What I also find interesting – he is in Green Bay – where he has already stated “you folks have the lowest cost healthcare, with the best results”. 2 things come to mind: why is he speaking to people who are proof the current system works and why is he speaking to people who already are on “his side?”…

It wouldn’t be political pandering, would it???

Physician salaries have steadily declined over a decade.

http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-social-assistance/3892062-1.html

It is pathetic how ignorant this fool is.

I’m all for the government regulating health insurers because up until now, most efforts at healthcare cost containment have been to squeeze reimbursements to the people who are actually providing healthcare while the paper pushers have enjoyed stable and increasing profit margins while not doing anything to add value to patient healthcare.

polmom on June 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Boy, you’ve got all the propaganda down.

First off, there is a difference between healthcare and managed healthcare. The paper pushing and cost monitoring is an essential part of the process.

Secondly, you make an awful lot of claims about increasing profit margins for health insurers while the providers have been hit with lower fees. Got any data to back up that claim? It smells an awful lot like the same old leftist crap that wants us all to be under socialized medicine.

Finally, how do you want to pay for this largess? Like any business, health insurers will not continue if they are not able to make a profit. That might be good for you and your commie friends who want the state to take over completely but it is unsound if you want capitalism and the free market to be the basis of the economy.

highhopes on June 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM

You’ve totally misinterpreted my post. I am against Obamacare but I support government regulation of health insurers’ administration and profits. Health insurers are the “middleman” who do not provide actual healthcare yet, skim profits from those who do provide actual healthcare. Health insurers have shifted from being insurance providers to being gatekeepers of medical care. If health insurers were to fall off the face of the earth, it would not impact our ability to receive healthcare, after all, health insurers are merely paper pushers and billing administrators. It is the doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers who tend our health problems–not health insurers.

This is why I believe healthcare reform should focus on returning to health insurance versus prepaid healthcare. This would empower consumers to purchase most of their healthcare from providers instead of having insurance companies do it for them. We would pay for our routine healthcare needs out of pocket up to whatever maximum out of pocket a consumer decides upon while having health insurance to cover serious illness.

Physician salaries have steadily declined over a decade. http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-social-assistance/3892062-1.html
while profits for health insurers have soared: http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf

I believe healthcare reform needs to include free market remedies that empower healthcare providers and patients–not insurance companies. Insurers are not even subject to anti-trust laws (while doctors are) and have steadily evolved into monopolies. I also believe that health insurers are not to be trusted as ethical advocates for patient healthcare. After all, government mandates for health insurance purchase will benefit insurance companies revenues as will government mandated rationing disguised as “comparative effectiveness”. Insurance companies would love nothing more than to not have to pay for expensive medical treatments and have already essentially adopted Medicare’s payment policies. This is why I believe that our healthcare system costs and efficiency would greatly improve if we reverted to health insurance as it was intended to be which would give consumers greater control of their healthcare dollars and providers more incentive to provide affordable healthcare.

I’m all for the government regulating health insurers because up until now, most efforts at healthcare cost containment have been to squeeze reimbursements to the people who are actually providing healthcare while the paper pushers have enjoyed stable and increasing profit margins while not doing anything to add value to patient healthcare.

polmom on June 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Prove it. Prove that my job doesn’t keep costs down. Prove that my monitoring MD’s for fraud doesn’t keep costs down. Prove that my job making sure doctors don’t overcharge for their services doesn’t keep costs down. Prove that my job making sure hospitals don’t charge for every little needle and syringe used on you doesn’t keep charges down. Prove that my job making sure doctors don’t double charge for their work doesn’t keep costs down.

So many people talk big about insurance companies and know sh*tall about them. Bring it on, buttercup. I’ve worked for Medicare and insurance and I can guaran-bloody-tee you that you want insurance companies more than you want Medicare.

I’m all for the government regulating health insurers because up until now, most efforts at healthcare cost containment have been to squeeze reimbursements to the people who are actually providing healthcare while the paper pushers have enjoyed stable and increasing profit margins while not doing anything to add value to patient healthcare.

polmom on June 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Boy, you’ve got all the propaganda down.

First off, there is a difference between healthcare and managed healthcare. The paper pushing and cost monitoring is an essential part of the process.

Secondly, you make an awful lot of claims about increasing profit margins for health insurers while the providers have been hit with lower fees. Got any data to back up that claim? It smells an awful lot like the same old leftist crap that wants us all to be under socialized medicine.

Finally, how do you want to pay for this largess? Like any business, health insurers will not continue if they are not able to make a profit. That might be good for you and your commie friends who want the state to take over completely but it is unsound if you want capitalism and the free market to be the basis of the economy.

They cannot force us doctors to work

I moved to Texas from Canada in 1977 to avoid single-payer care. I quit seeing regular Medicare 20 years ago.

The most cost effective care is the Primary Care model with each person having a family doctor to coordinate care. Due to the low pay of family docs, most new graduates go into a sub-specialty, so now about 50% of all family doctors are in their 50s or older.

If the Obamacare becomes too ridiculous with low pay, penalties, potential jail time etc. We will all just quit medicine and retire.

Then, the waiting lists will begin in earnest.

polmom on June 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM

The best solution to persistent above-normal returns, if this is in fact true, is market entry.

Mr Snuggle Bunny on June 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM

I used to teach Industrial Organization, and your post about price-fixing reminded me of an old Soviet joke we sometimes used to tell. Three prisoners were having a chat in the Gulag. Conversation turned to why they had been imprisoned.

The first prisoner said “I always came to work late, and I was thrown in jail for stealing labor from the State.”

The second said, “I always came to work early, and I was denounced by my peers for currying favor with the plant manager.”

The third said, “I always came to work on time, and I was accused of owning a Western wristwatch.”

Health insurers do not provide healthcare–they are no more than paper pushers and while they might do a good job of monitoring data and costs, they do so on the backs of healthcare providers whose administrative costs have skyrocketed while those of health insurers have become more and more streamlined as they have perfected their processes.

I’m all for the government regulating health insurers because up until now, most efforts at healthcare cost containment have been to squeeze reimbursements to the people who are actually providing healthcare while the paper pushers have enjoyed stable and increasing profit margins while not doing anything to add value to patient healthcare.

§2704(b)(1) then tells the Secretary to look at how much other health plans spent on “all other non-claims costs,” and based on that survey, set an allowable percentage for this category. Plans are then required to rebate premiums if they go above this amount. This is direct (but confusing) regulation of premiums and profit margins.

It does worse than penalize the more efficient. After a number of years industry lay-outs and profits will reach an equilibrium. Once that happens HHS would be hard-pressed to show one provider profitting over another. With no bogey men to fight all it will take from there is the latest round of manufactured outrage to claim “price-fixing” and the government will have the legal framework it needs to complete its absolute control over the entire industry.

Never allow a good crisis to go to waste…even if you have to fabricate it yourself.

If they’re limited to funding the public option solely through premia and copayments, it’s going to bounce around a little initially (unless they anchor it to large existing pools like Medicare/Medicaid). My prediction is that it’ll move around enough that they unlink the premia from actual plan costs for the sake of “stability.” And then they’ll start subsidizing.

That language on rebates is pretty astonishing. I can see requiring data on revenue allocation to be published so people can compare it across plans, but potentially mandating rebates is too much — and I say this as someone who supports a solution based on having many competitive nonprofit insurers.

THOUGHT That it was obvious.

BPD on June 11, 2009 at 10:28 AM

fifm

Enough to cancel out the million aborted babies a year?

Doubt it.

Steve Z on June 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Eh… those numbers won’t be calculated, much like the nearly 2 million jobs lost since Jan 20. Hopenchange!

BPD:
You forgot the sarc// tag.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 11, 2009 at 10:17 AM

That it was obvious.