Federal Gestapo Services ask good citizens to report any emails about health insurance reform that seem "fishy" to flag@whitehouse.gov

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can't believe he didn't write Socialist anywhere in that last post!

Our VJ Rainman is making progress.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Here is one article:

Medicare’s Overhead

Rep Pete Stark chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s health panel is once again on the warpath. The California Democrat delivered his latest zinger last week, saying he wouldn’t negotiate with insurance companies on a health-care overhaul. “I think their intention is to see the Democrats fail, regardless of what it does for health care in this country,” Rep. Stark told reporters. He went on to say that Medicare has lower overhead than the private insurers . Stark is a true believer and like all true believers he admits no possibility of error and is recklessly intolerant of contrary views.

Stark’s attitude towards health care reform reminds me of Richard Feynman’s quip about the universe: “The universe is not only stranger than you think; it’s stranger than you can imagine.” If we can get just one issue straight we might have a chance of getting on the right path. Medicare says that their overhead costs are 2 – 5%. When they say this they are being disingenuous. Their overhead is low because they don’t count all of it. It’s like congress spending money and then putting the costs off the books. If Medicare were a private insurance company Patrick Fitzgerald would be taping their staff meetings.

Medicare imposes an almost infinite number of unfunded mandates, rules, and regulations on medical providers. These mandates consume vast swatches of time and impose huge costs. Costs which of course are passed on to patients and taxpayers, but which Medicare doesn’t count. Talk to your doctor and ask him about Medicare’s regulatory regime. Be prepared for a lot of frustration. Why do some doctors favor a government run single payer health care system? There are a number of reasons, but likely most prominent among them is that these doctors don’t spend a lot of time taking care of patients.

The total cost of all this federal regulation is not known by anyone, but my guess is were it counted by Medicare as part of its overhead, which it really is, that it would put Medicare equal to or ahead of the insurance companies. Anyone who thinks that Stark and Medicare have the answer of our problems with health care should deeply contemplate Feynman’s quip. Medical care is almost as strange as the universe. Is Pete Stark the guy who’s figured it out? The government can do a lot of things, but it can never save money.

Finally, a majority of Americans are satisfied with their health care coverage. Will this still be true after Rep Stark has his way. I think we’re about to find out.

Link

http://medicine-opera.com/2008/12/26/medicares-overhead/

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

i'm amazed that so many of you believe the government can do such a better job and keep costs down. maybe i can sell them some $500 knee reflex hammers.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Of course Socialists will try to hide the costs until it is too late.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i'm amazed that so many of you believe the government can do such a better job and keep costs down. maybe i can sell them some $500 knee reflex hammers.

Medicare has a 3 percent overhead and is 44 years running. Can you top that among private insurance companies?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Here is a article from the Socialist mouth organ the NY times.

verage.

Nor are Canadian and European health care systems as cheap as they look. Measuring health care expenditures as a share of national income does not count waiting costs or the lack of availability of many advanced technologies and treatments.

Furthermore, the lower reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals in Canada and Western Europe save less than first impressions suggest. Bargaining down health care prices won’t change the reality that real resources must be devoted to produce care. The true social cost of a doctor is not the doctor’s wage, which is simply money passing from one hand to another; the true cost is what the doctor could have produced doing something else. Higher doctors’ wages in the United States reflect, in part, the higher return to skilled talent in the more entrepreneurial American economy.

As long as lifestyle, diet, attitude, social standing and exercise are the major determinants of personal health, the expensive American emphasis on discretionary treatment will not always seem sensible. Many people just don’t benefit that much from medical care. Look at the life expectancy around the Mediterranean — it is high but not because of wonderful health care.

But as populations age and the value of medical technology grows, the overhead costs of private insurance will prove an increasingly wise investment. For all its high immediate expenses, the American health care system is looking toward the future rather than the past. In the long run, the hidden and indirect costs of single-payer systems are harder to measure and thus are ultimately harder to control.

Middlemen and marketing costs have long been viewed with suspicion by critics of commerce. But these practices are usually signs of market sophistication, not waste. The gains from abolishing private insurance and its overhead costs are an illusion. TANSTAAFL, or “There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.”

Link

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/business/22scene.html

[luckytxn 2,264]

Just google medicare overhead costs and see the real truth or should I just keep linking articles?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Medicare imposes an almost infinite number of unfunded mandates, rules, and regulations on medical providers.

The total cost of all this federal regulation is not known by anyone, but my guess is were it counted by Medicare as part of its overhead, which it really is, that it would put Medicare equal to or ahead of the insurance companies.

Very specific and quite well substantiated. Or maybe not...

[luckytxn 2,264]

Or just keep trying to bamboozle the koolaid drinking sheep from the truth as usual.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You prefer Mott's, doncha?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Or just keep trying to bamboozle the koolaid drinking sheep from the truth as usual.

Truth? You wish to talk about the truth? Man, I thought I'd never see this day.

According to the latest annual report of the Medicare board of trustees (these reports are required by law), Medicare spent $431.5 billion dollars in 2007. Of this amount, $6.3 billion was administrative expenditures (or overhead). If we do the math, we determine that Medicare’s overhead was 1.5 percent of its expenditures. Other data presented in the trustees report indicate Medicare’s overhead was about 2 percent throughout this decade, about 2 percent during the 1990s, and about 3 percent in the 1980s.

During the last three or four decades, the comparable figure for health insurance companies has been 20 percent while the comparable figure for self-insured firms has been about 10 percent. I think it is safe to say all reasonable people would agree that 2 percent is “lower” than 20 percent and 10 percent.

Even if you didn’t know these figures, your common sense tells you Medicare’s overhead costs have to be lower than the insurance industry’s. Medicare spends little or nothing on a variety of administrative activities that insurance companies spend substantial sums of money on, including:

* marketing;

* underwriting (which means doing the research necessary to determine applicants’ health histories and whether to insure them and if so at what price);

* making routine use of “utilization review” (aka telling doctors how to practice medicine);

* restricting patients’ choice of provider (it costs money to assemble “networks” of providers that include some providers and exclude others);

* lobbying;

* financing costly salaries and perks for executives; and

* financing profits.

(I consider profit to be a subset of administrative costs, others don’t. Insurance companies typically allocate 3 to 5 percent of their revenues or expenditures to profit.)

Among experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, the 2-percent figure for Medicare is widely (probably universally) accepted. I offer two examples of expert opinion from the conservative side of the health care reform debate: the Lewin Group, and a coalition of organizations and individuals that signed an open letter to Congress in 1999.

The Lewin Group is a consulting firm which is on record criticizing single-payer proponents. It often makes unjustifiably favorable assumptions about the cost-cutting abilities of health insurance companies. It was purchased by United Health Group last year. It uses the 2-percent figure to estimate Medicare’s overhead costs and the overhead costs of Medicare-like systems (cf the Lewin Group’s reports for the states of California and Colorado).

In 1999, a coalition of conservative and middle-of-the road groups and individuals signed an open letter to Congress begging Congress to raise Medicare’s administrative spending level to the level “found in the private sector” so that Medicare would be better equipped to function like a managed care insurance company. The coalition included the Heritage Foundation, the former Health Insurance Association of America (the trade group that represented the non-HMO wing of the health insurance industry), the American Enterprise Institute, the Concord Coalition, and Wellpoint Health Networks.

This coalition stated that Medicare’s overhead was less than 2 percent. Here is how they put it: “The latest report of the Medicare trustees points out that HCFA’s administrative expenses represented only 1 percent of the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund [which finances Part A] and less than 2 percent of the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust fund [which at that time financed Part B]” (Heritage Foundation et al., “Open letter to Congress and the executive: Crisis facing HCFA and millions of Americans,” Health Affairs 1999;18(1):8-10, 8). Obviously, the average of these two trust funds comes to less than 2 percent.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[luckytxn 2,264]

Or just keep trying to bamboozle the koolaid drinking sheep from the truth as usual.

Truth? You wish to talk about the truth? Man, I thought I'd never see this day.

According to the latest annual report of the Medicare board of trustees (these reports are required by law), Medicare spent $431.5 billion dollars in 2007. Of this amount, $6.3 billion was administrative expenditures (or overhead). If we do the math, we determine that Medicare’s overhead was 1.5 percent of its expenditures. Other data presented in the trustees report indicate Medicare’s overhead was about 2 percent throughout this decade, about 2 percent during the 1990s, and about 3 percent in the 1980s.

During the last three or four decades, the comparable figure for health insurance companies has been 20 percent while the comparable figure for self-insured firms has been about 10 percent. I think it is safe to say all reasonable people would agree that 2 percent is “lower” than 20 percent and 10 percent.

Even if you didn’t know these figures, your common sense tells you Medicare’s overhead costs have to be lower than the insurance industry’s. Medicare spends little or nothing on a variety of administrative activities that insurance companies spend substantial sums of money on, including:

* marketing;

* underwriting (which means doing the research necessary to determine applicants’ health histories and whether to insure them and if so at what price);

* making routine use of “utilization review” (aka telling doctors how to practice medicine);

* restricting patients’ choice of provider (it costs money to assemble “networks” of providers that include some providers and exclude others);

* lobbying;

* financing costly salaries and perks for executives; and

* financing profits.

(I consider profit to be a subset of administrative costs, others don’t. Insurance companies typically allocate 3 to 5 percent of their revenues or expenditures to profit.)

Among experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, the 2-percent figure for Medicare is widely (probably universally) accepted. I offer two examples of expert opinion from the conservative side of the health care reform debate: the Lewin Group, and a coalition of organizations and individuals that signed an open letter to Congress in 1999.

The Lewin Group is a consulting firm which is on record criticizing single-payer proponents. It often makes unjustifiably favorable assumptions about the cost-cutting abilities of health insurance companies. It was purchased by United Health Group last year. It uses the 2-percent figure to estimate Medicare’s overhead costs and the overhead costs of Medicare-like systems (cf the Lewin Group’s reports for the states of California and Colorado).

In 1999, a coalition of conservative and middle-of-the road groups and individuals signed an open letter to Congress begging Congress to raise Medicare’s administrative spending level to the level “found in the private sector” so that Medicare would be better equipped to function like a managed care insurance company. The coalition included the Heritage Foundation, the former Health Insurance Association of America (the trade group that represented the non-HMO wing of the health insurance industry), the American Enterprise Institute, the Concord Coalition, and Wellpoint Health Networks.

This coalition stated that Medicare’s overhead was less than 2 percent. Here is how they put it: “The latest report of the Medicare trustees points out that HCFA’s administrative expenses represented only 1 percent of the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund [which finances Part A] and less than 2 percent of the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust fund [which at that time financed Part B]” (Heritage Foundation et al., “Open letter to Congress and the executive: Crisis facing HCFA and millions of Americans,” Health Affairs 1999;18(1):8-10, 8). Obviously, the average of these two trust funds comes to less than 2 percent.

Must not have read the articles and links I posted.

I will keep posting a few articles more.

May take a bit as there are so many articles to choose from debunking the Socialist lies.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm willing to bet luckytxn doesn't have a college degree.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Or just keep trying to bamboozle the koolaid drinking sheep from the truth as usual.

Truth? You wish to talk about the truth? Man, I thought I'd never see this day.

According to the latest annual report of the Medicare board of trustees (these reports are required by law), Medicare spent $431.5 billion dollars in 2007. Of this amount, $6.3 billion was administrative expenditures (or overhead). If we do the math, we determine that Medicare’s overhead was 1.5 percent of its expenditures. Other data presented in the trustees report indicate Medicare’s overhead was about 2 percent throughout this decade, about 2 percent during the 1990s, and about 3 percent in the 1980s.

During the last three or four decades, the comparable figure for health insurance companies has been 20 percent while the comparable figure for self-insured firms has been about 10 percent. I think it is safe to say all reasonable people would agree that 2 percent is “lower” than 20 percent and 10 percent.

Even if you didn’t know these figures, your common sense tells you Medicare’s overhead costs have to be lower than the insurance industry’s. Medicare spends little or nothing on a variety of administrative activities that insurance companies spend substantial sums of money on, including:

* marketing;

* underwriting (which means doing the research necessary to determine applicants’ health histories and whether to insure them and if so at what price);

* making routine use of “utilization review” (aka telling doctors how to practice medicine);

* restricting patients’ choice of provider (it costs money to assemble “networks” of providers that include some providers and exclude others);

* lobbying;

* financing costly salaries and perks for executives; and

* financing profits.

(I consider profit to be a subset of administrative costs, others don’t. Insurance companies typically allocate 3 to 5 percent of their revenues or expenditures to profit.)

Among experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, the 2-percent figure for Medicare is widely (probably universally) accepted. I offer two examples of expert opinion from the conservative side of the health care reform debate: the Lewin Group, and a coalition of organizations and individuals that signed an open letter to Congress in 1999.

The Lewin Group is a consulting firm which is on record criticizing single-payer proponents. It often makes unjustifiably favorable assumptions about the cost-cutting abilities of health insurance companies. It was purchased by United Health Group last year. It uses the 2-percent figure to estimate Medicare’s overhead costs and the overhead costs of Medicare-like systems (cf the Lewin Group’s reports for the states of California and Colorado).

In 1999, a coalition of conservative and middle-of-the road groups and individuals signed an open letter to Congress begging Congress to raise Medicare’s administrative spending level to the level “found in the private sector” so that Medicare would be better equipped to function like a managed care insurance company. The coalition included the Heritage Foundation, the former Health Insurance Association of America (the trade group that represented the non-HMO wing of the health insurance industry), the American Enterprise Institute, the Concord Coalition, and Wellpoint Health Networks.

This coalition stated that Medicare’s overhead was less than 2 percent. Here is how they put it: “The latest report of the Medicare trustees points out that HCFA’s administrative expenses represented only 1 percent of the outlays of the Hospital Insurance trust fund [which finances Part A] and less than 2 percent of the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust fund [which at that time financed Part B]” (Heritage Foundation et al., “Open letter to Congress and the executive: Crisis facing HCFA and millions of Americans,” Health Affairs 1999;18(1):8-10, 8). Obviously, the average of these two trust funds comes to less than 2 percent.

Must not have read the articles and links I posted.

I will keep posting a few articles more.

May take a bit as there are so many articles to choose from debunking the Socialist lies.

Well, you can post anything you want to. Until you can show where the private insurance industry is delivering health care more more efficiently than any government in the developed world, they won't mean much. Alas, have you contacted your Congressman yet to ask him to support the Weiner amendment to eliminate the socialist government run scheme that has become known as Medicare? It's out there, urge them to support it.