Jump to content
Lock, "Basically the savings would come from reduced administrative costs " ( your statement above ) is what I have been talking about. Use 25% instead of 20%. That still leaves the majority of costs as medical and not administrative. You have made my point. CC does not reduce medical costs. To do so would require all providers to be paid less. starting with MDs. In reality, medical costs rise and are projected to rise much more than any unproven savings CC might provide in administrative costs. Remember CC has not provided one cost - no cost of the CEO, no total personnel costs, nothing, nada, zippo. What a great deal - no facts, - just comments and suppositions. As Jerry McGuire said " Show me the money".
Imagine that you want a house built and I am your contractor because I have promised you a lower price than my competitors. First I will take two years before I start but you have to pay me the money now. Even though my competitors are much larger , I tell you I can get my supplies at a lower price because I use bulk purchasing. ( remember I am the smallest) When you ask what I will be paying my employees, I cannot answer because I don't know but I will tell you I will save you money. In fact, I cannot tell you one cost, not even what I will be paying myself, but I will continue telling you that I will save you money. When asked how many houses I have built, my answer is none but, don't worry, I will have lower costs. And best yet - all of my suppositions are based on grossly faulty math projections as I have excluded 75 to 80 % ( medical vs. administrative ) of the total costs.
WOW ! Just read in today's (Oct. 19 ) Wall St Journal ( p. A2 ) that a 30% or more premium increase has been granted to market leaders who continue to sell health insurance through HealthCare.gov or a State equivalent in Alabama, Delaware ,Kansas, Mississippi, and Texas. In Arizona, Illinois, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee tyhe rete increases top 50%.. In New mexico, the Blue Cross increase is 94% In Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, and Oregon increases will be 20% and Colorado will be close to 20% as will Florida, and Idaho. And these plans were to save us money. Remember this when you are thinking of CC.
It is really time for CC to get real. It's plan and math is so faulty it is scary. The situation is serious.
To, it is still amazing the discussion continues without knowledge of costs but only supposition. Again, what will be the salary of the CEO ? Oppps - no one knows - or te cost of the CFO or the Directors or ANY cost. Forget higher math. Simple arithmetic is all that is needed and it easily shows the fallacy of the assertions of CC. CC will have personnel. They wil receive much more individually (salary+expensive benefits) than currently insurance company personnel. Defined pension vs. 401k as one example. If Cc actually would cause a reduction in needed personnel, would the "savings" offset the much higher cost of each CC employee ? Dunno. No one does. Why - because CC has release no factual costs. So we are left with a multi-billion guess. Huh ? And we're supposed to think this is a great deal. Why won't CC release costs ? Bulk purchase savings - how ? Is CC going to have a centralized warehouse ? What is the cost of the buildings and personnel to operate it ? Calculus provides us with no answers - only guesswork. Arithmetic shows the flaws. No facts - why CC ? Changes are needed but so is truth.
The cost per student is about $3,118 ($530,000/170) for an additional half day. How will this affect existing private day care -schools ? Will K teachers be paid the same as private schools or the much higher salary/benefits paid to public school teachers (defined benefit pension, etc.) ? If not, why won't existing private teachers either flock to SS or demand the same benefits ? Would this not create a massive increase in private school tuition to match SS benefits ? Why work 12 months when one can work 9 months for more $$$ ? The concept is great for local parents but isn't it quite disruptive ? Just wondering.
May I suggest all read the Denver Post editorial of Oct. 16 on page 3D dated Oct 16 , 2016. It is titled Reject Colorado care
May I suggest that all read the Denver Post editorial in the Oct 16th edition on page 3D.. It is titled Reject Colorado Care
May I suggest that all read the Denver Post's editorial on page 3D - titled Reject Colorado Care - in the Oct. 16th edition.
Sadly there are words and then there are facts. Unfortunately Nancy believes profits far below most industries and I bet her industry are "greedy" . Even though insurance companies profits are massively lower than most as shown in the post above, Nancy says "insane profits" ( earlier post ) . How about toning down the rhetoric and returning to a rational discussion using facts instead of emotion. I notice that Herbert and Simpson both lack factual information. We all do. I cannot tell you if CC can lower costs and neither can anyone else , including Herbert and Simpson, without facts. Suppositions are guesses and are not facts.. For example, when no one can tell us the personnel costs of CC, then no one can tell us that personnel costs of CC will contribute to lower costs. When the majority of health care costs (medical) are not lowered by CC and they aren't, then a supposed decrease of administrative costs provided by CC cannot and will not offset the medical increases so all CC mathematically can do is lower the total increase in healthcare costs. But without proof ( facts) CC is just blowing in the wind. Think for a moment - what if CC's personnel costs are 15% more than insurance companies's personnel costs. With CC personnel receiving defined benefit pensions, partial payment of dependents medical insurance, more paid vacation days than private industry, etc. all of which increase personnel costs over that of private industry, maybe CC's personnel costs will offset any s u p p o s e d savings. Only and until facts are released by CC can one make a rational decision concerning CC. Change and improvements are needed but CC is not.
Lock, hope is not data nor is it fact. The Federal law, ACA, specifically prohibits bidding of pharma. Insurance companies do negotiate prices but that is exactly what some criticize them for doing. The main point that I have tried to make is that we have not been given facts. Since 80% of healthcare is NOT administrative and CC is saying they will reduce these costs ( but cannot prove it because no costs are provided such as personnel ccsts ) simple arithmetic shows it cannot occur. Medical ( the 80%) costs are rising significantly and these increases far exceed any supposed administrative savings that CC could provide. Do you really think that CC ( Colorado only ) has the same negotiating power as a national insurance company. Think of the law of large numbers. So whose costs would CC reduce ? MDs - don't think they'd be happy about that and the list goes on. To me,it is a lot like NIMBY. But without facts isn't this all just supposition ?
Last login: Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |