The Evil Health Insurance Companies
By Johnny Roosh
…are not so evil after all.
The government recently advised that women don’t really need so many mammograms…that it takes 1900 of them to save one life.
Insurance companies’ reply?
Don’t worry. You’re covered…
Insurance companies contacted by USA TODAY say they will continue paying for annual mammograms amid widespread fears that new breast cancer screening guidelines from a federal task force could lead women to lose coverage for those tests.The guidelines – suggesting that most women under 50 don’t need routine mammograms and that women over 50 need them only every other year – were issued Monday night by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
…until the government takes over that is.
November 19th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Kermit:
“Anyone here doubt Rick would be just fine with the Government putting a meter on his butt to make sure he wasn’t eating too much?”
Maybe they could tax stupidity to keep you from talking too much.
November 19th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Rick,
Have you been measured for your chains yet? Or are you a candidate for the Politboro?
November 19th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
This AM I read an editorial in the paper that went on and on in the usual pro-obamacare way. The example, this time, was the Netherlands. They spent half as much as we did on healthcare, doctors made house calls, shots didn’t make toddlers cry, etc.
It occurred to me that the US spends far more money per student, k-12, than most other western nations. Yet our k-12 achievement scores are often abysmal compared to other nations that spend far less per student.
Where is the liberal outrage about this? There isn’t any. Because education in the US is already controlled by the government, there is no need to reform it no matter how cost ineffective it is, no matter how poorly the citizens regard its performance.
Obamacare is clearly about control, not ‘cost saving’ or ‘giving every American access health care’.
What’s the emoticon for an expression of disgust?
November 19th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Terry:
“the US spends far more money per student”
Not sure about that. Certainly not by the same factor as we do in healthcare.
“Where is the liberal outrage about this? There isn’t any.” You should talk to more liberals. Improving education is a constant topic of conversation.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
RickDFL
Regardless of the exact ratio by which we are overspending on education the comparison is apt. Why don’t you know the numbers? I bet you can quickly find out how much the US spends on health care vs any other country in the world.
I talk to liberals all the time. I live in the bluest of blue states. I have yet to hear any liberal say that we spend too much on public education.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Hey RatioRinkyDink! As usual you are a quarter short in the logic and comprehension department.
“There would be such people. After reform as now, they would be employees of private insurance companies.”
Don’t know if anyone pointed it out yet, but there will be no private insurance companies if this bill is passed. No private insurance company can afford to compete against the Big Government – they will all go out of business. There will be NO choice!
November 20th, 2009 at 11:07 am
“No private insurance company can afford to compete against the Big Government ”
Agreed, government is a far more efficent provider of health care. So in order to preserve ineffficient private insurance companies and defer to your ideaology, private insurance companies will be protected from full competition. The public option will only be available within the insurance exchange (and in states that do not opt out). Since most people (around 80%) won’t be eligible for the exchange, they won’t have the public option.
“they will all go out of business” Only in your delusional world.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Rick, either the government option will cover millions, as is claimed, or it will not. Which is it, now? You talking out of both sides of your mouth like Harry Reid again?
And exactly what part of “zero perceived cost” affecting supply and demand are you trying to address? It’s called a “law” for a reason, Rick. Add millions of people to the system with zero perceived cost, there will be fallout, and you can’t cite a study already done to disprove that.
Reality here is that Medicare is 8-10x higher in budget than planned, and that’s with the ugly fact that Medicare payment schedules are generally far lower than private insurers are paying. (if you wonder why we need more people in geriatrics, you can look at that graph of supply and demand again….) So to call the government an “efficient” provider of healthcare is simply to deny reality. It’s a bully there as elsewhere.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
bubbasan:
The public option can cover millions and still cover only a small portion of the US. If you can not understand that go back to middle school math. The public option in the House is projected to have 6 million enrollees out of 30 million people enrolled through the exchange.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/house-cbo/
So in a country of over 300 million, that is les than 10 % of the public in the exchange and 2% on the public option.
“And exactly what part of “zero perceived cost” affecting supply and demand are you trying to address?”
I am not, because it has very little affect on health care costs in the U.S. Would you get heart surgery just because it is free? Nor would either bill dramatically change the “perceived cost” of healthcare. Most people will still pay premiums, co-pays, and dedcutables.
“It’s called a “law” for a reason”. Actually it is not called a law.
“It’s a bully there as elsewhere.” No more than Wal-Mart. In a market, bulk buyers can demand a discount. But feel free to have Republicans proclaim that current U.S. healthcare prices are fair and rational.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Agreed, government is a far more efficent provider of health care.
RatioRinkyDink, did you forget your meds today? Name one, ONE thing government does efficiently! Medicare? Bust! TARP? Bust, Post Office? Bust! Cash for Clunkers? Bust! et cetera, ad nauseum…
Once again, you have no effing idea what you are talking about. Oh, I am sorry, you do – trying to defend the socialist takeover of USA, one piece of legislature at a time.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
JPA:
You are the one who said that private insurance could not compete.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Private insurers are at a disadvantage because they have to pay claims out of the premiums they collect and the investments they make from those premiums in anticipation of future losses; this money goes into something called “reserves” and is heavily regulated to limit the possiblity that an insurer goes out of business while owing huge claims. To succeed a company must accurately price the risk of those it insures, via underwriting. That’s why age, physical condition, smoking/non-smoking status and family history are such important factors when you buy a life or health policy. Make too many bad underwriting decisions and your profits and business go out the door. Play it conservatively and charge higher prices and the business doesn’t come in the door in the first place.
Under the current House and Senate proposals, private insurers “compete” with a public option that requires little or no evidence of insurability, against an option that bases its prices on a community rating of what’s “fair” instead of the measure of risk, all while they are required by state laws to offer certain mandated benefits. It’s very difficult for a private insurer to manage what becomes a higher risk claim portfolio and turn a profit under these conditions; any margin at all is likely to be razor thin and one bad claim year can take the company down. The public option doesn’t have this concern: if claims are too high the government doesn’t have to pay out of the reserves, it simply raises taxes (or the taxpayer is the “reserve”). Alternatively, it can start limiting the care or the types of treatments it provides. Or – wonder of wonders – it can do both raise taxes and reduce care!
The private insurers aren’t technically outlawed by the laws, they simply can’t profit in a rigged game. The capital leaves the market and once they drop out of the game there’s only the government alternative. If you have a quibble with a private insurer, sue them. Make a stink. Stir up the marketplace and other insurers will move in to lure your business. Have a denial of service issue with your government when there’s no competitive alternative and you’re SOL. And good luck suing them, too.
Sure, you and the government can stand there with a straight face as you saw the tree branch out from under the insurance companies and say, “Well, we never told them to jump.” It will be the “truth,” but it won’t be accurate.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
You are the one who said that private insurance could not compete.
Well, DUH! But not because they are “inefficient”. That came from your drug-addled socialist imagination. When you can’t make money, you go out of business, unless you are government, of course. You do realize, RatioRinkyDink, that private business cannot exist unless they make profit. No, do not think your socialist mentality can grasp the “for profit” concept.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Um, Rick, yes, supply and demand is a law, not merely a theory or a hypothesis. To wit:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp
And yes, when government is paying half of healthcare costs through Medicare and Medicaid, and would pay a significant portion of others through Pelosi-Reid-Blagojevich-Care, you can bet that yes, there would be MAJOR effects in the market. You don’t add a huge number of customers not paying their own way without distorting markets. And yes, even 2% is huge, especially as no serious analyst believes that businesses would not, given the incentives, shift coverage to the government plan.
For an object lesson in this, look up the history of a little government program called “Medicare” that’s actuarially set to bankrupt the whole country. It used to be one of those “it only costs a little” programs, but no longer. Unfunded liabilities for Medicare are in the tens of trillions of dollars.
Again, if we become “civilized” in your eyes and never see our own medical bills, you can bet that we will either have heavy rationing or huge shortages in supply. For an object lesson in this, take a look at the supply of affordable apartments in rent controlled cities like New York, Berkeley, and San Francisco. Or read Thomas Sowell, Frederick Bastiat, or Henry Hazlitt.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:51 am
[…] More: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » The Evil Health Insurance Companies | Health Insurance […]
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
RickDFL said:
“Agreed, government is a far more efficent provider of health care.”
Stupid quote of the week?
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
Nightwriter:
“The public option doesn’t have this concern: if claims are too high the government doesn’t have to pay out of the reserves, it simply raises taxes (or the taxpayer is the “reserve”).”
You are exactly wrong. The public option will be required to pay all claims from it’s collected premiums. I will not be able to make up shortfalls from general tax revenue. Both it and private insurers will operate under exactly the same rules.
Buubasan:
The law of supply and demand is a far different thing than your law of zero perceived cost whatever that is. If you think the law of supply and demand means that if someone offered free heart surgery all of us would line up to have one, you are just intensely stupid.
“when government is paying half of healthcare costs” Then very little will change after the passage of the bills. That proportion will remain about what it was.
“You don’t add a huge number of customers not paying their own way without distorting markets. ” The people added will be paying their way in very much the same way as the current population of payers.
Medicare’s problems derive from an aging population and general medical inflation, not from its status as a goverment program. If the same population were on private insurance, then private insurers would have exactly the same problem.
“For an object lesson in this, take a look at the supply of affordable apartments in rent controlled cities like New York, Berkeley, and San Francisco.” Why? No one is talking about setting a legal price control on a good/service sold by a private vendor. Government will not even have a significantly larger share of the market or use that power in dramatically new ways. Your ignorance of what is actually in the bills is just astonishing.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
RinkyDinkDFL, the tin-man needed heart surgery. And speaking of strawmen, you could use a brain as well. Your ignorance is beyond astonishing.