Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Obamacare Bomb Explodes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Obamacare Bomb Explodes

    The post below has been taken from a Forbes.com blog written by Rick Ungar

    I have long argued that the impact of the Affordable Care Act is not nearly as big of a deal as opponents would have you believe. At the end of the day, the law is – in the main – little more than a successful effort to put an end to some of the more egregious health insurer abuses while creating an environment that should bring more Americans into programs that will give them at least some of the health care coverage they need.

    There is, however, one notable exception – and it’s one that should have a long lasting and powerful impact on the future of health care in our country.

    That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

    This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time. Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ration will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry.

    Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid. If they could, we likely would never have seen the extraordinary efforts made by these companies to avoid paying benefits to their customers at the very moment they need it the most.

    Yesterday, that bomb went off. Yesterday, the Department of Health & Human Services issued the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement.

    As it turns out, HHS isn’t screwing around. They actually mean to see to it that the insurance companies spend what they should taking care of their customers.

    Here’s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer’s program to consumers be included as a ‘medical expense’ for purposes of the rules. HHS yesterday gave them the official thumbs down, as they should have. Selling me a health insurance policy is simply not the same as providing me with the medical care I am entitled to under the policy. Sales is clearly an overhead cost in any business and had HHS included this as a medical cost, it would have signaled that they are not at all serious about enforcing the concept of the medical loss ratio.

    So, can private health insurance companies manage to make a profit when they actually have to spend premium receipts taking care of their customers’ health needs as promised?

    Not a chance-and they know it. Indeed, we are already seeing the parent companies who own these insurance operations fleeing into other types of investments. They know what we should all know – we are now on an inescapable path to a single-payer system for most Americans and thank goodness for it.

    Whether you are a believer in the benefits of single-payer health coverage or an opponent, mark yesterdat down on your calendar because this is the day seismic shifts in our health care system finally get under way. If you thought that the Obama Administration chickened out on pushing the nation in the direction of universal health care for everyone,yesterday is when you begin to understand that the reality is quite the contrary. If you believe that the end of private, for-profit health insurance is some type of nefarious step towards a socialist society, then you might want to attend church this Sunday to mourn the loss of health insurers being able to worm out of covering the bills of a cancer patient because she forgot to write down on her application that she had skin acne for three months when she was a teenager.

    Of course, those of you who fear the inevitable arrival of universal health care really shouldn’t be too fretful. There will always be a for-profit health insurance industry for those who want to pay for it. The only difference will be that those who cannot afford private coverage will also have an opportunity to get their families the medical care that they need.

    Everyone wins-except the for-profit health insurers.

    I can live with that.
    Last edited by Ree; 12-05-2011, 01:33 PM.

  • #2
    Ive said before that health care is an industry that should not be profit driven. I have no qualms about health care professinals or anyone else for that matter being able to make a comfortable living. I mean they can have a nice house, the big screen, all that stuff that to many people use to describe success.
    But Ive never been happy with the health insurance industry. They have limited peoples coverage and benefits while increasing costs for years. They use legal loopholes to get out of paying on legitimate claims, they deny insurance and therefore health care to the people who need it most. Ive heard of cases where some one had been getting thierclaims paid, but then becaause of a very silly and minor health issue they had in the past had their benfits cust off and then been sued by the insurance company to make reparations and it was all legal for them to do so.

    The movie John Q. pretty much points out many of the misgivings of todays healthcare system.

    Comment


    • #3
      Fascinating reading, but I'll believe it when I see it.

      If you are right, and Obamacare makes a real difference, sure as I'm sitting here the legion of healthcare opponents will try to claim credit. I can already see their press release: "Uh well we were always in favour of better care for working-class Americans, but teh ebil Obama socialist-nazi-commie regulations stood in our way. Our tireless efforts have shown once again that the way to prosperity and health is less regulations and more free market blah blah blah..." I swear it's all becoming routine.
      Customer: I need an Apache.
      Gravekeeper: The Tribe or the Gunship?

      Comment


      • #4
        As good as it sounds. I don't think that's what we'll see. I think realistically, the insurance companies (as they always do) will find ways around the law.

        For example:

        - Cite $20 000 cost of surgery for patient "John Brown"
        - Distribute $20 000 to your top officers, while congress and the law turn a blind eye to the whole thing.

        Now I'm sure it won't be that simplistic, but this is a complex framework we're talking about here and from where I sit it appears the opportunities for manipulation are endless.

        I think anyone truly expecting wholesale change is deluding themselves.

        Comment


        • #5
          and this is why my health insurance is provided by a not-for-profit cooperative.
          Registered rider scenic shore 150 charity ride

          Comment


          • #6
            I'd thought this was something they specifically *didn't* put in; glad to hear it exists.

            Yes, they can make a profit on what remains. Just not a large one. Perhaps small enough that they'd rather invest their resources elsewhere. One thing: hopefully this would make them less inclined to spend so much time searching for every excuse in the book to deny payment
            "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bara View Post
              Ive said before that health care is an industry that should not be profit driven.
              Adam Smith, author of Wealth of Nations, and father of modern capitalism agreed with you.

              Originally posted by Talon View Post
              Fascinating reading, but I'll believe it when I see it.

              If you are right, and Obamacare makes a real difference, sure as I'm sitting here the legion of healthcare opponents will try to claim credit. I can already see their press release: "Uh well we were always in favour of better care for working-class Americans, but teh ebil Obama socialist-nazi-commie regulations stood in our way. Our tireless efforts have shown once again that the way to prosperity and health is less regulations and more free market blah blah blah..." I swear it's all becoming routine.
              Ironically, most of the ideas in the ACA were actually proposed by Republicans during the fight over the Clinton health care reform plan, and many ACA ideas were drawn out of Massachusett's version of those ideas . . . supported and signed into law by Mitt Romney.

              I'm not sure whose idea the medical loss ratio was, but it is one of the better provisions of the law.

              BCBS has been trying to claim this idea as their own ever since the ACA passed, and that they actually implement 85% . . . which is blatantly untrue . . . in an effort to blunt the effects of the law.

              Originally posted by BlaqueKatt View Post
              and this is why my health insurance is provided by a not-for-profit cooperative.
              Look again. Many non-profits operate under the umbrella of a for profit organization.
              Good news! Your insurance company says they'll cover you. Unfortunately, they also say it will be with dirt.

              Comment


              • #8
                An edit has been made to the first post in this thread giving credit to the original source.
                Point to Ponder:

                Is it considered irony when someone on an internet forum makes a post that can be considered to look like it was written by a 3rd grade dropout, and they are poking fun of the fact that another person couldn't spell?

                Comment


                • #9
                  now if you can get the hospitals to not be run for profit you might actually stand a chance.

                  run for profit they pad expense to the customer to get more money, when both health insurance and hospital are government run you now get them trying to stay under budget.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gremcint View Post
                    now if you can get the hospitals to not be run for profit you might actually stand a chance.

                    run for profit they pad expense to the customer to get more money, when both health insurance and hospital are government run you now get them trying to stay under budget.
                    Most hospitals are already run not for profit. Many hospital organizations are a mix of non and for profit enterprises, the latter used to subsidize the former.

                    What we need to get rid of is the perverse system of incentives that pays physicians to order tests and perform procedures but not to actually talk to their patients.

                    We need to get rid of fee for service.
                    Good news! Your insurance company says they'll cover you. Unfortunately, they also say it will be with dirt.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Maybe doctors could get paid an annual salary and then a bonus if they actually make someone better?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You'd risk having doctors turning away time-consuming and low-survival type patients, though quite frankly there is no perfect system anywhere. I suspect in the fullness of time we'll end up with a 'least worst' one, but there's no best system I'm aware of.

                        Rapscallion
                        Proud to be a W.A.N.K.E.R. - Womanless And No Kids - Exciting Rubbing!
                        Reclaiming words is fun!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Not long ago our local hospital went from non-profit (run by the town plus two counties for benefit of their residents) to for-profit. I do not know exactly what happened, but I get the impression it was because it wasn't run too well, the counties weren't interested anymore., and the city couldn't support it on its own. I do know that it came down to the only realistic options being either to sell it to this company that promised to keep it as a hospital or else to close it and turn the whole thing into just a nursing home.

                          Now, there's no way they'll ever make *much* profit out of it, but maybe they can make some and stay in business, keeping people (in most cases; of course they send on what they cannot handle) from having to go to a city. Because sometimes by the time you get there it's too late, among other advantages of having a small hospital close by.

                          As for paying doctors by whether the patient gets better... often there's no way to make someone better. All that can be done is to slow their decline. Sometimes not even that, but just making it more bearable.
                          Last edited by HYHYBT; 12-14-2011, 12:49 AM.
                          "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bara View Post
                            Maybe doctors could get paid an annual salary and then a bonus if they actually make someone better?
                            Actually, there is a movement for that. Medicare is already starting to pay based on outcome, and refusing to pay for specific preventable complications, like UTI's and bedsores. This is good for patient care.

                            A system to pay based on outcomes can be designed with the understanding the outcome may not be the one desired by the patient. Incurable illnesses are still incurable illnesses. But if the care follows the medical evidence, then the physician should be reimbursed.
                            Good news! Your insurance company says they'll cover you. Unfortunately, they also say it will be with dirt.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I do like the idea of refusing to pay for things that are essentially fixing problems created by bad care, such as bedsores and UTIs.

                              We do need to move away from payouts that are designed to increase unneeded treatments and procedures and tests because it's bogging the whole thing down and people are getting hurt or sicker as a result.

                              ^-.-^
                              Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X