Why do heath care costs in this country keep skyrocketing? Here is part of the reason: PROFIT. Check out the top health care providers CEO Pay last year:

Cigna Corp CEO - $19.1 million

United Heathcare CEO - $13.4 million

Wellpoint CEO - $ 13.3 million

Aetna CEO - $10.6 million

Humana CEO - $7.3 million

Wake up America! Enough is enough! They get rich and we die.

While I don't like CEO pay in general, those numbers are a tiny fraction of the overall health care costs and have a negligible affect on premiums. By the way, those would be considered relatively low CEO pay rates in other industries...

No they are not trivial...

The entire system is rigged for profit, which is why it costs so much.

You have the drug companies whose sole purpose is profit, they do not merely try to gain profit that is the sole focus of what they do,

Same for the bandage companies, the equipment companies, the facility builders, the facility owners, the colleges, the doctors, the hospital staff, and the insurance companies.

A single visit to the doctor funds 45 different companies profits, why do you think it costs so much?

Well, with a single payer system we wouldn't be paying these Ceo's to play golf and attend martini lunches. That would save a bunch !!!

You need to understand how business works and not just look at those numbers and get jeolous, because we all know you would not turn down a job for that kind of money on principal anyway, now don't we?

Jealousy is not the problem here, healthcare costs are.

A visit to the veterinarian funds 45 different company profits too, yet it's affordable. Why do you suppose that is?

People with job based healthcare have been over paying to help offset the rest with no healthcare.

You nailed it. The paying pool is shrinking, and is forced to cover an increasing pool of un-paying.

We need a nationalized system where everyone pays.

Kight, BS, the profit margins of the major insurance companies are relatively low. Anthems profit margin is 5.5%, Humana's margin is just 2.2% compared with 33% at Apple. They really do not have much wiggle room in the event of a financial crisis.

Again, why are all these people commenting on something they CLEARLY know nothing about?

Kight, BS, the profit margins of the major insurance companies are relatively low.

Considering you can't even spell a simple word correctly I'm half inclined to not respond, however you are focusing on a single company when there are 45 other ones that are gouging people to the maximum extent they can.

A visit to the veterinarian funds 45 different company profits too, yet it's affordable. Why do you suppose that is?

Because people are willing to let the dog die when it costs $2000, they do not have that option with their kid, wife, or grandma even if they would choose that, do they? You also have insurance and law backing their practices to a far greater degree. They are 2 totally different models but the underlying concept is the same, they are a profit based enterprise that will take as much as they can possibly get away with.

So Marlen, it's not that simple. You might want to learn a bit about socialized medicine as well. Try having multiple kids(triplets, etc.) in Canada- they don't have enough incubators because they have to distribute them evenly around the country, so you can't have your kids just anywhere. Need surgery- Try in Europe. They've had socialized medicine in eastern Europe for a long time, so (personal story) if you've got a relative needing that cancer operation they go on a waiting list (months). There are only so many slots, so you might get bumped for a while while an important case comes in. Then you have to have a "gift" for the surgeon so that they do the surgery on you (think expensive bribe). The hosipital workers don't get raises due to budget cuts, so they just stop where they are at the end of their shift, so hopefully they saw you (with your meds, cleaning the room, etc.) before they had to go. Infections are rampant, so you don't want to be there, but you can be stranded because you are waiting. Get the picture?

Those problems all exist already with for profit health care, they might get worse in 5% and better in 50%, still an overall gain.

I had my doubts about a govt-run system back when we were debating it prior to the healthcare bill vote, but now I'm beginning to see the wisdom in a single-payer, not-for-profit system. I don't know if that can be realized as something other than a govt program, but I'm willing to consider having even them do it over the current piecemeal system that's clearly resulting in runaway spending.

Knight, aside from your childish response, a sure sign you don't have a leg to stand on, ALL insurance companies have relatively low profit margins compared to the S&P. This is because the actuaries do a pretty good job predicting costs and there is so little room left for profit increases in this their business rate structure that is under attack from all sides to raise rates.

Just look them up one by one, I am not your research assistant but I do know what I am talking about, as opposed to you wallowing in ignorance and carved in stone emotionally charged opinions.

"Because people are willing to let the dog die when it costs $2000, they do not have that option with their kid, wife, or grandma even if they would choose that, do they?"

That's not the issue. The issue is that the same $2000 surgery on your dog requires the same level of education, same facilities, same support staff, same anesthesia, same equipment, etc. as the equivalent service provide to a human that would cost $200,000.

The difference is that when the customer knows what things cost and pays out of pocket the business is forced to arrange themselves to be affordable. What we have now:

the patient doesn't know or care what anything costs because someone else (government or insurance) is paying for it

the insurance company doesn't care because they're paid a percentage of the transactions. So long as they can collect the premiums they don't care what it costs.

the hospital and doctors don't care because they are a cost plus operation.

The only people who care are us sucker tax payers who are getting soaked with the costs. Since 47% don't pay income tax at all and the trend now is to focus on getting the few percent at the top they haven't the numbers to put on viable political pressure.

Regarding insurance being low profit, you have to look at the salaries of the people in the industry. If it's like the oil industry you'll find low level employees making big bucks, far more than they could in other industries. "non profits" are even worse. The number of idiots I've met running "non profits" making hundreds of thousands a year is stunning. These people aren't worth minimum wage in a for profit business.

In fact, the whole "non profit" status should be eliminated in my opinion.

Just look them up one by one, I am not your research assistant but I do know what I am talking about, as opposed to you wallowing in ignorance and carved in stone emotionally charged opinions.

Since you can't read, I'll help you out

Drug companies, ONLY a 5% profit margin (along with billions in handouts from the public)

Hospital drug markup, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Bandage makers, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Vendors, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Hospital designer, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Hospital builder, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Hospital Administrator, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Ambulance designer, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Ambulance makers, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Ambulance insurer, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Helicopter designer, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Helicopter makers, ONLY a 5% profit margin

School administrator, ONLY a 5% profit margin

School advertising, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Student loan officer, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Student loans, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Victim - I mean patient insurance, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Doctor's insurance, ONLY a 5% profit margin

Hospital's insurance, ONLY a 5% profit margin

See how you are completely missing the point?

Supply and demand coupled with greed. No way should a trip to the doctor cost as much as it does. There was a doctor in NY who set up a single pay fee per visit and the state came down on him like a ton of bricks. Here the doctors all charge the same fees, so there is no competition and most people don't question costs so the care providers charge what they think they can get away with. If more people questioned what a procedure was going to cost up front and also questioned if it was truly necessary, prices would go down.

Something that also should be examined is the high cost of schooling. Perhaps the government could make agreements to help cover the costs in exchange for service. This happens in the military and could be used elsewheres.

drug companies are selling to 2nd 3rd parties that are increaseing the price of drugs by 300% On That note I have a cousin with cancer that had a CAT scan, he has medical ins which they changed on him this year, last year they could manage their co pays. They received the Bill the copay was 2500 dollars. My cousin called the hospital and asked what the test would be without INS they told him 1200 dollars. Why are there now two different prices? If you have INS the hospitals are charging out landish amt for tests b/c the INS companies cover say 80% and then the rest is the PT co pay so they make a ton for the test. My Doc visits are 135.00 for about 5 min my part is 35.00 I had my daughter call as a new PT and ask what the office visits are without INS, they said 75.00 , if they charged my INS that i would not have a copay at all because they pay up to 100.00. The Doc and Hosp know this and are taking advantage of not only us , but the INS companies also.

Knight........I lived in Canada for awhile and have many Canadian friends, i also have a cousin that married a Canadian, but is a nurse in the US. She forgo's her healthcare here and uses theirs. The only place there are concerns are if you live in a rural area they are having problems getting healthcare professionals to go live there. My many Canadians friends have said to me they would never give up there Socialized Medicine to have what we get.

Scomata

This is because the actuaries do a pretty good job predicting costs

Don't forget the massive efforts they put into denying and delaying care along with doing there best to force sick people off of their plans.

I have had patients who had surgery approved then approval withdrawn at the last minute in hope that out of concern for the patient we would do the procedure. They could then refuse to pay because it wasn't "pre-approved".

Then there are the months that we have had to delay treating our oncology patients battling there insurance company. Writing well researched and referenced appeals that are then denied by physicians who really arent qualified to rule on them. The insurance company is hoping the patient dies while waiting.

Then there are the hours our administrative staff spend on the phone plowing through poorly written voice recognition software to go though the pre-approval process which eventually goes up the chain to nurses then to the dreaded "peer to peer" call. When approval is given is always comes with the qualifier "this does not guarantee payment" setting up the next expensive time consuming battle.

None of this comes free. The cost to support the administrative demands of the insurance industry are passed onto consumers through higher healthcare costs.

Sorry Scomata The insurance industry doesn't contribute a thing to patient care. The insurance industry is like a tick, sucking blood out injecting disease in its place.

Thanks JoeNY for the best post of the thread.

I don't understand why any of you haven't posted the obvious? As soon as it was apparent that they were going to ram Obamacare through Congress, the Insurance companies went on the offensive to protect their industry. Obamacare is an attack on the private insurance industry. If they had done nothing, they will certainly go bankrupt in a few years. It is a primary business goal TO STAY IN BUSINESS. Isn't it great that our govt. creates an adversarial business environment? Who's winning in this? No one I know. All smoke and mirrors by the fools in Congress who think the govt. can do a better job. Considering all their current programs are mismanaged and soon, (or already) bankrupt, no sane person would find that a good alternative.

Obama wanted single payer, congress wrote 'obamacare'.

Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation

• Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
• Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
• Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
• Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
• Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
• U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
• WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
  L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169

Crystal, thats a load of crap ! Most of realize we have a big problem in healthcare and it must be addressed.

The republican answer is to leave it to the free market, it will somehow work out!!!

it is not working out, and crossing state lines or the tort reform (which actually means if your rich you can sue, if your poor you cannot) will never control the inflation costs.

Medicare for all would be the cheapest and easiest !!!!!

Just like Hooked On Phonics...

Obaahhhmmuh Cayre werkt fir me!! ROFL!!!

I thought Obamacare was supposed to REDUCE healthcare costs? Ooops!

Everyone has a valid point(Their own opinion) on this subject. Here is another point that nobody touched on: The American people want the best Health Care money can buy. They just don't want to pay for it.

The US government has a record of "What ever it tries to improve, they legislate it ad-nauseum. AND they still screw it up. Leave it to the private sector and keep the lawyers (ambulance chasers) out of it. If you want the best - you are going to have to pay for it one way or another.

P.S. I am really offended by people getting health care welfare with $100 nail extensions, Hair styles in the $100 range and tattoos out the ying yang. Smoking, Alcohol and street drugs. If you can afford this you have money for health care.

@jwilson

Trump said it best...

"Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes , for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

What the hell could possibly go wrong ?"

This is not the fault of Obamacare, the system is flawed and based on profit. If an illegal alien goes to the ER having a heart attack, they have to treat him. He leaves and doesn't pay the bill. The hospital, being profit based, has to get the money from somewhere, so they charge your insurance company $100 for a tylenol. Your insurance company, being profit based, has to make up for that $100 they just paid out, so they increase your premiums and your co-payments. We all pay for that illegal alien. We already have a socialized medicine in country, it's just the insurance companies are in the middle siphoning off money.

First, we have a doctor shortage that is getting worse as boomers retire and demand by boomers is increasing. Also many male doctors were replaced by women doctors that only work part-time.

Single pay proponents idealize Medicare. If you are on Medicare you also need a supplemental plan for all the stuff FFS Medicare does not pay for which then makes it not affordable for many. So Medicare says NO a lot which keeps their costs lower, although not nearly low enough since they pay out much more than they take in. Additionally, dentistry, eye glasses, hearing aids, are not paid for which is enough to bankrupt many seniors that live on an avg SS wage of 1100./mo.

Single pay does not mean EVERYBODY pays. That is a myth. I wish it was true, but it isn't. The reason Romney care ended up costing more was because the assumption was that those uninsured were mostly healthy which they were not. Also they thought the uninsured would be paying for their new policies, which they are not since they qualify for subsidies.

I am in the process of a legal battle with Mayo after negligence on their part pertaining to a surgery. They have completely dismissed us and in fact their customer service number is automated instead of being answered by a real person. Mayo is big business. They don't care a darn about keeping costs down nor how much their mistakes costs families or the insurance companies. What I see in my town is a lavish building with every bell and whistle possible, but an extremely faulty system not focused on cost nor efficiency. It has been a real eye opener.

Obama was wrong to push this legislation before we did figure out what was really causing health care to skyrocket. He said we already had that debate and we couldn't afford to wait. Pelosi said we would see what we have after it was passed. This was simply moronic.

We have doctor/nurse shortages, drug shortages, fewer and fewer critical care trauma centers, fewer hospitals , etc. NO caps is extremely costly as is insuring more and more unhealthy people due to diseases that are humanly preventable. Obesity is skyrocketing which increases so many other diseases.

The idea of insurance in the health care industry is stupid. Insurance is bought with the intent to NEVER use it or rarely. We don't buy car insurance to use it. We hope we never have to. And yet we buy health insurance to use it and we wonder why we can't control costs.

theboys...now that is the Best succinct synopsis I've seen in a very long time. Good on!

Why is this news? Insurance companies are publicly traded and the shareholders demand more profits each quarter and there is little innovation to be had to make more profits in the insurance industry. I do not know why so many people are upset at the CEO pay? Wall Street pay is what is driving up the costs. These companies are not looking out for their customers and are looking for every way not to help their customers. See how fast this country would fall if Police and Fire had to directly answer to Wall Street.

No...we don't need a non-profit single payer system!

-Not when we have insurance companies that take 40% of premiums for "administration" (M'Care takes 5%). pay their CEOs poverty level wages (see above) and increase premiums at five times the inflation rate. Given that they contribute absolutely nothing to health care", their elimination is unthinkable.

-Not when for-profit providers charge whatever the traffic bears (we're #1 in costs) and provide stellar results (we're #38 internationally). How could we possibly manage without $3,000 MRIs, $50 aspirins and $1,000/day hospital rooms? Reigning them in would be un-American.

-Not when we're so proud that health care costs are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies. What would we brag to other nations about?

- Not when we can count on Republicans to eliminate the "Public Option" from "Obamacare". It was a danger to the Republic: it would have eliminated insurance companies, ended for-profit providers, lowered our costs, improved our results and in so doing, would have decimated a primary Republican constuency. Who knows, it might have even led to an end of Republican welfare to the military-industrial complex- a bastion of "Americanism".

The dangers of non-profit single payer cannot be minimized. We NEVER want to be like the Japanese, who pay $400/year (!) to cover 80% of their health costs. Blatantly un-Amereican!

The American people want the best Health Care money can buy. They just don't want to pay for it.

No, we already pay for it, we just don't get it. We pay more than any other country by a significant margin, yet overall rank around 40th place in terms of overall quality.

The findings are based on about 3 billion claims paid by Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare on behalf of 33 million people with job-based insurance nationwide.

90 claims for each person???? Are we supposed to believe that EVERYONE is visiting a doctor or hospital - two times a week - every week???? There is where the problem lies.

What that reveals is there are too many middlemen in providing services. Every middleman wants a profit and those profits add up.

We do not have too few doctors - or - too many patients. Our health care system is infested with too many parasites.

Corporations claim that consolidation into a single accounting system (single payer system) is a PROVEN business management tool used to control costs. If our corporations can lay us off - because consolidation is needed to cut costs - then maybe we should apply the same business medicine to the health care industry, too.

JonSmith23456

This is not the fault of Obamacare, the system is flawed and based on profit. If an illegal alien goes to the ER having a heart attack, they have to treat him. He leaves and doesn't pay the bill. The hospital, being profit based, has to get the money from somewhere, so they charge your insurance company $100 for a tylenol.

That is only part of the problem, though it is a problem. If this were the only problem, then it wouldn't be causing the societal cost of health care to be increasing faster than the rate of inflation, but it would cause the cost to individuals to be increasing faster than the rate of inflation. (if inflation is 5%, then if you only apply that inflation to half the population, that means that the part of the population that absorbs that increase would experience 10% inflation).

It IS most definitely a problem though, because that means that there is a segment of the population that is receiving expensive health care, but our system applies those costs to those that accept personal responsibility by getting insurance.

The boys.

We don't have a doctor shortage, we have a 'general practitioner' doctor shortage. The problem is that under the US system, you just don't make enough as a GP, even though the majority of the cost to become a doctor is spent in getting to that level. After that, an individual will generally be earning an income to get into their specialization.

This shortage of GP's is acute even though a GP is critical for lowering the costs of health care delivery.

As far as the PPACA, its biggest failing is that it only focussed on the public part of health care, the part that people were complaining about, high cost or unavailable insurance. But the reality is that the problems are in the parts that nobody sees, the health care delivery system. But anytime anyone even remotely tries to attack the real problem, they get attacked for trying to 'prevent a person from seeing who they want to see' or some other partisan attack. Quite frankly, as critical as reforming health care is to this nations future, I personally have pretty much given up on it. All people want to do is put bandaids on the problem.

US health care system is nothing but an organized crime racket.

@ craig @ 1.34

Forgive me, but I thought that when the decision to abandon the single payer option was made, it was made to get Democrat votes, not Republican votes.

In fact, when Obamacare was passed, Democrats enjoyed a super majority in the House and Senate and owned the White House. The Republicans did not have the votes to stop anything until Massachusetts elected Scott Brown. Yet, the Democrats found a way to get past the Scott Brown obstacle and Obamacare became a reality based on wheeling and dealing among Democrats.

So I don't understand how you can say that Republicans eliminated the single payer option when they did not have the power to do so.

I would encourage all those who want "free" medical care to consider a few things.

1. TINSTAAFL (There is no such thing as a free lunch). This is a universal truth.

2. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it is free. Conversely, maybe ObamaCare will make it free, but you won't be able to buy any at that price.

3. Health care is what economists call a luxury good - the more income or wealth you have, the greater percentage you spend on health care. That is a large part of why health care expenditures rise faster than inflation.

4. The point about veterinary care has already been made - competition works to the benefit of consumers. To see that in human care, one only need look as far as cosmetic and elective procedures. For cosmetic procedures, prices have come down and availability has increased. For things like Lasik eye surgery, price has plummeted.

5. Since RomneyCare in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, it has become very hard to find a PCP and the wait for an appointment if you are lucky enough to find one is around six months. Canada, here we come. Also, visits to the ER, supposedly to be greatly decreased by universal coverage, have increased substantially. Furthermore, there are still a bunch of people who are uninsured.

6. When the government forces every possible peril to be covered by insurance (e.g., fertility assistance, drug abuse, gambling addiction) and removes all incentives for responsible behavior, not to mention price and quality shopping, prices are going to skyrocket. So they have. If the government is going to pay for my car, I will have a Ferrari.

7. Tomas Philipson at the University of Chicago pointed out that ObamaCare will reduce the life expectancy of my children and grandchildren.

I pray every night that the Supreme Court strikes ObamaCare down.

The ONLY way to rein in health care costs is through a free market system that allows the customer (patient) to shop for the service required. This will force competition between providers (hospitals) which will lower costs. Look no further than the home PC to understand this works. PC's are better and far cheaper than they were years ago. Some have suggest removing profit from health care. Under that model, expectquality to plummet and few if any new pharmaceutical drugs.

hardtostarboard

The difference between the PC and health care is that you don't have to get a PC, but when you are sick, you have to get health care.

The two markets are COMPLETELY different, with the PC market having many checks and balances, and the health care market having absolutely no market pressures on demand.

OK. Hold it right there. JoeNY, and all your right wingers, you are totally ignorant about healthcare. This post addresses some of Joe's serious errors, but it also applies to all right wingers.

1. Medical practice insurance is going up … [due to] frivolous lawsuits.

Lawsuits do NOT affect the cost of malpractice premiums. First, malpractice actions are filed in less than 0.001% of all discharges. Out of those lawsuits, less than 3% ever make it to trial due to lack of merit or jurisdiction. So only 3% of 0.001% go to trial. Of those cases, only 5% are won by the plaintiff, and they only get the full awards sought if they have proven that the treatment procedures are a gross and flagrant violation of medical principles for the given diagnoses.

Malpractice premiums are up for only one reason – the insurers can and do charge anything they want. The insurance industry operates outside the law of supply and demand.

Tell a couple whose child is killed by a gross and flagrant violation of medical practices, that their lawsuit is “frivolous”. I dare you.

2. The implimentation of nationalized healthcare is raising the costs of insurances as well.

Nationalized healthcare has NOT been implemented. It was omitted from the ACA. The average insurance policy has increased nearly 20%, even though demand hasn’t risen. The insurance industry operates outside the law of supply and demand.

Investors? Where the hell do investors belong in your illness?

3. We have a culture of see a doctor for everything …

That’s a crock. The average Japanese citizen sees a doctor 15 times a year even when they’re well. That’s more than once a month. And those visits go up if someone gets sick. Americans don’t see doctors enough, probably because most can’t afford it – even if they’re insured.

4. … Doctor groups bought MRI's and cat scan machines because they saw profits in them, so when you go in with an ache you've got to get a scan.

Most truly expensive tests are NOT done in a physician’s office; they are done at diagnostic centers.

Some physicians prescribe unnecessary tests, but they do so for a wide variety of reasons, some of which are legitimate. And that’s the purpose behind UR committees and organizations (Utilization Review). If a physician’s discharge reviews show too great a utilization rate for medically unnecessary procedures, that physician can receive sanctions that can be as severe as revocation of the license to practice medicine.

Insurance companies have their own UR review boards, and they can refuse reimbursement, even retrospectively (after payment).

Finally, Joe, your closing paragraph is BS.

I know lots and lots of Canadians, and they LOVE their health care. Brag about it. I have a second home in Canada, and there is no shortage of incubators. That’s a lie.

In Canada, 80% of all ER patients see a doctor within 15 minutes, while the average wait for a doctor in an American ER is just over 8 hours. Canadian hospitals don’t need to take guarantor or insurance information during admission or triage. Whatever they’re doing, they’re doing it better than we are: Canadians have a higher average life expectancy, a lower infant mortality rate, and better overall health. Their aging population (over 55) has extremely low rates of elder diseases, while ours is among the highest on Earth with obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, pulmonary diseases, etc. leading the way.

The wait for surgery is much lower throughout Europe than it is here. In England, the most at-risk poverty-stricken patients have better overall health than the wealthiest Americans. So their healthcare is vastly superior to ours. In fact, ALL European nations give better health care than we do, even Slovenia.

I’ve NEVER heard of surgeon bribes, and I doubt they exist. In fact, your post is so ridiculous that I’m sure you just made that crap up out of thin air.

Follow your own advice – be careful what you wish for. Profits have no place in health care.

The difference between the PC and health care is that you don't have to get a PC, but when you are sick, you have to get health care.

PC costs have dropped largely because every part is mass produced in China, and quality is not really any better or worse than expected under Moore's law. But you are correct in a more abstract sense, in that if people could wait 5 years for a routine procedure for costs to come down we might see some pressure on them to lower costs... However because there are more people than ever and they cannot wait it is known as an inelastic good or service, meaning people will need it at any price in a certain quantity. The same argument could be made for housing, for most people waiting it out for 10 or 20 years simply isn't an option, they still need a place to live.

JoeNY

Since when do you need an incubator to have a healthy child? The ONLY time you need an incubator is if the child is born prematurely, and that is a problem that can often (not always) be attributed to substandard prenatal care. Not sure where you got that loaded pile of crap hysterical (it is hysterically funny actually) bs story, but hey, guess that's what america is now boiling down to, the 'truth' being manufactured by fictitious sound bites.

Health Care companies don't deserve this kind of money. Politicians do, they need that cash for their fancy hooker parties and such.

Once again people health INSURANCE is not health CARE.... Obama's law does NOTHING to address the issue of the actual CARE rising. It only forces people to buy insurance... which again is not CARE.

and for the mentally challanged like Marlen who do not get that insurance is not care.. so as pertains to the actual cost of the care... how much a ceo of a company gets paid means nothing.

Until someone addresses why the cost of the actual care keeps going up and up... no matter how much insurance you force people to buy.. they wont be able to afford it.

Nonsense. Insurance is the largest cause of health care cost increases. Every time you use insurance to pay for care, you actually spend someone else's money. (No, you do not spend your own - that's the nature of insurance.) And every time you pay out of pocket for care, you are paying for someone else's care. (That's the nature of the private sector profiting from health care.)

The cost increases because when you run health care for profit, paying a claim is a loss. Fiduciary accountability leads directly to decreased coverage, and THAT causes rising prices.

For you folks arguing about profit margins.

Let me explain some 3rd grade voo-doo math.

Hollywood style. Lots and lots and lots of money.......BUT NO PROFIT.

To wit: Harry Potter series 10 Billion ++++ PROFIT ==== ZERO !!!

Everyone is paid on the gross income.

Gross income - Expenses [payola] == PROFIT

Also look over to Wall Street.
When the economy tanked Walmart rejoiced over a 10% profit + GAINS == more money.

BUT, Wall Street issued a statement they were "disappointed" and were expecting more !

GET THE PICTURE --- WalMart stock dropped the next day --- how is that for Voo-Doo Math!

To wit: Harry Potter series 10 Billion ++++ PROFIT ==== ZERO !!!

Hollywood has some of the finest accountants making sure of that. The profits just aren't in the movie itself, they are funnelled to various shelters and off book entities. With the Harry Potter series, the magic is both in the movie and in the accounting.

Apple CEO 2011 compensation, $378 million in total. Health Insurance CEO's compensation seems kind of paltry! Yet even with high compensation, iPods, iPhones, iPads, iMacs cost pretty much what they have for the past several years and maintained a relatively high profit margin for Apple. This kind of blows that whole argument of highly paid CEO's as the cause of high priced health insurance services out of the water!

Try considering the government, Obama and his regulators, as the source of increase in cost and reduction of services. Afterall, what better way to corral you bunch of idiots into single payer where you have no choice other than to accept what scraps the government gives you! Shut up and just take the blue pill will be in your future! Obama Lemmings!

@Jim

Nonsense. Insurance is the largest cause of health care cost increases. Every time you use insurance to pay for care, you actually spend someone else's money. (No, you do not spend your own - that's the nature of insurance.) And every time you pay out of pocket for care, you are paying for someone else's care. (That's the nature of the private sector profiting from health care.)

The cost increases because when you run health care for profit, paying a claim is a loss. Fiduciary accountability leads directly to decreased coverage, and THAT causes rising prices.

While you are correct that Health Insurance Carriers are in the business to make a profit...Tsierpa is correct. Health Insurance Companies are not the drivers increasing the costs of Health CARE. That onus falls on the Hospitals, physicians, nurses, other medical professionals AND pharmas.

Health Insurance is merely a private industry's product that assists one in receiving health care. It certainly doesn't guarantee quality health care. It is a cushion for a catastrophic illness or injury.

Anyone who has health insurance who is spending $$ on premiums, co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses can do the math with their own premiums...before considering that it's someone else's $$. The majority of consumers aren't getting much for their premium...and that will be clearly evident once everyone is required to purchase Health Insurance under the ACA.

Apple CEO 2011 compensation, $378 million in total. Health Insurance CEO's compensation seems kind of paltry!

Except that the health insurance CEO is just one of dozens of companies that have their hand out and each one taking a 'paltry' profit. For most regions and most providers there may well be 200 companies each making 5-10% profit which surprisingly adds to the cost, crazy how math works, right?

From someone who actually has worked for over a decade in the hospitals and for United Healthcare, let me tell you something. The problem is the hospitals increasing their charges because they're a "for profit" institution and the money they pay to their board members is outrageous! Also because of the people who come in for services and can't afford to pay for it either because they don't have insurance or they can't afford their co-pays/ deductibles. These hospitals get government funds for those patients, but the numbers are going up because more and more people can't afford healthcare. They end up in the hospital because they didn't get the outpatient treatment because they couldn't afford it.

Now onto the insurance... they are only worried about the bottom line. They are in it to make money. That's all. Insurance rates are based in large part on how much the 'catastrophic' people have cost them. Those are the people who are very ill, who've spent long terms in ICU, etc. and have used a lot of healthcare. Then they add a bunch of money to that for their "projections" of how much the catastrophic costs will be for the next term and raise their rates so they're still turning a great profit.

We need a single payer system. Obama tried to get that, but no one wanted it. Now people *might* be seeing why we needed it. This is going to crash. Our healthcare is becoming unreachable for too many...so those are going to end up in the hospital where the bill will be much larger and go unpaid. The government needs to set limits for what the hospitals, etc. can charge. The insurance companies are raising their rates in an effort to get people to rise up and demand the health care changes so far repealed. That's all it is. Trust me.

For you folks arguing about profit margins.

Let me explain some 3rd grade voo-doo math.

How bout you look up the difference between gross and net profit?

If you have a business degree, ask for your money back.

See how you are completely missing the point?

I see how you dont have a clue. This is from the Obama adnimstration:

One of the most important parts of the Affordable Care Act is the effect that it will have on the maximums of health insurance plans. The act will eliminate lifetime maximums and most annual maximums, theoretically allowing for better treatment of patients. With maximums greatly extended or entirely eliminated, cancer patients and other policy holders with serious medical issues should be able to afford the treatments that they need. However, it's worth noting that eliminating maximums will likely have another effect on the health insurance plans. Rates may increase significantly, as health insurance companies use maximums to prevent large payouts and to protect their profits. Without maximums in place, many analysts expect health care costs to rise, particularly for policy holders with low-cost, low-coverage insurance.

ScoMata,

That hasn't been around long enough (if it has even kicked in yet) for it to make a difference in health care premiums. As I said in another post (in different words), lets revisit this in a few years.

Goddamn, I thought rocks were dense...

Net VS gross doesn't matter one f*cking bit when you have 45-200 companies all riding on one guys coattails. You have tunnel vision on one stupid CEO's STATED compensation and are ignoring the mountain of other costs, vendors, and middlemen in the process.

@cms5

Good post, cms5. I stand corrected. Permit me to restate my point.

When my father was alive, he used the same old pharmacy he always used - a small local family-owned pharmacy. Once, he complained to me that the co-pays on his prescription plan had gone up. His co-pay was $100 for 180 Coumadin tablets, and he thought that was exorbitant. My policy doesn’t cover prescriptions, so I pay full price out of pocket. Because it’s cheaper, I get my prescriptions filled at a Walmart. My total cost, out of pocket at full price, for 180 Coumadin is only $20 – 5 times lower in price than his co-pay. When I recommended he switch pharmacies, he didn’t do it because “the insurance pays for it”.

He could have saved money by paying full price at a different pharmacy, but he felt that insurance should have to pay something. He just didn’t understand.

That’s how insurance contributes to increasing health care costs. It operates outside the law of supply and demand. If my father had had to pay full price out of pocket, he would have been forced to switch pharmacies, and the free market would’ve worked. But as long as “someone else pays”, (i.e., insurance), why make the switch?

He didn’t pay for his insurance policy; it was paid for by the employer he had retired from. So I guess it seemed to him like he was getting benefits he deserved because he’d earned them.

Johnathan, Yes and no, yes in that what you say is technically true, but one would be naive if you think that they are not building in those projected costs into their rate structures and that some of that is not reflected in the 2012 increases.

I know for a fact that they are because I worked for Xerox and designed the software that reads the claim forms for most if these companies and have access to people that know how this works. I have one friend high up at The Hartford that told me they are wondering if they will even be around in ten years. I have also worked for major hospitals and Bristol Myers Squibb and have seen it from those perspectives too.

These people are not as evil as advertised, sometimes quite the the contrary. They are controlled by the federal government to a degree that would surprise most. There is a lot of blame to go around, all must share, but the fact that the federal government who makes the laws and then neglects to enforce the laws escapes blame in this is offensive to me.

sco,

I am not saying that there aren't problems, hell there are more problems than there are roaches in the world (and I mean the bipedal roaches as described so succinctly by Agent Smith in the Matrix).

All I am saying is that you aren't going to see a 30% increase in your health care premiums THIS YEAR because of the ACA. Yes those mentioned items do increase the actuarial risk, but the individual mandate is the OTHER side of that. Now there is no way to determine if the two balance out, but right now it is difficult to tell what that will end up looking like.

As for the 10 year item. I am pretty sure they have been wondering that with or without the PPACA. Health care costs in the US right now run at no less than twice the cost of any other nations health care costs. The United States spends more than 20% of its GDP on health care. The next nearest nation spends just over 10%. The United States has health care cost growth that is higher than any other industrialized nation. That is UNSUSTAINABLE. It is unsustainable with or without the PPACA (well actually the PPACA doesn't do anything at all to deal with the costing issues, which is the reason why I think it is bad legislation, though I don't think it is unconstitutional). So the 10 year comment is just as pertinent. Overturn the PPACA, same thing. It just isn't going to work.

As for my perspective, we were getting those same unsustainable increases even before Obama decided to run for president, let alone creating the PPACA.

While I may have issues with the Insurance companies, I don't think they are evil, and I think that the biggest problem with the PPACA is specifically that it pretty much only deals with Insurance (the part that people see, so it also gets the wrath, some deserved, some undeserved), but the REAL problems are in the system. Not just one piece of it, but the way it all works together. It just doesn't work. The PPACA does NOTHING to fix it.

I do want to make one more point, when you need drugs and can not afford them, instead of hating on big pharma, ask for the drugs at a reduced cost or free by petitioning them directly.

Check their websites.

Each company sets aside millions to fund these programs, and if you can prove you qualify, they will help you. They just can't open the flood gates and stay in business. My friend who has MS and makes about 14 an hour full time (when she can work) qualified for free meds from Pfizer, but would have never known about it because of all the hating it never occurred to her they might want to help.

It is even more if you include health care costs.

Yeah, Saxon. Voted for your comment.

@James Lee - I stand corrected and apologize. Sens. Pryor, Lincoln (both Ds) and 8 other Ds voted to eliminate the Public Option. Obviously Republicans are not the only bought-and-paid-for supporters of for-profit medicine.

Craig,

You can't have a public 'option' and have it work long term, unless the sole purpose of that public option is to have the public subsidize the health insurance of those that can't afford it. You either have to go all out public single payor, or all out private insurance. What will end up happening with a public option is that the private insurers will just use the 'option' to offload all those that they don't want to cover, with the end result that the public part will be burdened with much higher costs. This isn't an operational efficiency issue, this is a risk management issue.

@Max^108 - It's even less if you count Real Estate prices.

Obama 2012, YEHAWWW!!!!!

@John: That's the problem with our economic system, everything is for profit and not need.

Indeed, health care should be a Non profit industry.

My son took a ride in an ambulance last year for a 4 mile ride to the ER. The bill was $997.00. They even charged me for a full tank of gas. Talk about highway robbery!

bs, my wife was in europe recently and had a health scare. They didn't even have an ultrasound available! My dog's vet has an ultrasound for god's sake!

Just think how our economy would thrive if businesses didn't have to provide health care? Small business could grow faster, everyone would be healthier, and no one would be turned away. I just don't get the short-sightedness of people who don't want universal health care.

Miss Copper,

While I do not like our current system, I do not think a government run solution would be better in the long run. I have a friend that just came back from nursing school in Canada, and she said they are pushing out "nurses" that can barely read and write because they have a shortage and the pay isn't very good - so that's the best they can get. I also worked for 14 years for a Canadian company (I live in the US), and the Canadian employees loved having a US office because it gave them access to US healthcare (they said Canadian care was horrible in comparison).

The bottom line for me is, with a good market based approach (not what we have today), there are checks and balances that help to optimize how the resources are spent. But, with a government run solution, my experience is it will get more and more inefficient over time and eventually be more expensive while providing worse care.

I realize you may disagree with my assertions, but please understand that my reasoning is based on long-term thinking.

Your employer providing your health insurance makes about as much sense as having them provide your car or homeowner insurance. It's only that way because if the government gave you the tax writeoff the company would have to pay you a lot more to buy your own health insurance.

Your country was also subsidizing the HC you got, we do not want that here.

Ms Copper, short sighted, really, Obama care has cost me about 3 grand more than I was paying previously, and we will get an increase this year, then next year the HC cost will go up again to give HC to those that don't have it(reads don't pay a damned dime).

Obamacare cost you $3000 more than you were paying previously? Are you always this full of sh it or would you say this was a fluke? Obamacare has not increased your insurance costs by anymore than inflation has. Don't be such an idi0t.

Ron,

That is total bs about the canadian system. Having an office in the US does not give any employee in a Canadian office access to US health care.

Also, there are NO nursing 'schools' in Canada. All nurses must graduate from UNIVERSITY, and the requirements for getting into university are pretty much consistent in both the US and Canada. Being able to form complete sentences is part of that requirement.

As for the employee's, there is nothing special about having a US office. The canadian system only has the insurance socialize, not the delivery system. Though most of the delivery system is in a structure similar to a trust (or religious hospital network, though not necessarily religious based), there is absolutely nothing in the laws of most provinces that prevent private facilities (quebec is one exception that I am aware of). The requirement for a person to get health care in the US from Canada is basically, 'find a specialist that is not available in your province of residence and the canadian government will pay for it' or 'emergency care'. In those cases, the Canadian insurance system will pay for the care. It has NOTHING to do with having an office in the US (in fact, having an office in the US and multiple employee's using that office to funnel health care is bound to get a fraud charge on the company).

ms. cooper's mom.. in order to have a single payer health system it requires all health providers to agree and abide by the amounts set forth by the government. it means that the government would have to pay for all student loans that were taken out to get medical degrees, any colleges that offer medical courses would have to drastically reduce how much it costs to get a degree to begin with and we would have to give up the freedom to go elsewhere if we do not like how we are treated.

do you really think a doctor will go millions in debt to become one if they are told they are only going to make 80k a year ( canada 7 yrs ago when i was in ontario..the family doctor averaged only 80k a year). Do you think an OB/GYN will be able to pay their massive education debt if they have to only charge 22 dollars for a visit? that is what the dr. in ontario was paid by the government for each visit after the initial pregnancy visit.

While in ontario i had two kids ( horrible experiences in the one hospital) and because of how overloaded their system is and the shortage of actual doctors i had to beg for 6 months to get a doctor to accept my daughter ( who was born in distress with a clotting disorder) and finally found a nurse who took pity on me. another lady i knew up there needed to move to get away from an abusive situation ( he had already caused her to have minor brain damage) and moved 4 hours away.. and was told by the doctors in the area that they could not take her because that was considered an acceptable distance ( even though she could no longer drive and her abusive husband was still in that area)...

single payer isnt the issue.. what is the issue is why NO ONE is willing to look at the root causes of why the actual CARE costs so much here.

Shpot.... the fact that after his law was signed into effect insurance companies were required to cover all kids to age 26 regardless of whether they were married or working themselves. it also removed the mental health limitations and removed the maximum payable from all policies. all three of those things cost money and an increase is to be expected from it. depending on the portion that his employer paid.. i could see a 3k increase per year based upon those things.

tseirpa,

Family doctors in the US make even less than that. Which is why there is a GP shortage in the US. Not sure what part of Ontario that you were in, but your experience in one hospital is NOT indicative of the system, (hell growing up around st joe's in Toronto, I could give you horror stories about that hospital) but again, that is the hospital, not the system. I have also returned to Canada for treatment rather than get it in the US (I just moved back to Canada but spent close to 7 years in the US, and came back to Canada for treatment). Not sure why you would have such a hard time getting a doctor to accept your daughter, but did you not have a family doctor to go to?

The abusive situation has nothing to do with the medical system, that has to do with the legal system, but if the woman in question doesn't report the abuse (which unfortunately happens all too often) or law enforcement doesn't take it seriously (which is again all too often) then I don't know what you think a doctor is going to do.

Your anecdotes sound like there is a lot more going on than the medical system.

Tell them your tax rate John. See if, in the future, people are willing to pay 75% tax rate for all that free care, ambulance, drugs, etc. We know actor Will Smith isn't so inclined. People here griping about the for profit this sector of the economy feels it is entitled to. Wait until the government thinks YOU no longer deserve "for profit" status when it comes to your salary or income! You'll get as much health care under Obama's plan as you will with retirement funds from your Social Security! Good luck with that, Obama Lemmings!

TheTruth,

Include the TRUE cost of your health care into your tax bill and see how much you are really paying (you may need to ask your employer how much they are subsidizing your health insurance)

Needless to say, since the UK spends less than half what the US does of its GDP on health care, the 'tax bill' is pretty much going to be less than the tax bill he would have in the US plus his health insurance cost.

The biggest issue isn't health insurance vs single payor vs socialized medicine. The biggest issue is that the United States spends more than double everyone else in terms of a percentage of its GDP on health care. That is an ENORMOUS burden on the economy that drains a lot of money that could be used for economic growth. It doesn't matter who pays what, it matters HOW MUCH of the economy goes towards it.

By Universal Healh Care, I mean where everyone is covered and the cost is distributed evenly. There are horror stories in every country, state, city about bad medical care, but imagine if you DON'T have health care coverage? What do you do? You either bankrupt your family or you die. Should it be a government run system AKA Canada or Europe? Should it be a combination of private or non-profit? That's to be determined. The current health care ruling aka Obamacare, is a step in the right direction. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater or so the saying goes.

You are right Rick, unfortunately the way the headline reads you would think it's something new. the ass clowns at MSNBC always looking to spin.

And it's just a coincidence that the two industries that suffer the most government meddling are health care and higher education?

Peoples appetite for spending other peoples money is always much greater than their appetite for spending their own money. The more government subsidizes it the more it costs.

So I assume you're willing to pay out of pocket for all of your own healthcare. After all, you don't want to spend someone else's money, right?

That's how it used to work. I pay for the eye doctor and chiropractor out of pocket and you don't see their services suffering run away inflation. They have all the same cost drivers as medicine.

There will always be a need for catastrophic health insurance, of course, but most people can pay for most services themselves once we fix the cost drivers.

I think one of the worst things we've done as a country is the tax break to companies for covering health insurance costs. Right now, I don't think many people really understand how much health care premiums cost since they are not directly paying most of the costs. We would be much better off as a country if everyone paid individually for health care coverage - like we do for auto insurance. Then, people would see the real cost and demand constructive change.

jblo-1489250

That's how it used to work. I pay for the eye doctor and chiropractor out of pocket and you don't see their services suffering run away inflation. They have all the same cost drivers as medicine.

There will always be a need for catastrophic health insurance, of course, but most people can pay for most services themselves once we fix the cost drivers.

Precisely. Splitting health insurance back to the old way of having a major medical policy and then another one if you want for doctors' visits is the best way to go.

Combine that with numerous subscription type clubs establishing themselves where a doctor charges a nominal monthly fee and then a pretty low per visit charge and one could avoid much of the fat in health insurance premiums. Around here there's one doctor who has just started one of these clubs. His monthly fee to join is $30 and his charge per visit is $50 with a max $10 lab fee if needed. He also offers videochat consultations for a small fee which he suggests for follow-ups. Many people unable to afford health insurance can easily afford this type of expense.

Ron, the reason that insurance switched from an individually purchased item to what we have today is because of wage controls during WWII. Because employers were unable to offer a higher salary, they began paying for health insurance. This morphed into the system we have today....unfortunatelly.

College tuition may be going up faster than inflation, but costs aren't. What is happening is that costs are being transferred as state and the federal government contribute less.

Did you not read the article? The article is about the increase in cost of health care.

Medical personnel know when the private insurance companies get rate increases in a state..they aren't stupid ..they ask for an increase in provider service payments...:) An ever spiralling upward increase granted by State Insurance Commissions, Bless their hearts & their next job ...usually w/insurance company.

yea, worse after Obamacare

cal20..naw, they're on an 20/80 deal They can't go over 20% on admin costs or they have to refund to policy holders...Since Jan 1 of this year....people will be getting refunds in the mail...

the checks in the mail, LOL

mstanley, many states already had loss ratio requirements for insurers where they had to be at a minimum loss ratio.

People won't be getting refunds because of incurred but not reported claims for which the insurer has a future claim liability, but can't report when required by the government as the report date will occur before the claim payment will.

-Two points:

- The 20(admin)/80 (claims) "limits" on insurers was the trade-off for the elimination of the "Public Option" from Obamacare. Insurers are now "limited" to spending only 20% of premium dolllars on such healthcare "essentials" as insurer CEO salaries (see above), profits, marketing and stock issues. Prior to Obamacare "limits", these insurers were squandering 40% (!) of premium dollars on these "essentials".

- The "Public Option" originally in Obamacare would have eliminated insurers completely and been a non-profit single payer system with lower costs, greater coverage and (using M'Care as a template) only 5% admin costs (not 40, not 20, but 5). Insurers contribute absolutely nothing to health care. They are dispensible and will soon crease to exist- as will for-profit doctor and hospital "providers" who are destroying the very goose that lays their own golden eggs- greed in health care will ultimately fail...it's inevitable. We can't afford for-profit medicine and unnecessary insurers.

What commercial insurers spend in admin is less than what the government loses to fraud, at least in Medicare/Medicaid. TINSTAAFL.

ROTFLMAO @ that Rob.

What the insurance companies spend in admin is higher than the total cost of medicare, so unless you are saying that more than 100% of what medicare spends is fraud (that is hard to believe) that is just total political bs.

Roger Moore is as bad as Rush. They both take stats and twist them to what they want them to say. I wouldn't believe a word either of them said.

Michael Moore dudes !!

And he is no where near Rush, but your comment is what I would expect from a right wing nut. If the message doesn't suit you it must be some liberal slanting media outlet !!!!

Right !!!

CorporateShill,

Thanks for the name correction. If you've read my posts in the past, you would know I'm an independent, not a "right wing nut". I am for gay rights, legalizing drugs, raising taxes (for everyone), and reducing military spending by 50%.

I realize we disagree on Michael Moore, but that doesn't mean we can't have a civil discussion...there is no need to jump to name calling.

Watch a movie for HC info?????????????????????????????????

i like everyone's opinions as a retired nurse it is a multitude of things driving up the costs. Inflation in every aspect of our lives is out of control compared to avg wages increasing at a snails pace. The costs of everything we purchase needs to role back to 15 or more years ago b/c that is where our wages have stayed. If Costs came down and it wasn't always about the bottom line of making outrageous profits we could all afford everything.

Kim, can you tell me why an OR costs $15,000 per hour for use or why a surgical drill bit (reusable) costs $400?

It hasn't kicked in yet

Mark, yes it has, in many many areas including most cost containment parts of the bill.

Hmm...I know parts have kicked in, but I'm not sure about most cost containment parts. I believe one of the major cost cutting components was health care exchanges - and I don't think these have kicked in yet.

Thank you obama... may we have another please?

Okay everyone... assume the position!

Yes, Mark D, parts of it have kicked in, primarily hitting the small businesses. We are getting hammered by Obamacare and would like nothing better than to see it go the way of the DoDo. Our premiums increases have been much higher than before Obamacare and we have less access to care due to having to take incredibly high deductibles to even have a plan at all. I will be getting the numbers soon on our 3rd Post-Obamacare renewal, I'm really interested if they are going to hold the increase to 10% or less like Obamacare says. It would be nice to get the increases DOWN to 10% or less. (Certainly won't see the 2% increases we had before Obamacare.) I hate health care renewal time, I would rather complete tax forms.

The affordable health care act had nothing to do with private insurance.

Not too bright.

Actually, it does. Any time you mandate actions by an industry, you are affecting the cost structure - and therefore rate levels. To say the ACA had nothing to do with private insurance is naive at best, or intentionally deceiving at worse.

Ron, it may have had an indirect affect but the primary cost driver isn't the health care bill, it's the same thing that has resulted in cost increases for private insurance averaging close to 10% for each of the last 10 years.

Let's at least be realistic and objective.

Any time you mandate actions by an industry, you are affecting the cost structure - and therefore rate levels.

True. Everyone should have all the healthcare they can personally pay cash for. Right?

How does enactment of a provision prohibiting insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions NOT affect insurance comapnies and their cost?

You have no clue what you are talking about Mark

Sco, the number of people without health insurance AND who have pre-existing conditions AND signed up for private heallth insurance AND who are less than 19 years old didn't not result in the increase we saw.

To say otherwise is unreasonable.

Mark, reading comprehension problems? Where did I say or imply what you are putting in my mouth?

You are simply wrong in asserting that insurance companies are not affected by the new law, 100% wrong. Try to divert all you want, it is transparent.

Mark,

My issue with the health care act is, it did not contain solutions for a number of cost drivers such as tort reform, mandated minimum coverages and a provider supply shortage. Instead, it added to the problem in some ways by increasing the demand for services since more people will have easier access to the system, and removing the "catastrophic only" option. While giving better access is a laudable humanitarian goal, it needs to be paid for - and that's where the law fell short.

So, yes, I think it's fair to say most of the recent health care cost increases are not due to the new law, but I also think it's fair to say the new law didn't do anything to make the situation better.

Oh they found a way to pay for it, they will reach into our pockets( the working members of society) and make it hurt.

Sco, I didn't say they were affected, only that their effect is minimal, especially compared to what has happened and what contonues to happen with the cost of private health insurance.

Ron, I have a lot of probelms with the health care act and I would say it could have been tons better had republicans compromised and thereby force democrats to compromise on certain provisions as well.

It was a lost opportunity to actually address this hugely important issue.

Mark, the pre-existing mandate (which will effect all ages soon) was just one aspect of mandates which affected the cost of insurance. An insurer (or self-insured plan) must now cover dependents to age 26; you can no longer have life-time limits; the ability to have individual limist (such as on mental health visits) can no longer be in a policy; insurers are now required to issue a policy regardless of pre-existing conditions.

This article is not about the rate increases of insurers but rather about the rising cost of health care (the providers bill).

Most insurance plans have a preferred provider discount plan which utelizes outside vendors (PPOs) who contract with hospitals to provide a discount off of billed services for a higher percentage payout and increased patients. The issue with these type of contracts is that if the provider increases the bill 25%, so does the cost of what the insurer will pay. Therefore, the cost of care is a major driver in the reason for rate increases.

Thank you Bookem! You sound as if you've actually read the Affordable Health Care Act.

Hospitals will be required to post & update their standard charges and make public.

"STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating
within the United States shall for each year establish (and update)
and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the
Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and
services provided by the hospital, including for diagnosis-related
groups established under section 1886(d)(4) of the Social Security
Act."

Once again people... ( Mark especially) Health INSURANCE is not Health CARE. This article is about the actual cost of the CARE and the portion of such that the INSURANCE is covering. and that the amount that INSURANCE is paying is going up because the actual cost of the CARE has gone up so much.

The reason that insurance premiums have gone up is due in part because of the actual costs rising so they are paying out more money on claims and because obama's law removed cost containment provisions ( ie extending kids coverage age to 26, removing maximim lifetime benefit payout, and removing any limitations on mental healthcare ). If anyone thought that adding this items to private insurance companies was not going to raise premiums.. they seriously need an education on how insurance works.

but again... INSURANCE is not CARE... and until people stop confusing the two... they will continue to be made fools of by laws like obama's which does NOTHING to control the cost of ACTUAL care but certainly does alot to add to the cost of insurance.

Mark, "Minimal"?

You obviously have no real world experience with the health insurance business or business in general to make that statement.

The changes that the PPACA impart right now should not create the increased premiums that we are seeing. What we are more than likely see are the health insurance companies using this as a way to monetize their losses from the investments part of their portfolios hat happened in the 2008/2009 timeframe.

Come back in 3 or 4 years, and a different story MIGHT be told, we don't know. But the increases today have nothing to do with the changes in the PPACA. (the only big one is the coverage of dependents till 25, but since that demographic really doesn't use the health care system in the first place, that isn't a big enough of an impact).

Though the description about the PPACA not having to do with health insurance, almost all of it has to do with insurance. That is the problem with the PPACA though, because it really doesn't address the root causes of the costing problems which for the most part, aren't in the insurance component of the market.

Rick, the article was not about the cost of insurance but the billed amounts of providers.

Again... INSURANCE is not CARE. of course your premiums are going up every year.. the cost of the actual care is going up every year... at a rate higher than inflation. so your premiums have to go up higher to cover it.

What would happen to the premiums if we didn't provide free health care for over 12 MILLION illegal immigrants?

Because more and more patients pour in w/ no insurance, and no intention to pay thier bills, so they pass on the costs, to the responsible ones.

most insurance companies do not make a profit on the insurance portion of their business. They usually have their hands in other things, such as real estate, mortgages, HR services for small business, retirement plans... and those things are what bring in the bucks.

in insurance all it takes is one good natural disaster ( health insurance does not have a mother nature clause like home owners usually do)... and that reserve that they are required to keep ( meaning it is basically dead money because they can not use it to try to make more money) is wiped out and they need to replace it.

They usually have their hands in other things, such as real estate, mortgages,

They ALWAYS have their hands in other things. That is how insurance works. You pay your premiums, your premiums are invested, Depending on the type of insurance, those investments essentially cover the volatility of the 'expenses' (the medical costs) that happen from year to year.

Now if all the sick people would just have the decency to die our insurance rates would come dowm.

Let's remember the health insurance companies motto: "You can't make a profit by insuring the sick and elderly."

Tussah, you hit the nail on the head!

Severed and marlen: What is the average cost of an upper abdomen MRI cost in your area? What is the average cost of an oil change at your area? I'll bet you can find the answer to one much quicker than you can the other.

Not all health care is emergency care and therefore, shopping for your care can not only provide you with a quality service, you can do it at a lower price...if you were able to do so.

How can one comparison shop with managed health care plans that require you to only go to doctors in a given grouping and by referral of the primary care physician????? I can remember receiving a letter from a health insurer, after many months of trying to find a medication to address my issue and arriving at an answer finally, that I had to go back to my provider and get something different, because that particular medication was not "favored" by the insurance company, and therefore, they would not longer pay anything toward the prescription....That letter had absolutely nothing to do with my health or well-being. I was given no option or choice, no chance to shop around as the nature of the medication was by pescription only. The consumer has very little control in the present system of managed healthcare. And if you complain....well, we were threatened with being dropped by our health care provider who only allowed you to change your primary care doctor twice (EVER). Where is the concern for what is best for the patient in that scenerio?

Sue.. for one.. you always have the option of paying out of pocket for your medicine. I do because I do not want to try a medicine that may work just because they consider the newer generic to be similar enough. I value my eyesight and I am not willing to gamble with it.

for two.. you get a HMO you do not have much choice, that is part of why the premiums for a HMO are cheaper then a regular plan. They set all fees and they set what services they are willing to pay for in connection to each type of visit. that is why it is a "health management organization".. you have someone managing your care.. from a dollar point. If you want to have more choices, then you choose a different kind of plan that allows you to choose and still offers some payment. but again.. if you truly want whatever healthcare is not covered.. you have the option of paying for yourself.

insurance is a contract.. it covers specifics and whether you like it or not.. if it doesnt cover something they arent going to pay for it. so read before you sign and discuss things if you need clarification.

Those "options" are not always possible for most people to afford. Some can barely afford those HMO plans as it is and can not afford to pay out of pocket or change to a better health plan.

Tseirpa

WOW! you are on a roll here.

GENERICS can't just be similar, they must be IDENTICAL to the brand name before they are approved. They must be such that they match the current brand name product in all ways. This has led to the brand name drug company just changing the non medicinal components and filing a patent on that, discontinuing the previous 'version' and preventing generics from being produced. Not because the drug is different, but because something like "this is in a gel form instead of a tablet form" is different.

Doctors and nurses also fall sick.

Eliminating doctors and nurses from the health care system would sure help bring down costs.

Do you have any idea what a medical education costs these days?

Now factor in how many YEARS they had to goto school to become Drs, Nurses, more if they go into special fields like Cardio..

Now factor in how much MONEY they owe in school debts..

Their paycheck might be rather large for a year, but they have a TON of debt to be able to call themselves a Dr,

Now factor in how many YEARS they had to goto school to become Drs, Nurses, more if they go into special fields like Cardio..

Now factor in how much MONEY they owe in school debts..

Fine lets set up a subsidy to cover these costs and let them be happy with double the average wage for the country ($60,000), sound fair? I want a doctor who actually has an interest in biology, not someone in it for the bucks.

How about EMTs, Nurses, or the dozens of other health care workers who often make $9/hr with 50-80% of the training that the doctor has?

How much are you willing to pay the guy that is getting ready to cut you open and work on your heart, or your daughters, making these jobs low paying will bring in people you don't want to do surgey on you.

Yes it will, because if the guy that take extra years and hundreds of thousands of dollars won't unless you pay them, or you get the one willing to do it for much less.

I'd rather have the person that cares about people and went through the years of training so they can help someone instead of the person trying to make a extra couple hundred thousand. Call me crazy if you want.

As far as the years of training give me a break. A phd goes through just as many years of training and makes far less money with just as much debt. I also believe that residency is just on big hazing so doctors can say look at what I had to go through. 100 hrs per week at the hospital, that's why i should make over 200,000 bucks a year.

Here's the worlds smallest violin can you hear it playing because no one is listening.

Okay fozbone, I will do as you say "You are crazy". Feel better ?

Where do I start ? First of all, today's doctors have to make FABULOUS GRADES taking all the TOUGH COURSES just to get into medical school. Then there are four years of medical school where some simply do not "make it". Then, there is a year's internship with very low pay. A residency can vary in its length but can easily be several more years.

Once they get out, it takes years to get established and they sometimes go through a "buy-in" arrangement when they join a group of physicians who practice the same kind of medicine. Then, there is the onerous burden of MALPRACTICE INSURANCE which is necessary to protect oneself in case "anything goes wrong" from the plaintiff attorneys (who now advertise for "victims" on TV).

Tell me the last time a PHD got sued for "malpractice" ! Tell me the last time a PHD had to get up in the middle of the night to go down to the emergency room to take care of the 14 fractures a drunk received when he ran into a parked car !

Doctors get paid the "big bucks" because they have earned it, while you have not. I will break out a big violin for you since you apparently think you are just as important ..... because NO ONE is listening !

Beware of bargains in parachutes, pacemakers and cardiologists !

Not only the high cost of education to become a Dr., but the high cost of actually being a doctor through the costs of malpractice insurance. If a Dr earns $500K per year, they probably pay out almost a 1/4 of that in malpractice insurance premiums, and that is if somebody hasn't decided to try to sue them. Hospitals costs....well hospitals have insurance issues too. We live in a society where many have decided that the best way to live life is in constant litigation, almost a lottery of sorts and eventually, their ticket will win and they will have more money than they ever dreamed of or could ever earn for themselves. We have assigned dollar values to bodily parts? How sick is that? If you lost a finger, you get X amount. Not to say that demonstrable negligence should not be vigilantly policed.....we also cannot allow people to have a free ride for the rest of their lives because of lawsuits. We are all paying for these people to live the good life. We have become way to liberal in defining a handicap. While a person may be prevented from doing that which they desire, this doesn't make them incapacitated to the extent that they can do nothing or inable to learn something new. Reality says that I will never be a super model, but does that excuse me from getting a job, going to work in some other occupation and paying my way in the world???? Thanks to malpractice and court rulings, alot of people feel that they don't have to do anything other than find a good lawyer.

You guys are retarded. You don't think other people earn good grades in college or study hard to earn there degrees. As far as getting up through out the night my brothers a police officer, trust me he gets up at all hours and could possible be killed everyday he goes to work.

As far as insurance goes I also have several people in my family that are doctors and trust me many of the hospitals they work at now pay there insurance for them and they still make over 200,000 a year.

Don't believe the hype people we have the most over payed medical professions in the world. These people go school just so they can make a ton of money not because they particularly care about people.

I know your being sarcastic but, that's the problem with this country. We need a little less of ME and a little more of US.

Agreed!

If a painfull injury was called preexisting and you let them get away with it, it's your fault. Mmmmm maybe you don't tell the whole story.

Morlack:

1) Insurance premiums are a form of indirect payment.

2) If you declared bankruptcy over medical expenses, then it sounds as if you did not pay for all the medical care you received. Therefore, somebody else paid for part of the services you received.

3) Insulting somebody because you do not like their explanation may make you feel better but it doesn't address the argument.

Hospitals have a program where the government reimburses hospitals when patients dont pay their bills, so hospitals actually do not suffer any loss, thus there is no reason other than greed for them to jack up costs. Also millionaires and billionaires from other countries routinely travel here for medical care and then leave the country without paying their bills. Im sorry but the problem is NOT people who honestly cannot afford to pay absurdly high insurance premiums, or absurdly high medical bills.

again.. insurance is not care. insurance is only necessary because the cost of care has spiraled out of control and even a normal office visit is out of reach of some people.. which means paying 300 or more a month on premiums for insurance is out of their reach...

if the actual cost of care was addressed then maybe less insurance would be needed and then only for truly emergancy care.

Well said Tseirpa- perhaps I should have been more gentle in my previous comment on your thoughts below...

lol do you have any clue what it would take to make a efficient and effective single payer system?

for starters all colleges that offer medical and pre med programs would have to slash their fees to close to 10% of what they are charging now. which means they would have to charge others more or they would have to do without services...

then tort reform to reduce the fees charged for malpractice insurance. since million dollar payouts for someone who's nose didnt look quite like the pic they saw... and other bs cases.

then the actual equipment fees and rental fees for offices.. would have to be addressed since a machine that costs over 500k would put a dent in a doctor's bank account if he was restricted on how much he would make.

then we would need to address the people who go to the doctor just because. my ex's gf in canada randomly calls an ambulance when she wants to get out of work and says she is having bad cramps. so they get her, take her to the er, xray her and send her home with a note to be out of work for a few days until the cramping stops... guess what she pays? zip.

Thank you Joe! People like Tseirpa are why the system cant change because they don't understand holistic systems. All those "things" that would need to be addressed would address themselves in a free market. I prefer a system without insurance where people pay their own money.

people use healthcare more sparingly- i.e., the g/f..... doctors compete and charge you less (they have too since no one can afford the costs out of pocket and after trying to sue the whole world and not collecting, they realize they need to compete on cost based on the market)..... Equipment and rental fees go down, because there aren't enough loaded doctors around to drive up the costs..... Lawsuits drop dramatically because there is less money to go after, and no insurance to back liability.

The US needs to stop subsidizing health care- artificially adding money to any market through subsidy creates parasitic markets and drives up costs beyond inflation. Education is the same way. Duh.

Imagine if we passed a laws to guarantee access white bread for all citizens. I think we'd be pulling out food insurance cards and paying $10 for wonder bread.

Hmm stupid bug that double or triple posts still exists apparently.

So the gov. paying is OK, NOT, and toss in the gov. doesn't pay the actual costs, thi sis why we pay so much, for those that don't pay, simple as that.

get the government out of health care and have them stop paying

Either fully regulate system- full single payer system with fixed fees, OR do not regulate it at all and let the market crush the cost bubble on its own.

The worst is half regulation- like wall street- that allows crooks to game the system.

Ahh, Ronald Reagan, the great humanitarian.

Ronald Reagan also told people that they would become richer by giving more of their money to rich people.

You throw out "socialism" as a bogeyman, yet pure capitalism would see anyone who needs healthcare going without and dropping dead, and only people who don't use it being able to afford it = maximum profit.

Somewhere in between is where we need to be.