U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2010, 10:51 AM
 
377 posts, read 299,065 times
Reputation: 90

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
I recently read that there are 1,800 health insurance companies in the US. I thought the definition of monopoly was a single company controlling all aspects of a good or service being provided. Like a single payer system, government run health care.

In my opinion current health insurance pays for too much. Some doctors are dropping their affiliations with insurance companies and going to an all cash model. Their operating costs are dropping and therefore their prices are dropping. If they didn't have to pay exorbitant fees for malpractice insurance, then prices would fall further. The last time I received a shot at the doctor, I had to sign a waiver that the nurse explained the location may be red and swollen for a few hours. Geez it's a shot. Sometimes that happens. No need to cover your butt with a waiver for a shot other than to stop the sue happy lawyers.
Back in the 1980s some states capped malpractice jury awards and the result? Malpractice premiums not only did not go down, they continued on a precipitous increase.

There might be 1800 health insurance companies but very few of them cover most of the county:


Health Insurance A Near-Monopoly, Study Finds
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2010, 11:49 AM
 
Location: MS
4,396 posts, read 4,396,265 times
Reputation: 1555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckhorn View Post
Back in the 1980s some states capped malpractice jury awards and the result? Malpractice premiums not only did not go down, they continued on a precipitous increase.
Newspapers Examine Medical Malpractice Reform Efforts In Three States

Quote:
Mississippi: Medical Assurance Company of Mississippi, the state's largest malpractice insurer, on Sept. 5 decided to cut premiums by 15.5% in 2008, bringing the company's rates down 45% since 2004, the Jackson Clarion-Ledger reports. Gov. Haley Barbour (R), whose 2003 campaign had tort reform as a focus, announced the reduction on Wednesday, saying, "It's made a difference. Doctors are staying in the state. Doctors are going back to delivering babies. Doctors are no longer afraid to do emergency surgery." Mississippi Association of Justice President Joey Diaz said that Barbour is taking credit for 2002 tort reform work by former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D). However, Randy Easterling, chair of the Mississippi State Medical Association, said Barbour's plan has had a larger effect on the rates (Hipp, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 9/13).
Why doesn't someone look at what MS did right and compared to why capping malpractice awards didn't work in other states. It seems so logical to look at who is doing something and getting positive results and see if it can be applied in other locations. Get negative results and see what was done wrong. Businesses do it all of the time. The company I work for is always looking for information on "best practices" in information technolgy and seeing if we can apply them to our business.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2010, 12:30 AM
 
418 posts, read 447,847 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen View Post
Maybe you should read the article that I cited with the link. It explains how they're a monopoly.

Then if you still have questions... you might want to address le roi. He seems to think your idea is brilliant.
I read the article and nowhere did it mention the reasons for the high barrier of entry. I don't understand why you are so evasive on this issue. If there are few barriers, than wouldn't that increase the competition?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2010, 12:36 AM
 
27,631 posts, read 18,911,381 times
Reputation: 11075
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
So you strongly believe health insurance companies must be allowed to raised their rates however much they please with no interference from the government.
Obviously they do. I can understand if they are voicing disagreements with portions of the proposed bill, but I find it difficult to believe that they are not also slamming the greed of the insurance companies. Perplexing...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2010, 06:37 AM
 
12,869 posts, read 13,726,923 times
Reputation: 4453
so this is hard to follow. first the government demonize health care insurance companies and then they demand that all americans buy it or face a penalty or jail time? what is up with that?

an ironic quote from pelosi:
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2010, 08:53 AM
 
377 posts, read 299,065 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
Newspapers Examine Medical Malpractice Reform Efforts In Three States


Why doesn't someone look at what MS did right and compared to why capping malpractice awards didn't work in other states. It seems so logical to look at who is doing something and getting positive results and see if it can be applied in other locations. Get negative results and see what was done wrong. Businesses do it all of the time. The company I work for is always looking for information on "best practices" in information technolgy and seeing if we can apply them to our business.
I don't believe that Barbour's legislation did anything to alleviate malpractice insurance costs in MS. Malpractice awards are a very small percentage (less than 2%) of overall healthcare. "Lawsuit abuse" is a totally manufactured crisis--it doesn't exist. It's scam by big insurance and defenders of big insurance like former lobbyist Haley Barbour.

If discouraging "frivolous" lawsuits is the goal, why cap damages in successful suits, those that by definition, are not frivolous? Makes no sense. A damages cap does not affect a case where a plaintiff sues a doctor with a baseless claim in hopes of a quick settlement. That type of case will be thrown out by the judge on summary judgment before a trial. Insurance companies know this, but the general public does not.

Now on to Barbour's claims of success. The number of malpractice lawsuits dropped through the floor not b/c of Barbour's tort reform but b/c of a contemporaneous court decision: Mississippi Supreme Court's 2004 opinion in Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Armond. Before Janssen there could be hundreds of plaintiffs with no connection joined in one lawsuit in a venue that was bad for defendants.

After Janssen, mass tort plaintiff lawyers basically stopped filing tons of cases in Mississippi. This greatly reduced the number of lawsuits against doctors who were getting sued like crazy in pharmaceutical litigation cases where the doctors were not even real targets and were sued to keep the case out of federal court. A huge percentage of the 91% reduction in claims against doctors resulted from the impact of Jannsen.
: tort reform : Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary


In short, Barbour is taking credit for something his tort reform did nothing to accomplish. He's BSing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2010, 09:07 AM
 
5,253 posts, read 13,956,884 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyfacedjenkins View Post
I read the article and nowhere did it mention the reasons for the high barrier of entry. I don't understand why you are so evasive on this issue. If there are few barriers, than wouldn't that increase the competition?
Not evasive... more insurance companies are not going to change anything.

The point is that the FREE MARKET does not work in Health Care. It actually drives pricing up.

Quote:
WENDELL POTTER: The free market does not work in health care like it does in other sectors of the economy. In fact, it works just the opposite. And what's happening is that competition is driving up cost. It's not controlling cost. It's driving them up. It doesn't work like other sectors of the economy. The hospitals and the doctors, now that they are bigger and more powerful and have more bargaining clout, can get more at the bargaining table, in terms of increases in what the insurance companies pay them. So that's why costs keep going up. The insurance companies have lost the ability to control costs. And the way they're continuing to make money is to shift more and more of the cost to us, through these high deductible plans that they're marketing.
Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2010, 11:11 AM
 
418 posts, read 447,847 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen View Post
Not evasive... more insurance companies are not going to change anything.

The point is that the FREE MARKET does not work in Health Care. It actually drives pricing up.



Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS
Their analysis makes no sense. Here is evidence that disproves your hypothesis:

How come the free market works for veterinarians who do the same procedures, but on animals? The equipment and procedures use the same technology, yet the cost is very low in comparison.

How come the free market worked with LASIK eye surgery? The cost got cheaper, yet the procedure became more sophisticated.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2010, 12:44 PM
 
5,253 posts, read 13,956,884 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyfacedjenkins View Post
Their analysis makes no sense. Here is evidence that disproves your hypothesis:

How come the free market works for veterinarians who do the same procedures, but on animals? The equipment and procedures use the same technology, yet the cost is very low in comparison.

How come the free market worked with LASIK eye surgery? The cost got cheaper, yet the procedure became more sophisticated.
Well, crazyfaced,...

The gentleman that you're arguing with was high up as a Corporate Officer of CIGNA Health Insurance for 15 years.
Do you think he knows his market?

The link that I posted was to transcripts of testimony before Congress in response to Anthem's proposed 39% increase - an increase that is 15% more than the rate of inflation. His was not the only expert opinion that was in that transcript.

While I'm sure you're intelligent, it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people who refuse to discuss facts and who want to propose solutions.

Why don't you go play with Le Roi, now?... He's the one who thought you had such a wonderful idea.

Last edited by World Citizen; 03-10-2010 at 12:53 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2010, 09:07 PM
 
418 posts, read 447,847 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen View Post
Well, crazyfaced,...

The gentleman that you're arguing with was high up as a Corporate Officer of CIGNA Health Insurance for 15 years.
Do you think he knows his market?

The link that I posted was to transcripts of testimony before Congress in response to Anthem's proposed 39% increase - an increase that is 15% more than the rate of inflation. His was not the only expert opinion that was in that transcript.

While I'm sure you're intelligent, it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people who refuse to discuss facts and who want to propose solutions.

Why don't you go play with Le Roi, now?... He's the one who thought you had such a wonderful idea.
Well here's the problem with your argument, you said the price of health care is going up and then showed increases in insurance costs. Correct me if I'm wrong but insurance has nothing to do with health care. Especially in the two cases I just gave you: LASIK eye surgery and veterinarians. Neither of which is covered by any insurance and is payed out of pocket, yet both are relatively cheap.

Why is it that these institutions and procedures that both use very advanced technology for health care are both getting cheaper? Why is the free market working for health care in these two scenarios?

Last edited by crazyfacedjenkins; 03-10-2010 at 09:15 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top