Top ten enemies of single payer, HR 676

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
They won?t even put single payer on the table for discussion.

Why not?

Because it will bring a harsh justice ? the death penalty ? to their buddies in the multi-billion dollar private health insurance industry.

The will of the American people is being held up by a handful of organizations and individuals who profit off the suffering of the masses.

And the will of the American people will not be done until this criminal elite is confronted and defeated.

(Remember, virtually the entire industrialized world ? save for us, the U.S. ? makes it a crime to allow for-profit health insurance corporations to make money selling basic health insurance.)

Before we confront and defeat the inside the beltway cesspool/hot tub crowd, we must first know who they are.

To wit, we present the Top Ten Enemies of Single Payer (listed here in alphabetical order):

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP, one of DC?s most powerful lobbying groups, has worked inside the beltway for years to defeat single payer. Why? AARP makes about a quarter of its money selling insurance through its affiliate, United Healthcare Group, the nation?s largest for-profit insurance company. AARP must defeat single payer ? which if enacted, would wipe out that revenue stream.

America?s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). The private health insurance industry. Public enemy number one. The health insurance corporations must die so that the American people can live. Of course, facing the death penalty, AHIP is the most aggressive opponent to single payer. No compromise with AHIP.

American Medical Association. With a shrinking base of doctors (only 25 percent of doctors nationwide belong) ? the AMA is the most conservative of the doctors? organizations. I just returned from a health care policy forum at the Center for American Progress. As usual, not one of the panelists mentioned single payer. Only during the question period did a self-identified patient/citizen ask the single payer question. And a pit bull-like Nancy Nielsen, president of the AMA, ripped into the questioner. ?Sounds more like a statement than a question,? Nielsen said. ?And clearly you have a point of view about that. And I don?t happen to share that point of view.? Clearly she doesn?t. But just as clearly, the majority of doctors, probably even a majority of doctors who belong to the AMA, support single payer. Nielsen is in denial and must be defeated.

Barack Obama. He was for it when he was a state Senator in Illinois. Now, ensconced in the corporate prison that is the White House, he says single payer is off the table. To get off the list, Obama needs to put single payer back on the table.

Business Roundtable. Dr. David Himmelstein, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), was at a health care forum a couple of years ago sponsored by the Business Roundtable. And the moderator asked the audience ? made up primarily of representatives of big business ? to indicate their preference of health care reforms. And the majority came out in favor of single payer. Why then is the Business Roundtable opposed? Himmelstein put it this way: ?In private, they support single payer, but they?re also thinking ? if you can take away someone else?s business ? the insurance companies? business ? you can take away mine. Also, if workers go on strike, I want them to lose their health insurance. And it?s also a cultural thing ? we don?t do that kind of thing in this country.?

Families USA. A major inside the beltway liberal foundation and long-time foe of single payer. It?s chief executive, Ron Pollack, was once an advocate for single payer. But no more. In November 1991, Pollack was at a Washington hotel debating Yale University professor Ted Marmor in front of then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Marmor was making the argument for single payer. Pollack against. A November 1994 article in the Washington Monthly, co-authored by Marmor, reported the result this way: ?After the two advocates finished, Clinton looked thoughtful, pointed to Marmor and said, ?Ted, you win the argument.? But gesturing to Pollack, Marmor recalls, the governor quickly added, ?But we?re going to do what he says.? Even considering the Canadian system, everyone in the room agreed, would prompt GOP cries of ?socialized medicine? ? cries that the press would faithfully report.?

Health Care for America Now. The largest coalition of liberal groups promoting a choice between a public plan and private insurance companies. ?They are saying ? we can?t do single payer because Americans don?t want it,? said Kip Sullivan of the Minnesota chapter of PNHP. ?That?s based on junk research conducted by Celinda Lake for the Herndon Alliance. It is bad enough to say we can?t do single payer because the insurance industry is too powerful to beat. But it is just plain insidious to say we can?t do single payer because the American people don?t want it. In fact, polling data indicates that two-thirds of Americans support a single payer system. And that level of support exists despite the fact that there is little public discussion about it.?

Kaiser Family Foundation. One of the most prestigious liberal inside the beltway think tanks on health reform policy. Saul Friedman is a reporter for Newsday. In February, Friedman wrote an article for Newsday arguing that single payer is suffering from a conspiracy of silence. And he says Kaiser is the most culpable of the co-conpsirators. Kaiser, funded initially by insurance industry money, regularly keeps single payer off the table, Friedman says. When single payer advocates released a study in January asserting that Congressman John Conyers? single payer bill (HR 676) could create 2.6 million new jobs and would cost far less than the private insurance currently paid for by individuals and employers, ?the Kaiser Family Foundation?s daily online report on health care developments at kff.org didn?t mention it,? Friedman reported. ?Nor has Kaiser, the most comprehensive online source of health care information, made any mention of single-payer or the Conyers bill since it was introduced in 2003, despite widespread support for such a plan according to Kaiser?s own polls.? After a number of insistent inquiries, Kaiser told Friedman that they would publish charts in March comparing the Stark and Conyers bills. They never did.

The Lewin Group. The go-to consulting firm for health reform studies. The most recent study, released last week and widely quoted in the press, of the public plan option, showed that the insurance industry would lose 32 million policy holders if a public plan is enacted. Lewin?s health reform policy guru, John Sheils, told the Associated Press: ?The private insurance industry might just fizzle out altogether.? What the mainstream press didn?t report was that The Lewin Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingenix, which is in turn owned by UnitedHealth Group, the nation?s largest health insurance corporation. Lewin Group has conducted studies on single payer at the state level ? and their studies consistently show that single payer is the most efficient cost saving system. But Lewin Group has never done a study on HR 676 ? which would create a single payer for the entire country and drive The Lewin Group?s parent ? UnitedHealth Group? out of business. When asked why Lewin Group never has done a study on HR 676, Sheils said ? ?the President didn?t propose single payer, did he?? No, he didn?t. That?s why he too is on this list. (Sheils says The Lewin Group has studied national single payer. He points to a recent comparison of the different health reform proposals floating on Capitol Hill ? including one by Congressman Pete Stark (D-California). Stark?s bill would give every American the option of opting into Medicare. But that?s not single payer, because it keeps the private insurance industry in the game. Sheils counters that he modeled the Stark bill as single-payer. ?The employer coverage option under the Stark bill is made so unfavorable that no employer would do it. We have everyone in Medicare, with the resulting savings.? Sheils says that of all the plans studied, the Stark bill saves the most money.)

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PHRMA). PHRMA chief executive Billy Tauzin says that under single payer, the government would become a ?price fixer.? By which he means, the government, as a single payer, will have the power to negotiate drug prices downward, thus costing the drug corporations millions in excess profits. In recent years, PHRMA has infiltrated liberal sounding groups like America?s Agenda ? Health Care for All. PHRMA?s Vice President for Government Affairs and Law, Jan Faiks, now sits on the board of America?s Agenda and PHRMA contributes money to the group ? which has worked in recent years to undermine single payer at the state level. (America?s Agenda Mark Blum won?t say how much money PHRMA gives to his group.)

We have met the enemy.

And they ain?t us.

http://www.1payer.net/News-and-Blogs/top-ten-enemies-of-single-payer.html
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
Add me to that list. :0corn

Insurance companies are glad to have you, for without people like you 100 million dollar golden parachutes would be a thing of the past. Please stay healthy and keep those premiums coming.

BTW, insurance premiums have doubled in the last 9 years.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,487
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Insurance companies are glad to have you, for without people like you 100 million dollar golden parachutes would be a thing of the past. Please stay healthy and keep those premiums coming.

BTW, insurance premiums have doubled in the last 9 years.

oh and by the way---the cost of medicare for folks has more than tripled in same time frame--

--and Ins companies have to balance their books and gov don't.
:0corn
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,487
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Now that we ended discussion on that issue--how about--

H.R. 735, also known as the "Rangel Rule Act of 2009

The brainchild of Rep. John Carter, a Texas Republican who spent two decades as a judge before coming to the House in 2002, H.R. 735 would require the IRS to give everyone the same kid-glove treatment it gave Rangel.

Thus the "Rangel Rule." Under H.R. 735, if you're caught cheating on your taxes, you would pay what you owe, then write "Rangel Rule" at the top of your return, and you wouldn't be charged any penalty or interest. That way, Carter said when he introduced the bill, ordinary taxpayers would be "treated with the same courtesy that, it seems, the IRS is treating the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee."

examples;

Last week, we learned that Rangel filed a grossly misleading financial disclosure report for 2007 -- failing to report at least half a million dollars in assets.
It turns out Rangel had a credit union account worth at least $250,000 and maybe as much as $500,000 -- and didn't report it. He had investment accounts worth about the same, which he also didn't report. Ditto for three pieces of property in New Jersey.
Beyond that, we've learned that Rangel has failed to report assets totaling more than $1 million on legally required financial disclosure forms going back to at least 2001.
The news comes on top of revelations last year that Rangel didn't report -- and didn't pay taxes on -- income from a villa in the Caribbean. In that matter, the Internal Revenue Service gave him sweetheart treatment; Rangel paid about $10,000 in back taxes but was not required to pay any penalty or interest.
Rangel's doings are under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, which so far hasn't taken any action. Democrats are standing behind their chairman, and minority Republicans can't do anything about it.
But they're still trying. In February, the GOP introduced a resolution calling for Rangel to be removed as chairman. It failed, 242 to 157.
The Republican leadership also wrote a letter to Pelosi urging that Rangel "step down from his Ways and Means chairmanship pending an investigation of his ethical lapses." That went nowhere, too.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...ax-cheat-Charlie-Rangel-8177857-56361837.html


Honest mistakes :)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Now that we ended discussion on that issue--how about--

Ended the discussion? Well, it's no secret that being a part of the insurance business I can see why you want to end the discussion, much like the insurance companies do. The similarity in that discussion is the doubling and tripling of costs as you guys mention. While I don't know if those two cost increases are accurate, I do know costs are skyrocketing for both, but it's only in the real best interest of one to keep things status quo. To me, that's the real issue, and what we should focus on.

One thing I do know is that with insurance companies, it's not a simple issue (like you try to make it) of "balancing the books." Those books are looking pretty good these days, as the following story shows. These companies have to pay executives a ton of money, they have to show a large profit and a good bottom line for shareholders, and maintain a business model of company first, policyholder second, in trying to take in as much as they can and pay out as little as they can to accomplish all that. The story:

Health Insurance Profits Soar as Industry Mergers Create Near-Monopoly

by Mike Hall, May 27, 2009

Profits at 10 of the country?s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage. One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets.

The report says such conditions warrant a Justice Department investigation and, says Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), provide compelling evidence of the need for a public health insurance plan option as part of the health care reform initiative President Obama and Congress are developing.

Schumer says the report from Health Care for America Now! (HCAN)

is the starkest evidence yet that the private health care insurance market is in bad need of some healthy competition. A public health insurance option is critical to ensure the greatest amount of choice possible for consumers.

According to the recently released HCAN report, ?Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market?:

In the past 13 years, more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets but haven?t delivered on promises of increased efficiency. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated, and insurers are thriving in the anti-competitive marketplace, raking in enormous profits and paying out huge CEO salaries.

These mergers and consolidations have created a marketplace where a small number of larger companies use their power to raise premiums?an average of 87 percent over the past six years?restrict and reduce benefit packages and control and cut provider payments.


In a letter to the Department of Justice?s Anti-Trust Division, Richard Kirsch, HCAN national campaign manager, and David Balto, former policy director of the Federal Trade Commission and now senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, write:

Simply put, the private insurance companies have secured monopolies or tight oligopolies and exercised that power to put profits ahead of patients?.There were no actions taken against anticompetitive conduct by health insurers in the last administration, in spite of the fact that cases by state attorneys general have secured massive fines against these insurers. A lack of antitrust enforcement has enabled insurers to acquire dominant positions in almost every metropolitan market.

They ask for an investigation of the already consummated mergers that ?harm competition or create an anticompetitive market structure.? They also urge the Justice Department to conduct investigations of ?anticompetitive conduct by dominant insurance companies and challenge that conduct where appropriate.?

Many dominant insurers limit the ability of providers to choose rival insurers or inform patients about more efficient and comprehensive coverage. The DOJ should investigate tools used to stifle competition such as physician gag clauses, most favored nations provisions, all-products clauses, and silent networks, which prevent providers and consumers from having the full range of competitive alternatives.

Schumer last week co-sponsored a Senate resolution urging the creation of a public health plan option and says a public health plan ?is critical to ensure the greatest amount of choice possible for consumers.?

We believe that it is fully possible to create a public health insurance plan that delivers all the benefits of increased competition without relying on unfair, built-in advantages. If a level playing field exists, then private insurers will have to compete based on quality of care and pricing, instead of just competing for the healthiest consumers.

------------------

The insurance companies simply add another layer if skyrocketing costs to what all of us pay - either by ourselves, or what our employers are forced to pay. And as the story mentions, it's probably going to get worse, and possibly never better, if something isn't done about it. I think it's worth looking at, but I can see why you wouldn't, Wayne. In your position, I wouldn't want it changed, either.
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,996
220
63
Jefferson City, Missouri
They won?t even put single payer on the table for discussion.

Why not?

Because it will bring a harsh justice ? the death penalty ? to their buddies in the multi-billion dollar private health insurance industry.

The will of the American people is being held up by a handful of organizations and individuals who profit off the suffering of the masses.

And the will of the American people will not be done until this criminal elite is confronted and defeated.

(Remember, virtually the entire industrialized world ? save for us, the U.S. ? makes it a crime to allow for-profit health insurance corporations to make money selling basic health insurance.)

Before we confront and defeat the inside the beltway cesspool/hot tub crowd, we must first know who they are.

To wit, we present the Top Ten Enemies of Single Payer (listed here in alphabetical order):

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP, one of DC?s most powerful lobbying groups, has worked inside the beltway for years to defeat single payer. Why? AARP makes about a quarter of its money selling insurance through its affiliate, United Healthcare Group, the nation?s largest for-profit insurance company. AARP must defeat single payer ? which if enacted, would wipe out that revenue stream.

America?s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). The private health insurance industry. Public enemy number one. The health insurance corporations must die so that the American people can live. Of course, facing the death penalty, AHIP is the most aggressive opponent to single payer. No compromise with AHIP.

American Medical Association. With a shrinking base of doctors (only 25 percent of doctors nationwide belong) ? the AMA is the most conservative of the doctors? organizations. I just returned from a health care policy forum at the Center for American Progress. As usual, not one of the panelists mentioned single payer. Only during the question period did a self-identified patient/citizen ask the single payer question. And a pit bull-like Nancy Nielsen, president of the AMA, ripped into the questioner. ?Sounds more like a statement than a question,? Nielsen said. ?And clearly you have a point of view about that. And I don?t happen to share that point of view.? Clearly she doesn?t. But just as clearly, the majority of doctors, probably even a majority of doctors who belong to the AMA, support single payer. Nielsen is in denial and must be defeated.

Barack Obama. He was for it when he was a state Senator in Illinois. Now, ensconced in the corporate prison that is the White House, he says single payer is off the table. To get off the list, Obama needs to put single payer back on the table.

Business Roundtable. Dr. David Himmelstein, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), was at a health care forum a couple of years ago sponsored by the Business Roundtable. And the moderator asked the audience ? made up primarily of representatives of big business ? to indicate their preference of health care reforms. And the majority came out in favor of single payer. Why then is the Business Roundtable opposed? Himmelstein put it this way: ?In private, they support single payer, but they?re also thinking ? if you can take away someone else?s business ? the insurance companies? business ? you can take away mine. Also, if workers go on strike, I want them to lose their health insurance. And it?s also a cultural thing ? we don?t do that kind of thing in this country.?

Families USA. A major inside the beltway liberal foundation and long-time foe of single payer. It?s chief executive, Ron Pollack, was once an advocate for single payer. But no more. In November 1991, Pollack was at a Washington hotel debating Yale University professor Ted Marmor in front of then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Marmor was making the argument for single payer. Pollack against. A November 1994 article in the Washington Monthly, co-authored by Marmor, reported the result this way: ?After the two advocates finished, Clinton looked thoughtful, pointed to Marmor and said, ?Ted, you win the argument.? But gesturing to Pollack, Marmor recalls, the governor quickly added, ?But we?re going to do what he says.? Even considering the Canadian system, everyone in the room agreed, would prompt GOP cries of ?socialized medicine? ? cries that the press would faithfully report.?

Health Care for America Now. The largest coalition of liberal groups promoting a choice between a public plan and private insurance companies. ?They are saying ? we can?t do single payer because Americans don?t want it,? said Kip Sullivan of the Minnesota chapter of PNHP. ?That?s based on junk research conducted by Celinda Lake for the Herndon Alliance. It is bad enough to say we can?t do single payer because the insurance industry is too powerful to beat. But it is just plain insidious to say we can?t do single payer because the American people don?t want it. In fact, polling data indicates that two-thirds of Americans support a single payer system. And that level of support exists despite the fact that there is little public discussion about it.?

Kaiser Family Foundation. One of the most prestigious liberal inside the beltway think tanks on health reform policy. Saul Friedman is a reporter for Newsday. In February, Friedman wrote an article for Newsday arguing that single payer is suffering from a conspiracy of silence. And he says Kaiser is the most culpable of the co-conpsirators. Kaiser, funded initially by insurance industry money, regularly keeps single payer off the table, Friedman says. When single payer advocates released a study in January asserting that Congressman John Conyers? single payer bill (HR 676) could create 2.6 million new jobs and would cost far less than the private insurance currently paid for by individuals and employers, ?the Kaiser Family Foundation?s daily online report on health care developments at kff.org didn?t mention it,? Friedman reported. ?Nor has Kaiser, the most comprehensive online source of health care information, made any mention of single-payer or the Conyers bill since it was introduced in 2003, despite widespread support for such a plan according to Kaiser?s own polls.? After a number of insistent inquiries, Kaiser told Friedman that they would publish charts in March comparing the Stark and Conyers bills. They never did.

The Lewin Group. The go-to consulting firm for health reform studies. The most recent study, released last week and widely quoted in the press, of the public plan option, showed that the insurance industry would lose 32 million policy holders if a public plan is enacted. Lewin?s health reform policy guru, John Sheils, told the Associated Press: ?The private insurance industry might just fizzle out altogether.? What the mainstream press didn?t report was that The Lewin Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingenix, which is in turn owned by UnitedHealth Group, the nation?s largest health insurance corporation. Lewin Group has conducted studies on single payer at the state level ? and their studies consistently show that single payer is the most efficient cost saving system. But Lewin Group has never done a study on HR 676 ? which would create a single payer for the entire country and drive The Lewin Group?s parent ? UnitedHealth Group? out of business. When asked why Lewin Group never has done a study on HR 676, Sheils said ? ?the President didn?t propose single payer, did he?? No, he didn?t. That?s why he too is on this list. (Sheils says The Lewin Group has studied national single payer. He points to a recent comparison of the different health reform proposals floating on Capitol Hill ? including one by Congressman Pete Stark (D-California). Stark?s bill would give every American the option of opting into Medicare. But that?s not single payer, because it keeps the private insurance industry in the game. Sheils counters that he modeled the Stark bill as single-payer. ?The employer coverage option under the Stark bill is made so unfavorable that no employer would do it. We have everyone in Medicare, with the resulting savings.? Sheils says that of all the plans studied, the Stark bill saves the most money.)

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PHRMA). PHRMA chief executive Billy Tauzin says that under single payer, the government would become a ?price fixer.? By which he means, the government, as a single payer, will have the power to negotiate drug prices downward, thus costing the drug corporations millions in excess profits. In recent years, PHRMA has infiltrated liberal sounding groups like America?s Agenda ? Health Care for All. PHRMA?s Vice President for Government Affairs and Law, Jan Faiks, now sits on the board of America?s Agenda and PHRMA contributes money to the group ? which has worked in recent years to undermine single payer at the state level. (America?s Agenda Mark Blum won?t say how much money PHRMA gives to his group.)

We have met the enemy.

And they ain?t us.

http://www.1payer.net/News-and-Blogs/top-ten-enemies-of-single-payer.html

This is SPAM, please stop the Cut and Paste.

TIA.
 

Wilson

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,426
10
0
1813 Virginia St
Insurance companies are glad to have you, for without people like you 100 million dollar golden parachutes would be a thing of the past. Please stay healthy and keep those premiums coming.

BTW, insurance premiums have doubled in the last 9 years.

I dunno, my insurance company has never let me down. My premiums are paid by my company and I don't remember having any problems finding a doctor.

Life is good.....don't really care if there are millions without health insurance. Not my problem. I have my own worries and helping finance others' benefits is outrageous to me.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Life is good.....don't really care if there are millions without health insurance. Not my problem.
Good for you. Admitting your complete and utter lack of compassion is the first step for any recovering neoconservative.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
I dunno, my insurance company has never let me down. My premiums are paid by my company and I don't remember having any problems finding a doctor.

Life is good.....don't really care if there are millions without health insurance. Not my problem. I have my own worries and helping finance others' benefits is outrageous to me.

You're already financing others benefits, like i'am financing your war but i don't want to.

I , like so many people, like a train wreck and want to see how bad it gets before something is done.

China just announced they're enacting universal health care, to be in place 2010. I bet a lot of American dollars are financing their system.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Ended the discussion? Well, it's no secret that being a part of the insurance business I can see why you want to end the discussion, much like the insurance companies do. The similarity in that discussion is the doubling and tripling of costs as you guys mention. While I don't know if those two cost increases are accurate, I do know costs are skyrocketing for both, but it's only in the real best interest of one to keep things status quo. To me, that's the real issue, and what we should focus on.
Well that is the crux of healthcare reform, isn't it Chad? The uninsured, the under-insured and the victims of the pre-existing condition clause represent serious problems with our current healthcare system, but unsustainable costs are the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

Individuals cannot address the problem of healthcare costs, nor can their employer. And it doesn't matter how big their employer is, the 3-headed dragon (for-profit healthcare) is bigger and more powerful. The ONLY entity that can address out-of-control healthcare costs is the federal government and the only weapon they can slay the dragon with is single-payer.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,487
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Ended the discussion? Well, it's no secret that being a part of the insurance business I can see why you want to end the discussion, much like the insurance companies do. The similarity in that discussion is the doubling and tripling of costs as you guys mention. While I don't know if those two cost increases are accurate, I do know costs are skyrocketing for both, but it's only in the real best interest of one to keep things status quo. To me, that's the real issue, and what we should focus on.

One thing I do know is that with insurance companies, it's not a simple issue (like you try to make it) of "balancing the books." Those books are looking pretty good these days, as the following story shows. These companies have to pay executives a ton of money, they have to show a large profit and a good bottom line for shareholders, and maintain a business model of company first, policyholder second, in trying to take in as much as they can and pay out as little as they can to accomplish all that. The story:

Health Insurance Profits Soar as Industry Mergers Create Near-Monopoly

by Mike Hall, May 27, 2009

Profits at 10 of the country?s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage. One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets.

The report says such conditions warrant a Justice Department investigation and, says Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), provide compelling evidence of the need for a public health insurance plan option as part of the health care reform initiative President Obama and Congress are developing.

Schumer says the report from Health Care for America Now! (HCAN)

is the starkest evidence yet that the private health care insurance market is in bad need of some healthy competition. A public health insurance option is critical to ensure the greatest amount of choice possible for consumers.

According to the recently released HCAN report, ?Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market?:

In the past 13 years, more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets but haven?t delivered on promises of increased efficiency. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated, and insurers are thriving in the anti-competitive marketplace, raking in enormous profits and paying out huge CEO salaries.

These mergers and consolidations have created a marketplace where a small number of larger companies use their power to raise premiums?an average of 87 percent over the past six years?restrict and reduce benefit packages and control and cut provider payments.

In a letter to the Department of Justice?s Anti-Trust Division, Richard Kirsch, HCAN national campaign manager, and David Balto, former policy director of the Federal Trade Commission and now senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, write:

Simply put, the private insurance companies have secured monopolies or tight oligopolies and exercised that power to put profits ahead of patients?.There were no actions taken against anticompetitive conduct by health insurers in the last administration, in spite of the fact that cases by state attorneys general have secured massive fines against these insurers. A lack of antitrust enforcement has enabled insurers to acquire dominant positions in almost every metropolitan market.

They ask for an investigation of the already consummated mergers that ?harm competition or create an anticompetitive market structure.? They also urge the Justice Department to conduct investigations of ?anticompetitive conduct by dominant insurance companies and challenge that conduct where appropriate.?

Many dominant insurers limit the ability of providers to choose rival insurers or inform patients about more efficient and comprehensive coverage. The DOJ should investigate tools used to stifle competition such as physician gag clauses, most favored nations provisions, all-products clauses, and silent networks, which prevent providers and consumers from having the full range of competitive alternatives.

Schumer last week co-sponsored a Senate resolution urging the creation of a public health plan option and says a public health plan ?is critical to ensure the greatest amount of choice possible for consumers.?

We believe that it is fully possible to create a public health insurance plan that delivers all the benefits of increased competition without relying on unfair, built-in advantages. If a level playing field exists, then private insurers will have to compete based on quality of care and pricing, instead of just competing for the healthiest consumers.

------------------

The insurance companies simply add another layer if skyrocketing costs to what all of us pay - either by ourselves, or what our employers are forced to pay. And as the story mentions, it's probably going to get worse, and possibly never better, if something isn't done about it. I think it's worth looking at, but I can see why you wouldn't, Wayne. In your position, I wouldn't want it changed, either.

Jeez Chad -I just put up entire Fortune 500 list of companys that had highest % of profits a few weeks ago on similiar issue--and here you come back -again-with your same Micheal Moore rope a dope liberal tactics-- top 10 in 13 years BS--:nono:

======================


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=51800

Fact of the matter--sector profits of fortune 500 companies by sector.


Top industries: Fast growers

<TABLE class=snapDataWrapper border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=mainCol><DIV id=magFeatData><SCRIPT>if (location.pathname.match('profit1yr')) { document.write('');} else if (location.pathname.match('profit5yr')) { document.write('');} else { document.write('');}</SCRIPT><TABLE class=with220inset border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR id=header vAlign=center><TH class=alignLft>Industry Rank</TH><TH class=alignLft>Industry</TH><TH class=alignRgt>2007 % Growth in Profits</TH></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>1</TD><TD class=alignLft>Pipelines</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">80.9</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>2</TD><TD class=alignLft>Electronics, Electrical Equipment</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">60.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>3</TD><TD class=alignLft>Packaging, Containers</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">49.8</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>4</TD><TD class=alignLft>Engineering, Construction</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">46.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>5</TD><TD class=alignLft>Airlines</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">33.8</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>6</TD><TD class=alignLft>Wholesalers: Health Care</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">31.4</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>7</TD><TD class=alignLft>Oil and Gas Equipment, Services</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">28.9</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>8</TD><TD class=alignLft>Entertainment</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">25.6</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>9</TD><TD class=alignLft>Network and Other Communications Equipment</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">23.7</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>10</TD><TD class=alignLft>Household and Personal Products</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">20.3</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>11</TD><TD class=alignLft>Medical Products and Equipment</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">20.3</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>12</TD><TD class=alignLft>Aerospace and Defense</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">19.9</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>13</TD><TD class=alignLft>Computers, Office Equipment</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">15.6</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>14</TD><TD class=alignLft>Hotels, Casinos, Resorts</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">15.0</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>15</TD><TD class=alignLft>Securities</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">13.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>16</TD><TD class=alignLft>Internet Services and Retailing</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">12.2</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>17</TD><TD class=alignLft>Wholesalers: Diversified</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">10.7</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>18</TD><TD class=alignLft>Real Estate</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">10.5</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>19</TD><TD class=alignLft>Energy</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">8.7</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>20</TD><TD class=alignLft>Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">8.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>21</TD><TD class=alignLft>Food Consumer Products</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">7.7</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>22</TD><TD class=alignLft>Beverages</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">7.6</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>23</TD><TD class=alignLft>Pharmaceuticals</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">7.3</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>24</TD><TD class=alignLft>Industrial and Farm Equipment</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">7.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>25</TD><TD class=alignLft>Food and Drug Stores</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">6.9</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>26</TD><TD class=alignLft>Information Technology Services</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">6.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>27</TD><TD class=alignLft>Wholesalers: Electronics and Office Equipment</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">4.4</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>28</TD><TD class=alignLft>Specialty Retailers</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">3.4</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>29</TD><TD class=alignLft>Utilities: Gas and Electric</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">3.2</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>30</TD><TD class=alignLft>Automotive Retailing, Services</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">2.4</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>31</TD><TD class=alignLft>Telecommunications</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">2.2</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>32</TD><TD class=alignLft>Railroads</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">0.4</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>33</TD><TD class=alignLft>Chemicals</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-0.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>34</TD><TD class=alignLft>Metals</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-0.3</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>35</TD><TD class=alignLft>Petroleum Refining</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-0.7</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>36</TD><TD class=alignLft>Insurance: Life, Health (stock)</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-1.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>37</TD><TD class=alignLft>General Merchandisers</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-2.9</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>38</TD><TD class=alignLft>Insurance: Property and Casualty (stock)</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-6.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>39</TD><TD class=alignLft>Mining, Crude-Oil Production</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-9.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>40</TD><TD class=alignLft>Health Care: Pharmacy and Other Services</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-9.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>41</TD><TD class=alignLft>Food Services</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-11.1</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>42</TD><TD class=alignLft>Commercial Banks</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-11.2</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>43</TD><TD class=alignLft>Home Equipment, Furnishings</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-14.5</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>44</TD><TD class=alignLft>Motor Vehicles and Parts</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-18.0</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>45</TD><TD class=alignLft>Health Care: Medical Facilities</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-25.0</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>46</TD><TD class=alignLft>Semiconductors and Other Electronic Components</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-38.8</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>47</TD><TD class=alignLft>Publishing, Printing</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-47.2</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>48</TD><TD class=alignLft>Diversified Financials</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-50.6</TD></TR><TR id=tablerow><TD class=alignLft>49</TD><TD class=alignLft>Homebuilders</TD><TD class="alignRgtB shadecell">-225.2</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Fact of the matter? What are you talking about Wayne? You put up a one year snapshot of sector growth by percent, and say that's the accurate measure of what each sector is costing the consumer? Is healthcare and in most cases insurance the same kind of thing as home electronics and hotels?

What a surprise to look at your narrow, self-serving (off the point) list and see homebuilders at -225%! This is the measure you are putting up to defend the rising cost of healthcare and insurance cost for americans and companies?

Are you really saying that profits and costs with insurance companies and healthcare providers have gone DOWN over the past 10 years or so? If so, can you post an accurate list to back it up? And not a list that shows essentially nothing of value for this argument?

And the consolidation angle - far fewer providers and options for the consumer - you've always maintained competition to be the best safeguard for cost and prices - now in this sector, it doesn't matter? Okay.......... :rolleyes:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,487
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Chad When author for either side comes out with leading statement like yours--

by Mike Hall, May 27, 2009

Profits at 10 of the country?s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less -coverage.

--I know he's trying to blow smoke up somebodys ass--Why don't he specify which company -made what -in which year--

--because it woudn't support his case--they use the ole rope a dope to get their lemmings who are all to eger to bite on anything.

--At 1st glance of his lead paragraph above--I recalled the rule of 72 I learned at Jethro Boudin's 6th grade econ class and knew if only 1 company ave 15% profit each year their profits would double bout ever 4 years--

--but that 10 companys- 428% in seven years--sure sounds like a lot--doesn't it :)
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
Fact of the matter? What are you talking about Wayne? You put up a one year snapshot of sector growth by percent, and say that's the accurate measure of what each sector is costing the consumer? Is healthcare and in most cases insurance the same kind of thing as home electronics and hotels?

What a surprise to look at your narrow, self-serving (off the point) list and see homebuilders at -225%! This is the measure you are putting up to defend the rising cost of healthcare and insurance cost for americans and companies?

:
,.........................................................

hammer meet nail

oh a kick right square to the nads
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Okay, Wayne, maybe we should examine say, the top insurance company and see how things are going. That's the company that's been buying up competitors and now holds a vast percentage of medical services and insurance for Americans. Would that be a fair place to start? How about United Healthgroup?

Here's a couple of profit snapshots over the past few years. Keep in mind this company went from #37 on Forbes Top companies in 2006 to #21 last year. They've been moving up every year, and I don't think it's a big secret why. More profits, buying up competition, meaning higher prices for the insured with less competition, and bigger profits. Meaning, the only people winning in this is the company shareholders and management team.

I Googled their profits and found two, from different timeframes, but during this time. Probably reflects their impressive move up in largest companies, don't you think?

3rd Quarter, 2006, Rise of 38% in profits.
2nd Quarter, 2009, Profit more than doubles. (WCCO.com)

Why did it double?

Revenue rose to $21.66 billion from $20.27 billion on increased premiums, which grew partly due to price increases. UnitedHealth is the largest commercial health insurer based on revenue.

Why can they do that? Because they control a vast percentage of the market. Considerably more than most - if not all - of those other sectors you compare to. And that percentage continues to grow, as they purchase more. I've seen several reports that say they control nearly half of the medical insurance market in many regions, and they are looking to buy more, and they certainly have the motivation and resources to do that.

And why does this matter? Because in controlling the market, they control the costs, and what we pay. There's nobody to stop this currently, and it's getting worse. Comparing profit growth percentages compared to other sectors doesn't address the basic cost issue to you and me in this sector. They make a boatload of money, have for a long time, as you can see here at various points (with more that aren't noted or linked) that number is going up. Why would it ever go down if there's no competition, nor controls on cost at any level? It won't. It will just go up, and it will be pushed by management and shareholders. Do they give a shit about you and me? No, of course they don't. They don't have to, and it's in their best interest to care about their bottom line, not me, or you.

You asked about why he doesn't use a single company, single year, etc. I think the above, and other examples like it would HELP his case, not hurt it. The sad thing is, with just two examples, he could cover a majority of the market sector, and those numbers CERTAINLY help his case. So, do you have another point you'd like me to address? The last couple don't seem to work that well for you, unless you see it differently.
:0corn
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
So, do you have another point you'd like me to address? The last couple don't seem to work that well for you, unless you see it differently.
:0corn

............................................................

he wont answer :142smilie
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Individuals cannot address the problem of healthcare costs, nor can their employer. And it doesn't matter how big their employer is, the 3-headed dragon (for-profit healthcare) is bigger and more powerful. The ONLY entity that can address out-of-control healthcare costs is the federal government and the only weapon they can slay the dragon with is single-payer.
DTB... Have you no rebuttal?

Would you care to share with us another way that we, as a country, can possibly address the problem of unsustainable healthcare costs?

:0corn
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
dtb may come in with another list he found that shows nothing.

its a shame to be so afraid of big goverment that you cant do whats right for America
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
oh and by the way---the cost of medicare for folks has more than tripled in same time frame--

--and Ins companies have to balance their books and gov don't.
:0corn

Government doesn't have to balance books just provide care to the sick, what private insurance doesn't do.

You know why medicare tripled? Because they take care of the old and sick, the ones that private insurance don't want.

Private insurance want the young and healthy, the ones who don't need care and can keep paying those high premiums, before they are denied. Every denial is profit to insurance.


Claims denial rates by leading California insurers, first six months of 2009:

PacifiCare -- 39.6 percent
Cigna -- 32.7 percent
HealthNet -- 30 percent
Kaiser Permanente -- 28.3 percent
Blue Cross -- 27.9 percent
Aetna -- 6.4 percent

http://www.calnurses.org/media-cent...-death-panels-insurers-deny-21-of-claims.html
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top