does not even come close to making up for the additional costs.
I thought the whole point of this plan was to lower the cost of healthcare (which was why I was onboard). Instead, it's lowered my coverage and raised my cost, so WTF was the point?
This will happen to many people who live in high cost of living states thanks to Jonathan Gruber and his so called "Cadillac tax" which was made worse by the corrupt senate finance committee (great job representing your constituents John Kerry). It is based on the flawed idea that unless obtaining healthcare causes severe financial pain you will consume too much. I haven't seen many people coming in for recreational surgery.
Scubasteve, your view is very common in America. But since noone read the bill it was concieved wrongly and sold under total lies. In my case I suffered a paralizing event which under obamacare would have put me on the death patrol portion. It is not death squad but very similiar. I suffered GBS and had it not been for a highly qualified doctor and fast action I would have died. We know a similiar condition a friend had and he lasted 2 years on a respirator before passing. I now am able to go back to work, and although I have some medical expenses to pay am enjoying life. Obama care would have taken several days to get in to see the doctor and the damages would have been non reversable.
Yeah a similar thing happened at my job. Now a husband and wife pay $3400 more for healthcare. That's a dollar and sixty cents an hour decrease in pay.
Thanks for pushing through such haphazard and poorly planned bill Obama.
The sad thing is that before the bill went through ( the whole 72 hours congress had to read this travesty), there were people who said this would happen...but nobody listened.
Count yourself lucky, my state health care plan has similar numbers while I pay over 400/month and the state pays over 600. So for about 12,000/ yr I get this lousy coverage. Glad to have it but it seems expensive without very good benefits.
That has more to do with your insurance company and employer than it does the government. One thing the health care law does not address well is that the health care industry in run by companies who's goal is not to make sure people have good coverage, but to make sure they cover as little as possible while making the maximum amount of profit.
Adding more people at the cheap end of health insurance coverage increases the risk to reward ratio (greater risk, less reward since the cheap plans cost so little). Insurance companies are increasing the cost of already overpriced Cadillac plans because they know that is where they can get more money from.
It was my understanding that it wasn't the insurance company raising the fees, it was an additional tax imposed by Obamcare on very good private plans.
it is a combination of a tax..starting next year and insurance companies raising rates as fast as they can to increase profits. The insurance companies don't like being told that the profits of 18 to 30% on health care policies with such poor delivery results is not satisfactory to controlling our health care industry. The tax portion hasn't kicked in yet, so any increase you are seeing is all on the insurance industry.
You're lucky. There are plans that exist out there (for very large groups too) that carry a coinsurance rate even AFTER the deductible is met...like mine. 10% coinsurance the whole way.
But I agree with you. The point of this bill was to lower costs, and make coverage available in the individual market. Now the exchanges (to be introduced in 2014) "should" resolve the accessibility problem for the individual market. However, that will not control costs...at all.
This is completely inaccurate. Insurance companies still offer plans with no coinsurance feature (for a higher cost of course). This person's employer CHOSE to go with a coinsurance rate to control their premium costs.
It's the same situation as 5 years ago...when lifetime benefit caps were allowed. Businesses could choose plans that had a $1 million lifetime benefit cap, or they could choose plans that had no lifetime benefit maximums. Businesses that "cheaped out" took plans with caps...no one forced them to. The PPACA requires that all health insurers sell plans that had no lifetime benefit cap. Was this REALLY necessary since businesses had choices all along?
Everyone should be thankful that insurance companies offer a choice of plans. If not (where everything would be covered at 100% at enormous premiums), your employers would drop coverage all together. However, it is up to EMPLOYERS to explore all possibilities when it comes to benefits offerings. I find it amazing that so many employers are still not taking advantage of HRA's or HSA's in an effort to fight premium costs. They bitch and moan all day long about rising costs, but don't take advantage of what Bush implemented nearly 10 years ago.
As for "cheap end of insurance", you have no idea what you're talking about. The healthcare market is broken down into 4 areas:
-Individual (community rated)
-Sole Proprietor (community rated)
-Small Group (2-50 employees - community rated)
-Large Group (51+ employees - experience rated)
An individual enrolling in coverage has no bearing or effect on any of the other market segments whatsoever. A small group employee enrolling in coverage has no bearing or effect on individually-rated plans. They all have separate rating structures (analagous to auto insurance vs. homeowners insurance).
Get some knowledge professor...
That has more to do with your insurance company and employer than it does the government
That's why it's happening on a large scale right? This is the insurance companies answer to dealing with the healthcare bill.
It's amazing, people said this would happen, it happened and now people are denying it is because of the healthcare bill. Simply amazing. I guess it would take a large hammer and spike to drive this home for some people.
Ah... So you are learning that it is cheaper for the companies to drop your coverage and take the fine...duhhhhhhh..It costs an organization on average 8,000 a year per employee to cover you. So it is cheaper to take the fine and drop your coverage. duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..People are so dumb, they actually believe that health insurance is healthcare,,,it is NOT
Ver few of the super large health plans still have HMO's as their primary plan. Many have moved to POS (PPO style) plans. And they either have 90% or 100% coverage.
In PPACA, there are four levels of plans, bronze, silver, gold and platinum. IF I remember correctly, platinum coverage is at leat 90% benefit. So, if your company moved from 100 to 80%, they did that on their own. If they move from 90 to 80%, they likely still did that on their own. The only difference is that in the second case, it's more clear they did it for cost saving purposes, not because of any mandate in the law.
Of course this is the GRAND plan,,,people who have good insurance and are already paying for it,,via their jobs,,,will get hammered with a "Cadillac Tax"...causing employers to lessen the plan to crap level and avoid the tax. This is THE MESSIAHS plan,,abolish good healthcare in favor of crap for eveyone.
When I took my current job, my prime focus was a good helathcare plan, even at the cost of a lower salary,,,thats the CHOICE I made..salary vs health benefits. Everybody gets sick sooner or later..some at 20 some at 60,,,,but if you plan and prepare,,,,then you are not a burden to others.
Your new plan pays more than ours currently does. I have to pay $4000 for my husband's care every year, and on top of that I have to pay $25 every time he visits the oncologist (which means when the oncologist walks through the infusion center during chemo therapy every two weeks). Adding up all the drugs that have co-pays, and those doctor visits, it comes out to about $6000 per year just for my husband, not counting my care. I've been denied coverage for some of my medicines too; this is because my condition is more difficult to diagnose and treat than his, and the insurance nurse can't understand the specialist doctor who has ordered my medicine. If my husband becomes too sick to work, we will also have to pay the high COBRA premiums, which we will not be able to afford. So, although I really feel for you, because I do not believe that any health plan should be called "cadillac" (unless it includes spa treatments), I am wondering what you are complaining about. Do you think that your company would have kept that "cadillac" plan forever? They are probably just blaming "Obamacare" so that you won't be mad at them for reducing their coverage of you.
Let's be honest. Companies were all about to drop those "cadillac" plans anyway, and now they can pass the blame.
But the worst case, that you will have to pay much more: Under the Romney/Ryan "voucher" plan you will have to pay thousands in co-pays instead of paying a cap of $4000 or less: my husband's plan is much less generous than the "horrible" one described by "Scubasteve." The "voucher" plan will have a cap of what it will pay for care, and after that, oh well, you will be doing surgery on yourself.
I never said my plan was horrible. In fact, I thank my lucky stars that I have a job that offers health insurance because I know many people don't. All I said was that under the new rules, I will be paying more money for less coverage.
Isn't the goal of this to make healthcare more affordable? Because for me, it's done the opposite.
I'd like to add that I am in the Finance department at my company and yes, we were intending to keep the "Cadillac Plan" because it is a good way to attract talent, until we saw what the price increase would be.
Obamacare doesn't even start until 2014, when it's cost lowering mechanisms come into effect.
ANY rise you're seeing now is because insurance companies can charge what they want.
This is EXACTLY what Obamacare will get us away from.
Note that the Cadillac plan is 27K and over per family. If they can afford that, then I suppose a surtax is not a bid deal. Most plans go for 1/2 to 2/3rds that.
you must be kidding MSNBC. Nothing about last nights debate? Was the president really that bad?
You mean other than the 7 or 8 articles right at the top of the homepage?
I have seen only one article and it is on shared space rotating after 20 seconds.
If you go to the homepage, right now, these are the top 7 stories:
Policy differences take center stage
in first debate
Watch the entire presidential debate
Truth Squad: Checking Obama, Romney statements
Gregory: Romney 'feisty, long on ideas'
Guthrie: Obama didn't close the sale
PhotoBlog: Across the country, Americans tune in
Vote: Did debate influence
your vote?
There is also a big picture of Romney and Obama talking to each other.
A perfect example of how the Insurance companies play games to increase profits.
EXAMPLE: If you have (say) a $10 co-pay for a drug, and the place you go charges $100 the insurance company pays them the additional amount without question. If another place you go charges $200 - the insurance company pays them the amount they want for the same drug without question. Then they simply raise their rates to increase profits. There is NO accountability by the insurance companies. This is why we need government controls.
The many sheep who have had their premiums jump will be quick to blame ObamaCare instead of realizing that the insurance companies are only using that as an excuse to raise prices. It's a win win for insurance companies. The only thing that will change under Romney/Ryan is all the protections built into ObamaCare will be stripped out and we'll still be left with the mandatory health insurance requirement.
Phil, it would be worse than that. Mandatory payments, but a cap on what they will pay out. If you have an expensive condition, fo-get-a-bout-it.
After listening to Mitt Romney's 1001 lies, over the past many months and the total turn around of his supposed proposed campaign platform, I am convinced that should this plasticized excuse for a human being be elected the American people will get just what they deserve. More George W Bush policies only on speed burst. There is nothing this guy won't stoop to, including stripping any patient rights and Obamacare benefits protecting the insured. That whole thing was exposed a month or so ago whenever he disclosed "the poor have a safety net, they don't need insurance paid by others when they can go to the emergency rooms across the US". Well, anyone who owns anything such as a home knows that is a damned lie. Try that tactic and you will find the hospital district and it's doctors will sue you to put a lean on your property...even though you've paid taxes in that county for years and years. A lien that will accrue interest and penalties including the legal expense. In essence your property will be owned by the doctors and hospital which gave you the bare minimal level of treatment for your illness or affliction. But of course the followers of Koch Brothers and Corporate welfare doctrines will have to experience such themselves after Medicare/Medicaid and SS have been either privatized or reduced to insufficient programs. Meanwhile, the Republican oligarchy will have more than enough money to fund future wars on credit. It's what America does these days... to hell with the citizenry.
Master Joseph you are so wrong regarding what the insurance company will pay a provider/pharmacy. Insurance companies do not just pay a provider what they charge.
Phil Jonhnson
You didn't watch the debate last night did you? Romney already has stated he will not get rid of everything in Obamacare. One example is the pre-existing condition.
angrymad, you believed Romney? Have you heard any of his campaign speeches? He's flip flopping, or shall I just say it - he's lying! He says whatever the moment dictates. When Obama didn't respond to Romney's statements, I was livid! Romney ranted on and on. Then I realized why the President wasn't responding! Romney was flipping his previously stated positions!!
Nothing new here. Just the same double talk that corporations and politicians play until one side proves more beneficial or profitable for them.
Part of the Obama health care bill I like is where when Insurance profits and administrative cost are larger than benefits paid out they have to pay a rebate to their customers. Of course Insurance company's hate this part of the Health care bill, for years they have been able to pay themselves large salaries and large profits to their shareholders while denying benefits to their customers.
Under current accounting that would never happen. It would go to administrative costs and be a mute point.
You havent been keeping up with the news, its already happened.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:When I had drug coverage through my job, I simply paid a $10 co-pay, for any prescription medicine. Now, since I do not pay for Part D of Medicare, I pay the total price for my blood pressure medicine. I assumed the actual cost of the drug would be the same regardless of where I went. I WAS WRONG!
I found that the exact same drug ranged in price from $32 to $180!
So, when I was paying the $10 co-pay, the insurance company would make up the difference to
the pharmacy whether it was $22 or $170. They did nothing to control the difference in cost, as long as they could increase their rates to make more profit.
Ironically, I found that the cheapest price for my medicine was from a small local pharmacy,
and the highest price was at a large well known pharmacy! And, the large pharmacy would offer an “incentive” so people would take their prescription to them. People would do that, since they only paid the
$10 copay. However, the large pharmacy knew they would collect $180 from the insurance company. So they could easily afford a $20 incentive to get your business, while the small local pharmacy would receive only $22 from the insurance company plus your $10 co-pay – for exactly the same drug!
There is no accountability for the insurance companies or the large pharmacies. That obviously needs regulated!
The small local pharmacy was a genuine “small business”!
Now you kow why the larger company is larger and the small pharmacy will stay small! More profits, the bigger the company the betterthe CEO paycheck!
Master Joseph--good point!! I have Kaiser, so things are different for me. But my husband has a different policy, and several years before we got married, I found a locally owned pharmacy that had much better prices than the big national chain he had been going to. It was amazing, the difference!
What's worse, I just found out yesterday that a drug that the big pharmacy said wasn't manufactured anymore has been prescribed by my doctor for 8 to 10 other patients, and they are able to obtain it! I've had trouble filling some of my husband's prescriptions, and I have to go to the hospital pharmacy for them. Those big pharmacies only sell what they want to. I'm not talking about anything to do with reproductive medicine, but drugs related to cancer or arthritis.
I have read that there are drug shortages from time to time, due to pharmaceutical companies not producing enough--particularly chemotherapy drugs, and some other types as well. Sometimes it's because the pharmaceutical company has to wait for certain compounds to be supplied by their supplier. At least that's what I've read in the past.
Elizabeth, sometimes they have contracts with providers or distributors and it isn't available to them. The end pharm tech simply says it isn't made anymore, when in fact it just isn't available from them. Don't over-dramatize, it hurts any point you have.
Cantor is a neighbor of mine and our sons go to the same high school. I though he was taking a lot of money in for his campaign, but this is ridiculous!
Cantor, Ryan among top beneficiaries
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., ranks as the top recipient of PAC money from the top insurers since 2007, according to the Center’s analysis. Cantor, a tea party favorite and one of the law’s most vocal critics, has received about $258,000 from AHIP and the top industry PACs.
In January 2011, Cantor introduced the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,” the first of 33 repeal efforts that have reached the House floor.
That same year, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint — which together control 28 percent of the health insurance market — maxed out to Cantor, giving $10,000 apiece to his campaign committee. That doesn’t include additional sums that went into the congressman’s leadership PAC.
You wouldn't believe the amount of pro-Cantor junk mail we get. It's very sad. Between ALEC and guys like Cantor and Ryan, all services will be privatized and shoddy.
Under odumbocare they would be considerably worse. As a PAC represenative for the liberal party we recieved much more that the Republicans did. That is the reason I resigned from the PAC. I hate death squads.
Death squads, Pat? Really? Your insurance already can and does deny care that they don't feel falls under your policy and, in both cases, you are free to get that care anyway out of your own pocket.
Private insurance already has death squads. It's called denial of care. Look up Cigna sometime, they denied an organ transplant to a teen and she died. That sounds an awful lot like a death squad to me.
Right now, some families who were denied care by insurance have signed on to the first of the Obamacare exchanges, for those in extreme need, and some people have had their lives saved.
If you don't remember the year 2005, and how poor people were treated very differently in the hospitals of New Orleans, then you might think this new plan is worse. I think that 2005 should have taught people a lesson they would never forget.
Who ever was responsible for the Cadillac clause in the plan should be voted out of office.
Kill Healthcare? Obama sacrificed the economy to get Obamacare passed. The private sector of this country suffered terrible economic hardship so Obamacare could pass. Now you want to kill it?
Obama brought back the car industry, and all the support industries for it. He invested in transportation: both roads and trains. He bailed out some businesses, but required them to return the money with interest. I can't figure out what you are talking about. Maybe you mean "Bush."
Elizabeth
you need to get a clue.
Nit wit Mitt Wrongney has been repeating the same lies
saying he cares for the poor while on camera. Off camera he says it is not his
job to care for the poor. When the cynical Wrongney was speaking his lies at
the presidential debate, he said that Obama did not say what the specifics were
for who qualifies for refinancing their home. We all should know including Nit
Wit Mitt that to qualify you have to have the right amount of income and the
agreement is worked out with the bank that is to refinance the applicant.
Wrongney is telling us that our deficit is increasing because of Obama’s
policies. When Obama took office as
president, the war was costing more than $20 billion a month. One aircraft
carrier uses one million gallons of fuel every five months. The auto industry
was set to lose nearly one million jobs. George Bush had a bailout bill on the
table as he was leaving office. Obama used that to save the jobs of the nearly
one million auto workers. They were and are paying it back.
There were so many things that Nit Wit Mitt Wrongney
proposed that Obama has been trying to get the Republican run House of Reps to
pass for nearly three years. The Republicans said they don’t want to work with
Obama. The Republicans said they want him out of office because he wants to
help everyone in America. The
republicans are mostly self-serving and only want to fill their own pockets
with tax payer dollars by steering the money into their projects and special
interests. Nit Wit Mitt Wrongney said that the president’s policies failed but
the Republicans never allowed anything to get passed by voting NO on every
single measure. Remember that everyone in Washington was voted into their
position there by American voters to do a job. When the Republicans lied about
the socialism that doesn’t exist, they were voted in. Now the Republicans are
causing major gridlock on every measure that is put forth to make it appear
that President Obama is a failure.
President Obama doesn’t speak to America as if he is
speaking to ignorant and uninformed citizens. Wrongney is talking to America as
if they are completely uninformed and ignorant about what the republicans have
been doing to stop any kind of progress in Washington. Wrongney has put forth
his plan and it contains some of the plans that Obama has already tried to get
Washington to put through. Some things Wrongney said he wants to do is
something that are already in place at this time. Wrongney still thinks
everyone is completely stupid. That is how Wrongney wants to treat Americans.
His plan is to allow the individual states handle the billions of government
dollars. This will open the door to self-serving and greedy politicians to do
what they want with the money. The people waiting for help from the state
government will die on the hospital steps while they are waiting. The sick will
die in waiting rooms and at home because of the greed and misappropriation of
funds. It is happening right now in Florida and Mississippi. Billions are in
the hands of politicians that have personal agendas while those who need it are
waiting to get help. The governor of
Florida was cited for $10 billion dollars in medicare fraud while he ran some
of the hospitals in Florida. The Republicans and TEA partyers are going to destroy
America as if a Terrorist group has taken over. The republicans are doing the
work of terrorists right now in Washington by stopping every plan that Obama
has on the table. People need help right now but Wrongney says that he has a
plan for the distant future. Obama has a plan right now in front of the
Republicans. When the Healthcare reform bill was being discussed by the
republicans and democrats in the same room, the republicans had the bill in
front of them on the table. The republicans were saying; “We can’t read this
bill” or “We don’t know what is in this bill.” It was right on the table in
front of each person on the Democrats side and the Republican side. The Republicans
were saying; “We want to be included in this process.” They were sitting in the
same room while the process was happening. Yet they were creating video bites
to be used later to fool feeble-minded and unaware American citizens. The democrats gave their input without any
nonsense. The republicans were just saying; “I am not going to read this bill. “ They just want to get the money into their
own pockets. Now Wrongney has been saying that he has a bill that will be a
better one. When they say that they haven’t read the first one, how will they
know that Wrongney’s bill is better?
Feeble minded Americans were told that they were angry by
Fox and CNN. They didn’t know what they were angry about until they were told
why.
The fake polls began to pop up after one month of Obama
being in the office of president. The feeble minded people were told to go into
the streets and say they were angry. The media used steering tactics and fake
polls. They were and are spending and making millions of dollars on the feeble
minded that were duped by the media. The satanic Fox network had the biggest
influence on the feeble minded. I saw how it transpired and was not fooled. Fox
was stirring up the masses to rebel and riot in the streets. They paraded into
Washington DC with pictures of Obama hanging, swastikas and confederate flags
waving. Foxaholics began to buy guns because they were told to fight against
fake socialism in America. They were told that the FEDS were going to take
their guns. CNN joined the band wagon
and reaped millions of dollars.
This created a windfall of billions for the people at Fox
and CNN. People at Fox sold their souls for money and began to lie effortlessly
and very professionally. Some of the Foxaholics were buying guns by the box
loads and hiding them. Guns sales are
still soaring because of these steering tactics. Right now the word on feeble minded
street level is that there is going to be a civil war before the election. They
are preparing for this by digging bunkers and stocking up on thousands of
rounds of ammunition. Fox will be right in the middle orchestrating this civil
war. How much more satanic can it get than that? There are other nations that
want America destroyed. Fox and CNN is helping their cause.
Maybe Nit Wit Mitt Wrongney needs to go in a plane to
39,000 feet and roll the window down.
The Republicans want to privatize prisons and hospitals
to keep government money and to place rates however they want.
The votes from 26 states are sent to Tampa, Florida to be
counted. This is where the Republicans headquarters are located. The company that
owns the voting machines is owned by Spain and has its financial offices in the
Cayman Islands where Wrongney keeps his business affairs finances.
Terry Suggs10 - Glad to hear how you really feel about Mitt Romney. That is your opinion and now why don't you tell us how you feel about Obummma and his idiot VP, Biden. After you do that, STFU. You are so brainwashed it is pathetic. You are probably under the age of 30. Blind lead the Blind. You just can't see what Obummma is doing to this great land. Never served in the military, never held a real job, and I garantee if you were to look in the White House, you will find a Koran. You can't be a Christian and do to this country what he is doing!!
What does being a Christian have to do with being President? And Okie why is your washed brain better his?
why does one side always think they are sooooo smart and the other side sooooo stupid?
Hint: both sides are play us for fools as they both cater to BIG $$$ not you or I.
Okie:
1. Romney never served in the military. He ducked the draft going to France to convert them to Mormonism.
2. Technically, Mormons are NOT "Christians" since they do NOT believe in the Nicene Creed.
3. Romney hasn't had a real job in 10+ years. Romney pays no Federal Income tax--he pays Capital Gains at a MUCH lower rate.
4. Romney's dad was on welfare.
5. Romney had 6 grandmothers at the same time (his grandpa ran to Mexico--crossing the Mexican border illegally twice--because he was a polygamist).
Each of the 5 facts above is verifiable online.
Now what do you think about Romney? I'll bet your opinion has NOT changed because facts won't matter to you. Am I right?
A lot of Obama supporters are in their 50s, 40s, 30s. People who read.
Terry Suggs is right about one thing. All the Repubs are doing is trying to get a little close in polling numbers, and then they can flip the vote at election day.
Make sure that there is a paper trail for your ballot. If that means to vote early, then do it. In some states the voting machines can be controlled from a distance, and your vote doesn't mean a thing. It got downright funny in 2004 in Ohio, where there were more Bush votes at some polling places than registered voters. When the vote was carefully analyzed, it was discovered that John Kerry won in Ohio in 2004. That means he should have been certified as President, even if it was months or years later that these numbers were discovered. The Supreme Court should have been impeached. Congress could have done it, but they didn't, because they didn't want to rock the boat. The voting machines are not safe; some have a paper ballot read by a machine, but others only are electronic and can be changed with a simple phone call. Anybody who is a higher level computer programmer could do it; this isn't rocket science. If you don't see tons of ads from the Republican PACs, then you know where their money is going to.
They should just be honest and call it what it is..."Wealthcare" since that's all they really seem to care about. I have had my eyes opened regarding this so called healthcare...and it's anything but that. Rather than trying to cure you or help with your problem they just want to put you on all kinds of drugs that give you all kinds of additional health problems which leads to more drugs and more problems. Unless you have a bone sticking out of your body most "doctors" are pretty clueless...but they still want the big bucks. People would actually be better off staying home...and they would probably live longer.
And politicians should be made to use the same healthcare plans as the rest of us if they are so good...no more special treatment.
Don't know if I agree on the cause (i.e. 'wealthcare'), but prescription drugs are definitely a bigger problem than they are a help these days. Our family has learned to question every drug choice a doctor might make and really, once you start having to take drugs to counteract the problems of other drugs, then there is something seriously wrong. The worst is doctors automatically picking the newest drug, when, many times, the older cheap drug works fine without side affects (seriously, the newer drug is often made/invented for when the old drug doesn't work and shouldn't be the first choice). Sometimes the 'disease' really isn't as bad as the so-called cure.
I agree; my husband was put on all kinds of medications, pain killers, and anti-spasmodics, and after a couple of years it was discovered that his big pain was cancer that was stage 3 by that time. A second opinion is worth a lot more than all those drugs.
I have been looking for articles on the debate. Where are they? NBC,ABC, CBS, ect.are really playing it down I guess so I have to read this stuff.
Go with cspan. They avoid biases and just state exactly what happened.
A day late and dollar short money realizes they won't make the money they thought they would make and now they want out very interesting but stupid.
I posted this before, but I feel it needs repeated. I was educated from this experience. There are reasons for everything.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:When I had drug coverage through my job, I simply paid a $10 co-pay, for any prescription medicine. Now, since I do not pay for Part D of Medicare, I pay the total price for my blood pressure medicine. I assumed the actual cost of the drug would be the same regardless of where I went. I WAS WRONG!
I found that the exact same drug ranged in price from $32 to $180!
So, when I was paying the $10 co-pay, the insurance company would make up the difference to
the pharmacy whether it was $22 or $170. They did nothing to control the difference in cost, as long as they could increase their rates to make more profit.
Ironically, I found that the cheapest price for my medicine was from a small local pharmacy,
and the highest price was at a large well known pharmacy! And, the large pharmacy would offer an “incentive” so people would take their prescription to them. People would do that, since they only paid the
$10 copay. However, the large pharmacy knew they would collect $180 from the insurance company. So they could easily afford a $20 incentive to get your business, while the small local pharmacy would receive only $22 from the insurance company plus your $10 co-pay – for exactly the same drug!
There is no accountability for the insurance companies or the large pharmacies. That obviously needs regulated!
The small local pharmacy was a genuine “small business”!
It gets even better. Take time to research foreign pharmacies in London, Paris, or Oslo, pick your favorite place, and you can order the same drugs for 40% to 60% less than you currently pay. You will hear the argument that those drugs are "knockoffs" however you can have those drugs checked by legitimate national laboratories, which I did for my prescriptions, and guess what, even the data tracer numbers on the prescription bottles could be traced back to the Pharmaceutical Company's Internal Records. This is all about profits, not healthcare. I received a rebate check and a notice for lower monthly rates from my healthcare insurance provider. You may not like President Obama, you may not like the Affordable Care Act, but a little research will show you that the American Consumer will be better off beginning in 2014. I am suddenly hearing the same old scare tactics used by the TEA Party in 2010. If you recall, they claimed that the Affordable Care Act would destroy Medicare. Last night, both of those men agreed that Medicare will be just fine. So what is the real plan going forward. Romney and Ryan have promised the Healthcare Insurance Company "vouchers" which means "profits". In Norway, healthcare coverage for every citizen costs the government $4,300 per year, while the same costs in the United States are $17,800 per year per person. So the pharmacies in Oslo can sell you prescription drugs for less, because healthcare is a service, not a profit item.
Terry, those countries are cheaper because their governments mandate price controls on those drugs, so the drug companies charge us extra to make up for R&D costs. Basically, the US is subsidizing medicine in Europe. I am cautiously optimistic about Affordable Care Act though and hope it provides at least a decent chunk of what it promises.
S. 191473, the US government already gives drug companies millions of dollars in grants towards research. The only difference between the USA and Norway is that here in the USA drug companies can get away with ripping of the US citizen.
S1914173: Research and Development in the U.S. is done by our government, paid for by you the taxpayer.
Some diseases make people more upset than others, and funds are raised, and go into research. People have walk-a-thons, running races, charity balls, auctions, all to benefit research into some disease or other.
End result of both government dollars and charity dollars for research? The drug companies moan and btch that it is costing them so much, and they raise the prices. If you think the higher cost in the US is because the drug companies deserve it in some way, you are really brainwashed (or you are the drug company).
On the other hand:
The FDA also charges a million and a half dollars for every new drug, and then let people from the drug company help to evaluate the drug and sit on their board. The FDA also sells patents to other companies, stealing patents from some who are doing research but who are too poor to pay the "fees" the FDA charges. Look up Dr. Burzynski, who is only allowed to use the drugs he researched in his own facility on his own patients, and even then the FDA tried to have him put in jail. Those drugs all had double-blind tests, but didn't pass the one thing that the FDA required: they were not manufactured by big pharmaceutical companies that regularly give big fees to the FDA. Yes, I have an ax to grind, as my husband is a cancer patient, and cannot have access to some proven therapies because of the FDA.
This only makes sense. They didn't want the legislation so they put their money towards those who could keep it from passing or repeal it, but if it was going to pass anyway they wanted their input...they wanted to have consultants giving their input on this legislation. Is the whole system crooked?...Sure. But if you follow the money, it makes sense.
Use your Freedom of Information Access and you will find that every Member of the House and Senate received over $1.6 Million Dollars in campaign donations during the Affordable Healthcare Debates in 2009 and 2010. Both sides of the aisle received money. Now, with Romney and Ryan promising vouchers for future Medicare Recipients, the sky is the limit on profits for healthcare insurance and pharmaceuticals. I elected to perform my own research starting in 2008, when I was told that I had a preexisting condition, and not one company would insure me. Blue Cross cancelled me after a costly hospital stay, for a genetic blood disorder. When I saw the money flowing into the Congress and Senate I realized that more was at stake. People may not like the President, they may not like the new law, but I recently received a refund check and notice of reduced monthly premiums, because the company did not reach the required payouts for my healthcare charges. In addition, I no longer have a cap on my long term care. Profits and greed should not drive healthcare services. Forget the media, forget the campaign rhetoric, do your own fact checking.
nuttin' but the dollas baby! repubs and dems who get bought by money should be removed from office as rule of law. if you're not in it for the benefit of all the people, you shouldn't be in it at all. Companies that provide health care, if it can be called providing, should be doing it for the betterment of mankind, not the lining of the pocket. we are so deluded about how we should be as a people and how we should treat our fellow man. it's sad but, I gues, necessary for us to finally reach the eternity that's been promised by God. Enjoy it while you can greedy people!
Ever wonder why the same corporations that are allowed to donate unlimited campaign dollars to a PAC are never charged with murder and their officers put in jail if the corporation kills people? (Think tobacco industry, contaminated foods, contaminated drugs, etc.)
With the prospect of access to the immense power and money of government, no one can be trusted. Insurance companies should be competing for consumer's dollars in the marketplace, not behind closed doors in Washington.
None of the quotes from the Healthcare Industry praise Obamacare, they only say they will work to met the requirements of the law. Big difference than the title of the article says.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:When I had drug coverage through my job, I simply paid a $10 co-pay, for any prescription medicine. Now, since I do not pay for Part D of Medicare, I pay the total price for my blood pressure medicine. I assumed the actual cost of the drug would be the same regardless of where I went. I WAS WRONG!
I found that the exact same drug ranged in price from $32 to $180!
So, when I was paying the $10 co-pay, the insurance company would make up the difference to
the pharmacy whether it was $22 or $170. They did nothing to control the difference in cost, as long as they could increase their rates to make more profit.
Ironically, I found that the cheapest price for my medicine was from a small local pharmacy,
and the highest price was at a large well known pharmacy! And, the large pharmacy would offer an “incentive” so people would take their prescription to them. People would do that, since they only paid the
$10 copay. However, the large pharmacy knew they would collect $180 from the insurance company. So they could easily afford a $20 incentive to get your business, while the small local pharmacy would receive only $22 from the insurance company plus your $10 co-pay – for exactly the same drug!
There is no accountability for the insurance companies or the large pharmacies. That obviously needs regulated!
The small local pharmacy was a genuine “small business”!
How quickly many people forget. Back in 2009 and 2010, during the debates surrounding the Affordable Care Act, every major Healthcare Insurance and Pharmaceutical Company donate hundreds of millions for every member of the House and Senate. Records, provided via The Freedom of Information Act, show that every Member of Congress and every Senator, received over $1.6 Million Dollars in campaign donations, which amounts to over $800 Million Dollars spent by the very people who now want to defeat the law. In addition, every Pharmaceutical Company agreed to pay in a combined total of $80 Billion Dollars over a ten year period beginning in 2014, for the sole purpose of enacting a law that will block the reimportation of pharmaceutical prescriptions from foreign pharmacies. Currently, every pharmaceutical product can be legally ordered from a foreign pharmacy for 40% to 60% less than what we all pay inside the United States. So we now know that all major pharmaceutical companies view the American Consumer Market as a cash cow, because all foreign countries limit the prices for prescription drugs. Romney and Ryan want to take us back to the old way, and the Affordable Care Act Law, is starting to prove that American Consumers will win in the long run. However, rather than argue about these verifiable donations and the stranglehold the pharmaceutical companies have placed on the American Consumer via the $8 Billion Dollar per year Contribution to the National Plan over a ten year period, go to the financial section for each publicly traded Healthcare Insurance Company and see what the Corporate Officers and Board of Directors are paid annually. If you believe that an average of $15 Million Dollars per year is justified for the CEO of a company that produces nothing, other than billions in profits, then vote for Romney and Ryan. This election is about many things, but we heard a very good explanation about the greed driven backers of Mitt Romney last night. If you want higher healthcare costs, a cap on lifetime care limits, and the return of "no insurance for preexisting conditions" then Romney is your guy.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:When I had drug coverage through my job, I simply paid a $10 co-pay, for any prescription medicine. Now, since I do not pay for Part D of Medicare, I pay the total price for my blood pressure medicine. I assumed the actual cost of the drug would be the same regardless of where I went. I WAS WRONG!
I found that the exact same drug ranged in price from $32 to $180!
So, when I was paying the $10 co-pay, the insurance company would make up the difference to
the pharmacy whether it was $22 or $170. They did nothing to control the difference in cost, as long as they could increase their rates to make more profit.
Ironically, I found that the cheapest price for my medicine was from a small local pharmacy,
and the highest price was at a large well known pharmacy! And, the large pharmacy would offer an “incentive” so people would take their prescription to them. People would do that, since they only paid the
$10 copay. However, the large pharmacy knew they would collect $180 from the insurance company. So they could easily afford a $20 incentive to get your business, while the small local pharmacy would receive only $22 from the insurance company plus your $10 co-pay – for exactly the same drug!
There is no accountability for the insurance companies or the large pharmacies. That obviously needs regulated!
The small local pharmacy was a genuine “small business”!
Money, money, money. $10,400,000. That's the number people should be asking themselves about.
Face it, folks, we are all debating about how much money people at the top will make by buying votes. When the CEO's of the top 500 companies in the U.S. make $5.2B in one year, the facts are clear: they NEED that money so they can continue climbing the ranks to feed their egos and justify their self "worth" amongst "peers", and most of them will pay-off anyone to secure it. And all we do about it is argue about how they get there, not about what's wrong with the system and how we're going to fix it. Our politicians are in the back pockets of these people and all we do is argue about it. Shame on us...
Exactly...the very wealthy can afford to "pay as they go" for anything, including their health - with or without any health insurance!
They own so many houses that they don't remember how many they own. They make so much money on investments they can't remember what they really earn, and take a couple of years to cough up a tax return. They put their money into banks from where? Does America "defend" those island nations? It's all little numbers in computers; they don't need to be anywhere. If it was gold, those islands would sink.
If the insurance companies hate it, it must be good!
Former Aetna CEO, Ronald Williams, was compensated $72,000,000 in 2010. Yes, that’s $72 million dollars! In 2009, United Healthcare’s CEO, Stephen Hemsley, was given $102,000,000 in compensation. Yes, that’s $102 million dollars! Humana’s CEO, Mike McCallister, was compensated $7.3 million dollars in 2011. In 2011 Cigna’s CEO was compensated $19.1 million dollars.
These companies are raping both the sick and the healthy. The for profit health care industry in the U.S. is the best in the world, if you want to make a buck off of hard working people. Otherwise, this is the worst system in the world. The health insurance companies are making huge profits, and paying their CEOs absurd amounts of money for screwing the sick and the healthy. It’s disgusting.
Nothing like forcing people to purchase your product --- Fundamentally, Obamacare is a devestating choice. America cannot afford a $3.00 Trillion dollar tax.
As was evident in the Debate, Obama does not know what he is doing......
Nobody is forcing you to ever get sick or die. I'm sure that you will be the first person in the whole history of the world who never gets sick or has an accident. Oh, you're human? Well, I guess you need health care, but you expect everybody else to pay for you.
This one thing the Democrats cannot understand -- Americans wanted medical reform. Some Americans wanted socialism, but the majority did not want an unprepared socialistic monstrosity jammed down their throats, and will not keep quiet about it. An open debate of the differences would have brought about changes without the biased rancor and divisiveness created by President Obama's compliance to Kennedy's requirements. No matter who is elected president, let's do it over and let's do it right as a nation that sees to all of it's citizens.
This bill allows private insurance, and is not socialism. Medical reform? The Republicans offered no ideas whatsoever about it, if you look at the transcripts of Congress in 2009.