A recent poll released just prior to the House of Representatives' vote on Main Street USA's Health Care Right bill shows what can be accomplished when enough rhetoric is thrown at a topic.
According to HealthDay News, "Nearly half of Americans are 'extremely' or 'very worried' about rising costs for health care and health insurance, and a majority place the blame on drug and insurance company profits, a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll finds."
Unfortunately, many on Capitol Hill assailed the insurance companies, in particular, and their profits for rising costs, making them the "bad guy."
The article in HealthDay News continued by saying, "Some health economists say insurance and pharmaceutical company profits amount to only about 2 percent of total health care spending.
"Instead, fees charged by doctors and hospitals, as well as expanding use of increasingly sophisticated and expensive health-care technologies, are the primary cause of escalating health-care costs, these experts contend."
The article, interestingly enough, does not elaborate on the fact that 44% of those surveyed felt that higher costs were due to "more tests, treatments and procedures ordered by doctors due to malpractice worries."
Aside from the possibility of more tests, there is clear and present evidence that escalating malpractice insurance premiums are caused by astronomical punitive damages awarded.
Tort Reform should definitely play a major role in health care reform.
Nowhere in the poll does it mention fraud within the medical industry as contributing to higher costs.
Another form of inflated costs borders on fraudulent practices. More than likely many Americans know that medical offices have two sets of charges. A lower price if someone is paying their own way and a higher price if the care is billed to an insurance company.
The reasons given often have to do with payments not being made in a timely manner or even that payments for those services do not ever arrive.
Regardless of the reason for the disparity, that is another in the many causes for higher costs of medical care.
In this fairly balanced article, there is the point made by Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll, a service of Harris Interactive. He said, "These findings show how little most people understand the economics of health care. Increased profits of insurers and drug companies (if they have increased at all) cannot possibly account for the increases in premiums. Many health-care economists attribute the increased cost of care to increased demand and utilization, increased prices and the increased use of expensive tests and treatments. Most people, as shown here, do not think of these as the main drivers of increased health-care spending."
The poll results do show that if enough high-profile people speak out against something often enough that polls can, indeed, be skewed by incorrect information disseminated.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Still A Bit Confusing . . .
The actual funding needed for the national health care system is still a bit confusing.
There are quite a few articles on the subject with various bits and pieces of how the financial aspect is supposed to play out, but almost everything I read just raises more questions.
For instance, AP reports that House Democrats are working on a bill that will tax individuals earning over $200,000 annually and couples making in excess of $250,000. This is obviously an attempt to keep President Obama's promise not to tax Main Street USA.
The article also attributes to the House Ways and Means Chairman, Charles Rangel, a comment that this is part of making up the estimated $600 Billion still needed to fund nationalized health insurance for the 50 million uninsured.
However, there has been no mention yet on just how much of that $600 Billion needed will come from the additional income tax on these people.
In that same article, and others, there is also talk of taxing sugared soft drinks. I am not sure if this will deter people from buying these but taxing items people buy is just a slightly different way from taxing us directly. The difference is that if you decide not to buy sugary drinks, you don’t pay the tax. It would be interesting to see what amount of tax revenue the House expects to raise from this action. And, did they take into account, depending on the size of the tax, what impact that would have on sales of these drinks.
Now, here is one I like. Eliminating the current tax break drug companies receive for advertising. I must ask why drug companies (which, as I pointed out in a previous post, earn some of the highest Net Profits of any industry) have a tax break for advertising in the first place. All I can say about that right now is the drug companies must have some very excellent and, more than likely, exquisitely compensated lobbyists.
Think about it, Main Street USA. Why on Earth would the government grant an advertising tax break to the pharmaceutical industry?
That is beyond mind-boggling.
The one point, though, is that the House should have a fairly accurate number that is expected to come from that. I, for one, would like to see what kind of tax breaks these companies have been enjoying, and for how long.
So, please, House members, enlighten us on how much the drug companies have been benefitting from an advertising tax break, because all that means is that whatever they have saved in these breaks has, ultimately, been paid for by good ole Main Street USA through some other form of taxation to make up that shortfall in revenue.
The potential drawback to cutting the tax break is that, in order to keep their bottom line as high as possible, the drug companies will undoubtedly have to raise the prices of their product.
Did the House calculate that increase into their equation?
Probably not.
The House also talks about hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Hundreds of billions. And they need to make up a $600 Billion shortfall on a estimated Trillion Dollar cost.
What exactly will be the effect to Main Street USA by cutting “hundreds of billions” from Medicare and Medicaid?
Is part of that the reduction in those payments to hospitals now paid for treating uninsured and low-income families discussed in my earlier post? If it is, okay, but won’t the hospitals be making a trade off by being paid by the federal government (i.e., Main Street USA) when these people are covered by nationalized insurance?
As I said, the more I hear, without full disclosure of what comes from where and what goes to where, the more confused I get and the more questions I have. Does anyone have a balance sheet of all the financial plusses and minuses for review and comment?
It is certainly going to be very interesting to see exactly how this plays out.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
There are quite a few articles on the subject with various bits and pieces of how the financial aspect is supposed to play out, but almost everything I read just raises more questions.
For instance, AP reports that House Democrats are working on a bill that will tax individuals earning over $200,000 annually and couples making in excess of $250,000. This is obviously an attempt to keep President Obama's promise not to tax Main Street USA.
The article also attributes to the House Ways and Means Chairman, Charles Rangel, a comment that this is part of making up the estimated $600 Billion still needed to fund nationalized health insurance for the 50 million uninsured.
However, there has been no mention yet on just how much of that $600 Billion needed will come from the additional income tax on these people.
In that same article, and others, there is also talk of taxing sugared soft drinks. I am not sure if this will deter people from buying these but taxing items people buy is just a slightly different way from taxing us directly. The difference is that if you decide not to buy sugary drinks, you don’t pay the tax. It would be interesting to see what amount of tax revenue the House expects to raise from this action. And, did they take into account, depending on the size of the tax, what impact that would have on sales of these drinks.
Now, here is one I like. Eliminating the current tax break drug companies receive for advertising. I must ask why drug companies (which, as I pointed out in a previous post, earn some of the highest Net Profits of any industry) have a tax break for advertising in the first place. All I can say about that right now is the drug companies must have some very excellent and, more than likely, exquisitely compensated lobbyists.
Think about it, Main Street USA. Why on Earth would the government grant an advertising tax break to the pharmaceutical industry?
That is beyond mind-boggling.
The one point, though, is that the House should have a fairly accurate number that is expected to come from that. I, for one, would like to see what kind of tax breaks these companies have been enjoying, and for how long.
So, please, House members, enlighten us on how much the drug companies have been benefitting from an advertising tax break, because all that means is that whatever they have saved in these breaks has, ultimately, been paid for by good ole Main Street USA through some other form of taxation to make up that shortfall in revenue.
The potential drawback to cutting the tax break is that, in order to keep their bottom line as high as possible, the drug companies will undoubtedly have to raise the prices of their product.
Did the House calculate that increase into their equation?
Probably not.
The House also talks about hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Hundreds of billions. And they need to make up a $600 Billion shortfall on a estimated Trillion Dollar cost.
What exactly will be the effect to Main Street USA by cutting “hundreds of billions” from Medicare and Medicaid?
Is part of that the reduction in those payments to hospitals now paid for treating uninsured and low-income families discussed in my earlier post? If it is, okay, but won’t the hospitals be making a trade off by being paid by the federal government (i.e., Main Street USA) when these people are covered by nationalized insurance?
As I said, the more I hear, without full disclosure of what comes from where and what goes to where, the more confused I get and the more questions I have. Does anyone have a balance sheet of all the financial plusses and minuses for review and comment?
It is certainly going to be very interesting to see exactly how this plays out.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Monday, July 6, 2009
National Health Insurance, Really?
I know this is going to be a touchy subject for some but I hope that people will read and digest what is being said in this blog.
Medical insurance is available to all of us, at a cost. Unfortunately for many people the cost is more than they can afford, whether it is offered via their employer or purchased from an insurance company directly.
Insurance companies, as do all businesses, exist to provide a service and make a profit. If the cost of doing business exceeds the revenue received for their service an entity will fold. Insurance companies cover a huge amount of our collective medical expenses.
Let's look at why medical service is costing Americans so much today. A lot of the problem can be summed up in one word...lawsuits.
There have been too many juries award what I believe are excessive awards to defendants. This ranges from malpractice to wrongful death and all things in between and from side to side.
In a fairly recent letter to President Obama on this subject I stated that instead of nationalizing health insurance one should first look at how costs could be lowered and, thus, make premiums more available to all Americans. (Once again, I am sure that one of his aides failed to deliver my words of wisdom.)
What if legislation was introduced to limit punitive awards? What would the effect be on the cost of insurance? I believe that we would find that it would be less.
I do feel that if a family loses the breadwinner (or main breadwinner) wrongfully that there should be some recompense. However, if the person lost to loved ones earned $40,000 a year and had ten good years of work left there is no logical reason to award tens or scores of millions.
I know these millions are supposed to repay people for pain, suffering, and the like. The real problem is that money DOES NOT make that pain and suffering go away.
Yes, the family should receive something but the monetary award should not be totally influenced by attorneys who should have been actors earning academy awards for their performances.
I can hear the screams now but I can assure you I have been there.
When I was 20 away at college I lost my father in an accident involving a train where evidence clearly showed the railroad company was in the wrong. My mother, on the advice of a wimpy attorney, settled out of court for a grand total of $50,000. My dad was 51. He had recently gotten back to very good health and could easily have worked to age 65. I strongly believe that my mother should have received a much greater sum than she did but not tens of millions, regardless of how easily it was to prove the railroad company in the wrong.
All that said, when insurance companies have to pay hundreds of millions for claims and lawsuits they end up raising the premiums we pay for coverage.
When doctors have to pay astronomically high premiums for malpractice insurance, just in case, the costs of medical services increase.
Thus, my argument in favor of placing a cap on punitive awards. Let's do something effective to lower insurance costs.
And, by the way, the health care bill being proposed will cost somewhere between One and Two Trillion Dollars to fund.
People, where does that money come from?
Heaven? I don't think so.
Ultimately, it will come primarily from the middle class, Main Street USA.
Whether that trillion-plus dollars is repaid in the form of increased income taxes or raising one or more of the dozens of other taxes we all pay, make no mistake, in the end, the piper must be paid.
Please think this over.
We, Main Street USA, have been mortgaged to the hilt already. The deficit in our national budget that has been incurred in our names is staggering.
Insurance costs can be brought under control and, thus, premiums should lower, making affordable plans available to us all.
We DO NOT need nationalized health insurance.
We DO NEED people willing to find solutions to problems that really are solutions and not something that merely puts it off to another day (or another administration).
Over for now,
Main Street One
Medical insurance is available to all of us, at a cost. Unfortunately for many people the cost is more than they can afford, whether it is offered via their employer or purchased from an insurance company directly.
Insurance companies, as do all businesses, exist to provide a service and make a profit. If the cost of doing business exceeds the revenue received for their service an entity will fold. Insurance companies cover a huge amount of our collective medical expenses.
Let's look at why medical service is costing Americans so much today. A lot of the problem can be summed up in one word...lawsuits.
There have been too many juries award what I believe are excessive awards to defendants. This ranges from malpractice to wrongful death and all things in between and from side to side.
In a fairly recent letter to President Obama on this subject I stated that instead of nationalizing health insurance one should first look at how costs could be lowered and, thus, make premiums more available to all Americans. (Once again, I am sure that one of his aides failed to deliver my words of wisdom.)
What if legislation was introduced to limit punitive awards? What would the effect be on the cost of insurance? I believe that we would find that it would be less.
I do feel that if a family loses the breadwinner (or main breadwinner) wrongfully that there should be some recompense. However, if the person lost to loved ones earned $40,000 a year and had ten good years of work left there is no logical reason to award tens or scores of millions.
I know these millions are supposed to repay people for pain, suffering, and the like. The real problem is that money DOES NOT make that pain and suffering go away.
Yes, the family should receive something but the monetary award should not be totally influenced by attorneys who should have been actors earning academy awards for their performances.
I can hear the screams now but I can assure you I have been there.
When I was 20 away at college I lost my father in an accident involving a train where evidence clearly showed the railroad company was in the wrong. My mother, on the advice of a wimpy attorney, settled out of court for a grand total of $50,000. My dad was 51. He had recently gotten back to very good health and could easily have worked to age 65. I strongly believe that my mother should have received a much greater sum than she did but not tens of millions, regardless of how easily it was to prove the railroad company in the wrong.
All that said, when insurance companies have to pay hundreds of millions for claims and lawsuits they end up raising the premiums we pay for coverage.
When doctors have to pay astronomically high premiums for malpractice insurance, just in case, the costs of medical services increase.
Thus, my argument in favor of placing a cap on punitive awards. Let's do something effective to lower insurance costs.
And, by the way, the health care bill being proposed will cost somewhere between One and Two Trillion Dollars to fund.
People, where does that money come from?
Heaven? I don't think so.
Ultimately, it will come primarily from the middle class, Main Street USA.
Whether that trillion-plus dollars is repaid in the form of increased income taxes or raising one or more of the dozens of other taxes we all pay, make no mistake, in the end, the piper must be paid.
Please think this over.
We, Main Street USA, have been mortgaged to the hilt already. The deficit in our national budget that has been incurred in our names is staggering.
Insurance costs can be brought under control and, thus, premiums should lower, making affordable plans available to us all.
We DO NOT need nationalized health insurance.
We DO NEED people willing to find solutions to problems that really are solutions and not something that merely puts it off to another day (or another administration).
Over for now,
Main Street One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)