For those interested -
Thanks for this. SB 1440's author is California State Senator Sheila Kuehl -- as a teen she played Gilda on the Dobie Gillis tv show. Any old timers out there remember that show? But I digress.
This bill would require insurance companies to spend 85% of their revenues on health care and not more than 15% for administration and profit.
From the medicalnewstoday.com website:
"Private health insurance companies regulated by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) spend billion each year on administration, and divert an additional .3 billion to profit, according to a report released by the California Medical Association (CMA). Prepared using data obtained under the Knox Keene Act, the report breaks down how private health insurance companies spend their revenues. "
You know Pip, in Germany, that provides health insurance to all their citizens, private health insurance companies are nonprofit and German citizens still have a choice from many plans (see PBS "Sick Around the World) I don't think health insurance companies should be allowed to profit at the expense of people in need of affordable health care. Putting a cap on profit and administration costs, would free up more money for health care, at a time when health care costs are rising and people are having a hard time with increasing premiums, copays and out of pocket expenses.
With less revenue coming into the state coffers cuz of the bad economy and as a result of the subprime mortgage mess and opposition to any tax increase, why not cap health insurers at 15% for administration and profit. Administration of traditional Medicare costs taxpayers only 5%.
SB 1440 would be a step toward making health care more affordable for consumers. Californians, contact your legislator to support SB 1440.
I see no reason to not to cap and I'd really like to see not-for-profit. But that's me!
Hugs,
Pip
On the other hand,
Allowing government to cap profits would result in a shortage. Econ 101. Private insurance companies would reduce supply to keep their profit margins the same. They would do this by restricting doctor visits, increasing co-pays, denying more procedures and medications, paying doctors less (resulting in a shortage of doctors) and taking away choice from the consumer because some would go out of business.
"If SB 1440 had been in effect in the last reporting year, HMOs would
have spent .1 billion less on administrative costs and profit - money
that would have gone instead to provide health care to their
policyholders." That's quite a "what if" full of false premises and ignores the practical implications of how private insurance companies would react to such legislation.
The author of this article displays bias by using the word "divert". Private companies are supposed to make money, and nobody is forced to buy their product. Private companies have the right to spend their revenues any way they want. Let me guess - Sen Kuehl is a Democrat?
And I hate being called a NEWBIE !!
Well, then you have to post more! LOL You become a senior member at 100 posts, I think!
Joe, if you get a chance Google "Sick around the World" and see if you can still see it online. Amazing comparisons. My fave was the Swiss whose insurance companies are all non-profits who send their medicines to the less regulated American markets. That scared me senseless. My point it - of course the insurance companies are going to push the 'choice' card because - tada - they don't want to be non-profit. But they are in other parts of the world and they're still doing well, dumping stuff on the stupid Americans.
Hugs and more hugs,
Pip
Hugs to you Pip!
I don't think it's the insurance companies pushing the choice card, it's basic economics. When government tried price controls on gas in the 70's (I'm old enough to remember) there were instant shortages. Free markets work! I'm not pro-insurance companies, I'm even old enough to remember when the only medical insurance was "major med" - my parents had a cheap policy that covered catastrophic events. All other services were affordable enough to be paid out of pocket.
The total coverage we have now leads consumers to think their co-pay is how much their services really cost. Most people don't look at the statements they get to see how much the ins. company paid the doctor. And since most people get their insurance through their jobs now, its just another pre-tax deduction that they don't think about, like taxes. If people had to cut a check every April 15 for the real amount of taxes they pay each year, they would be in shock! They celebrate getting a 1000 dollar refund but don't realize they pumped in seven or eight grand through the year.
The insurance companies are nothing more than a middle-man, inflating prices. Getting government involved even more would only add another level of administration, driving costs even higher.
Sleep well!
Joe
First of all, important things first, it was Zelda not Gilda. Sen. Kuehl played, Zelda, who had a crush on Dobie, beatnik Maynard G.'s buddy. Okay.
Welcome, NEWBIE. Keep posting. I forget what comes after Newbie, but when you get to about 400 posts you'll soon be a "senior member". Ha!
I tried to find a bill analysis, but it was in pdf format, and my ole' computer is too slow, so I did a quick search and referenced the medicalnews site. The CMA, California Medical Assoc., docs, support this bill and perhaps sponsor the site, so it ain't w/out their bias. They're lookin' after their interests. The way I look at it, if the state is to provide coverage to all its citizens, then everyone, docs, insurers, pharm, employers, individuals, all have to participate, perhaps make some concessions, though w/this dang scary economy I don't know what would be possible now.
You say, "Private companies are supposed to make money, and nobody is forced to buy their product." I would agree with you if we were talkin about computers or cell phones, but we're talking about folks being able to afford health care for themselves and their families. No one is forced to buy insurers' "products", but most people want to be able to afford health insurance in order to have access to medical care. You say, "Private companies have the right to spend their revenues any way they want." Well they have the right to spend that revenue on denying people coverage, people with preexisting condtions, like RA, who wouldn't be eligible to purchase an individual plan and would be screened out. Good for the bottomline, but good for our society? So those w/preexisting conditions have to buy into a high risk pool health insurance program subsidized by taxpayers, while private forprofit insurance companies can cherry pick healthier folks to insure.
I have health insurance, you probably have insurance, and we can sleep at night not having to worry about paying for our meds or docs, but there are a lot of folks that don't have insurance, working families, and health care costs are rising. These are my thoughts, my perspective, its not intended to piss off anyone or start an argument (which often happens) Just trying to understand a complex problem and talk about possible health care reform for affordable health care.
Well, it's getting late. Welcome to Arthritis Insight! Joie
[QUOTE=Joie]First of all, important things first, it was Zelda not Gilda. Sen. Kuehl played, Zelda, who had a crush on Dobie, beatnik Maynard G.'s buddy. Okay.
Jas,
Everytime they deregulate - it's the little guys who get hurt. A little regulation and we wouldn't have the housing market imploding like it is now.
Hugs,
Pip
What kind of regulation exactly? Instead of signing 30 documents at closing would you prefer 60 or 100? Regulation will not stop over-zealous consumers and shady mortgage brokers.
[QUOTE=JasmineRain] [QUOTE=Joie]First of all, important things first, it was Zelda not Gilda. Sen. Kuehl played, Zelda, who had a crush on Dobie, beatnik Maynard G.'s buddy. Okay.
Welcome, NEWBIE. Keep posting. I forget what comes after Newbie, but when you get to about 400 posts you'll soon be a "senior member". Ha!
I tried to find a bill analysis, but it was in pdf format, and my ole' computer is too slow, so I did a quick search and referenced the medicalnews site. The CMA, California Medical Assoc., docs, support this bill and perhaps sponsor the site, so it ain't w/out their bias. They're lookin' after their interests. The way I look at it, if the state is to provide coverage to all its citizens, then everyone, docs, insurers, pharm, employers, individuals, all have to participate, perhaps make some concessions, though w/this dang scary economy I don't know what would be possible now.
You say, "Private companies are supposed to make money, and nobody is forced to buy their product." I would agree with you if we were talkin about computers or cell phones, but we're talking about folks being able to afford health care for themselves and their families. No one is forced to buy insurers' "products", but most people want to be able to afford health insurance in order to have access to medical care. You say, "Private companies have the right to spend their revenues any way they want." Well they have the right to spend that revenue on denying people coverage, people with preexisting condtions, like RA, who wouldn't be eligible to purchase an individual plan and would be screened out. Good for the bottomline, but good for our society? So those w/preexisting conditions have to buy into a high risk pool health insurance program subsidized by taxpayers, while private forprofit insurance companies can cherry pick healthier folks to insure.
I have health insurance, you probably have insurance, and we can sleep at night not having to worry about paying for our meds or docs, but there are a lot of folks that don't have insurance, working families, and health care costs are rising. These are my thoughts, my perspective, its not intended to piss off anyone or start an argument (which often happens) Just trying to understand a complex problem and talk about possible health care reform for affordable health care.
Well, it's getting late. Welcome to Arthritis Insight! Joie
[/QUOTE]
Food and housing are far more basic needs than healthcare. Shall we make grocery stores and real-estate non-profit too? Or have the government run them? Where does it end?
[/QUOTE]
Did I say anything about grocery stores or real estate, or government run health insurance? The subject was originally SB 1440, which would require health insurance companies to spend 85%of their revenue on their policyholders health care, the remaining 15% for administrative costs and profit. (Currently they are restricted to spending 15% on administration)
Health care costs will be 20% of our economy in 10 yrs, millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured, we need to do something. This bill is one attempt to deal with making health insurance more affordable, it may pass it may fail, but at least it continues a debate about the need for reform, small or big, and brings all stakeholders, insurers, docs, employers, pharma, hospitals, consumers, to the table to work toward that end.
Did I say you said anything about food/housing?
No. Just wondering. Please feel free to ignore my posts.
Jas, it was me that brought up the food and housing.
We're so similar, you and me!
Hugs,
Pip
[QUOTE=Pip!]Jas, it was me that brought up the food and housing.
Our economy is in bad shape, change is scary, but we need to improve on our current health care system, several states are trying to deal w/providing affordable health insurance, there is a need.
I don't think that being "scared of change" is the reason people don't want to go social. Everyone agrees that we need changes. It's the kinds of changes that are in disagreement.I think those w/insurance are concerned how change would impact what they have now. That's a legitimate concern, but to do nothing, would allow a problem to get worse.
What do you mean "go social'?
Socialized medicine. And again, no one wants to do nothing.[QUOTE=Linncn]Socialized medicine. And again, no one wants to do nothing.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by socialized medicine, what is your definition?
Government run healthcare that is supported by the taxpayers.
[QUOTE=Linncn]
Government run healthcare that is supported by the taxpayers.
[/QUOTE]
Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, Veterans Admins Health Program, SCHIP (State Children Health Insurance Program), state high risk pool health insurance programs, are government administered programs, supported by taxpayers -- so you are opposed to them?
And you think these programs have proven the government capable of running the entire healthcare system?
LOL Linncn!
Seriously, maybe if there were a lot LESS perks for Pharma, non-competition laws like in that last bill (blanking here, the one snuck in at 3 AM and written by 1000 lobbyists) maybe, just maybe, they could do a bit of a better job.
Hugs,
Pip
[QUOTE=Linncn]
And you think these programs have proven the government capable of running the entire healthcare system?
[/QUOTE]
Soooo, that's a yes? Gov health insurance programs are all baaaaaaaad? Soooooooo, privatize all of health care, so long Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Tricare -- private health insurance will take care of America's health needs, well not all, cuz they do have to make a profit, even though they are just the middlemen, not providing any hands on care or treatment. Oh, and if you have a pre existing condition, sorry, private insurance companies won't accept. I think McCain's plan to deal with these folks, y'know like people w/RA needing health insurance, is to put them in a state health insurance high risk pool, but I don't think he's worked out how to pay for that, cuz it would have to be subsidized by taxpayers, yes, another government run program. Hmmm, how does that fit in with the whole free market deal, oh yeah, private insurance companies will insure healthier folks and still be able to make their unlimited profits, and they'll dump folks w/pre existing conditions on the government or leave them out in the cold.
How about instead of this inefficient patchwork of government and private health insurance plans, that leave out 47 million people, and costs us more than any other country spends on health care that covers ALL their citizens, with better health outcomes, we create a better health care system. It can be a mix of private and public programs. I guess the big question is how taxpayers feel about a system that would cover all its citizens -- which is universal coverage -- not socialized medicine, thats a health care delivery system.
We don't have to copy other countries health care systems, but we might want to look at what works in other countries. Take a look, its a quick and easy read, only one page, in a chart form:
Here's another quick and easy read, again just one page, it won't take you long to get through it, it discusses the four basic health care models, of which "socialized" health care is just one model.
[QUOTE=Pip!]
LOL Linncn!
Seriously, maybe if there were a lot LESS perks for Pharma, non-competition laws like in that last bill (blanking here, the one snuck in at 3 AM and written by 1000 lobbyists) maybe, just maybe, they could do a bit of a better job.
Hugs,
Pip
[/QUOTE]
Pip, I think you are referring to the 2003 Medicare legislation that established Medicare Part D, the prescription drug act. It helped some seniors with acquiring prescripition meds, but it banned the fed gov from negotiating with pharm companies over presc med prices, as it does w/the VA program -- pharm profits, taxpayers overpay. Oh yeah, and Republican Tauzin, the guy who carried this bill in Congress, shortly left and now is the high paid head of the biggest pharm lobby.
Linnc, you know, this is the 2003 bill you referenced when we were discussing the 2008 HR 6331 (might not be the number) Medicare bill that the Prez vetoed and Congress overrode with a huge bipartisan support.
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com