Exactly What I have been Asking-Why Do We Need Health Insurance Companies?

Insurance Companies Just Accidentally Made The Case For Medicare For All
It’s all about the overhead and profit.
By Daniel Marans

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group for commercial health insurance companies, published an infographic this month breaking down how the industry spends every dollar it receives in premiums.

The group apparently crafted the visual aid to defend rising premiums its member companies are charging customers.

But the chart also inadvertently helps explain why commercial health insurance is a bad deal.

The graphic shows that about 80 percent of every premium dollar goes toward medical expenses ― prescription drugs, doctor visits, hospitalization and other services. Approximately 18 percent goes to administrative costs, and some 3 percent is profit. (The total is more than 100 percent because of rounding. America’s Health Insurance Plans explains how it gathered the figures for its infographic here.)


AHIP America’s Health Insurance Plans created a graphic to show where your premium dollars go.


By contrast, Medicare, the largest U.S. public insurer, paid just 1.5 percent of its budget to administer traditional insurance plans for seniors and workers with severe disabilities in 2015, according to official data. The rest of Medicare’s budget went to paying doctors, hospitals, drug companies and other health care providers.

When you account for administrative costs of Medicare’s private plans, which cover some one-third of Medicare beneficiaries, Medicare’s overhead approaches 6.4 percent of its budget.

The comparison shows that expanding Medicare to cover the entire population ― or adopting a single-payer health insurance system ― would significantly reduce health care costs by eliminating a whole lot of expenses that aren’t related to medical care. That’s in part because Medicare does not have to advertise its services, make a profit for investors, or reward its executives with multi-million-dollar compensation packages, as private insurers do.

If the Republican health care replacement law takes effect, it could encourage companies to jack up executive pay even higher. The legislation would raise limits on how much executive compensation a company can deduct from taxes.

Some critics claim the Medicare figures are misleading, because the government insurance program benefits from Social Security Administration and Internal Revenue Service help in collecting the taxes it needs to fund its operations.

In fact, Medicare reimburses the other federal agencies for their services, according to Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget & Policy Priorities.

“The notion that there are all these federal costs that are not accounted for is absolutely positively false,” Van de Water said.

There are risks and tradeoffs of a single-payer system, like the possibility that insurance coverage will provide fewer benefits than the private insurance market, according to Austin Frakt, a health economist for the Department of Veterans Affairs with academic posts at Boston University and Harvard.

And there are other systems for bringing down costs, like all-payer rate setting, which allows multiple insurers to negotiate provider prices as a single unit, Frakt added.

But “if you look just at cost control, you almost can’t do better than single payer,” Frakt said.

Thanks, America’s Health Insurance Plans!

 

Typical nonanswer. Can't debate so they obfuscate. Pathetic.

 

Didn't the Democrats pass legislation several years ago that mandated all American pay an additional 20% for their healthcare?

Anyway the 20% administrative figure the article gleaned from the insurance industry is actually low ball. I doesn't take into account the additional administrative costs the healthcare industry incurs dealing with insurance.

 

You mean sort of like posting poop pictures when you've been bitch slapped?
Lolololol

 

What you figures do not show is how much less insurance companies pay than you typical insured. {That is unless it is mandated by the government.)

 

Liberals just cannot seem to connect cause and effect.

Why do you think we had the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007? Because the government forced the banking industry to lend money to people who would not normally have not qualified to buy a house, had no skin in the game, and no reason not to walk away from the payments.

Why do you think college costs have outpaced inflation? Because the government promoted greater borrowing limits, unintentionally signaling to universities that families could afford to pay more for a college education.

Why do you think a government run health insurance system would fail us? Because the benefits paid out are "someone else's" money. There is no incentive to deny requests for unnecessary tests / procedures, to shop hard for the best value in services, to keep the administrative infrastructure from becoming bloated and inefficient. These are all benefits that private insurers deliver that a government insurer would not.

Liberals' argue that the 1.5% administrative portion of the total expenses points to better administration by government . . . that is false . . . it's only 1.5% because the total benefits paid out for similar services dwarfs that of the private insurers. One distended figure allows for the distortion of another.

I've never worked for a health care insurer, and have never invested in one, yet I can very easily, very clearly reach this conclusion which should be self evident to all, but is not to those with eyes willfully turned from the truth, looking only toward their unsustainable, idealistic goal line.

 

Liberals just cannot seem to connect cause and effect.

Why do you think we had the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007? Because the government forced the banking industry to lend money to people who would not normally have not qualified to buy a house, had no skin in the game, and no reason not to walk away from the payments.
(That is a lie that has been debunked for years. You show your own gullibility by even bringing it up after it was proven false a long, long time ago. A good lie never leaves the Reich-wing bubble)

Why do you think college costs have outpaced inflation? Because the government promoted greater borrowing limits, unintentionally signaling to universities that families could afford to pay more for a college education.
(This is just utter nonsense proving you know nothing about higher education. Actual costs have been steady or decreased for years. What has changed is the amount state governments are willing to subsidized which drives up the tuition for the students. Higher education has been subsidized by the states for decades holding down the actual costs of education. The only difference now is that instead of subsidizing the cost of education, states now subsidize businesses. So now you and your kids get to pay for all the costs yourselves.)

Why do you think a government run health insurance system would fail us? ( I don't think it would fail us. I think it would fail the insurance industry.)Because the benefits paid out are "someone else's" money. There is no incentive to deny requests for unnecessary tests / procedures,(So you want the insurance companies to come between you and your doctor? What is the insurance company's incentives? $$$$ their own bottom line and you may die as a result) to to shop hard for the best value in services, to keep the administrative infrastructure from becoming bloated and inefficient. (Compare Medicare administrative costs to the administrative costs of the for-profit health insurance industry and you will realize just how dumb that statement is, or more likely you won't.) These are all benefits that private insurers deliver that a government insurer would not.

Liberals' argue that the 1.5% administrative portion of the total expenses points to better administration by government . . . that is false . . . it's only 1.5% because the total benefits paid out for similar services dwarfs that of the private insurers. (Nonsense, the government insures the sickest, oldest, largest users of medical services...The elderly. The for-profit side has the pool of the healthiest people in the market.) One distended figure allows for the distortion of another.

I've never worked for a health care insurer, and have never invested in one, yet I can very easily, very clearly reach this conclusion which should be self evident to all, but is not to those with eyes willfully turned from the truth, looking only toward their unsustainable, idealistic goal line.



The only conclusion I have reached is that you know nothing about the topics you are talking about. As I've mentioned before, my wife has a PhD in Health Policy. I'll give her a copy of this to laugh at.

 

But he has no idea how hospital got me 14 days ICU, plus 9 more days for <$60,000 and still receives THE highest satisfaction in the nation.

 

Liberals just cannot seem to connect cause and effect.

Why do you think we had the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007? Because the government forced the banking industry to lend money to people who would not normally have not qualified to buy a house, had no skin in the game, and no reason not to walk away from the payments.
(That is a lie that has been debunked for years. You show your own gullibility by even bringing it up after it was proven false a long, long time ago. A good lie never leaves the Reich-wing bubble) Hogwash Joe . . . I have family members who got sucked in by the very circumstances you deny. If the easy money wasn't there, they would have saved for the extra several years necessary to do so, been personally vested in the house, and not given it up so easily.

Why do you think college costs have outpaced inflation? Because the government promoted greater borrowing limits, unintentionally signaling to universities that families could afford to pay more for a college education. (This is just utter nonsense proving you know nothing about higher education. Actual costs have been steady or decreased for years. What has changed is the amount state governments are willing to subsidized which drives up the tuition for the students. Higher education has been subsidized by the states for decades holding down the actual costs of education. The only difference now is that instead of subsidizing the cost of education, states now subsidize businesses. So now you and your kids get to pay for all the costs yourselves.) What a poorly conceived response. State schools didn't lead the way with increases in tuition . . . private schools did. State schools brought up the rear after the costs had already begun to spiral out of control.

Why do you think a government run health insurance system would fail us? ( I don't think it would fail us. I think it would fail the insurance industry.) Government run insurance is already failing the private insurance industry . . . intentionally so. This is exactly what Obama and Emmanuel wanted to happen, but we aren't going to let your liberal vision play itself out to a single payer solution. Because the benefits paid out are "someone else's" money. There is no incentive to deny requests for unnecessary tests / procedures,(So you want the insurance companies to come between you and your doctor? I want insurance companies to make sure the dollars in the insurance pool are not wasted on the wrong treatments. What is the insurance company's incentives? $$$$ their own bottom line and you may die as a result) Assuming all insurance companies could sell in all states, customers would not buy policies from bad insurance companies . . . that's their incentive to do a good job. An all-insuring, government-run, single-payer solution has no competition, and its existence is not threatened by its own poor performance. A single-payer solution is THE wrong solution. to to shop hard for the best value in services, to keep the administrative infrastructure from becoming bloated and inefficient. (Compare Medicare administrative costs to the administrative costs of the for-profit health insurance industry and you will realize just how dumb that statement is, or more likely you won't.) These are all benefits that private insurers deliver that a government insurer would not.

Liberals' argue that the 1.5% administrative portion of the total expenses points to better administration by government . . . that is false . . . it's only 1.5% because the total benefits paid out for similar services dwarfs that of the private insurers. (Nonsense, the government insures the sickest, oldest, largest users of medical services...The elderly. The for-profit side has the pool of the healthiest people in the market.) One distended figure allows for the distortion of another.

I've never worked for a health care insurer, and have never invested in one, yet I can very easily, very clearly reach this conclusion which should be self evident to all, but is not to those with eyes willfully turned from the truth, looking only toward their unsustainable, idealistic goal line.

You wear blinders to make sure that reality doesn't divert you from your idealistic course.


.

 

With all due respect toughcoins a consumer of healthcare services covered by insurance really cares little about value beyond whether the procedure/test is covered or not.

 

I wrote a post several weeks ago in a different thread which dealt with many of the myriad issues our health an insurance industries suffer from. I believe you differed with my opinion there as well.

Customers tend not to be very choosy about value only when they have no skin in the game. However, they'll certainly be particular when spending their hard-earned money on the coverage, given appropriate options to select from.

As for choosing medical services offering good value, the insurance industry could help a great deal by incentivising good choices, linking the benefits coverage to the cost and quality of care.

It's important that no care of any kind be free for anyone. Everyone must have a vested interest in making good decisions. Some may argue that a penniless street drunk cannot afford to pay anything at all. My response is that he'll certainly find a way to afford his next bottle. I'm not asking that the guy be required to pay the same amount as the DINKs living in SOHO and driving Beamers, but he must pay something. Anything coming out of his wallet makes him a more discerning consumer than he presently would be.

Similarly, no necessary treatment should go without some kind of coverage by the insurer.

As concerns unnecessary procedures I think there should be a completely different funding mechanism for elective procedures and followup care, separate from the insurance pool . . . out-of-pocket! Why in the world would someone voluntarily put their money into a pool from which someone else plans to pay for an unnecessary procedure?

What do I consider unnecessary? This will be unpopular, but I'll throw it out there anyway . . . Nose jobs, hair replacement, boob jobs, tummy tucks, lipo suction, gender reassignment, abortions after rape or where the mother's life is not in jeopardy, etc.

I look forward to thoughtful responses.

 

Your opinions demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of the issues you are trying to speak about. For some reason, not knowing a damn thing about the issues never stops you from bullshitting your way through the topic apparently without an iota of fact-based knowledge. You, like most Reich-wingers, believe your own opinions are facts because YOU believe them. How cute. Everyone else is just blind right? Of course.

Here is a dirty little secret you seem oblivious to. Credit card companies sell across state lines. How has that made credit cards cheaper? They simply move to the state with the least restrictions and screw the consumers from 3 states away. If only you would actually do a little research once in a while and stop spewing nonsense talking points.

 

Actually Joe, if you'd stop doing the spewing, and do your own research, you'd realize that I'd already described the need for health insurers to sell in all 50 states if they sell in one, thus eliminating the cherry-picking of their customer base . . . http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/congrats-to-the-democrats.50708/#post-266274

Congratulations Joe . . . your blinders work just fine.

 

Doubling down on stupidity is just twice as stupid.

 

I'll forgive you this once for doing that . . . just don't triple down.


.

 

It kind of feels like I'm back in grade school whenever I come to this place. I wonder why? Oh yeah!

 

I imagine this site reminds you of the days when shooting your mouth off deprived you of the opportunity to learn . . . some people are so busy talking that they just never listen.

 

Apparent you prefer large service fees and zero cash back.