Trump attacks his own political party

[Mac1958]

Sure we could. Once you stop letting the healthcare industry profiteers dictate pricing, for starters.

what is the average profit margin after taxes of medical insurance companies? any idea?

while you look that up, also look up the profit rates for big pharma, software companies, medical supply companies, hospitals, I think you may then realize where the problem lies.

Single payer would only make that situation worse because it would create a monopoly that could rob us at will.

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

medicare is the absence of competition. Are you saying that doctors and hospitals would compete for medicare payments that don't even cover their costs of operating?

Your Medicare Advantage plan is through United/Secure Horizons or Humana or Blue Cross or one of those. If you had a supplement, it would be through Mutual of Omaha or Aetna or Forethought of one of those. Those are free market insurance companies who have contracts with providers on top of what the providers make from Medicare.

When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan. It was guaranteed issue. If you had cancer and a history of 8 heart attacks, they had to take you.

Why is it right that, if I have those same conditions when I'm 64, I can't do the same?
.

 

[healthmyths]

Mississippi tort reform at 10 years

As the 10th anniversary of Mississippi’s 2004 “tort reform” — limits on lawsuits — nears, supporters say the changes provided stability for doctors and businesses.

But opponents say they limited citizens’ rights to their day in court and fair compensation.

Regardless, it altered politics in Mississippi.

Various reports in recent years have shown large drops in medical lawsuits and doctors’ insurance premiums, and in the number of tort cases filed — down to about 3,500 in 2012, compared to more than 10,600 in 2002.

And the ISSUE never was malpractice insurance premiums! A lot of people think THAT's what defensive medicine is about! WRONG!
It's the practice as I pointed out that 90% of doctors surveyed said they do...i.e. order duplicate tests, refer to specialists ALL costing MORE money and all because
they want to cover their butts! The fact is over 90% of medical lawsuits are settled out of court! Over 90% of medical malpractice cases are settled out of court.[3] It's easy to understand why: money. The average court settlement is about $425,000; the average jury award tops $1 million.[3] Most of the time, it's a lot cheaper to settle.
Medscape: Medscape Access
They'd rather admit guilt then waste time and money defending.
So they do the next thing...i.e. practice defensive medicine. And the proof was again in the study.
When only 48% of responding doctors who were under federal contract reported doing "defensive medicine" because they can't be sued, while 90% of doctors
NOT under federal contract reported it.

Seems clear to me the 1946 Tort act reduced defensive medicine. If the $1 trillion a year these doctors say they cause due to duplicate tests, etc. is reduced by
20% THEN here is the kicker folks! The insurance companies HAVE to reduce premiums! The reason is that when they go in front of insurance boards asking for
premium increases and the boards look at their books and see hey your claim costs is way below 80%... You need to reduce your premiums!

They practice defensive medicine but don't want tort reform............that doesn't make sense..............as Malpractice Insurance covers them from that very issue.

And the article I posted is how Mississippi dealt with it and lowered costs.

Where did you get the impression physicians don't want "tort reform"? And Malpractice doesn't cover their time and lost revenue by having to testify in court.
Maleractice insurance is not the issue.

It seemed by your comments that you suggested that.....perhaps I misread you.

All the Doctors I've talked to said Malpractice Insurance is a major player for them and that they order more tests to cover their ass.

My wife has just experienced what you have just described.............Going to many doctors for 2 problems........stomach problems and sinus problems...........Ordered a battery of tests.............Upper and lower GI's.........CT scans.........referred to Gastro specialists........referred to nose and throat specialists.............In regards to the stomach problem...............the Gyno found it with the cheapest test in the end.......tumors in the ovaries with a in house Sonogram............and that after costing well over 10k in other tests...............Sinus problem unresolved.........but we know it's blockage from bone...from an old wreck but can't get them to deal with it.

So I'm aware of the defensive medicine BS..............we have been going through it.

Thank YOU! And your anecdotal experience exemplifies what the biggest single WASTE in health care Defensive Medicine at near $1,000,000,000,000 a year
has added to health care costs. Cut this by 20% and the insurance companies WILL be forced by state insurance regulators to lower their premiums BECAUSE
under ACA and before about 80% of premiums go for claims! Reduce the claims and you will reduce premiums! It is that simple.

 

[eagle1462010]

Mississippi tort reform at 10 years

As the 10th anniversary of Mississippi’s 2004 “tort reform” — limits on lawsuits — nears, supporters say the changes provided stability for doctors and businesses.

But opponents say they limited citizens’ rights to their day in court and fair compensation.

Regardless, it altered politics in Mississippi.

Various reports in recent years have shown large drops in medical lawsuits and doctors’ insurance premiums, and in the number of tort cases filed — down to about 3,500 in 2012, compared to more than 10,600 in 2002.

And the ISSUE never was malpractice insurance premiums! A lot of people think THAT's what defensive medicine is about! WRONG!
It's the practice as I pointed out that 90% of doctors surveyed said they do...i.e. order duplicate tests, refer to specialists ALL costing MORE money and all because
they want to cover their butts! The fact is over 90% of medical lawsuits are settled out of court! Over 90% of medical malpractice cases are settled out of court.[3] It's easy to understand why: money. The average court settlement is about $425,000; the average jury award tops $1 million.[3] Most of the time, it's a lot cheaper to settle.
Medscape: Medscape Access
They'd rather admit guilt then waste time and money defending.
So they do the next thing...i.e. practice defensive medicine. And the proof was again in the study.
When only 48% of responding doctors who were under federal contract reported doing "defensive medicine" because they can't be sued, while 90% of doctors
NOT under federal contract reported it.

Seems clear to me the 1946 Tort act reduced defensive medicine. If the $1 trillion a year these doctors say they cause due to duplicate tests, etc. is reduced by
20% THEN here is the kicker folks! The insurance companies HAVE to reduce premiums! The reason is that when they go in front of insurance boards asking for
premium increases and the boards look at their books and see hey your claim costs is way below 80%... You need to reduce your premiums!

They practice defensive medicine but don't want tort reform............that doesn't make sense..............as Malpractice Insurance covers them from that very issue.

And the article I posted is how Mississippi dealt with it and lowered costs.

Where did you get the impression physicians don't want "tort reform"? And Malpractice doesn't cover their time and lost revenue by having to testify in court.
Maleractice insurance is not the issue.

It seemed by your comments that you suggested that.....perhaps I misread you.

All the Doctors I've talked to said Malpractice Insurance is a major player for them and that they order more tests to cover their ass.

My wife has just experienced what you have just described.............Going to many doctors for 2 problems........stomach problems and sinus problems...........Ordered a battery of tests.............Upper and lower GI's.........CT scans.........referred to Gastro specialists........referred to nose and throat specialists.............In regards to the stomach problem...............the Gyno found it with the cheapest test in the end.......tumors in the ovaries with a in house Sonogram............and that after costing well over 10k in other tests...............Sinus problem unresolved.........but we know it's blockage from bone...from an old wreck but can't get them to deal with it.

So I'm aware of the defensive medicine BS..............we have been going through it.

Thank YOU! And your anecdotal experience exemplifies what the biggest single WASTE in health care Defensive Medicine at near $1,000,000,000,000 a year
has added to health care costs. Cut this by 20% and the insurance companies WILL be forced by state insurance regulators to lower their premiums BECAUSE
under ACA and before about 80% of premiums go for claims! Reduce the claims and you will reduce premiums! It is that simple.

In our case..........the CHEAPEST PROCEDURE........found the problem.

 

[healthmyths]

what is the average profit margin after taxes of medical insurance companies? any idea?

while you look that up, also look up the profit rates for big pharma, software companies, medical supply companies, hospitals, I think you may then realize where the problem lies.

Single payer would only make that situation worse because it would create a monopoly that could rob us at will.

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

medicare is the absence of competition. Are you saying that doctors and hospitals would compete for medicare payments that don't even cover their costs of operating?

Your Medicare Advantage plan is through United/Secure Horizons or Humana or Blue Cross or one of those. If you had a supplement, it would be through Mutual of Omaha or Aetna or Forethought of one of those. Those are free market insurance companies who have contracts with providers on top of what the providers make from Medicare.

When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan. It was guaranteed issue. If you had cancer and a history of 8 heart attacks, they had to take you.

Why is it right that, if I have those same conditions when I'm 64, I can't do the same?
.

PLEASE make a distinction between Advantage and supplement!
Advantage plans are paid directly by Medicare a flat monthly fee. From this fee the Advantage plan pays all costs...a few like MINE also pays my Part B so my
SS check is NOT reduced.
Supplement plans don't replace Medicare but "supplement" meaning traditional Medicare pays 80% the beneficiary pays the other...unless they have a supplement!

Two very gross and simple distinctions!

 

[Mac1958]

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

medicare is the absence of competition. Are you saying that doctors and hospitals would compete for medicare payments that don't even cover their costs of operating?

Your Medicare Advantage plan is through United/Secure Horizons or Humana or Blue Cross or one of those. If you had a supplement, it would be through Mutual of Omaha or Aetna or Forethought of one of those. Those are free market insurance companies who have contracts with providers on top of what the providers make from Medicare.

When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan. It was guaranteed issue. If you had cancer and a history of 8 heart attacks, they had to take you.

Why is it right that, if I have those same conditions when I'm 64, I can't do the same?
.

PLEASE make a distinction between Advantage and supplement!
Advantage plans are paid directly by Medicare a flat monthly fee. From this fee the Advantage plan pays all costs...a few like MINE also pays my Part B so my
SS check is NOT reduced.
Supplement plans don't replace Medicare but "supplement" meaning traditional Medicare pays 80% the beneficiary pays the other...unless they have a supplement!

Two very gross and simple distinctions!

I always keep the two separate. I know precisely how they work, because I was contracted by a Fortune 100 insurer for five years to be the personal financial guy in the room as they put the plans and benefits together.
.

 

[healthmyths]

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

medicare is the absence of competition. Are you saying that doctors and hospitals would compete for medicare payments that don't even cover their costs of operating?

Your Medicare Advantage plan is through United/Secure Horizons or Humana or Blue Cross or one of those. If you had a supplement, it would be through Mutual of Omaha or Aetna or Forethought of one of those. Those are free market insurance companies who have contracts with providers on top of what the providers make from Medicare.

When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan. It was guaranteed issue. If you had cancer and a history of 8 heart attacks, they had to take you.

Why is it right that, if I have those same conditions when I'm 64, I can't do the same?
.

PLEASE make a distinction between Advantage and supplement!
Advantage plans are paid directly by Medicare a flat monthly fee. From this fee the Advantage plan pays all costs...a few like MINE also pays my Part B so my
SS check is NOT reduced.
Supplement plans don't replace Medicare but "supplement" meaning traditional Medicare pays 80% the beneficiary pays the other...unless they have a supplement!

Two very gross and simple distinctions!

I always keep the two separate. I know precisely how they work, because I was contracted by a Fortune 100 insurer for five years to be the personal financial guy in the room as they put the plans and benefits together.
.

YOU wrote "When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan."
YOU are wrong.

The choice is Original Medicare (traditional)
OR
Medicare Advantage.
http://www.medicarerights.org/fliers/Medicare-Advantage/Differences-Between-OM-and-MA.pdf?nrd=1

A) Choose Original Medicare and you choose what supplement you add to pay the 20% that Medicare doesn't pay.
B) Choose Advantage plan and you in almost all cases don't need a supplement. Over 600 Medicare advantage plans to choose from. One traditional Medicare!
Also if you live in a competitive state like I do, Florida, my Advantage plan PAYS the Part B that is deducted from ALL Social Security checks.
So while SS deducts the $134 per month from my SS, MY Advantage plan PAYS that $134.
Not many Advantage plans do but as I pointed out I live in a very competitive state.


https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/Downloads/Announcement2017.pdf

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

medicare is the absence of competition. Are you saying that doctors and hospitals would compete for medicare payments that don't even cover their costs of operating?

Your Medicare Advantage plan is through United/Secure Horizons or Humana or Blue Cross or one of those. If you had a supplement, it would be through Mutual of Omaha or Aetna or Forethought of one of those. Those are free market insurance companies who have contracts with providers on top of what the providers make from Medicare.

When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan. It was guaranteed issue. If you had cancer and a history of 8 heart attacks, they had to take you.

Why is it right that, if I have those same conditions when I'm 64, I can't do the same?
.

PLEASE make a distinction between Advantage and supplement!
Advantage plans are paid directly by Medicare a flat monthly fee. From this fee the Advantage plan pays all costs...a few like MINE also pays my Part B so my
SS check is NOT reduced.
Supplement plans don't replace Medicare but "supplement" meaning traditional Medicare pays 80% the beneficiary pays the other...unless they have a supplement!

Two very gross and simple distinctions!

I always keep the two separate. I know precisely how they work, because I was contracted by a Fortune 100 insurer for five years to be the personal financial guy in the room as they put the plans and benefits together.
.

YOU wrote "When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan."
YOU are wrong.

The choice is Original Medicare (traditional)
OR
Medicare Advantage.
http://www.medicarerights.org/fliers/Medicare-Advantage/Differences-Between-OM-and-MA.pdf?nrd=1

A) Choose Original Medicare and you choose what supplement you add to pay the 20% that Medicare doesn't pay.
B) Choose Advantage plan and you in almost all cases don't need a supplement. Over 600 Medicare advantage plans to choose from. One traditional Medicare!
Also if you live in a competitive state like I do, Florida, my Advantage plan PAYS the Part B that is deducted from ALL Social Security checks.
So while SS deducts the $134 per month from my SS, MY Advantage plan PAYS that $134.
Not many Advantage plans do but as I pointed out I live in a very competitive state.

That's just incorrect. When you turn 65, you're eligible for Medicare A & B.

You can then choose to add an MA or a Supplement to fill the gaps in coverage.
.

 

[Redfish]

what is the average profit margin after taxes of medical insurance companies? any idea?

while you look that up, also look up the profit rates for big pharma, software companies, medical supply companies, hospitals, I think you may then realize where the problem lies.

Single payer would only make that situation worse because it would create a monopoly that could rob us at will.

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

medicare is the absence of competition. Are you saying that doctors and hospitals would compete for medicare payments that don't even cover their costs of operating?

Your Medicare Advantage plan is through United/Secure Horizons or Humana or Blue Cross or one of those. If you had a supplement, it would be through Mutual of Omaha or Aetna or Forethought of one of those. Those are free market insurance companies who have contracts with providers on top of what the providers make from Medicare.

When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan. It was guaranteed issue. If you had cancer and a history of 8 heart attacks, they had to take you.

Why is it right that, if I have those same conditions when I'm 64, I can't do the same?
.

before ACA there were 3 problems with private medical insurance

1. no mandate to take people with pre-existing conditions
2. policies with lifetime maximum payments
3. no interstate competition between insurers

Those 3 problems could have been fixed with a one page bill that would have sailed through both houses of congress.

you don't quite have it right on medicare. you said: "on top of what they make from medicare". When a doctor or hospital treats a medicare advantage patient, their only payment comes from the insurance company in accordance with contract payment amounts for each service as negotiated with the insurance company. Under medicare advantage there are no direct payments from medicare(the government) to the provider.

 

[Redfish]

medicare is the absence of competition. Are you saying that doctors and hospitals would compete for medicare payments that don't even cover their costs of operating?

Your Medicare Advantage plan is through United/Secure Horizons or Humana or Blue Cross or one of those. If you had a supplement, it would be through Mutual of Omaha or Aetna or Forethought of one of those. Those are free market insurance companies who have contracts with providers on top of what the providers make from Medicare.

When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan. It was guaranteed issue. If you had cancer and a history of 8 heart attacks, they had to take you.

Why is it right that, if I have those same conditions when I'm 64, I can't do the same?
.

PLEASE make a distinction between Advantage and supplement!
Advantage plans are paid directly by Medicare a flat monthly fee. From this fee the Advantage plan pays all costs...a few like MINE also pays my Part B so my
SS check is NOT reduced.
Supplement plans don't replace Medicare but "supplement" meaning traditional Medicare pays 80% the beneficiary pays the other...unless they have a supplement!

Two very gross and simple distinctions!

I always keep the two separate. I know precisely how they work, because I was contracted by a Fortune 100 insurer for five years to be the personal financial guy in the room as they put the plans and benefits together.
.

YOU wrote "When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan."
YOU are wrong.

The choice is Original Medicare (traditional)
OR
Medicare Advantage.
http://www.medicarerights.org/fliers/Medicare-Advantage/Differences-Between-OM-and-MA.pdf?nrd=1

A) Choose Original Medicare and you choose what supplement you add to pay the 20% that Medicare doesn't pay.
B) Choose Advantage plan and you in almost all cases don't need a supplement. Over 600 Medicare advantage plans to choose from. One traditional Medicare!
Also if you live in a competitive state like I do, Florida, my Advantage plan PAYS the Part B that is deducted from ALL Social Security checks.
So while SS deducts the $134 per month from my SS, MY Advantage plan PAYS that $134.
Not many Advantage plans do but as I pointed out I live in a very competitive state.

That's just incorrect. When you turn 65, you're eligible for Medicare A & B.

You can then choose to add an MA or a Supplement to fill the gaps in coverage.
.

he is dorrect. under medicare advantage the insurer pays the entire bill, not just the gap.

 

[Mac1958]

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

medicare is the absence of competition. Are you saying that doctors and hospitals would compete for medicare payments that don't even cover their costs of operating?

Your Medicare Advantage plan is through United/Secure Horizons or Humana or Blue Cross or one of those. If you had a supplement, it would be through Mutual of Omaha or Aetna or Forethought of one of those. Those are free market insurance companies who have contracts with providers on top of what the providers make from Medicare.

When you turned 65, you had the choice of a Medicare Supplement or a Medicare Advantage plan. It was guaranteed issue. If you had cancer and a history of 8 heart attacks, they had to take you.

Why is it right that, if I have those same conditions when I'm 64, I can't do the same?
.

before ACA there were 3 problems with private medical insurance

1. no mandate to take people with pre-existing conditions
2. policies with lifetime maximum payments
3. no interstate competition between insurers

Those 3 problems could have been fixed with a one page bill that would have sailed through both houses of congress.

you don't quite have it right on medicare. you said: "on top of what they make from medicare". When a doctor or hospital treats a medicare advantage patient, their only payment comes from the insurance company in accordance with contract payment amounts for each service as negotiated with the insurance company. Under medicare advantage there are no direct payments from medicare(the government) to the provider.

That's correct, I was just trying to keep it brief. The MA company is paid a PMPM (Per Member Per Month) fee by Medicare to essentially take over all services. The MA company then contracts with various providers (as many as they can) to maximize their network. If, however, the insurer incurs higher costs, then they essentially have to eat the rest. With a Medicare Supplement plan, the provider is getting reimbursement from Medicare and the insurance company, separately, and has separate contracts with each.
.
.

 

[Rustic]

Pretty damn simple answer!
Health care costs in the USA..ANSWER:
First up isn't a prediction as much as a major milestone that's reflective of escalating healthcare costs. According to CMS (here) our National Healthcare Expenditure (NHE) is projected to hit $3.207 trillion this year. The U.S. Population is currently hovering at around 320 million, so 2015 looks to be the first year healthcare spending will reach $10,000 per person. We may be "bending the cost growth curve," but the per capita amount continues to grow.
U.S. Healthcare Spending On Track To Hit $10,000 Per Person This Year

Ok now for your other dumb ass question: insurance companies profit after paying the bills?
First of all you dummies never heard of the Medical loss ratio I bet!
Here let me help you out!
A basic financial measurement used in the Affordable Care Act to encourage health plans to provide value to enrollees. If an insurer uses 80 cents out of every premium dollar to pay its customers' medical claims and activities that improve the quality of care, the company has a medical loss ratio of 80%.
So these idiots at Obamacare FORCED 85% MLR... and guess what? FORCED Premiums up!

WHY... well let's take a look at Aetna's 2015 Financial statement:
NOTE: Claims..health care costs: $41 billion divided by total premiums $51 billion equals 80% going out in claims!
Then NOTE: those exorbitant salaries, overhead etc. $11 billion of $51 billion 21% wow terrible
Finally after all is done what kind of federal taxes have they paid? $2 billion in taxes or 4% But wait... remember they also paid Federal payroll taxes!
So now they have after all that is done woo.... big profits! $ 2.4 billion from $51 billion is NET profits? 3.9%!
WOW!! Big money big money filthy profits... but wait where does that stand with other industries net profits...
Insurance is 40th at 7.2% and Aetna... 3.9%
View attachment 141102
View attachment 141100

To reinforce the stupidity of a lot of people on this board and people in general look at this chart!
I'm sure most of you ignorant people really believe insurance companies, companies in general make a lot of profit! WRONG!

The public thinks the average company makes a 36% profit margin, which is about 5X too high • AEI
View attachment 141096

Wow, well I was going to "thank" your response and applaud you for wanting to talk about real numbers until I read your snarky little comment about my dumb ass questions. If you think I'm dumb for wanting to talk about stats and numbers then feel free to not respond to me and engage with members seeking hateful partisan attack fights

Simply... the well is dry.

For the 5th time. Show some numbers... what are the costs per person? How much to insurance companies collect in revenue? Break it down or do details make your head hurt?

People have no money to waste on frivolous things like single payer... fact

Then fucking prove it you dimwit. This is the 7th time I've asked for numbers and you keep responding with baseless proclaimations. Time to step up the discussion or shut up

The well is dry, socialism depends on other peoples money to function. Even a fool like you should be able understand that... jack weed

 

[longknife]

This has been another sour week for "The Donald" has it not?

* The GOP healthcare plan is dead in the water

* Trump's "ban" on transgender soldiers is being ignored by the joint chief's of staff

* Robert Mueller's investigation now taking aim at Trump's carefully guarded offshore business deals as well as those elusive tax returns

* His own inner staff at war with each other

* Sanctions on Russia passes overwhelmingly by Congress, despite Trump's views to the contrary.

* No budget deal

* No tax reform

* No infrastructure deal

* No progress in paying down the national debt

* No wall on our boarder w/ Mexico (and if it ever does goes up) American's will pay for it!

So what is Mr. President's solution? Attack his own political party! He attacks GOP members that won't vote his way, attacks his own attorney general because he won't violate legal ethics rules regarding the Russia investigation, attacks James Comey (a lifelong Republican) whom he calls a "leaker" attacks judges (many of them Republican appointed) who won't rule his way, attacks members of his own staff who are trying to support his efforts. Little does Mr. President know, he's going to need legal rulings, support, and Congressional votes from these very same people in the future if he hopes to accomplish anything at all. It seems Mr. President still has yet to learn that the framers of our Constitution did not design the west wing of the White House to function like a Manhattan real estate development company, nor has he learned that governing depends on building alliances and partners, not in making enemies and alienating members of one's own political party. Perhaps Mr. President is not quite as "brilliant" as he would have us believe.

Republican lawmakers refuse to back Trump’s attacks on Comey

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-expand-probe-to-trump-business-transactions6

President Trump is a RINO and has never, ever made a secret of it. He is a Nationalist or a Populist and only ran as a Republican in order to have a chance of getting on the national ballots.

That is exactly why so many millions of us voted for him!

 

[Correll]

This has been another sour week for "The Donald" has it not?

* The GOP healthcare plan is dead in the water

* Trump's "ban" on transgender soldiers is being ignored by the joint chief's of staff

* Robert Mueller's investigation now taking aim at Trump's carefully guarded offshore business deals as well as those elusive tax returns

* His own inner staff at war with each other

* Sanctions on Russia passes overwhelmingly by Congress, despite Trump's views to the contrary.

* No budget deal

* No tax reform

* No infrastructure deal

* No progress in paying down the national debt

* No wall on our boarder w/ Mexico (and if it ever does goes up) American's will pay for it!

So what is Mr. President's solution? Attack his own political party! He attacks GOP members that won't vote his way, attacks his own attorney general because he won't violate legal ethics rules regarding the Russia investigation, attacks James Comey (a lifelong Republican) whom he calls a "leaker" attacks judges (many of them Republican appointed) who won't rule his way, attacks members of his own staff who are trying to support his efforts. Little does Mr. President know, he's going to need legal rulings, support, and Congressional votes from these very same people in the future if he hopes to accomplish anything at all. It seems Mr. President still has yet to learn that the framers of our Constitution did not design the west wing of the White House to function like a Manhattan real estate development company, nor has he learned that governing depends on building alliances and partners, not in making enemies and alienating members of one's own political party. Perhaps Mr. President is not quite as "brilliant" as he would have us believe.

Republican lawmakers refuse to back Trump’s attacks on Comey

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-expand-probe-to-trump-business-transactions6

President Trump is a RINO and has never, ever made a secret of it. He is a Nationalist or a Populist and only ran as a Republican in order to have a chance of getting on the national ballots.

That is exactly why so many millions of us voted for him!

RINO has some baggage that means a lot more than just "not conservative". I would not use it to describe Trump.

 

[healthmyths]

Too bad The country could never afford single payer... lol

Sure we could. Once you stop letting the healthcare industry profiteers dictate pricing, for starters.

what is the average profit margin after taxes of medical insurance companies? any idea?

while you look that up, also look up the profit rates for big pharma, software companies, medical supply companies, hospitals, I think you may then realize where the problem lies.

Single payer would only make that situation worse because it would create a monopoly that could rob us at will.

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

"massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers."
May I remind you that the "massive cost monkey" is considered by the Federal Government as an "expenditure"...i.e. tax deduction.
Look at this chart...
Largest TAX deduction is employer medical insurance premiums.
Without them companies while companies would NO longer have the expense...they also lose the deduction value.

 

[Mac1958]

Sure we could. Once you stop letting the healthcare industry profiteers dictate pricing, for starters.

what is the average profit margin after taxes of medical insurance companies? any idea?

while you look that up, also look up the profit rates for big pharma, software companies, medical supply companies, hospitals, I think you may then realize where the problem lies.

Single payer would only make that situation worse because it would create a monopoly that could rob us at will.

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

"massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers."
May I remind you that the "massive cost monkey" is considered by the Federal Government as an "expenditure"...i.e. tax deduction.
Look at this chart...
Largest TAX deduction is employer medical insurance premiums.
Without them companies while companies would NO longer have the expense...they also lose the deduction value.

View attachment 141229

Big deal. It's still a significant NET expense.
.

 

[healthmyths]

This discussion of Medicare,etc. has gotten way off track from the thread topic.
I've tried many times to convince people that there NEVER was a health crisis!
It was a phony made up gigantic LIE that as Gruber said took the stupidity of the voter to get it passed.
The entire objective was to get to a single payer WHICH is NOT feasible in the largest NON-Communist ruled country in the world.
The idea that there were "46 million uninsured Americans" WAS FALSE! The idea that up to "half of all Americans have pre-existing conditions" WAS FALSE!
The idea that lawyers and Tort reform would save Billions of wasted dollars was NEVER discussed because 40% of Congress and Obama were lawyers!
Sure Obamacare taxed tanning salons 10%!
But was there any real effort to tax lawyers $270 Billion a year income and use the tax for the truly less then 5 million that need health insurance? Of course not!

So I will continue to provide LINKS substantiating the above realities until we have more people become aware that repealing Obama care is
NOT a crisis situation...but letting it continue WILL BE as more and more insurance companies drop out! That insurance companies are NOT evil capitalists but
just paying the bills.
And that the true target should be "Tort Reform" AS IT WAS in 1946 when the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) forbid suing doctors under Federal contract.
If it worked for the Federal government as my many posts showing defensive medicine practices costing nearly $1 trillion a year while less then
half of Federal contracted doctors DON"T practice "defensive Medicine" it should be an issue.

 

[healthmyths]

what is the average profit margin after taxes of medical insurance companies? any idea?

while you look that up, also look up the profit rates for big pharma, software companies, medical supply companies, hospitals, I think you may then realize where the problem lies.

Single payer would only make that situation worse because it would create a monopoly that could rob us at will.

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

"massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers."
May I remind you that the "massive cost monkey" is considered by the Federal Government as an "expenditure"...i.e. tax deduction.
Look at this chart...
Largest TAX deduction is employer medical insurance premiums.
Without them companies while companies would NO longer have the expense...they also lose the deduction value.

View attachment 141229

Big deal. It's still a significant NET expense.
.

FACTS...
Note: Something most anti-business, anti-profit people just totally ignore about the employers... They pay almost 8% of an employee's SS/Medicare plus more
to insure the employee gets SS/Medicare/workman's comp/unemployment/ coverage. I'm almost positive that most of these anti-employer types don't realize
this is the cost of hiring people! As a consequence when ACA came in and put further rules and regulations on employers... why hire more people if it's going to
cost me more money than the increase in gross revenue? Obamacare was a damping effect on employers.

 

[Mac1958]

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Yes, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplements would have to stay.

I would guess that at least half the country doesn't really understand how the Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system works. So when they talk about "Medicare for All" or "Single Payer", they're just tossing out words. I see it here all the time.

Expanding the FULL Medicare system to all would retain dynamic free market competition and take a massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers.
.

"massive cost monkey off the backs of our employers."
May I remind you that the "massive cost monkey" is considered by the Federal Government as an "expenditure"...i.e. tax deduction.
Look at this chart...
Largest TAX deduction is employer medical insurance premiums.
Without them companies while companies would NO longer have the expense...they also lose the deduction value.

View attachment 141229

Big deal. It's still a significant NET expense.
.

FACTS...
Note: Something most anti-business, anti-profit people just totally ignore about the employers... They pay almost 8% of an employee's SS/Medicare plus more
to insure the employee gets SS/Medicare/workman's comp/unemployment/ coverage. I'm almost positive that most of these anti-employer types don't realize
this is the cost of hiring people! As a consequence when ACA came in and put further rules and regulations on employers... why hire more people if it's going to
cost me more money than the increase in gross revenue? Obamacare was a damping effect on employers.
View attachment 141237

Yes. So?
.

 

[Slade3200]

Wow, well I was going to "thank" your response and applaud you for wanting to talk about real numbers until I read your snarky little comment about my dumb ass questions. If you think I'm dumb for wanting to talk about stats and numbers then feel free to not respond to me and engage with members seeking hateful partisan attack fights

Simply... the well is dry.

For the 5th time. Show some numbers... what are the costs per person? How much to insurance companies collect in revenue? Break it down or do details make your head hurt?

People have no money to waste on frivolous things like single payer... fact

Then fucking prove it you dimwit. This is the 7th time I've asked for numbers and you keep responding with baseless proclaimations. Time to step up the discussion or shut up

The well is dry, socialism depends on other peoples money to function. Even a fool like you should be able understand that... jack weed

Obviously you cant think past your talking points, so why bother? LMK when your ready move down to the next layer and actually look at numbers and analyze budgets and policies.

 

[Vandalshandle]

lol, so if it's failing, the plan is working?

Too bad The country could never afford single payer... lol

Sure we could. Once you stop letting the healthcare industry profiteers dictate pricing, for starters.

what is the average profit margin after taxes of medical insurance companies? any idea?

while you look that up, also look up the profit rates for big pharma, software companies, medical supply companies, hospitals, I think you may then realize where the problem lies.

Single payer would only make that situation worse because it would create a monopoly that could rob us at will.

...and yet, Medicare is not a monopoly. My coverage his provided by Caremore Advantage plan....

do you understand how the advantage plans work? I am on Humana advantage. The government pays the insurance companies a flat rate per month to administer your medical care needs. The amount paid to the companies gives them some surplus so they can offer things like: zero premiums, health club memberships, discount or free drugs, points for gift cards etc. I agree that its a good deal for all involved.

If we revert to "medicare for all" as you say you want, those great programs will go away and you and I will be faced with straight medicare which pays at best 80% of your bills.

careful what you wish for.

Red, I am very much aware of how Advantage plans work. I was in on the design phase of them back in the 1980's in my insurance career. There is absolutely no reason why they can not exist under a government universal health plan.