" wrote in
:

On 22 Aug 2012 22:00:02 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 16:42:07 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 01:21:19 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:udc838hl674pavppaodpqkcj1uofj5o8cq@4ax. com:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:58:09 GMT, Han wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they
have been doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime
cause of financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but
"financial hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and
housing sectors have been more "guilty" than the medical
reforms. Canada is doing fine, I believe. Holland is doing
(comparatively) fine, and MA isn't doing too badly either.

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

And 2 of the countries that are grateful for that.

Perhaps I should have substituted "freeloading" for "living".

Whatever you want to call some of the US's staunchest allies.

The fact is that they're freeloading on the protection. They're
paying zero, which is money they can use for other purposes. ...and
even that isn't working out so well.

Don't know the details, but usually they buy airplanes (military as
well as civilian), other military hardware. Holland had a contingent
in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe they still have. The fact they
aren't spending the outrageous amounts on socalled defense as the US
only means they are smarter ...

Don't make me laugh.

Sometimes I get carried away ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Bob F wrote:

You forgot - massive profits for the health care industry.

Insurance industry profits are in line with other industries, specifically
about 4.5% of revenue. Hospital profits are less, at 3.5%.

Creative accounting accounts for most of that. Hint there are two sets of
books one for the tax man.

The reality is the insurance industry adds another layer of expense ( on the
order of 25 or 30%) to the cost of healt care.



We spend twice what any other industrialized nation spends, per
capita, and have poorer results. And they cover everyone. Very few
people with those "socialized" medical systems would give it up for
what we have.

By every meaningful metric, the US healthcare system is superior to any
other in the world. Consider the 5-year life expectancy of a diagnosis of
breast cancer. In the US, it is 85%; in the UK it is 70%.

Selective data. Over all, the US is way down the quality of results bell
curve.

Why do people in the US leave the country so often for medical care?
Because they can't afford it here.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...-S-3216010.php

Yep, that's correct. For those who chose not to have insurance, it's a
meaningful option.

Not if you can't afford it here or there.

Read about the Canadian system:
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

The Canadian system has its advantages. Consider, though, that there are
more MRI machines in my town than in ALL of Canada. Far more.

And likely a lot of over use and upcoding to the payer as a result. (if you
have a lot of hammers in your tool box everyone and his brother is selling
solutions to nails)


Anecdotal observations usually aren't for squat as evidence, but I'll
relate mine. I stumbled and really hurt my knee in the fall. I got an
appointment with my internest that afternoon, and an MRI that evening
(8:30 pm).

Contrast that with the waiting times in the Canadian system for
non-emergency MRI:

TWELVE WEEKS!

So what the wait for emergency MRI?

Somehow, every other industialized nation manages to do better than
we do, for more of their population, for 1/2 the cost or less. Might
be something to look at.

Other industrialized nations do NOT do better than we. It is simply NOT
TRUE that other countries' healtcare systems are superior.

Reality checks are a bear especially when they bounce. Recall what's worse
being uninsured or being under insured.

In article , "NotMe"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Bob F wrote:

You forgot - massive profits for the health care industry.

Insurance industry profits are in line with other industries, specifically
about 4.5% of revenue. Hospital profits are less, at 3.5%.

Creative accounting accounts for most of that. Hint there are two sets of
books one for the tax man.

The reality is the insurance industry adds another layer of expense ( on the
order of 25 or 30%) to the cost of healt care.

But it is one that MCare has, too. The oft-cited really low
administration cost number is just what Center for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS-- They wanted to save the money for the extra letter) pays
to run itself (do policy stuff, lobby Congress, oversight of the Fiscal
Intermediaries (FI), etc). Whe factor in the money they pay the Fiscal
Intermediaries who do the actual heavy lifting of billing and payment,
this advantage largely disappears. And don't EVEN get most docs talking
about how much it is costing them in staff and other costs to bill (and
often rebill) MCare.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In "NotMe" wrote:

Creative accounting accounts for most of that. Hint there are two
sets of books one for the tax man.

You're aware of massive fraud on the part of every health insurance
provider in the US?

Why are you sitting on this story of the century?

--
St. Paul, MN

In article ,
Bert wrote:

In "NotMe" wrote:

Creative accounting accounts for most of that. Hint there are two
sets of books one for the tax man.

You're aware of massive fraud on the part of every health insurance
provider in the US?

Why are you sitting on this story of the century?
He is right. One for the taxman and one for the SEC. Of course, every
OTHER industry does this too since the required information (and reasons
therefore) are very different.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 23 Aug 2012 19:15:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 22 Aug 2012 22:00:02 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 16:42:07 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 01:21:19 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:udc838hl674pavppaodpqkcj1uofj5o8cq@4ax .com:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:58:09 GMT, Han wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they
have been doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime
cause of financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but
"financial hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and
housing sectors have been more "guilty" than the medical
reforms. Canada is doing fine, I believe. Holland is doing
(comparatively) fine, and MA isn't doing too badly either.

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

And 2 of the countries that are grateful for that.

Perhaps I should have substituted "freeloading" for "living".

Whatever you want to call some of the US's staunchest allies.

The fact is that they're freeloading on the protection. They're
paying zero, which is money they can use for other purposes. ...and
even that isn't working out so well.

Don't know the details, but usually they buy airplanes (military as
well as civilian), other military hardware. Holland had a contingent
in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe they still have. The fact they
aren't spending the outrageous amounts on socalled defense as the US
only means they are smarter ...

Don't make me laugh.

Sometimes I get carried away ...

You should be *PUT* away for bull**** like that.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:59:30 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Bob F wrote:

You forgot - massive profits for the health care industry.

Insurance industry profits are in line with other industries, specifically
about 4.5% of revenue. Hospital profits are less, at 3.5%.

Creative accounting accounts for most of that. Hint there are two sets of
books one for the tax man.

The reality is the insurance industry adds another layer of expense ( on the
order of 25 or 30%) to the cost of healt care.

Hogwash!

On Aug 23, 4:59*pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...

Bob F wrote:

You forgot - massive profits for the health care industry.

Insurance industry profits are in line with other industries, specifically
about 4.5% of revenue. Hospital profits are less, at 3.5%.

Creative accounting accounts for most of that. *Hint there are two sets of
books one for the tax man.


Sure there are. And your proof of that would be?
And where exactly is all that money allegedly going?
It would be one hell of a sum over all these years.

One more example of loons divorced from reality.



The reality is the insurance industry adds another layer of expense ( on the
order of 25 or 30%) to the cost of healt care.

Yeah, I believe that coming from the guy that claims
insurance companies have two sets of books. Maybe you
can tell us what the cost of all the waste and BS programs
in govt is?

And if insurance companies are the big evil here, why
is it confined to healthcare insurance? People for the
most part are not bitching about auto insurance, home
insurance, life insurance. Hmm? Now why is that?
Why does the free market work there and those
companies not have a second set of books, etc?






We spend twice what any other industrialized nation spends, per
capita, and have poorer results. And they cover everyone. Very few
people with those "socialized" medical systems would give it up for
what we have.

By every meaningful metric, the US healthcare system is superior to any
other in the world. Consider the 5-year life expectancy of a diagnosis of
breast cancer. In the US, it is 85%; in the UK it is 70%.

Selective data. *Over all, the US is way down the quality of results bell
curve.

Yeah, that's why people from Canada, the UK, etc that can
afford it come here. They want to die faster, right?

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:

You forgot - massive profits for the health care industry.

Insurance industry profits are in line with other industries,
specifically about 4.5% of revenue. Hospital profits are less, at
3.5%.

Insurance is only a small part of it.

snip

Not factored into the debate is that profit numbers are very misleading,
unnecessary cost are another. There are many many ways to game the system
for fun and personal profit. It's called creative accounting.

NotMe wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:

You forgot - massive profits for the health care industry.

Insurance industry profits are in line with other industries,
specifically about 4.5% of revenue. Hospital profits are less, at
3.5%.

Insurance is only a small part of it.

snip

Not factored into the debate is that profit numbers are very
misleading, unnecessary cost are another. There are many many ways to
game the system for fun and personal profit. It's called creative
accounting.

Of course, but if everybody does fudge what they can, and I'm pretty sure
they do, then the relative percentages still apply.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
NotMe wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:

You forgot - massive profits for the health care industry.

Insurance industry profits are in line with other industries,
specifically about 4.5% of revenue. Hospital profits are less, at
3.5%.

Insurance is only a small part of it.

snip

Not factored into the debate is that profit numbers are very
misleading, unnecessary cost are another. There are many many ways to
game the system for fun and personal profit. It's called creative
accounting.

Of course, but if everybody does fudge what they can, and I'm pretty sure
they do, then the relative percentages still apply.

Not really. You're comparing apples and oranges. Good example. A non
profit is limited by law in what money they can retain the rest must be used
in the main operation and the principals cannot profit unfairly.

One way that the limit is gamed is the principals have an interest in a
company that supplies goods and services. Office supplies come to mind. A
20# box of copy paper can be had at Costco for $8 to $10 via a 'preferred'
vendor (aka someone's BIL) it's $25+.

NotMe wrote:

Of course, but if everybody does fudge what they can, and I'm pretty
sure they do, then the relative percentages still apply.

Not really. You're comparing apples and oranges. Good example. A
non profit is limited by law in what money they can retain the rest
must be used in the main operation and the principals cannot profit
unfairly.

Who said anything about non-profit entities?


One way that the limit is gamed is the principals have an interest in
a company that supplies goods and services. Office supplies come to
mind. A 20# box of copy paper can be had at Costco for $8 to $10 via
a 'preferred' vendor (aka someone's BIL) it's $25+.

Yes, and if everybody does it, the relative percentages still apply. The few
who don't do it go broke and disappear.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
NotMe wrote:

Of course, but if everybody does fudge what they can, and I'm pretty
sure they do, then the relative percentages still apply.

Not really. You're comparing apples and oranges. Good example. A
non profit is limited by law in what money they can retain the rest
must be used in the main operation and the principals cannot profit
unfairly.

Who said anything about non-profit entities?

Many hospitals operate as, obstinately non profits as do a few insurance
companies. Less now that Blue Cross/Blue Shield have converted to for
profit. It's a reality of the skewed market dynamics.

Regardless the same game works with for profit companies as well. The game
gets a bit more perilous when the company is publicly traded. This means
harder to do but not imposable.



One way that the limit is gamed is the principals have an interest in
a company that supplies goods and services. Office supplies come to
mind. A 20# box of copy paper can be had at Costco for $8 to $10 via
a 'preferred' vendor (aka someone's BIL) it's $25+.

Yes, and if everybody does it, the relative percentages still apply. The
few who don't do it go broke and disappear.

Again there is a different set of books for calculating 'profit' and 'cost'.
Be sufficiently creative in the cost set of books and you can predetermine
the profit side.

It's long been a practice with insurance companies who have to justify rate
increases to include in both physical loss with stock market loss but not
include market games in their presentation. Like I said, creative
accounting.

I found out a lot about these games when we moved to a self insured
operation.

In the end, after trying all sorts of procedural blocks to our adopting self
insured status we used the insurance company process against them.
Basically we purchased a bond against potential claims. We became, in
essence a speclized insurance company that serviced our own employees and
only our own employees. At the time we were blocked from forming a joint
venture with other companies. The pending process under the ACA will
encourage such joint ventures. Under a different name but the same in form
and function.

To paraphrase 'if you wrestle in the muck with pigs you get covered with mud
and eventually learn to enjoy (profit) from the exercise.'

NotMe wrote:

Who said anything about non-profit entities?

Many hospitals operate as, obstinately non profits as do a few
insurance companies. Less now that Blue Cross/Blue Shield have
converted to for profit. It's a reality of the skewed market dynamics.

Many? Hardly any. In my town there are over 100 hospitals, I can find only
two that are traditional non-profit (Catholic St. Joseph's and Episcopal St
Lukes).


I found out a lot about these games when we moved to a self insured
operation.

In the end, after trying all sorts of procedural blocks to our
adopting self insured status we used the insurance company process
against them. Basically we purchased a bond against potential claims.
We became, in essence a speclized insurance company that serviced our
own employees and only our own employees. At the time we were
blocked from forming a joint venture with other companies. The
pending process under the ACA will encourage such joint ventures. Under a
different name but the same in form and function.


Interestingly, over half the businesses in Maine "self-insure" their
employees.