Comments on: Hail Mary Pass

By: Cathy Hart

Cathy Hart — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:33:41 +0000

Comments such as “There is an agenda, and it is not about health care,” and “Their agenda is clear. This is not about improving the health care system” leave me cold. As someone who has been involved in pushing for healthcare reform for some time, and who joins my fellow Americans that are also so involved in passionate conviction that our broken health care system MUST be changed and soon, I can assure you that this most certainly is about health care. There is no other agenda here. I have been a health insurance agent for over twenty years, and have watched health insurance rates go up by outrageous percentages year after year. And it is not because of low reimbursements rates on the part of the government – insurance companies negotiate low reimbursement rates as well, in fact they many times base their reimbursement rates on the government rates. If nothing is changed, I believe that within ten years only people who work for the government or for large corporations will have health insurance at all, and that might be iffy. Some commenters would have us believe that it is not possible to improve our system and cover the uninsured without further raising costs over their already outrageous levels. If that is true, how is it that other countries seem to be able to provide universal coverage for half or even a third of what we pay now for our current inadequate system? How is it that they are able to achieve superior health outcomes while spending far less per person than we spend? Are we really that incompetent? Are we truly incapable of doing better? I don’t believe it. I think we can do better, and I am absolutely convinced that we must do better.

By: Larry Halpern

Larry Halpern — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:19:51 +0000

As has been you M.O., you have once again carried the water for the Democratic Party. You conveniently seem to ignore many of the facts of the health care debate. You would do well to ask the simple question “did the system EVER work? if the answer is No, then you don’t fix it. If, on the other hand the answer is YES, then the intellectually honest question must be “what happened to make it not work?” I’ve been in this business for 38 years and I remember when health insurance was a non-issue. It was a benefit that was a “throw-in” during union negotiations and for non-union shops after that. What happened? Your precious government got involved and transformed it from a catastrophic safety net from high medical bills to a political weapon to be used tease or entice potential voters. Mandated maternity and well baby care was a “women’s” issue. Medicare was for “seniors”. Medicaid for the “poor”. Something for everyone. The result is that all of these programs went way over projected budget and have been riddled with fraud and mismanagement. The fix for that was that providers increased their bills for those who have private insurance plans which drove their premiums through the roof. The weasels in Washington now have the perfect villain…us!!!
Steve, you’re entitled to your opinion. I wouldn’t want it any other way. What I would respect is a little more in the way of balance. Blast the AHIP. They were misleading and clumsy. But also blast Harry Reid for saying that health insurers make more money than anyone else. 2.2% profit margin is nothing to brag about. If the health insurance industry was such a money maker, why have so many carriers left this market? Do you really believe that they closed the front doors because they were making too much money? How about the vile lies that come out of the mouth of Nancy Pelosi? The demonization of our industry has been vicious and polarizing. These people know nothing about health care financing. They vote on legislation that has not been written. The CBO scores bills without specifics. Yet they preach that this is going to reduce costs and reduce the debt. Our President is the biggest offender. He makes one speech after another yet his proposal is non-existent. Playing politics, blaming predecessors and campaigning are his forte. The history is clear. Their agenda is clear. This is not about improving the health care system. It is about the reigning in of additional power to an institution that does not have a stellar record when it comes to keeping down costs and running a tight ship. Broken down into its most basic format, this is what they are asking the American people to believe… We are going to cover more people, for more things, for a longer period of time, with fewer restrictions and exclusions, lower co-pays and lower premiums. Snake oil salesmen got a bad rap for peddling that crap. Hopefully we are not in the market for snake oil.

By: Bob Vineyard

Bob Vineyard — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:38:43 +0000

Sorry you are so misinformed about matters that affect a number of us. The PWC was on target, it is you, and others who fail to understand the numbers.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in any of the bills put forth so far that will reduce the cost of health care or curb medical care inflation.

Even the CBO is only costing out select provisions that impact the federal budget. There is no accounting for the increased taxes at the state level that will follow the expansion of SCHIP and Medicaid.

After all, it’s not their problem at the federal level.

If you want to cast stones at the PWC report, at least have the balls to admit the CBO numbers are just as flagrant, if not more so.

By: Steve Piontek

Steve Piontek — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:42:44 +0000

Mr. Vineyard, sorry to disappoint you, but such is life.
The point of this piece was the ham handedness and the poor timing with which the industry decided to lob this bomb. Considering the almost universally negative reaction, even AHIP’s most avid partisans would have to agree that it did not have its intended effect. Then, to make matters worse, the report’s authors admit they didn’t take into account some very important matters that would likely mitigate the effects predicted in the report.
This was a poor job all around–the research, the timing, the presentation. As somebody famous once said, “It’s all in the delivery.”

By: Bob Vineyard

Bob Vineyard — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:05:15 +0000

I really expected something better out of the editor for the National Underwriter. Instead, we get a rehash of the Obamington line and the MSM chastising the Price Waterhouse Coopers report.

Mr. Piontek makes the same mistake as the general public by conflating the terms premium and cost.

The PWC report was on target in that, health insurance premiums WILL IN FACT increase under the Senate proposal for health insurance reform. The mandate to cover all, regardless of pre-existing conditions alone is worth 30% at a minimum.

If the premium increases are offset by subsidies created by increased taxes, then the cost to the individuals and families may in fact be lower . . . or not. It depends on where the taxes are levied, who get’s the subsidies and how much the subsidy will be.

But let there be no doubt that premiums WILL increase. This is borne out in countless studies conducted well before last years election as well as in the real world. Maine and Massachusetts have attempted to cover everyone and required guaranteed issue health insurance, the results of which have been disastrous.

To attempt to discredit the report as bogus, to use a favorite word of the White House, is a bit disingenuous.

It falls in the same vein as claiming the health reform bill is deficit neutral while including cuts to Medicare physicians in order to achieve that goal. But then with their hands in our other pocket they turn around and craft a totally separate bill to increase funding to those same physicians in the amount of $240 billion.

On one point we will agree, that is, the timing could have been better. But then, the industry was promised there would be no public option and there would be a strong mandate, including significant penalties for non-compliance.

Somehow the folks in Congress forgot those negotiations.

In much the same way, Mr. Piontek forgot that premiums and costs are not the same.

Smaller cars, bigger health insurance, Poppa Washington.

By: Bruce Husson

Bruce Husson — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:58:09 +0000

Its a given that the health insurance industry is fraught with anquish and consternation over the whole debate. But lets really consider the facts. Who is really throwng out the BS here. The committees are legislating under the cover of darkness, making plans that will effect us all, if allowed, for the rest of our lives. As a 25 year veteren in serving the public by offering health coverages and services, I have never desired to mislead my clients with misinformation in order for them to buy my product. That is not to say that a very few don’t, but as a general rule most of us are guided by a fiduciary concept to protect our clients and be truthful about what can and can’t be done. These congressional “idiots” have no clue, they are not acting in good faith, if it were so, why are they not debating the final markups in the “light of day”? Transparancy, what a joke! The Price waterhouse report, while not accurate and probably embellished does point in the right direction. I believe that it should be given some merit and at least given an opportunity to prove it wrong 100%. There is an agenda and it is not about health care, by the far left to takeaway our rights and redistribute to those who have had the opportunity to manage their own lives but have failed to do so. Starting with the education of our youth, parents have failed, teachers have failed, bureaucrats have failed, we have all failed to impart the importance of protecting from unexpected risks of life. Now because of this failure we all going to forced into this protecton by experiment. Frankly, I am tired of the experiments of people who could care less what the outcome is, half of them will be retired or dead before the results of the their experiment are known. Stop and think about what we are doing. Once the horse iis out of the barn, well you know the rest of the story.

By: Gary Duell

Gary Duell — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:12:39 +0000

Very level-headed analysis, Steve. I wish I could remember who first said it but it’s something like, “The best measure of a man is how large a circle he has to draw to include everyone he considers to be ‘us’”.
With AHIP, it’s very clear who they include when they use the word “us”. Our 60 year experiment with free market health care management is an abject failure.