Jump to content
Notice how data is discussed without any factual basis ? No one knows what all personnel costs will be but statements have been made that Cc will reduce administrative costs. Maybe or maybe not. Without facts statements cannot have validity. Assumptions are only a guess. Remember that 80% of healthcare costs (medical) are not being reduced and their increase will be much greater than any supposed (unproven ) savings of administrative costs so lower total costs are a fiction - premiums or taxes must increase until medical costs are lowered. Simple math folks.
Nancy, What I meant by being the Lone Ranger refers to this site - meaning that you're about the only person who responds to inquiries. I do go to the two sites you mention but have not seen answers to my questions. Two examples follow. (1) Comments have been made about the high profit of health insurance but no one will answer why most insurance companies do not sell health insurance if it is so profitable. From my research, it is State regulated and low in profitability. Insurance profit is 30% lower than the S&P 500 and health insurance is so low in profit or unprofitable that most insurance companies won't touch it. For this reason, State Farm, Prudential, Met Life, Hartford, etc. all quit selling health insurance. United Healthcare, Humana, Aetna, are getting out of health exchanges after massive losses.
( 2 ) These sites do not mention how CC employees receiving pay+benefits that public employees receive, which are much higher than private industry, can have lower personnel costs. Private industry does not provide a defined pension, ability to retire after 20 yrs and immediately receive pension benefits, more vacation days, unused sick pay, etc.
Our current system does need changes but how can we support anything without knowing the facts ? Specific answers to specific questions are needed. Plus a few martinis.
Nancy, when I asked if health insurance is so profitable, why don't most insurance companies sell it, you answered "It have no any idea why insurance companies don't sell their companies " Huh ? I asked why Allstate, GEICO,State Farm, Prudential etc. do not sell health insurance if it is so profitable and they are in the business of making a profit. Since ACA is Federal, and CC is Colorado run, how could CC offset the pharma lobbyists in Washington as you suggest CC can do as they will not be lobbying in Colorado. I don't understand how CC can lower pharma costs since bidding is illegal (ACA). When I asked how CC employees' costs could be lower than insurance companies employees' cost when CC employees will receive significantly higher costly benefits as outlined in my posts, you answered that you don't know anything about insurance company employees and their pension plans but I did not ask about insurance company data. I specifically asked about CC's employees' costs. Simply when they ((CC employees ) receive much more than insurance company employees ( CC = defined pension, ability to receive full pension benefits after only 20 yrs, more paid vacation days, being paid for unused accumulated sick days) , how can CC employee costs be lower? Nancy, I realize that you're putting a lot of your time into responses but info is needed and you seem like the Lone Ranger without a Tonto in responding. Cheers.
Nancy, again thank you. My posts are for anyone to answer but there is a lack of responses. Yes, I hope I have raised many points for consideration and have hoped that many others would have jumped in with factual answers. For example, no one answers why Prudential, Met Life, Travelers, Hartford, State Farm, Allstate, GEICO, Progressive and almost all insurance companies do not sell health insurance , if it is so profitable , and they are in the business of making a profit. I hope my questions help raise an awareness of points to be considered. My prior posts do contain numerous questions and concerns so I do appreciate your time to specifically reply to all of them as best as you can. Specific factual answers always advance knowledge.
Thank you Nancy - please read,again, my posts of 3 days and 4 hrs ago to Neil and 2 days and 5 hrs ago to see how many questions you can answer with specifics. My repetition occurred because the specific questions were always left unanswered. Your info, comments, and input are needed and appreciated.
Nancy, your canned response of 2 days and 2 hrs ago still almost completely ignores answers to my posed questions. It is the same non- answer that you have posed before , which absolutely avoids answering my questions. Please again read my post to which you responded and answer those questions - those that you can. Please no more 5 billion savings comment when no one even knows what personnel expenses will be with CC. We all need specific knowledge and it is missing and that is why answers to my all of my questions would assist this discussion.. Thank you.
Lock, As Scott mentioned above,limited negotiations can occur but savings can only come when bidding is allowed and it is illegal under ACA so bidding for bulk pharma purchases is illegal so CC as well as anyone else cannot do it. Bidding is significantly different than limited negotiations. As one example, Medicaid could save untold billions if bidding were allowed. Plus we are prohibited from bulk buying from another country such as Canada where pharma prices are significantly lower.
Nancy, I appreciate your input but would appreciate your answers to my questions. Bulk purchases of pharma are illegal (ACA) so these savings do not exist. You and CC address only administrative costs, which is the smallest part of healthcare costs. If CC reduces these costs and the medical costs increase more than the savings and they historically have and do, how are our total costs going to be reduced ? And how are CC costs going to be less than insurance companies when CC employee benefits will be significantly higher than insurance company employees, who do not get a defined pension plan that allows them to optionally retire after 20 yrs and receive their full pension immediately, more vacation days, more generous sick leave-unused days are accumulated and paid for, plus no one knows what the executive salaries of CC will be so no one can honestly say that there will be a savings in this area. Remember national insurance companies' executive salaries have to be pro-rated to Colorado's part of the whole to fairly compare them to what CCs will receive for a fair comparison. If CC employees receive the same salaries and benefits that other public employees now receive, this total will greatly exceed any savings that possibly will occur with CC executive salaries being slightly lower than insurance exes if they actually will be lower. Another unknown. . Again, I am not for or against CC but their answers are not available and your most recent post only repeats previous nebulous CC statements - no specifics and not one specific answer to my specific questions. Do you have a source to provide us with CC personnel costs, where bulk purchasing will save because pharma, by law, is excluded, and if fraud savings can be implemented by CC, why can it be used right now ? Again, thank you for your input. It is appreciated by me.
typo correction - Since medical, not administrative, costs comprise not compose
Neil, To answer your question to me, I do get it. Always have. Competition can reduce prices. I have asked you how pharma can be reduced when Federal law (AC0 prohibits bidding. CC suggests bulk purchases, which requires bidding to obtain the best prices, but is illegal. Are you suggesting that CC can alter ACA ? Do you think pharma lobbyists will not prevail to keep status quo ? Since medical, not administrative, costs compose 80% of healthcare costs, what specific ideas do you have to create competition and how would you propose reducing what MDs, RNs, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, etc. who make up the healthcare costs ? Repeatedly I have asked (posted) these questions of anyone asking for specific answers without a reply except that competition may reduce costs. So whose income is going to be reduced to obtain lower costs ? Your insurance PR guy (Wendall Potter) said costs were high because of executive salaries so I looked at your site. Top 20 exes got about 400 mil. Insurance exes were not at the top. The 400 million is for national companies so compare the 400 mil to total healthcare costs and try to tell anyone that their salaries are the reason for high premiums. Divide 400 million into our National healthcare cost, $4,428 quadrillion for 2014 from SERI (Apple iphone) . Again, I believe most are avoiding discussing specifics to reduce the 80% (medical costs) and are sighting in on the 20% administrative. No one talks about if health insurance is so "profitable" why don't most insurance companies sell it ? Aren't they in it for profit ? Unlike the medical field, their profits are regulated. Instead of looking at dollars of profit, it is more fair to see the profit percentage as this is what those in the financial field do. Again, if half of administrative costs were eliminated from 20% to 10% ( which even CC can't do ), we are still left with an unregulated 80% medical cost and , for example, a 10% increase here would wipe out a 10% decrease in admin costs. We cannot have lower healthcare costs without paying all medical providers less. It simply is not mathematically possible. Small savings in administrative costs will never offset the increases that are and will be occurring in the medical cost arena. So folks, how are we going to do it ? In industry, people get laid off and/or incomes reduced but many hospitals are understaffed now. Yikes - fewer RNs, 20% reduction of MDs reimbursement or more, one MRI per City, ????
Last login: Sunday, September 11, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |