Discussing what public wants in health care, Luntz left out top priority
On the August 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity answered Alan Colmes' question, "Most people want national health care. Don't they?" with a flat "No." Colmes said he wanted guest Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, to answer his question. Luntz did not answer whether the public wanted "national health care," instead claiming that people want "control. What they want is the ability to determine their doctor, their hospital, their pharmaceutical plan, and their insurance company." In fact, polling from May and June found that a majority of the public wants a national health insurance program. Moreover, one of those polls, conducted by a Democratic polling firm, found that a majority of likely voters favored universal health insurance even if it limited choices among health care providers.
Several polls taken in May and June found that a majority of respondents favored a government program to provide health insurance to all Americans:
- In a May 4-6 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 64 percent of respondents said they "think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes."
- In a May 31-June 5 poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International for the Kaiser Family Foundation, 53 percent of respondents said they wanted a presidential candidate to propose "a new health plan that would make a major effort to provide health insurance for all or nearly all of the uninsured," even if it "would involve a substantial increase in spending," in contrast with 21 percent in favor of a "new health plan that is more limited and would cover only some groups of the uninsured BUT would involve less new spending" and 17 percent in favor of "[k]eeping things basically as they are."
- A May 29-31 poll conducted by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that a majority of likely voters favored:
- A "proposal that provided every American with health insurance, even if it meant your taxes or health care premiums would increase as a result."
- A plan that would "require businesses to either cover their employees or make a contribution to a pool that help fund health care coverage for the uninsured. It would require all Americans to get health insurance and provide subsidies for Americans who could not afford it. It would also make insurance more affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and taking steps to contain health care costs."
The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll also found that a majority of its respondents placed a higher priority on national health care or access to "health care coverage" than the kind of "control" Luntz described. Given the choice between two statements, 57 percent of those polled said that "[k]nowing I will always have health care coverage is the more important thing to me" compared with 38 percent who said "maintaining choices and seeing my own doctor is the more important thing to me." Fifty-five percent of respondents said they would "favor ... a proposal that provided every American with health insurance, even if it meant you may have to change your current health care provider and insurance" compared with 41 percent who said they would oppose that proposal.
From the August 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: But it seems to me to be opportunity, if they [Republicans] go back to those Reagan conservative principles -- I think there are four main things.
Be tough on the war on terror, secure the borders, guarantee that American taxes are gonna be low, and become energy independent and get us off the dependency of foreign oil. They stand on that, and they contrast it. And then you go after Hillary Care. I think it's a winning formula. No?
LUNTZ: But it still has to be done in a positive way. It cannot just be about what's wrong with the Democrats.
HANNITY: I agree with you.
LUNTZ: It has to be why the American --
HANNITY: Their vision.
LUNTZ: -- people can do it better.
HANNITY: Yes.
COLMES: And don't -- people want national health care. Don't they?
HANNITY: No.
COLMES: I think I was asking Mr. Luntz.
LUNTZ: What they want is -- Dr. Luntz to you, by the way.
COLMES: Because they want what?
LUNTZ: Dr. Luntz.
COLMES: Well, thank you.
LUNTZ: What they want is control. What they want is the ability to determine their doctor, their hospital --
COLMES: Right.
LUNTZ: -- their pharmaceutical plan, and their insurance company.
COLMES: Thank you, Dr. Luntz.
LUNTZ: And if you take away their control, they're not going to be happy.
COLMES: You're going to be Hannity's pollster when he runs, right?
LUNTZ: I would take that job in a second.
COLMES: All right, coming up, country-music superstar Brad Paisley is out with a brand new album, gearing up for a summer tour, his first stop right here in this studio.
"What they want is control...And if you take away their control, they're not going to be happy."
Ok, yes, control would be nice, but if you put them into bankruptcy because of an injury or illness they're not exactly going to be dancing in the aisles.
Can we have control and make it affordable? For citizens and employers alike?
This idiot does not mention COST at all!!!
I just do not see Universal Healthcare working. With it will come IMHO, poor practices, long lines, and more ABUSE. There are county hospitals. My friend did not pay a dime to get his ankle surgery. Granted, he could not afford pain medicine, but the surgery was in the end, free to him.
I already pay a premium for health insurance. $300 a month, the company $500 I think it is. How can companies absorbe more than that?What ever happens, I hope it is well thought out, and there is much scrutiny in those that use it.
Then I guess you are blind.
It is working now in many other industrialized countries.
It's unfortunate you have such a low regard for your country that you don't think it can do this properly (even though it already is to some extent).
And not all of that $800 per month goes to the actual health care. A huge chunk goes toward insurance company bureaucracy, administration, CEO salaries, and shareholder earnings. This is why they are specialists at finding loopholes and denying payment.
The free market of health insurance has had its chance to make insurance affordable, and it's failed.
Agreed!
Rotor--premiums are going up 20% a year. And wait'll you hit 40, or 50 (or 30?)
My6 sister lives in Switzerland. She pays for her health care after the year is over, and it's in her tax bill--and she pays for health care what she pays for broadband.
God's honest truth.
The system in this country is broken. People are dying every day because of it, and people's livers are ruined every day.
It's also destroying American industry. It's ruining our competitiveness. Just look at our Big Three automakers if you want hard evidence.
This is destroying what the Right values about America too.
"...people's livers are ruined every day." PBG
I can back you up on that, though I won't blame the system for my poor liver, just those gentlemen in Lynchburg,Tennessee.
Typo of the day, PBG ! ;0)
I just do not see Universal Healthcare working. With it will come IMHO, poor practices, long lines, and more ABUSE.
Explain please. First, what will be the poor practices and in particular, what are the ones that don't exist today? Then explain where the long lines will come from if everyone is being treated early for small problems rather than waiting until their problems become severe and more complicated and costly to treat.
And finally, explain how this system will be "ABUSE"d when everyone is paying into it. The system is abused NOW, given that the uninsured get treatment and the rest of us pay for their care. And again, because the uninsured wait until they can't wait any longer to get treatment, their treatment is often more expensive and complicated than it needs to be.
Are you serious?
Please do some research before you write absurd posts like that. We pay more per capita than any other country on the planet for health care. At this time it is over 6K per year. We are way down the list of health indicators internationally. The private, capitalist insurance model does not work. There is a reason why every other advanced country doesn't do what we do. It costs too much and doesn't cover all it's citizens.
Using the Government to extort money from your neighbor by force without earning that money is not up for a vote.
That is why we have the Constitution.
We're being extorted by insurance companies.
What the Democrats are working on is shifting the economy to favor working people and their families.
You are so right on this!
In fact lets end taxes altogether. We don't really need police or fire fighters or infrastructure!
Copious,
You never make any sense with your foolish rhetoric.
Are all taxes extortion then?
Just the kind of guy that Fakes News is looking for.
"We exhort, your decipher".
You got that right.
Another trait that makes Copious Fox material:
Swoop in, quickly spew your BS, bail, and don't look back.
Of course they are, Skeptical, all taxes are confiscatory and armed robbery, even the ones that Republicans benefit from. They just like to pretend that they've done evrything by that ol' bootstrap pulling and rugged individualism fantasy life they live.
One of my favorite GOPer mental disorders. The flag waving, America loving Christian who can't stop telling everybody how rich and successful and patriotic he is, but screams bloody murder about being expected to pitch in when it's time.Har!
You're free to move somewhere else, Copius.
Ok, why are we so quick to scream at Copius and tell him he's an idiot, when we could debate with him. There are issues to be debated, and anyone who thinks they have it all figured out is kidding themselves. Reps think this won't work, and Dems think it will go off without a hitch. We all don't know everything there is to know, and we certainly have little knowledge of the inner workings of health insurance companies. Why don't we discuss issues here.....such as, when someone needs a surgery, their wait time for that surgery will be far longer than with a free market. That is one issue to discuss.
You must be new here. Many have tried to debate with Copiousconsent. Bring up any topic and you'll get regurgitated talking points and neo-con Newspeak. It's hopeless.
"when someone needs a surgery, their wait time for that surgery will be far longer than with a free market"
Schmitty, I doubt that you can substantiate that, unless you include elective surgeries.
Of course, it also depends on what kind of "national" system we adopt. In a single-payer plan, there is no reason that the delivery of services would drastically change, unless demand for those services increases, which would be one of your precious "market forces". The biggest loser would, of course, be the Insurance Companies. Their gravy train would end, and they might actually be forced to competitively price their own product. That's a bad thing?
When it comes to emergency surgeries, I have no doubt someone will get the care they need, and promptly. But with elective surgeries, not all of them or cosmetic and selfish in nature. There are many who can "get by" with ailing injuries or other hinderances, but they would rather get them taken care of. The problem is that they will have to wait for such surgeries. I can in fact substantiate this as I have family that lives in Canada. They tell me how their system is. I have also heard, but cannot quote (I hope you'll trust my memory) of other countries and their complaints about universal health care and their ability to receive quality care.
I am in fact new here, as others have debated. I have no background with Corpius or his habits on these forums.
"I can in fact substantiate this as I have family that lives in Canada."
I'll take your word for the location of your relatives. As evidence goes, however, this is anecdotal, at best. There are numerous anecdotal horror stories about our own system, which is touted as "the best in the world". It also does not guarantee that whatever system we establish here would or would not have the same problems encountered elsewhere.
I doubt he's new here. I expect he's just the newest reincarnation of another troll.
I know a lot about the healthcare industry and universal health coverage in Europe, but I still would want experts in the field to help Congress craft such a plan. That doesn't mean that I buy into the lies and distortions about how bad it will be, and it doesn't mean that I don't have a good idea of how good it could be for our nation.
Only those from the right who flood this board think in the either/or, bad/good, black/white way that you are doing now.
And if your familiar with the health care industry, then you should know how impossible it will be to get health care professionals input for a quality system. I work for a health insurance company, and it is my opinion that this will not work effectively and to the degree and benefit Dems claim it will. The problem is that we will never get the right politicians, health care providers, CEOs, and other professionals in the health care industry together, in one place, to work on the solution. Each party will have to give up a little to make the system better, and each player is not willing to do so. Politicians want the power, health care providers want to help but be compensated greatly for their work, and CEOs and health insurance companies still have their employees to think about.
Ah...Smitty works for an insurance company. That explains a lot, since those companies would be the ultimate losers in any national healthcare system. I sympathize with your fear, but if your CEO was willing to accept a few less million in bonuses, you might not see any layoffs at all. But, what are the chances of that?
Well, it won't explain a whole lot in a few months. I'm actually leaving the company, but I'm not disagreeing with you that CEOs make a lot of money, but the only bad guys aren't the insurance companies. If you want to place blame, place some of it on the government. As I stated earlier, we are only allowed to make a certain amount of profit. If our CEO pocketed all of it, then he wouldn't keep any employees as we wouldn't be making a competitive salary to be retained by the company.
True, there's enough blame to go around. Companies like HCA are making tremendous profits, as are pharmeceutical companies. And, I'll concede your point that the government hasn't helped matters.
I think it probably comes down to a basic difference in philosophy. Either we, as a society, will decide to make healthcare a right, or we'll continue to treat it as a commodity, like cars or houses. If you're rich, you can afford the best car, house, and healthcare. If you're poor, you scrape by with what you can afford. I, personally, think healthcare should be elevated beyond the dictates of market forces, as least to some degree.
I agree, I would only like for healthcare to stay in the free market. I feel a few have exploited a good thing, and the rest have to suffer. I would simply like to keep as much as possible out of the hands of government.
Markets are commodity based.
How can you agree that healthcare should be a basic human right and still trust the profit before people market to care for people before profit?
How can you say that it is fair that I have worked hard to get where I am, but will have to wait 6-12 months to get into my doctor's office because it's overcrowded now because of those individuals who don't care to work for anything now get free health care. Nothing in this world is free people.....unless of course you live in the US and can count on the gov't to bail you out when you want to sit on the couch all day and not work for what you've got. The free market intices people to work for themselves, and to earn their keep. This universal health program is sending the message that it's ok to not do a thing all day and be rewarded with health care. To receive health care, I think you should be willing to take care of yourself and your family, and that's proven by working for it.
That liberals depend on government to solve societal ills is merely a Republican fabrication that polls well with the victory at all costs wing of the GOP.
It is predicated in any contract, in this case the social contract between we the people and the government we own, that both sides fulfill their responsibilities to the guarantee. Liberal policy flows from the broader context of participation, cooperation and empathy. The success of programs that promote the general welfare hinge upon the earnest effort of people to help themselves.
The very idea of dependency is a slap in the face to every salt of the earth, hard-working laborer who toils to make ends meet. It's shameful to hold fellow working Americans in such low esteem.
It's shameful to expect handouts when you refuse to work hard for them. On a sidenote, I think we would go a long way to remove a certain 12 million individiuals that are receiving free health care, when I think we can both agree they aren't deserved of. That alone is a huge burden the health care industry has had to shoulder the brunt of.
Additionally, I understand your views, and respect them. You make some valid points.
Thank you. I can respect where you are coming from as well.
It is not shameful to expect a hand-up in the greatest nation in world. The percentage of freeloaders in this hard working country is miniscule compared to those of us who toil and those of us physically unable to work for a living. Everybody here makes a contribution and everybody here deserves dignity.
Fair enough. Thanks for the exchange.
First of all, I'm not going to assume I know exactly what you think and what your position is after reading one of your comments. I ask you don't do that with me. Admittedly, I overemphasized those who can't afford health care to be the ones who don't deserve it and who drain the system. My main issue is with the minority that waits for handouts, but I also didn't emphasize enough my thoughts of illegal immigrants. By no means to I think this is the entire solution to the problem, but if we were to first take care of the immigration problem and deny them health care (because they are in fact illegal), then that would be a start. I think reexamining the problem after the immigration problem is resolved would be a good option.
Which comment upset you? We can discuss it.
It wasn't a comment you made. You've been pleasant and easy to exchange with. I responded under the wrong thread.
Cool. Stuff happens.
Smitty, correct me if I'm wrong, but your concern is that the system will be overloaded if those now denied health care would suddenly have access to it? Is that your "compassionate conservative" position? I certainly hope the Republican candidate in '08 runs on that platform.
Smitty, is it your assertion that all, or most of the people who can't afford insurance are lazy, or don't work hard enough? Who would decide which of these are "not deserving"? You?
Smitty, since you oppose National Healthcare because it would flood our clinics and doctor's waiting rooms with "undesirables", forcing the system to treat people who really don't deserve it? Can we assume that you oppose school vouchers on the same basis?
Just because you hear it a lot doesn't make it fabricated. Liberals are well known to raise taxes, because they want more gov't run programs, thus, your reliance on government.
You would never wait 6-12 months to see a doctor becuase you can now go to any medical facility you want. If you've seen Sicko, in France, they will even send a doctor to your house. And those people in the waiting room that weren't there before? Those people are sick or injured and require treatment. The reason they aren't there today is because our current system trades their health for money, and that is a system I am ashamed of.
I won't and can't intelligibly respond to anything from Sicko, because even I could throw together random clips and skew anything to prove a point. I'm not for people taking comments out of context and skewing situations and policies to prove their, whether they are a conservative or not. I don't find that good work or respectable. To simply view Moore's film and take it all for truth would be irresponsible, and I don't suspect you do that. If a conservative were to do this, I would not accept it without thumbing through the issues and questions raised in the film.
Is it 1984 and Reagan is going on about "Welfare Queens" in their Caddies again?
While there are people who would gladly lie around in squalor all day for a government pittance, those people are not in the majority. There are millions of Americans who work very hard and yet are either uninsured or underinsured because the companies they work for don't provide a health plan or because their wages do not allow them to afford a decent health plan.
But enjoy your good life in fantasy land.
Not to mention have policies that look for any rule, loophole or excuse to deny treatment. In a Free Market, companies make money by lowering how much they pay out (claims) and increase how much they bring in (policys). Does it boggle the mind that much to see that legit claims and treatments are being denied so that healthcare companies can make more money? What about the testamony of an ex healthcare medical examiner who said that they made more in bonuses by denying the most claims?
"The capper is the 1996 Congressional testimony of Dr. Linda Peeno, a former medical examiner for Humana, who confesses that her top priority was to save the company money and how in turn, the company rewarded bonuses to examiners who denied the most number of claims."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00005JPHV&authorID=A13E0ARAXI6KJW&store=yourstore&reviewID=R1E67AW8KMRI1I&displayType=ReviewDetail
Hey, show me a little respect here. I appreciate the "fantasy land" comment, but that doesn't help our conversation. If you think that throwing a single post out there will do the trick....you're wrong. How can I possibly understand where you're coming from or what your point is through on post. I never said I have all the answers, and I'm willing to learn, and keep learning about the pressing issues in America today.....this being one of the most important of the day. I'm not saying you're an idiot, or that you live in a "fantasy land." I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you've thought through the issues and have valid comments and points. I'm an American along with you, and you and I both aren't close to knowing all there is to know, so let's dialogue here, eh?
Oh look, we've gone to that "Why so angry, friend? I just want to discuss the issues." routine that comes right after regurgitation of factually challenged adn intellectually deficient talking points. I think I hate the condescending phase of this game even more than the godlike knowledge that will prove us all wrong phase.
You put forward the allegation that the only people that a universal healthcare program would benefit are the indolent and lazy types that just sit around and collect checks and take free stuff from the government all day long and call that a reasonable point of view. When challenged on just how off base that idea is you ignore that and instead choose to play a game of being all offended and "not calling names." You have no interest in a debate at all.
An efficient universal health care program would vastly benefit a very large majority of the citizens of this nation including a good many American businesses of all sizes. The free market chaos that the insurance companies have inflicted on our medical system is what has gotten us to the point where making such a drastic change has to be seriously considered.
Thanks to the ravages caused by treating health care as if it were some ordinary commodity like a car or a par of jeans more and more people both insured and uninsured put off getting treatment until the point of needing emergency care.
How can you really believe in the power of the invisible hand of the marketplace to solve this problem when it was the primary force in creating it?
After reading this post, it's clear you think you know everything about me and everything I stand for. Therefore, is it really necessary to continue this "dialogue"? You obviously think you have all the answers, so why even deal with me, right? I'll save you the trouble and end our conversation.
It's a shame that people can't have conversations, respect differences, try to understand others' views, and then walk away feeling like you offered something, and took something from the exchange. I apparently have nothing to offer to you, so good day to you.
Smitty:
This is a pretty typical tactic to blame the unemployed for our health care problems. The fact of the matter is that the cost of health care is making insurance unaffordable to more individuals and companies everyday. More and more hardworking Americans are having to risk going without insurance coverage, companies are reducing benefits, and those that are maintaining benefits are being pressured to control cost. If the unemployed were driving up the cost of health care and the cost of health care were staying level then the only a huge increase in unemployment would drive double digit health care costs increases.
Further more your suggestion that you cannot see your doctor because he does not have time to see you undermines the arguement that Luntz and many other defenders of our health care system make that Universal Health Care would lead to a lack of access and delays in getting access. According to you the problem already exists.
The problem is that we will never get the right politicians, health care providers, CEOs
We don't need or want the CEOs' input. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Oh, and by the way, Smitty, the issue here is the false thing that was said by someone pushing the conservative agenda. The issue is not how hard it might be to implement universal health care.
The issue isn't taxes either, but that's the post by Copious that people were replying to, and that's why they didn't discuss long wait times for elective surgeries in their replies to him. Since it's not on topic for this thread, I am not going to discuss it when you bring it up. But people did reply to the particular issue that Copious brought up, namely, taxes.
Well, I don't have the history of what was said.
One more comment. I know that everyone thinks insurance companies are the dogs here, and they aren't the best, but let's remember how highly regulated the insurance industry is. The health insurance industry is the most highly regulated industry there is. I will give you proof if you'd like. I work in compliance and can attest to the massive strains the government puts onto companies. Besides these strains, the government will only allow insurance companies to make a certain amount of profit. If we make too much, we send money back to the policy holders. We have done that a number of times. Also, we have lowered our premiums a number of occasions for our members.
I'm glad to hear that you've lowered premiums. I have yet to experience that phenomenon personally. Our company is constantly having to shop for providers, since the companies we've dealt with routinely propose 50% increases. The only way we've ever gotten a decrease is by changing providers.
That was a wonderful false equivalence. Regulation=strain.
Regulations are protections put in place to vouchsafe consumer rights and wellbeing.
You can call it whatever you want, but it costs health insurance companies millions of dollars a year to be in compliance with these regulations. It takes time, energy, and resources, which in turn, the health insurance companies will put back onto the consumer. If these harsh regulations weren't put into place, there wouldn't be as much "strain". Obviously, I'm not for taking out all regulations, as some are undoubtedly necessary, but the more strain gov't puts onto ins. companies, the higher the premiums go because gov't is requiring more, which costs more money.
This is similar to oil companies. Everyone wants to blame oil companies for the rise in gas prices, but if gov't wouldn't impose such a stringent tax, we wouldn't pay as much. Gov't taxes every gallon of gas the oil company sells, and the oil companies don't care, because they know they can raise the price of gas to compensate for their loss. It's not hurt to the oil companies, it's hurt put on us, caused by the government. Oil companies are only allowed to receive 8% of the money for profit from gasoline sales. The rest of the charge is primarily for taxes. Don't go after the oil companies, or the insurance companies. Go after government. And why are we so quick to put all of this into the governments hands anyway? What program have they run so efficiently lately that convinces us they will run this with success?
I'll tell ya, I'm not 100% convinced either way, but it's interesting and helpful to hear viewpoints other than those in my own head.
What are these strains of which you speak?
I will not cry for insurance companies or oil companies, the U.S. taxpayer gives them huge advantages through tax breaks, development subsidies, zoning laws, public education and a tremendous infrastructure to name just a few. They have no viable moral argument that justifies passing costs onto consumers. It's time for corporations to realize their obligation to the commons, we treat them much more generously than they treat us.
As for what programs has government run successfully lately? There aren't any. Republicans have underfunded and mismanaged them into oblivion.
Companies complained about ISO standards and OSHA Regulations and any other safeguard the government has tried to put in because it takes time and effort for a company to meant those standards and expectation. This means companies have to spend money and manpower to adhere and that is why they cry. Most of the industries with "Strains" put on them by the government, ie healthcare, teleco and oil/gas seem to be doing just fine if you look at their bottom dollar. I take their complaints with a grain of salt.
if gov't wouldn't impose such a stringent tax, we wouldn't pay as much.
And more bridges would collapse.
Smitty,
I tried to find your earlier thread so I hope that I asking questions that have already been asked. I am not in the Insurance Industry, but are you suggesting that the cost of government compliance is increasing at a rate to drive insurance premiums to increase at more than 10% per year? If that is the case, then your blame the government position has merit and I will gladly support efforts to correct the situation. I really doubt that is the case, because I am not aware of any insurance specific regulations that have been imposed recently that would drive such an increase.
I have also heard this point about taxes driving up the cost of gasoline. This is kind of a slight of hand arguement. It calls attention to only one source of profit that is most visable to the consumer and distracts attention away from other aspects of the industry. It is true that there are significant taxes imposed on gasoline sales, most are transportation related and it seems a reasonable way to apply the taxes to the people who use the transportation system the most. These taxes are not charged on a percentage basis. They are charged on a per gallon basis and they do not increase with the cost of a gallon of gas. The 8% limit that you are referring to is usually in reference to the distribution of gas. This limit allows the gas station owner either corporate or local to charge only a percentage of the wholesale cost. That means as the cost of gasoline increases their profits increases because gas demand is non-elastic and does not decrease with an increase in cost. That only references distribution and only company owned gas station have benefited from this situation. The big increases in Corporate Oil profits have come in the profits they have realized in production and refining. Profits in these areas have grown exponentially as the cost to consumers has increased.
Smitty do you work for a Mutual Insurance Company. If you do that is not government regulation, but a part of your company's charter that dictates your profit margins. Mutual Insurance Companies operate under the principle that at the end of the year the company returns remaining balances of their overall portfolio to the customer. They are also entitled to bill additional amounts in the event of a shortage. I have had various insurance through Mutual Insurance Companies and experienced both situations. It is a way of having both parties share the risk and rewards of increasing and decreasing costs. In returned for guaranteed profits, the company limits its overall profitability. Theoretically, it gives the insurance company incentive to be efficient as a decreas ein cost allows it to reduce its premiums.
The part that is pretty discouraging to the market is the executive pay. If this pay is exhorbinant, the excess is taken from the money that would otherwise be returned to the customer.
You are correct, executive pay is borderline ridiculous. I do not work for that insurance company, but the one I work for does in fact do that very same thing in returning money, partially because we want to keep rates low to stay competitive, and partly because we are mandated to do so by the gov't.
I think that you missed my point. If your company is a mutual insurance company, the government is not so much limiting your profitability as it is enforcing the terms of your company's charter and the agreement that you have with your customers.
They both limit our profitability, on top of highly regulating us. Here is a major problem in my opinion. When you have consumers who hold a health care policy, they assume they are entitled to all coverages, without looking at what their policy covers in the first place. For example, a member might expect the ins. company to cover the services provided to them no matter what, when in fact it may not have been medically necessary. This occurs more often than anyone thinks. Consumers what to get more than they paid for. In turn, the insurance companies have been put into a position where they must raise premiums to cover extra expenses, and deny as many claims as possible for services not covered under the policy. Members are greedy and want more than they paid for, that is certain. Not all blame goes onto the customer, as some the insurance companies are certainly deserved of their fair share.
You're blaming everyday people who don't have the skills or time to decipher the small print. Policies might as well be written in Greek for most of us.
If I fork over a massive chunk of change for coverage, I want coverage. Period. That's not greed, that's just how it is.
You keep talking about the righteousness of externalizing the costs of doing business and the naturalness of profitability. That's frankily an insidious distraction from the truth. Healthcare is a human right and there is no room for profit when the longterm health of our family and friends are at stake.
You know what, I'm not here to defend someone who has signed a contract without reading the small print and everything that comes with an agreement between two companies. If you want covereage, fine, then get a plan that covers you entirely, without limitations. I don't care if it reads like Greek to you, take a couple of hours and read exactly what you are getting. It may take some time, but if you as serious about your health as you say you are, than that is time that you are willing to spend. If there wasn't all that small print, you could make a claim for anything and everything. Health care is not free people, no matter which way you look at it, and limitations have to be put into place.
But the fact of the matter is, we have problems as humans. We're not immortal, and we break down. And you think you have a right to tell someone else, "Take care of me. I'm sick, or injured, and you have to take care of me."
Excuse me, not "companies"...."parties"
Just go get a plan that covers everything? It's just that easy and affordable? Look, that belief in stratified levels of care based on what you can pay is a loathesome proposition. It's antithetical to the belief that "all men are created equal."
Nobody here is pretending healthcare is free. That's a strawman argument. We all understand physicians and healthcare givers stack-up piles of debt to get an education, they need to get paid well to pay back loans (the loan industry, another example of profit over people).
Democrats are working on universal healthcare right now and they will succeed, but not because they're an awesome Party. They will succeed because it's what Americans support and it's good for businesses.
Public healthcare is every bit as essential to the economy as roads and public education.
You make good points Roundhouse, and I feel as though I'm broadening my understanding of this monster. I simply would like to see health care stay in the free market. Obviously changes need to be made because it's not affordable to everyone, but I don't like the idea of taking the world's best health care system (in my opinion it is) and turning it into socialized medicine. The more we put into government, the less freedoms we have as Americans. I know that free market ran smoothly, appropriately, and fairly is the best option. But that is not happening. Thanks for your insight and opinions. Enjoy the summer weather.
I still don't think we are talking about the same thing. If your company is a Mutual Insurance Company and many are. Their profits are limited by the terms of their incorporation. The Government is not limiting their profitability. The company has agreed to share risk with the customers. If claims and expesnes exceed premiums, the company can bill the the customer for the excess, if premiums exceed claims and expenses the company returns money to the customer. These are the terms of the policies written by many insurance companies. The Government is not regulating and restricting Mutual Insurance Companies it is only enforcing the terms of the company's charter. I hate to belabor the point, but you cannot claim that the government is a Socialist Boogey Man, when it is only enforcing the company's charter and the terms of its contract.
Actually why should that be true? First if it is critical surgery then it is done period. If it is elective surgery then a national Health service wont cause the wait to be longer for someone without the money or insurance to pay for it since that will NEVER HAPPEN. How long is the line for a liver transplant say if you dont have the insurance or means to pay for it in the US? Go watch the movie John Q
That is why we have the Constitution.
The Preamble of the Constitution says it was created to "promote the general welfare". If health care doesn't qualify as promoting the general welfare, I don't know what does.
You're absolutely right. The Constitutional argument is a dead end, but it works well for the uninformed...kind of like invoking the name of God, it successfully shuts down the thinking process for many on the Right.
Of course, Coprolitedeceit likes to drop this little gem into the conversation, but never bothers to defend it.
Isn't Luntz the guy who a few short weeks ago was called partisan by MMFA and had many resident wingnuts complain about this description?
And now he turns up licking the soles of Sean Hannity's boots.
Luntz is discredited , and any network that shows is discredited face joins that club.
That's "DOCTOR Bootlicker" to you...
That's Dr. Frank Luntz to you, Neon ! He's the double-talking bull$hltter behind the Republican Playbook, as well as a focus group market research dude.
And if you can't get the straight dope on health care from a Republican pollster with a doctorate in politics, where are you gonna get it?
He was on the Bill Maher show a while back, and, to me, he seems to be one condescending jerk. He comes across as someone who has made his millions telling politicians the most efficient way to lie, and hasn't lost one wink of sleep over it.
Dear Conservatives,
I think you all should be for the funding of health care for all uninsured children. Wouldn't that be better than universal health care? If you take care of the children, then we would no longer have the pictures of sickly children in need of help. Sure, the adults would still be screwed, but who cares? They aren't as cute and no one is moved by their pain as much as they are by children.
Here's what I mean: Which is the more pathetic form of Garage Sale Art.? Crying clowns or the children with the big, sad eyes? Sure, neither compares to the masterwork, "Dogs Playing Pool", but that's not the point!
Since most conservative politicians claim to be "for the children" and "family values" wouldn't it make that b.s. a little more believable if they actually did something "for the children"?
Come on. If you don't it just makes you guys look like Dickensian super villians who would kick children and step on the heads of puppies. If you insure the major force behind the push for universal healthcare, then the movement will lose steam. And don't worry about those whining old people; they'll be dying off soon (especially since they cannot afford healthcare).
Yours truly,
Nicolo Machievelli
Conservatives,
Do not listen to the one who dubs himself "Onionhead". He is a fraud who is selling you my methods only for his own agenda, and he cares not a whit about you retaining your positions of power.
Follow the example of the esteemed Dr. Luntz, who has refined my strategy and combines it with contemporary methods to a achieve the aforesaid positions.
Mislead the public. Appeal to their emotions. Keep them intellectually paralyzed by fear, confusion, and narcisism. But do so not for any social policy, but only as a means to a position from which you may dictate your wishes.
Buono giornata,
The REAL Niccolo Machiavelli
Wow. You must the MachiAvelli who appears above my name in the phone book. I've been getting some of your calls. I don't what you did to these Medici people but they sound pissed.
As a Evangelical Christian Liberal, the hypocracy of many of my fellow Christians is that they only care about the children that aren't their own until they are born. After that they really don't lose that much sleep. This explains their stance on poverty, heathcare, birth control and class warfare. Now if only they were reading the same book I am, maybe we could get some movement from them.
The 'control' people want is a health plan that won't deny to pay after the fact, that won't drop you when you or somebody in your family) actually gets sick--a health plan that doesn't turn every interaction with the health care industry into a nightmare.
We're living in a country where people are scared to get sick--and those who aren't are scared of losing their coverage. The 'control' people want is a system in which complications from a pregnancy causes a family to lose their home--where one operation costs a family the kids' hope of college--where every plan you ever make in your life can be ruined by one visit to the hospital.
If you think I'm exaggerating, you haven't been paying attention.
As someone who is enrolled in Medicare - the government, single payer plan, not an HMO insurance plan which offers more initially but may not allow certain expensive treatment when the need comes, I can tell you that Medicare is run better than any insurance company I ever had coverage from, far more efficient and dramatically more dependable.
I was furious that the pharmaceutical lobby sabotaged the Part D - prescription coverage to offer nothing but private insurance, heavily subsidized by the government with crappy coverage and outrageous premiums if you need more than basic genetic drugs. I want to see this redone to be a direct access, single payer plan too!
Anytime insurance companies become involved you wind up with policies that do not pay the coverage that you bought. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana and Mississippi whose insurance companies just screwed them as well as anyone you know who became seriously ill or injured who had private insurance anytime since these HMO and other immoral insurance scams became legal and began during Reagan's administration.
The great myth about single-payer healthcare systems that the right wants you to believe is that it takes away your control. As a Canadian now living in the US I can confirm that that Canadians can go to any doctor or hospital that they want to. Doctors that have good reputations take longer to see because more people want to see them. Bad doctors won't make a living because people won't want to go to them. You pick the doctor. The government pays.
It is a true free market, the like of which the US has never seen. Canadians control, with their feet, which doctors and institutions get their tax money. Americans can only dream of such control.
I'm dreaming of it SJ. Depending on which exorbitantly priced insurance plan you have you may be told which doctor to go. If you choose to go to a doctor out of network you will pay either pay a substantially higher fee or the insurance company may not pay for it at all.
Conservatives always like to talk about the Constitution and the details therein. I think they can't see the forest for the trees. The whole point of our democracy is for "we the people" to decide how we should best function. Collecting taxes for transportation and the military (for the common defenseJ) were obvious needs. Police & fire also obvious. Back then it was acceptable for people to never learn to read or write; they could work with their hands in various ways.
Eventually "we the people" decided to collectively sponsor public education. In today's world it is necessary to have basic literacy.
In today's world, for anyone to access our health care system, they must have insurance, which is increasingly unaffordable. The only thing that makes sense to me is for "we the people" to once again adapt to changing conditions by voting in a universal system of health coverage.
I support John Edwards' plan because it seems to me to be the only plan with any chance of being enacted right now. (He doesn't eliminate private insurance; just allows for Medicare to be available to everyone)
Here's a well-written article that I encourage all to read, especially our "Compassionate Conservative" comrades.
[link to www.news-journalonline.com]
Despite what Copulatedescent claims, there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits us as a nation from creating a national healthcare plan, and using taxes to fund it.
Here's another thought for the usual suspects...Which would you rather have making decisions about whether or not to pay for a procedure...a disinterested Federal Bureaucrat, or a Corporate Bureaucrat who gets a bonus for denying your claim?
We are long overdue for a National Healthcare System...so far the Corporate whores in Washington have managed to keep it at bay by bribing Congress and scaring the gullible public. The only way I see that it will happen is if we elect a President who has the courage to champion the cause and make it the primary goal of his/her administration (and a Democratic Congress, of course). I don't know who that will be, but it certainly won't be a Republican.
A factor often ignored by the Conservative Propaganda Parrots is that one major reason U.S. auto makers are suffering is because they offer health insurance to their workers, but their foreign competition doesn't. Of course, Republicans will say that the solution is to bust the Autoworkers Unions and stop offering that benefit. That would help the Corporatists, but it would be just one more nail in the coffin of the middle class.
Though many Conservatives see themselves rising above the middle class in some Ayn Randian future, and would not bemoan its demise...isn't it possible that our consumer driven economy might not fair too well without the spending power of that middle class? What would happen to the Stock Market then?
COLMES: You're going to be Hannity's pollster when he runs, right?
LUNTZ: I would take that job in a second.
Luntz was on Hannity's radio show on July 24th (maybe the 23rd) and told Sean ""I know you're not partisan." This should a contender for Lie of the Year.
Conservatism as a model of government is a total failure as evidenced by the decay of the government of the United States since they were elected to power.
Our founding fathers were liberals. If they weren't, we would still be a British colony.
I did not see the broadcast.
KEY QUESTION: Was Luntz's client list disclosed?
A cursory look at Luntz.com reveals that these include: BLUE CROSS, CIGNA, AND HIP HMOs.
Looking beyond his Republican-twined history, this is hardly a disinterested party. If this wasn't indicated, it's Colmes fault not to make this his second response after Luntz - that's Dr. Luntz to you - indicated that Americans don't want national health care.
-Jerry
What many have yet to realize, is that our health care system has radically changed in just the past five years or so. Even having "the best" PPO insurance simply does not guarantee that you will receive "authorization" for the treatment, doctor, facility that you need when you are experiencing a MAJOR disease (and therefore are a large financial exposure to your insurance company). You will face administratively mandated denials and delays, with the hope that you die and prevent the payout. This is a fact that anyone experiencing, or having a loved one experience such a crisis will now face. Expense minimization is the goal, not quality of care or outcome.
With each passing day, more and more Americans actually experience our new "expense minimization" system, and the calls for universal care grow. It's long overdue. Don't fool yourselves by buying into the old right wing arguments. Being RICH doesn't even save you these days.
God forbid you survive such an illness, because you will now be officially "un-insurable." It is long overdue for the Govt to step in and insure that people are treated and can live their lives without perpetual fear or illness.