Commentary: How insurance firms drive debate, By East TN man.

[Daniel]

Commentary: How insurance firms drive debate - CNN.com

Editor's note: Wendell Potter has served since May 2009 as senior fellow on health care at the Center for Media and Democracy, a nonprofit organization that says it seeks to expose "corporate spin and government propaganda." After a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Potter left his job last year as head of communications for one of the nation's largest health insurers, CIGNA Corporation.

[E4 No More]

"The higher I rose in the company, the more I learned about the tactics insurers use to dump policyholders when they get sick, in order to increase profits and to reward their Wall Street investors. I could not in good conscience continue serving as an industry mouthpiece. And I did not want to be part of yet another industry effort to kill meaningful reform."

I dare say that the more some on this forum new about what insurance companies pull that costs them so much more money, they wouldn't be as vocal against healthcare reform.

[Guest colrmccoll]

I don't care what the insurance companies do; I do not want the government involved!

he bumper sticker says it all, "If you think health insurance is expensive now, just wait until it is free."

[macville]

The thing is with this health care INSURANCE "reform" is all we will do is trade one big company for one big gov. At least with the one big company we can sue them and have a decent chance of winning. How many times do you see the Fed Gov losing big lawsuits? Not much...

Matthew

[LagerHead]

Exactly, colrmccoll. The point is not (for me at least) being against reform itself, it's about being against the government being in control of my health care. You want reform? Enact tort reform so people can't sue their doctors at the drop of a hat. Or put a stop to state-by-state insurance. Open it up nationally and then let the insurance companies duke it out. Make it illegal for a doctor to charge me $25 for an office visit, but charge my insurance company $75. There are plenty of ways to cut costs. The government managing it has never, ever, been one of them.

[E4 No More]

I see many people upset over government taking over healthcare, and I think that it's much ado about nothing. There will be revision particularly after all the town hall debates.

I think we'll end up with the insurance companies getting the crap regulated out of them.

[Mark@Sea]

I'm not against healthcare reforms. Fer instance, we could remove government restrictions that tend to reduce competition. We could do something about tort reform that could reduce lawsuit payouts from millions of dollars (most of which go to lawyers on both sides of the lawsuits). We could take steps toward getting the lawyers out from between the doctor and the patient. We could do something about the gov't dictating terms to doctors and hospitals regarding medicare/medicaid treatments - those terms already make it much too difficult to operate a small practice, and frequently deny needed treatment or medicines, and are so bound in red tape that making timely decisions required for quality healthcare are impossible. Shoot, we could start by removing racial quotas from medical schools, so that the best academically qualified are admitted, rather than the most politically correct. Lots of things we could do, most of which involve reduced interaction between doctors, patients, the legal system and the government.

I'm dead set against transition to a single-payer (gov't provided) healthcare system. Doesn't matter if it is a straight gov't proposition, or the new idea being floated of a 'not for profit' "private" insurance collective backed by government funds. Anyone that buys that one at face value, by the way, has very promising opportunities in the Arizona snow removal business they should be checking out.

I'm dead set against a "healthcare" bill, which Congress has NO authority to pass in the first place, which dictates racial quotas for medical students, bases physicians' decisions on cost controls rather than medical needs, gives life to a new, faceless government bureacracy that can grant or deny treatment to any given patient, requires millions of people to pay for insurance they neither want nor need, and expands government control of an economy that is already staggering under the attacks of that same government.

Short answer? Put a stake through the heart of the gov't created, lifesucking vampire that is the gov't version of 'healthcare reform'.

[E4 No More]

I'm not against healthcare reforms. Fer instance, we could remove government restrictions that tend to reduce competition. We could do something about tort reform that could reduce lawsuit payouts from millions of dollars (most of which go to lawyers on both sides of the lawsuits). We could take steps toward getting the lawyers out from between the doctor and the patient. We could do something about the gov't dictating terms to doctors and hospitals regarding medicare/medicaid treatments - those terms already make it much too difficult to operate a small practice, and frequently deny needed treatment or medicines, and are so bound in red tape that making timely decisions required for quality healthcare are impossible. Shoot, we could start by removing racial quotas from medical schools, so that the best academically qualified are admitted, rather than the most politically correct. Lots of things we could do, most of which involve reduced interaction between doctors, patients, the legal system and the government.

I'm dead set against transition to a single-payer (gov't provided) healthcare system. Doesn't matter if it is a straight gov't proposition, or the new idea being floated of a 'not for profit' "private" insurance collective backed by government funds. Anyone that buys that one at face value, by the way, has very promising opportunities in the Arizona snow removal business they should be checking out.

I'm dead set against a "healthcare" bill, which Congress has NO authority to pass in the first place, which dictates racial quotas for medical students, bases physicians' decisions on cost controls rather than medical needs, gives life to a new, faceless government bureacracy that can grant or deny treatment to any given patient, requires millions of people to pay for insurance they neither want nor need, and expands government control of an economy that is already staggering under the attacks of that same government.

Short answer? Put a stake through the heart of the gov't created, lifesucking vampire that is the gov't version of 'healthcare reform'.

Pretty much so I agree, but you say that people shouldn't be forced to pay for insurance that they don't want or need. So I ask you, would you feel the same if somone without auto insurance plows into your vehicle? They don't want it, and they don't need it until it's too late. Yet the government mandates that you have auto insurance to drive a car, (with unquestionable lack of effectiveness).

Isn't the whole idea of insurance is that you pay into a pool so that it's there when you need it? So would you agree with the guy in his 20's who has no health insurance, because, "He doesn't need or want it" who goes out mountain biking, cracks his skull open causing brain-damage, goes to the ER who cannot legally turn him away, which is followed up by him declaring bankruptcy because he can't, or won't, pay the hospital bill?

[USMCJG]

Here's an interesting little tidbit about health care reform and the accusations that the health care industry is solely behind the "conspiracy" to stop government run health care: THE PROPONENTS of the health care bill are OUTSPENDING THE OPPONENTS 3 to 1 in advertising. That should be a red flag right there.

As for the guy in the original article, I'd advise some people to do a little research into the organization who signs his paychecks.

[MikeW]

I think we'll end up with the insurance companies getting the crap regulated out of them.

LOL, I doubt they could put more regulation on Insurance companies without "taking them over".

The 20 yr that did not buy health insured is "self insured"... Problem is that he may run up bills that he cannot pay. Why mandate coverage for someone that will not "pay for it"? If my tax dollars are going to cover the uninsured.. I had rather not have my health care coverage dictated to me by the government.

Should the government take over auto insurance too? Howabout Life insurance?

Some sort of reform will pass… just how much is the question.

[Mark@Sea]

Pretty much so I agree, but you say that people shouldn't be forced to pay for insurance that they don't want or need. So I ask you, would you feel the same if somone without auto insurance plows into your vehicle? They don't want it, and they don't need it until it's too late. Yet the government mandates that you have auto insurance to drive a car, (with unquestionable lack of effectiveness).

Isn't the whole idea of insurance is that you pay into a pool so that it's there when you need it? So would you agree with the guy in his 20's who has no health insurance, because, "He doesn't need or want it" who goes out mountain biking, cracks his skull open causing brain-damage, goes to the ER who cannot legally turn him away, which is followed up by him declaring bankruptcy because he can't, or won't, pay the hospital bill?

To answer your questions in reverse order, the whole idea of insurance is that it is possible to make money based on the statistical certainty that more customers will buy it than actually need it. If, statistically speaking, you are very likely to need it, then you aren't getting insurance (unless your insurer is really stupid), you're paying for the liability in advance.

I've driven semi's, motorcycles, cars and light trucks since I was 15 years old. Not once have I been involved in an accident that was my own fault, but I have been in one that was the other drivers' fault. Happily, for the purpose of this topic, he was uninsured. So you might say that I've paid auto insurance for 30 years to cover some bum who a) couldn't drive and didn't make the financially prudent choice of obtaining insurance against the likely consequences of his inability to operate a motor vehicle. The result was that my insurer gave me nowhere near the amount of money needed to replace my vehicle.

You think I'm happy about this? You seriously think this enhances your argument? Not so, young jedi.

[Guest grimel]

I dare say that the more some on this forum new about what insurance companies pull that costs them so much more money, they wouldn't be as vocal against healthcare reform.

I dare say some on this forum have forgotten more about what insurance companies pull that cost us money than most know. We aren't vocal against healthcare reform, we are vocal against the current non-reforms that will greatly increase costs while reducing both quality and quantity of service. There are several reforms that would get our backing, but, since they empower the consumer and weaken government control they aren't even being discussed.

[DavidCBaker]

I keep wondering how the hell we can even consider starting another massive gov't program without first fixing the huge we we already have: Social Security. Too many promises, no credible source of funding, yada yada.

[Guest grimel]

I see many people upset over government taking over healthcare, and I think that it's much ado about nothing. There will be revision particularly after all the town hall debates.

I think we'll end up with the insurance companies getting the crap regulated out of them.

They already have the crap regulated out of them. That is part of the problem. The dems have been trying step by step for gov controlled healthcare for decades. They won't stop. It is too big of a power grab and means to ensure their re-election.

[Guest jwb68]

To answer your questions in reverse order, the whole idea of insurance is that it is possible to make money based on the statistical certainty that more customers will buy it than actually need it. If, statistically speaking, you are very likely to need it, then you aren't getting insurance (unless your insurer is really stupid), you're paying for the liability in advance.

I've driven semi's, motorcycles, cars and light trucks since I was 15 years old. Not once have I been involved in an accident that was my own fault, but I have been in one that was the other drivers' fault. Happily, for the purpose of this topic, he was uninsured. So you might say that I've paid auto insurance for 30 years to cover some bum who a) couldn't drive and didn't make the financially prudent choice of obtaining insurance against the likely consequences of his inability to operate a motor vehicle. The result was that my insurer gave me nowhere near the amount of money needed to replace my vehicle.

You think I'm happy about this? You seriously think this enhances your argument? Not so, young jedi.

I am going to take issue with the "cover some bum" part of your take. The person involved in your case may have been some bum. However, I have known several people over the years (myself included) that could not afford the $50.00 or whatever a month for auto insurance. They would get in an accident, lose their license and then by the time they bought high risk insurance, paid the reinstatement fees, penalty, tickets, court costs etc....would be financially forced to be on and off isurance for years. They were not "some bum" They were poor and they didnt do damn thing to be poor except in most cases be born.

Dont get me wrong, govt take over of health care is not the solution but there is no doubt in my mind that we as a country can do better than we are doing now.

Edited August 17, 2009 by jwb68

[Guest grimel]

Pretty much so I agree, but you say that people shouldn't be forced to pay for insurance that they don't want or need. So I ask you, would you feel the same if somone without auto insurance plows into your vehicle? They don't want it, and they don't need it until it's too late. Yet the government mandates that you have auto insurance to drive a car, (with unquestionable lack of effectiveness).

I'd venture to say he is talking about having to have OB/GYN coverage as a single male and such similar stupidity.

[Guest PapaB]

Cost of Health Insurance through private firms - $100's per month. Too expensive for many people.

Cost of Health Insurance through the Government - FREEdom. Too expensive for all.

Just MHO

[Punisher84]

I am going to take issue with the "cover some bum" part of your take. The person involved in your case may have been some bum. However, I have known several people over the years (myself included) that could not afford the $50.00 or whatever a month for auto insurance. They would get in an accident, lose their license and then by the time they bought high risk insurance, paid the reinstatement fees, penalty, tickets, court costs etc....would be financially forced to be on and off isurance for years. They were not "some bum" They were poor and they didnt do damn thing to be poor except in most cases be born.

Dont get me wrong, govt take over of health care is not the solution but there is no doubt in my mind that we as a country can do better than we are doing now.

Maybe they should have been more careful driving then? Just my 2 cents.

[USMCJG]

Cost of Health Insurance through private firms - $100's per month. Too expensive for many people.

Cost of Health Insurance through the Government - FREEdom. Too expensive for all.

Just MHO

Well said. That's about as simply and as accurately as it could be put.

[macville]

Someone mention tort reform earlier as a way to decrease health care costs. I think I have a simple way to decrease lawsuits... Allow lawyers to get no more than 5% of any awarded amount. Heck, if we did that on ALL lawsuits, I would think that the amount of lawsuits would go down quite a bit. Not to mention that people who actually do the suing get the money they deserve.

Matthew

[Guest jwb68]

Maybe they should have been more careful driving then? Just my 2 cents.

Except that its illegal to drive and they have to work. Maybe if you stayed out of a bar you wouldnt have to worry about carrying a gun.

[Punisher84]

Except that its illegal to drive and they have to work. Maybe if you stayed out of a bar you wouldnt have to worry about carrying a gun.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? It's illegal to drive in this state without insurance and doing so puts a burden on other people when someone's non driving ass wrecks into them.

So while you are defending illegal activity you are also trying to accuse me of what exactly? Hanging out in bars or being an alcoholic? What is your issue with my carrying a gun? You're on a gun owner forum here bubba what is it you think we support and do?

[Mark@Sea]

Except that its illegal to drive and they have to work. Maybe if you stayed out of a bar you wouldnt have to worry about carrying a gun.

Public transportation

Ride with friends/co-workers

Bicycle

All reasonable alternatives to driving without a license. All legal. All avoidable by purchasing auto insurance.

Again, like healthcare, their problems are their problems. Why penalize me for it?

I don't frequent bars, yet I carry a gun. My wife doesn't drink, yet she carries a gun (good thing, too - last month she stopped a carjacker because she was armed).

I need no excuse to engage in a legal, constitutionally protected activity. Not sure why you would draw a parallel between that and an unlawful activity such as driving with a suspended or revoked license.

Finally, I didn't have to do anything to be born poor either. If I had continued to do nothing, I'd still be poor. Its' making money that takes effort.

[Guest jwb68]

It was tongue in cheek. Two ridiculous statements.... anyway....

There are many that do not have the opportunities you do or had. All I am suggesting is that you give it a little more thought than a slogan that might look good on a T-shirt.

[Smith]

It was tongue in cheek. Two ridiculous statements.... anyway....

There are many that do not have the opportunities you do or had. All I am suggesting is that you give it a little more thought than a slogan that might look good on a T-shirt.

You assume he is privileged. Maybe he just works and takes care of his own business. We are not victims of out circumstances.

Tort reform and remove insurance restrictions. The reason these companies can drop anyone they want is becasue they have a suedo monopolies. They don't have to compete with out of state companies and their packages are restricted to mandates. If I could truly shop for what I want I guarantee I could get a better deal.

On a side note, get an HSA and learn what insurance freedom could be. Unless you already have a lot of health issues it can't be beat. UNder $100 a month for me and under $300 for my whole family and I can go to any doctor I want and can negotiate price (usually a 1/3 of billed) becasue I'm considered a cash customer.