Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since 2012 GDP was 15.6 trillion dollars and health care costs were 2.7 trillion dollars, if there was NO lowering of costs then the VAT would need to be about 17%. But a single payer system would knock out a tremendous amount administrative costs--by some estimates as much as 20%, which would lower the overall health care costs to just over 2.1 trillion. I do not think that would be an immediate change, but would come about over about 2-3 years. And guess what, you aren't calculating that the costs of goods and services would be LESS if businesses no longer had to pay for employee insurance. Failure to lower the cost of their goods and services might, with the added VAT, leave them uncompetitive in the marketplace. In addition, the power to negotiate prices for pharmaceutical products and some procedures would also lower prices.
But since you SUPPORT our current health care system, I suppose that you SUPPORT the fact that Congress has legislated AGAINST Medicare negotiating prices for drugs for seniors. So pharmaceutical companies are not leveraged to price their products competitively as they are in other nations which sell the same drugs made right here from 30% to 60% lower than what the same drug is sold for here.
To me that is boneheaded, but then that's how some of us get as we age.
I am not currently in favor of the health care system as a whole. Nor am I against it. I'm agnostic. I *am* in favor of the current Medicare system. Not only does it work pretty well (although far from perfectly) for me and my husband - it seems to work pretty well for a lot of people here and elsewhere (some of whom are buying very different "flavors" of Medicare than I am). OTOH - I realize the total folly of "Medicare for everyone" - because *someone* has to pay all the subsidies Medicare beneficiaries receive. If everyone gets Medicare - who's left to pay the subsidies (unless we just turn on the money printing presses and keep them running 24/7)?
FWIW - although I'm reserving judgment until I see the data a couple of years down the road - I think that all the ACA will do is shift an increasing amount of health care costs onto the shoulders of relatively healthy - relatively middle-aged - relatively middle-income people - because they're going to have to pay for sicker - older - poorer people. That's on top of the Medicare/Medicaid costs these people are shouldering already. People are just starting to realize this - and they're squealing like stuck pigs - even in the Daily Kos! Anyway - we'll see what happens as the data starts to roll in.
As for Medicare negotiating with drug companies (note that we're not really talking about "negotiations" - we're talking about price/access controls)...
From my perspective - it's like that old joke - "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you". Medicare/the federal government has gotten involved with the drugs I take. First - one was removed from the Medicare formulary altogether. Then the government forced generic makers of another drug I take out of the market - which turned a 5 cent pill into a $5 pill. Then - the government issued warnings on a third that caused it to be moved from Tier 3 to Tier 4. To discourage people from taking it. OTOH - except for these 3 drugs - all the drugs my husband and I take are cheap generics. Which companies sell freely to us for peanuts - without the government getting involved at all.
Of course - Medicare apparently is doing a great job when it comes to cancer drugs (which - luckily - no one in my family needs):
If you have a particular drug in mind where you think the government can help - let me know. All the government has done with my drugs is make them more expensive for me. Robyn
When I first discovered how much my healthcare is going to run me I was very upset. But then I found out that because of this new law businesses like the one I work for will be doing MASSIVE Layoffs so I will probably be one of the workers who gets kicked to the curb.
This will also mean those few left working will have to work even harder because now they will need to support my work along with paying my healthcare and the other once working people along with foodstamps, section8, Obama phone, and whatever comes down the pipe.
Yep, I am sure glad not to be one of dose Workin Folk, dats really gunna really suk fo dem. (need to practice on the lingo if I plan to go ghetto)
I'll just kick back with some malt liqour and watch HSN, CW, MSNBC and all those other idiot channels and freeload off all you workin folk that support the Gumment.
I am not currently in favor of the health care system as a whole. Nor am I against it. I'm agnostic. I *am* in favor of the current Medicare system. Not only does it work pretty well (although far from perfectly) for me and my husband - it seems to work pretty well for a lot of people here and elsewhere (some of whom are buying very different "flavors" of Medicare than I am). OTOH - I realize the total folly of "Medicare for everyone" - because *someone* has to pay all the subsidies Medicare beneficiaries receive. If everyone gets Medicare - who's left to pay the subsidies (unless we just turn on the money printing presses and keep them running 24/7)?
FWIW - although I'm reserving judgment until I see the data a couple of years down the road - I think that all the ACA will do is shift an increasing amount of health care costs onto the shoulders of relatively healthy - relatively middle-aged - relatively middle-income people - because they're going to have to pay for sicker - older - poorer people. That's on top of the Medicare/Medicaid costs these people are shouldering already. People are just starting to realize this - and they're squealing like stuck pigs - even in the Daily Kos! Anyway - we'll see what happens as the data starts to roll in.
As for Medicare negotiating with drug companies (note that we're not really talking about "negotiations" - we're talking about price/access controls)...
From my perspective - it's like that old joke - "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you". Medicare/the federal government has gotten involved with the drugs I take. First - one was removed from the Medicare formulary altogether. Then the government forced generic makers of another drug I take out of the market - which turned a 5 cent pill into a $5 pill. Then - the government issued warnings on a third that caused it to be moved from Tier 3 to Tier 4. To discourage people from taking it. OTOH - except for these 3 drugs - all the drugs my husband and I take are cheap generics. Which companies sell freely to us for peanuts - without the government getting involved at all.
Of course - Medicare apparently is doing a great job when it comes to cancer drugs (which - luckily - no one in my family needs):
If you have a particular drug in mind where you think the government can help - let me know. All the government has done with my drugs is make them more expensive for me. Robyn
Try reviewing the price of drugs by the Veterans Administration hospital. They are lower than those that medicare patients pay BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE COSTS. Seems like at least our vets are getting a better deal.
Oh, I'm sure you'll say that VA hospitals are terrible, but do a little google research. The Rand Corporation says they have a higher satisfaction rate than medicare AND most private insurance companies. And better "outcomes" too, which you say can't be measured. Older Vets, not just the recently wounded, have been returning in droves to the VA in recent years, so much so that the VA has limited access to their facilities (no funding increases, of course), so that it is questionable that a Viet Vet such as myself can even enter the system.
Try reviewing the price of drugs by the Veterans Administration hospital. They are lower than those that medicare patients pay BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE COSTS. Seems like at least our vets are getting a better deal.
Oh, I'm sure you'll say that VA hospitals are terrible, but do a little google research. The Rand Corporation says they have a higher satisfaction rate than medicare AND most private insurance companies. And better "outcomes" too, which you say can't be measured. Older Vets, not just the recently wounded, have been returning in droves to the VA in recent years, so much so that the VA has limited access to their facilities (no funding increases, of course), so that it is questionable that a Viet Vet such as myself can even enter the system.
Geez, and it's government run!!
IF that's true (Which I highly doubt!) It speaks to how pathetic those other organizations are... not how good the VA is!
(Speaking as a Current user of the VA... I flat out don't believe it.)
When I first discovered how much my healthcare is going to run me I was very upset. But then I found out that because of this new law businesses like the one I work for will be doing MASSIVE Layoffs so I will probably be one of the workers who gets kicked to the curb.
This will also mean those few left working will have to work even harder because now they will need to support my work along with paying my healthcare and the other once working people along with foodstamps, section8, Obama phone, and whatever comes down the pipe.
Yep, I am sure glad not to be one of dose Workin Folk, dats really gunna really suk fo dem. (need to practice on the lingo if I plan to go ghetto)
I'll just kick back with some malt liqour and watch HSN, CW, MSNBC and all those other idiot channels and freeload off all you workin folk that support the Gumment.
IF that's true (Which I highly doubt!) It speaks to how pathetic those other organizations are... not how good the VA is!
(Speaking as a Current user of the VA... I flat out don't believe it.)
Well, would you believe the survey of veterans using it?
Quote:
In 1994, the VA brought in Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer, as the VA’s Undersecretary of Health. During the next 5 years, massive changes were made with an emphasis being on customer service and value. To get away from the VA Hospital providing all medical care, Dr. Kiser initiated the set up hundreds of outpatient clinics. He also got rid of nearly autonomous hospitals, by setting up 22 regional networks, with budgetary limits, and forced them to compete amongst each other. If the Hospital did not fare well, it closed or was combined with another hospital.
During the late 1990′s, the VA became one of the first health care systems to store medical records electronically. Today, the VA has the largest and one of the most modern systems in the world. A doctor at his desk can pull up patient records, x-rays, lab tests and chart notes. Prescriptions are entered in where they are automatically checked against drugs the patient is already taking. If there is a conflict between the two drugs, the doctor is notified to avoid problems. Also, because of the electronic storage, 62,000 New Orleans VA patient’s records were saved during Hurricane Katrina.
It is stunning and amazing the turn around the Veteran Health Care has made since in the last 15 years. In 2005, the private National Committee for Quality Assurance which ranks medical care facilities in 17 areas, said that VA Hospitals were outperforming public and private hospitals in every category. An American Legion survey of 60 VA facilities rate VA care as outstanding.
A 2006 survey of customer satisfaction of both the federal and private sectors, gave VA inpatient care a rating of 83 out of a 100 point scale. For outpatient care the score was 80. This is compared to 73 for inpatient and 75 for out patient from those surveyed using the private-sector health care. This was the sixth year in a row that the VA health system scored higher than the private sector.
Or would you believe the government's 2010 survey which compared results with private hospitals that reported to HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set). Look on page 16 for VA results compared to private hospitals.
How about individuals using or working in the system?
Quote:
I am proud to say I Have worked in veterans administration 22 yrs now .I started at the amarillo hospital. I know for a fact we provide excellent care not only in the in -patient side but in out-patinet area as well.I would never go back to working in the private sector for many reasons. The Va hospitals have caring trained staff that I would gladly put up against any private hosptial any day any time --Skullmom
Three cheers for the doctors and staff at Thomas Creek Veterans Administration hospital. After just coming out after 10 days in ICU, I cannot say enough good things about them. I believe that most of the staff serving our vets are working at more than just a job. Our Panhandle veterans have a place to be proud of.
Ed Ramaeker
I often hear veterans complaining about the VA health care system. I personally don’t understand their attitude. As a veteran of World War Two, I can truthfully report I have had the best health care available. If veterans don’t believe that, I don’t think they haven’t fully investigated the Veteran Hospitals in our nation.---Emma Wiley
Or from the non-profit Rand Corporation, a study reveals excellence in VA health care?
Quote:
By almost every measure, the VA is recognized as delivering consistently high-quality care to its patients.
Among the evidence Reinhardt cites is an "eye-opening" (his words) 2004 RAND study from in the Annals of Internal Medicine that examined the quality of VA care, comparing the medical records of VA patients with a national sample and evaluating how effectively health care is delivered to each group (see a summary of that study).
RAND's study, led by Dr. Steven Asch, found that the VA system delivered higher-quality care than the national sample of private hospitals on all measures except acute care (on which the two samples performed comparably). In nearly every other respect, VA patients received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment, and access to follow-up.
Asch and his team also found that VA patients were more likely to receive recommended care than patients in the national sample. VA patients received about two-thirds of the care recommended by national standards, compared with about half in the national sample. Among chronic care patients, VA patients received about 70 percent of recommended care, compared with about 60 percent in the national sample. For preventive care, the difference was greater: VA patients received 65 percent of recommended care, while patients in the national sample received recommended preventive care roughly 45 percent of the time.
Other studies have generated similar findings. In 2010, an interdisciplinary team of researchers published a systematic review of prior research that compared the quality of surgical care provided by the VA with that provided by relevant non-VA hospitals and healthcare systems. Based on the available evidence, the authors determined that VA and non-VA settings generally provided comparable surgical care and achieved similar outcomes. What differences the team did find favored VA care in 3 instances and non-VA care in 5. In 15 comparisons, care was not different.
The following year, this team published a second systematic review, this time focusing on how well VA and non-VA facilities deliver medical and non-surgical care. After examining 36 high-quality studies, the team concluded that the VA almost always came out on top when the study examined how well health systems follow recommended processes of care. When the study compared mortality rates, VA and non-VA facilities generally achieved similar outcomes.
Try reviewing the price of drugs by the Veterans Administration hospital. They are lower than those that medicare patients pay BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE COSTS. Seems like at least our vets are getting a better deal.
Oh, I'm sure you'll say that VA hospitals are terrible, but do a little google research. The Rand Corporation says they have a higher satisfaction rate than medicare AND most private insurance companies. And better "outcomes" too, which you say can't be measured. Older Vets, not just the recently wounded, have been returning in droves to the VA in recent years, so much so that the VA has limited access to their facilities (no funding increases, of course), so that it is questionable that a Viet Vet such as myself can even enter the system.
Geez, and it's government run!!
My 95 year old father (WWII vet) has VA benefits. Perhaps the VA charges $1 for a $3 generic - but it didn't cover his 1 expensive brand name drug at all (and there's no generic substitute). So he got the best deal he could get in terms of a Medicare Part D policy.
Have you ever had any personal/family experience buying any expensive brand name drug through the VA? If not - stop being a political mouthpiece. I am - perhaps because I'm a woman - a very practical person in terms of dollars and cents. I don't give a hoot about politics except perhaps on a very abstract level - I care a lot more about managing personal family finances (I handle both mine and my husband's - and my father's too - my late FIL's before he died as well).
Note that I think the VA is what it is. Better health care in some geographical areas - worse in others. Better physical plants in some geographical areas - worse in others.
Where we live - I don't care how good the VA facility is in terms of health care. It's in the middle of a bad slum area where neither me (66) nor my 95 year old father should ever set foot unless absolutely 100% necessary. YMMV in terms of your local facility. Which is...? Mayo JAX is much safer in terms of where it's located - and a much more agreeable place. When my father first moved here near us about 6 years ago after my mother died - he wanted to get care at the VA (he's rich - but he's cheap - Depression generation and all that). And I said - good knowing you - I won't be joining you - and be sure to pack your "heat" when you go there .
Now - he's in the Mayo concierge system with us - and everything is . He loves everything about his health care and his primary care doc there (especially the time his primary care doc takes with him during appointments). It's great on my end too. One of my brothers is a doctor in California - and my Dad's PCP at Mayo exchanges emails/phone calls with my brother in California when there are any problems - my doctor brother is better equipped to deal with these things than I am (of course - if there's an emergency - I'm first in line to deal with that because I'm the closest physically). Robyn
My 95 year old father (WWII vet) has VA benefits. Perhaps the VA charges $1 for a $3 generic - but it didn't cover his 1 expensive brand name drug at all (and there's no generic substitute). So he got the best deal he could get in terms of a Medicare Part D policy.
Have you ever had any personal/family experience buying any expensive brand name drug through the VA? If not - stop being a political mouthpiece. I am - perhaps because I'm a woman - a very practical person in terms of dollars and cents. I don't give a hoot about politics except perhaps on a very abstract level - I care a lot more about managing personal family finances (I handle both mine and my husband's - and my father's too - my late FIL's before he died as well).
Note that I think the VA is what it is. Better health care in some geographical areas - worse in others. Better physical plants in some geographical areas - worse in others.
Where we live - I don't care how good the VA facility is in terms of health care. It's in the middle of a slum area where neither me (66) nor my 95 year old father should ever set foot unless absolutely 100% necessary. Mayo JAX is much safer in terms of where it's located - and a much more agreeable place. When my father first moved here near us about 6 years ago after my mother died - he wanted to get care at the VA (he's rich - but he's cheap - Depression generation and all that). And I said - good knowing you - I won't be joining you - and be sure to pack your "heat" when you go there .
Now - he's in the Mayo concierge system with us - and everything is . He loves everything about his health care and his primary care doc there (especially the time his primary care doc takes with him during appointments). It's great on my end too. One of my brothers is a doctor in California - and my Dad's PCP at Mayo exchanges emails/phone calls with my brother in California when there are any problems - my doctor brother is better equipped to deal with these things than I am (of course - if there's an emergency - I'm first in line to deal with that because I'm the closest physically). Robyn
But Robyn, you consistently speak of controlling costs. Controlling costs will involve controlling costs of drugs also. In some cases not accepting them if they are priced too high.
Quote:
In 2007, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report (PDF) that concluded that the VA is doing a much better job of controlling health care costs than the private sector. After adjusting for a changing case mix as younger veterans return from Iraq and Afghanistan, the CBO calculated that the VA's average health care cost per enrollee grew by roughly 1.7% from 1999 to 2005, an annual growth rate of 0.3%. During the same time period, Medicare's per capita costs grew by 29.4 %, an annual growth rate of 4.4 %. In the private insurance market, premiums for family coverage jumped by more than 70% (PDF), according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Every health system has its faults, and the VA is no exception. In recent years, it has been challenged by severe budgetary constraints and a surge in demand, as large numbers of injured and ill veterans return from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its Vietnam-era veterans are aging rapidly and the agency must contend with growing case complexity. When a system as big as the VA falls short, anecdotes about shortcomings get more play than reams of data.
Now if your main concern is that you just don't want to rub shoulders with all those poor, disadvantaged folks, then keeping your high cost health care in glorified surroundings is important to you.
But it has NOTHING to do with controlling costs.
If, as a Viet Vet, I could get accepted into the VA system, I'd go in a heartbeat. But with massive numbers of injured returning from the longest idiotic war we've ever fought (thank God we got those Weapons of Mass Destruction), and very little budgetary help by a Congress that praises our "heroes," the VA has found it necessary to begin limiting its services which used to be wide open to any veteran. But, fortunately, I did not receive a service related injury or wound, and even on social security my income will remain above what the VA will now accept.
But Robyn, you consistently speak of controlling costs. Controlling costs will involve controlling costs of drugs also. In some cases not accepting them if they are priced too high.
The price of drugs is not the primary driver of health care costs in the US. Drugs are a facet of Technology, and Technology is the primary driver of health care costs in the US and has been since 1936.
As an "actuary" you should know that, even more so since you have never been able to refute these facts....
1] Technology up to 65%
2] Consumer Demand up to 36%
3] Expanding Health Benefits or Insuring more people up to 13%
4] Healthcare Price Inflation up to 19% (caused by Consumer Demand and insuring more people)
5] Administrative Costs up to 13% (caused by Technology, Consumer Demand and Regulations)
6] Aging/Elderly up to 7%
Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013 pp 31-36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
And how serious is it? According to this interview with Credit.com's Gerri Detweiler, the Federal Reserve reports that half of all collection accounts on credit reports are from medical bills.
Where is the original report made by the Federal Reserve?
What is the definition of "medical bill?"
What was the methodology used?
If you know anything about credit reports --- and I happen to know a lot --- there is no distinction between debt types.
In other words, a collection trade-line on a credit report does not distinguish between an old cell-phone bill and a medical collection.
That would be a violation of HIPPA.
There is at least one collection agency that is also a junk debt buyer and it happens to specialize in medical collections, due to the fact that it also offers 3rd Party Medical Billing Services...
...that would be NCO headquartered in Pennsylvania (the city escapes me at the moment).
However, just because someone has an NCO collection trade-line on their credit report, it does not logically follow that it is a medical debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Now apply to health insurance. The only way to make sure everyone, legal or illegal, rich or poor, employed or unemployed, drawing a paycheck or collecting welfare, has skin in the game, is to enforce it through a value added tax on all goods and services. There would no longer be a cost for health insurance, a basic plan could be provided with whatever "essential" services were deemed best.
You claim to be an actuary, show us the numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Guess who opposes such a system? The health insurance companies and their buddies in Congress.
Where is your source to back up your claim?
You're an "actuary" so you should have access to lots of primary sources, instead of tertiary and quaternary sources from "media."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Since 2012 GDP was 15.6 trillion dollars and health care costs were 2.7 trillion dollars, if there was NO lowering of costs then the VAT would need to be about 17%.
And what effect would that have on the Economy?
Don't you claim to be an "actuary?"
Funny how Liberals hate VAT and claim them to be "repressive economically," but make an exception here. I lived, worked, traveled and vacationed in States that have a VAT. Food is not taxed. In fact, the entire food chain is exempted from the tax, meaning the farmer doesn't pay the VAT on the seed he buys to sow.
Legal services, housing, and medical are also exempted from taxation.
Some States also target selected items, for example in Britain where items for infants through toddlers are exempted, meaning there's no VAT on clothing, safety equipment such as car seats, and other items specifically for infants/toddlers.
The point......once you exempt those things which are traditionally exempted in all States that use a VAT, you're going to need a VAT higher than 17%.
How will that play out with the FICA/SECA tax rates?
You don't have a choice...if you want to keep Social Security as you know and love it, then you're going to have to increase the FICA payroll tax to somewhere between 9.0% and 9.2% on or before January 1, 2017.
It will need to be raised to about 16.0% 16.4% sometime before 2025-2030, or there won't be a Social Security.
How many job losses is this 17% VAT going to cause?
I'm just asking, since an increase in the FICA payroll tax will cause lost jobs as well (and so would an increase in the federal minimum wage in some of the 1,539 separately functioning economies in the US).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
But a single payer system would knock out a tremendous amount administrative costs--by some estimates as much as 20%, which would lower the overall health care costs to just over 2.1 trillion.
Do you have a neutral source to support your claim? Something from a governmental agency, perhaps?
Before you start ranting about admin costs, I'm sure you won't resort to deception or deceit by foisting the administrative costs of Medicare on forum members here....unless, of course, you also include certain administrative costs from the US Treasury.
Right?
Who administers the HI (Medicare) Trust Fund, and the SMA Trust Funds (Medicare Part B & Part D)?
Why that would be the US Treasury, and not Medicare.
So, it's very disingenuous and deceitful to report the administrative costs for Medicare, without also including administrative costs from other government agencies in support of Medicare.
A variety of activities are funded through VHA’s three appropriations accounts for medical care:
• The Medical Services account includes funds for health care services provided to eligible veterans and beneficiaries in VA’s medical centers, outpatient clinic facilities, contract hospitals, state homes, and outpatient programs on a fee basis. For fiscal year 2012, VA received more than $39.6 billion in the Medical Services account.
• The Medical Support and Compliance account includes funds for the management and administration of the VA health care system, including financial management, human resources, and logistics. For fiscal year 2012, VA received more than $5.5 billion in the Medical Support and Compliance account.
• The Medical Facilities account includes funds for the operation and maintenance of the VA health care system’s capital infrastructure, such as costs associated with nonrecurring maintenance, utilities, facility repair, laundry services, and grounds keeping. For fiscal year 2012, VA received more than $5.4 billion in the Medical Facilities account.
From GAO-12-908....
However, in at least one instance, the amount of administrative and facilities costs not shown was about 31 percent—a total of $1.05 billion—of the program’s cost.
....and that was in reference to...
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) creates its budget request through its Enrollee Health Care Projection Model (EHCPM) using data from systems designed for the former single-account structure.
Source: http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648482.pdf
I think you were on a rant about the VA Healthcare System?
Being an "actuary" can you tell us if 31% Administrative Costs is greater than, or less than 20%?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
But since you SUPPORT our current health care system,...
George "W" is that you?
Refusing to knuckle under to the stupidity and support the ACA does not make one a supporter of the current health care system.
That would be a fallacy known as a "non-sequitur."
Right?
The fact that I refuse to shoot myself in the head does not logically prove that I want to slit my own throat (and then be eaten by rats).
Sourcing....
However, ACTUARIALLY, when the low cost people are brought BACK into the pool (all those healthy young people 20-39), the costs can be spread reasonably.
Since you adamantly refuse to cite a bona fide legitimate source in support of your ridiculous unfounded claim, I will provide a source to prove mine.
DEFINITIONS
Pooling is a risk-management process under which similar actuarial risks are combined.
The definition of pooling does not imply that it will always be beneficial.
Source: PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING ACTUARIAL SCIENCE Mark Allaben, Christopher Diamantoukos, Arnold Dicke, Sam Gutterman, Stuart Klugman, Richard Lord, Warren Luckner, Robert Miccolis, Joseph Tan Copyright 2008 by the Society of Actuaries.
4.2 PRINCIPLE (Pooling). If the actuarial risk associated with a risk classification system displays statistical regularity, it is possible to combine risk classes so as to ensure that there is an actuarial model associated with the new set of risk classes that is valid within a specified degree of accuracy DISCUSSION. It is clear from Principle 4.2 that there is a trade-off between pooling and homogeneity in insurance systems. Moreover, increased homogeneity generally leads to increased cost of information. . . .The ability to make such temporary distinctions (based on current health status, etc.) is useful, because it decreases the degree of uncertainty regarding current status and allows insureds to be charged more appropriate initial considerations. Thus, the knowledge that all members of a class had
normal blood pressure on a certain day might allow that class to be offered lower considerations for life and health insurance.
Source: TRANSACTIONS OF SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES, Vol XLIV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
First, my claim was that I worked as an actuary, not that I AM an actuary.
In a weak attempt to deceitfully mislead people using the Fallacy of Authority.
If you do not understand Actuarial Science, then you are not an actuary, nor did you work as an actuary. In reality, you were probably a data-entry operator.
Well, no wait a minute....
12-29-2012, 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
If we want to talk about insurance, I do have significant, if old, experience. I served in the insurance field for over 30 years as an underwriter, ratemaker, and compliance officer. I served three years on the Board of Directors of the Association of Insurance Compliance Professionals, two of those as the elected Treasurer of AICP.
Would you please make up your mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
You're basically angry because I called you out for owning a significant amount of stock in health care providers that are ripping off the American people--and you never denied it.
That's amusing.....
12-28-2012, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Your idea is to make it even worse. Do you own stock in for profit hospitals? In other areas of healthcare? Because that is the only way profit in healthcare makes sense.
12-29-2012, 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Did you fail to answer my question about how much stock you have in the healthcare/pharmaceutical industry?
12-30-2012, 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
You can continue to smoke that pipe if you want, but I believe you must have a significant amount of stock in for profit hospitals or in pharmaceuticals, so that you have a vested interest in the for profit system.
01-20-2013, 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I don’t own any stocks at all.
For the record, I would never buy stocks…
09-16-2008, 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
He is a "nutjob." Who cares about the stock-market?
The colonies and the US did just fine without a stock-market for 300 years.
Stock-markets aren't necessary. All forms of business have dozens of ways to raise capital. Publicly traded corporations have all of those dozens of ways to raise capital, plus one additional method of raising capital (the sale of stocks) that other forms of business don't have.
All markets inevitably crash and stocks are long-term investments, not short-term (unless your sole source of income is from stock sales).
No stock market crash has ever caused a recession or depression and recessions and depressions occur with or without stock markets.
Please note the date of that post.
I don’t believe in stocks, so I don’t own them.
I answered your question.
You were running Liberal Smear Campaign version 2.013 with the Paint-Your-Oppenent-As-A-Stock-Holder Add-on ** which was very obviously installed with the Fallacy Package, as well as the Sore Loser App.
** Ethics & Morality Plug-innot included. Warranty void if totally annihilated in a debate. Logic & Reason exempt from discussion. Real links from valid sources sold separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
By any commentary out in public, the uninsured are a tremendous impact on our health system. You, as a well to do stockowner, are not forced to go into an emergency room in an inner city to see the number of people clogging our system.
The impact of the "uninsured" is negligible to nothing.
Your own government even says the "uninsured" are not factor in the rising costs of health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Your claims of getting your own raw data are simply so much bs. Why is no other statistician anywhere able to get YOUR raw data and come up with your conclusions? Only you can come up with your thoughts from data?
Thanks for proving my point......you get beat down with irrefutable facts, and so you resort to attacking....."you own stock in health insurance companies"........and when that doesn't work, you start attacking the data as "bs."
Everyone sees through that, you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Now for a change---put a video out there that shows something about health care rather than your own opinion. Please note that I back up my statements with studies and research and quotes from those who have them. You don't.
You do not back up your statements with valid sources.
Oh, wait, I forgot.....…slanted newspaper and magazine articles, Yahoo!Answers and some guy calling himself BigDaddyG are all "research" according to you.
We've had this discussion before.....you are a very poor debater, and have no knowledge or understanding of the subject matter.....and when you start losing...you resort to this stuff....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
You never quote any nationally or internationally published figures, because they don't fit into your narrow-minded view of healthcare.
For the record, in matters of health care, these are the only sources I've quoted....
US Government General Accounting Office Congressional Research Service Congressional Budget Office US GovernmentCenter for Disease Control US Department of Veteran Affairs The Boards Of Trustees, FederalHospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds (the Medicare Trustees).
The international sources I have quoted in this thread are…
European Commission of the European Union EuroStats
IZA DP No. 1469 Health Care Expenditures in OECD Countries: A Panel Unit Root and Cointegration Analysis Christian Dreger, Hans-Eggert Reimers, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor January 2005
IEA Health and Welfare Unit Choice in Welfare No. 55 Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer IEA Health and Welfare UnitLondon
Dutch Health Care Performance Report 2010 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands, May 2010
European Parliament Directorate General For Research Working Paper Health Care Systems In The EU: A Comparative Study
Liberalisation, privatisation and regulation in the German healthcare sector/hospitals Thorsten Schulten, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut (WSI)
The non-governmental sources of information I used are…
National Center For Policy Analysis Measuring the Unfunded Obligations of European Countries
How Germany is reining in health care costs An interview with Franz Knieps
Canada Research Chair in Health Law & Policy, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto and Scientific Director, CIHR Institute of Health Services and Policy Research.
InnoThinkCenter For Research In Biomedical Innovation
thechristhospital.com
atriummedcenter.org
It might help if forum members can see why you panic and attack me as a stock-holder of insurance companies, and continue to lie about the sources I use...
Last update 25.10.11 Extracted on 06.01.13 Source of Data Eurostat UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HC Health care expenditure ICHA_HP All providers of health care
Romania.......310.39 Switzerland....... 5,215.64
Norway....... 5,343.49
Luxembourg....... 5,438.46 United States....... 5,684.68
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF General government
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF Private household out-of-pocket expenditure
Romania .......63.95 United States....... 697.13
Norway .......805.54 Switzerland....... 1,590.18
Source: Database EuroStat: The European Commission of the European Union.
I suppose we can only pity those people who are so blind they cannot see.
Just so you all know....
By 2020, the average EU country will need to raise the tax rate to 55 percent of national income to pay promised benefits.
■ By 2035, a tax rate of 57 percent will be required. ■ By 2050, the average EU country will need more than 60 percent of its GDP to fulfill its obligations.
And you never even WORKED as an actuary. You hire someone to do your math work.
No kidding.......but then I never made the claim that I was an actuary, or that I worked as an actuary.
And I do not hire others to do my math work.
I have my own MSExcel spreadsheets that I programmed.....but wait a minute.....according to you, anyone who puts formulas or functions in a spreadsheet is an actuary, right? That's what you said.
The Kaiser Foundation = The American Hospital Association.....who ruined your health care system, not "insurance companies."
Since you claimed that you....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
First, my claim was that I worked as an actuary, not that I AM an actuary.
...and that you....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
If we want to talk about insurance, I do have significant, if old, experience. I served in the insurance field for over 30 years as an underwriter, ratemaker, and compliance officer. I served three years on the Board of Directors of the Association of Insurance Compliance Professionals, two of those as the elected Treasurer of AICP.
You should be able to discuss the very negative impact and consequences of legislation enacted via the lobbying efforts of the American Hospital Association.
Would you like to start with the change to the 1954 IRS Tax Code that was maintained in the 1986 IRS Tax Code?
Seriously, you were a "Compliance Officer" and yet you do not understand the meaning of "Community Rating Scheme?"
Your arguments are not at all persuasive.
Oh, yes, and my favorites.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
This is like trying to argue with a racist or religious fanatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
You are stuck with singularly outmoded sources of information,...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
You cling so blindly to your political view that it clouds your ability to see the fact that healthcare in the U.S. is crumbling--as physicians state, as many politicians state, as your own MITT ROMNEY stated when instituting a relatively universal care system in Massachusetts, and which economists cite again and again as an ever increasing burden on our financial system.
...more attempts to smear.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
….then attempts to crow-bar into a political party….which is really embarrassing since I’m a registered Democrat, I’m not a Republican, and I typically vote for 3rd Party Candidates like Independents, the Constitution Party and the Socialist Party….and I voted for Gary Johnson…
You've repeatedly failed to prove any of your claims.
If you want to discuss the economic impacts of Obamacare....then let's do that, but if you cannot do it without resorting to Useless Tube videos, Yahoo!Answers and some guy calling himself BigDaddyG, you're not going to be very successful.
Steadfastly....
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(which - luckily - no one in my family needs):
.
Controlling costs
