Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pensito Review)   U.S. 'free enterprise' employer-based health insurance system 'coming apart at the seams'   (pensitoreview.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, United States, completely normal, health system  
•       •       •

3404 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2012 at 9:35 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-03-20 08:33:46 AM  
1) it's silly that our health insurance system is primarily tied to employment. it's a vestige of a wartime work-around to wage freezes and has no logical place in our modern economy

2) the insurance companies are scumbags, but in an ecosystem that includes drug and medical device companies, they aren't even close to the worst offenders to consider.
 
2012-03-20 08:45:09 AM  
So, third-party payers do not work, whether private or...?


and:

thomps: 1) it's silly that our health insurance system is primarily tied to employment. it's a vestige of a wartime work-around to wage freezes and has no logical place in our modern economy

2) the insurance companies are scumbags, but in an ecosystem that includes drug and medical device companies, they aren't even close to the worst offenders to consider.



This
 
2012-03-20 08:45:58 AM  
If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.
 
2012-03-20 08:56:38 AM  

thomps: 2) the insurance companies are scumbags, but in an ecosystem that includes drug and medical device companies, they aren't even close to the worst offenders to consider.


Case in point, I just saw a commercial for some pricey medication that said "they even paid for my first month." And, the idiot seemed kind of happy with that. Sure, he'll be taking it for the rest of his life, but hey! One month was free, so... what a farking deal!
 
2012-03-20 08:57:10 AM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.


shiat, with healthcare burdens affecting their bottom lines, I'm still flummoxed why nearly every business in the US hasn't lobbied for some sort of basic single payer system.
 
2012-03-20 09:01:43 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: antidisestablishmentarianism: If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.

shiat, with healthcare burdens affecting their bottom lines, I'm still flummoxed why nearly every business in the US hasn't lobbied for some sort of basic single payer system.


because the small business lobby (us chamber of commerce) doesn't lobby for small businesses, it lobbies for big businesses who have a competitive advantage in the current system because it's one more economy of scale to exploit.
 
2012-03-20 09:17:44 AM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.


If everyone had to pay their taxes instead of letting the employer withhold, we would see some tax reform.

Hiding the costs is one way to perpetuate bad systems
 
2012-03-20 09:19:21 AM  

thomps: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: antidisestablishmentarianism: If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.

shiat, with healthcare burdens affecting their bottom lines, I'm still flummoxed why nearly every business in the US hasn't lobbied for some sort of basic single payer system.

because the small business lobby (us chamber of commerce) doesn't lobby for small businesses, it lobbies for big businesses who have a competitive advantage in the current system because it's one more economy of scale to exploit.


Well, that's what I'm saying: McDonalds, WalMart, every minimum wage slave employer out there should be chomping at the bit for a basic single payer system because (1) healthy employees mean less time off and less loss in productivity, (2) it levels the playing field a bit against near minimum wage employers that already offer some level of health insurance, and (3) they wipe out a chunk of the the overhead involved in trying to come up with plans for their middle management.

I mean, health insurance is currently supposed to be a benefit from the employer to the employee in order to help attract workers, but really it's just cutting into profits.
 
2012-03-20 09:27:28 AM  
Good.
 
2012-03-20 09:36:51 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: thomps: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: antidisestablishmentarianism: If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.

shiat, with healthcare burdens affecting their bottom lines, I'm still flummoxed why nearly every business in the US hasn't lobbied for some sort of basic single payer system.

because the small business lobby (us chamber of commerce) doesn't lobby for small businesses, it lobbies for big businesses who have a competitive advantage in the current system because it's one more economy of scale to exploit.

Well, that's what I'm saying: McDonalds, WalMart, every minimum wage slave employer out there should be chomping at the bit for a basic single payer system because (1) healthy employees mean less time off and less loss in productivity, (2) it levels the playing field a bit against near minimum wage employers that already offer some level of health insurance, and (3) they wipe out a chunk of the the overhead involved in trying to come up with plans for their middle management.

I mean, health insurance is currently supposed to be a benefit from the employer to the employee in order to help attract workers, but really it's just cutting into profits.


lh4.googleusercontent.com

And that is why we are going to see some fight for private insurance for some time. Because it is big business, and they really don't want to have to turn their attention to other markets...
 
2012-03-20 09:40:53 AM  

thomps: 1) it's silly that our health insurance system is primarily tied to employment. it's a vestige of a wartime work-around to wage freezes and has no logical place in our modern economy


Just think of how much of this stupid contraception "debate" would have been avoided if healthcare was not tied to employment.
 
2012-03-20 09:41:31 AM  
I don't know why employers are not 100 percent behind single payer. They must enjoy the additional cost of administering and paying their share of health insurance.
 
2012-03-20 09:41:59 AM  
Work based health insurance should only pay for health issues received on the job. Why should we have to pay for your sports injury, sex child, car accident on vacation.
 
2012-03-20 09:42:53 AM  
Only a matter of time before we go to single payer in this country. Good. And, just think, all you oh-so-devoutly-religious job creators, soon you won't have to worry about violating your precious religious beliefs by providing sluts like me access to healthcare through the insurance that gets paid for out of my paycheck every month. Win-win
 
2012-03-20 09:44:12 AM  
No shiat. That's the plan.
 
2012-03-20 09:44:14 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I don't know why employers are not 100 percent behind single payer. They must enjoy the additional cost of administering and paying their share of health insurance.


Because good talent might start their own business instead of taking a crappy job with good insurance. In order to retain the top talent, they'd have to raise salaries.
 
2012-03-20 09:45:06 AM  

Vodka Zombie: thomps: 2) the insurance companies are scumbags, but in an ecosystem that includes drug and medical device companies, they aren't even close to the worst offenders to consider.

Case in point, I just saw a commercial for some pricey medication that said "they even paid for my first month." And, the idiot seemed kind of happy with that. Sure, he'll be taking it for the rest of his life, but hey! One month was free, so... what a farking deal!


Any dealer will tell you, the first hit's always free.
 
2012-03-20 09:48:17 AM  

LarryDan43: HotIgneous Intruder: I don't know why employers are not 100 percent behind single payer. They must enjoy the additional cost of administering and paying their share of health insurance.

Because good talent might start their own business instead of taking a crappy job with good insurance. In order to retain the top talent, they'd have to raise salaries.


They know where this is headed. It might save their company money on health insurance but their industry might be the next to be socialized.
 
2012-03-20 09:49:24 AM  

badhatharry: LarryDan43: HotIgneous Intruder: I don't know why employers are not 100 percent behind single payer. They must enjoy the additional cost of administering and paying their share of health insurance.

Because good talent might start their own business instead of taking a crappy job with good insurance. In order to retain the top talent, they'd have to raise salaries.

They know where this is headed. It might save their company money on health insurance but their industry might be the next to be socialized.


lul
 
2012-03-20 09:49:24 AM  

Urbn: Only a matter of time before we go to single payer in this country. Good. And, just think, all you oh-so-devoutly-religious job creators, soon you won't have to worry about violating your precious religious beliefs by providing sluts like me access to healthcare through the insurance that gets paid for out of my paycheck every month. Win-win


Single payer creates better jobs : Nurses, Orderlies, Doctors, Med-Techs.

It eliminates poor-quality jobs : Phone obfuscator, paper-pusher, insurance salesman, smarmy contract lawyer, creepy sales agent, and the sinecure that is Insurance CEO.
lh6.ggpht.com
 
2012-03-20 09:51:33 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: thomps: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: antidisestablishmentarianism: If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.

shiat, with healthcare burdens affecting their bottom lines, I'm still flummoxed why nearly every business in the US hasn't lobbied for some sort of basic single payer system.

because the small business lobby (us chamber of commerce) doesn't lobby for small businesses, it lobbies for big businesses who have a competitive advantage in the current system because it's one more economy of scale to exploit.

Well, that's what I'm saying: McDonalds, WalMart, every minimum wage slave employer out there should be chomping at the bit for a basic single payer system because (1) healthy employees mean less time off and less loss in productivity, (2) it levels the playing field a bit against near minimum wage employers that already offer some level of health insurance, and (3) they wipe out a chunk of the the overhead involved in trying to come up with plans for their middle management.

I mean, health insurance is currently supposed to be a benefit from the employer to the employee in order to help attract workers, but really it's just cutting into profits.


Many of those employees have access to Medicaid precisely because they make so little money. Wal-Mart even helps them apply. They design their pay scales around the fact that they can mooch off the government healthcare options.
 
2012-03-20 09:52:58 AM  
YOUR BLOG/RANT SUCKS!!!!

Number speak louder than vehement rants like this one
 
2012-03-20 09:53:26 AM  
Why do anti-business Republicans allow this "health insurance tax" to hamstring our job creators?

/Did I do it right?
 
2012-03-20 09:55:13 AM  

Bleyo: Why do anti-business Republicans allow this "health insurance tax" to hamstring our job creators?

/Did I do it right?


Because they would be paying for it regardless.... and that is the stupidest part of this debate. You assume that the cost would just mysteriously disappear? The businesses would still receive a shake-down and be forced to pay out of the nose. At least in this system they have some cost control
 
2012-03-20 09:55:49 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I don't know why employers are not 100 percent behind single payer. They must enjoy the additional cost of administering and paying their share of health insurance.


Makes me think of the Xerox commercials about companies focusing on their core business. Imagine if every US business could instantly stop worrying about managing their employees health care. Not only would it be an enormous competitive trade advantage, you would have companies focusing on innovation (which is what the US does best).

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-03-20 09:56:01 AM  
Gee, it's almost like you can't expect the Job Creators to have your best interests at heart and ensure you are taken care of.
 
2012-03-20 09:57:28 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: antidisestablishmentarianism: If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.

shiat, with healthcare burdens affecting their bottom lines, I'm still flummoxed why nearly every business in the US hasn't lobbied for some sort of basic single payer system.


THIS
 
2012-03-20 09:57:39 AM  

rubi_con_man: Urbn: Only a matter of time before we go to single payer in this country. Good. And, just think, all you oh-so-devoutly-religious job creators, soon you won't have to worry about violating your precious religious beliefs by providing sluts like me access to healthcare through the insurance that gets paid for out of my paycheck every month. Win-win

Single payer creates better jobs : Nurses, Orderlies, Doctors, Med-Techs.

It eliminates poor-quality jobs : Phone obfuscator, paper-pusher, insurance salesman, smarmy contract lawyer, creepy sales agent, and the sinecure that is Insurance CEO.
[lh6.ggpht.com image 397x298]


Well, sort of. Even in countries with fully nationalized health care systems (the UK) private health insurance is still a billion-dollar industry, and we wouldn't be outlawing private insurance, so the Insurance CEO, smarmy lawyer, and creepy sales agent would probably be fine. And of course the government will still need phone obfuscators and paper-pushers.
 
2012-03-20 10:01:04 AM  

Spaz-master: Bleyo: Why do anti-business Republicans allow this "health insurance tax" to hamstring our job creators?

/Did I do it right?

Because they would be paying for it regardless.... and that is the stupidest part of this debate. You assume that the cost would just mysteriously disappear? The businesses would still receive a shake-down and be forced to pay out of the nose. At least in this system they have some cost control


A single payer system would increase the burden on businesses?

Citation?
 
2012-03-20 10:01:57 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: thomps: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: antidisestablishmentarianism: If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.

shiat, with healthcare burdens affecting their bottom lines, I'm still flummoxed why nearly every business in the US hasn't lobbied for some sort of basic single payer system.

because the small business lobby (us chamber of commerce) doesn't lobby for small businesses, it lobbies for big businesses who have a competitive advantage in the current system because it's one more economy of scale to exploit.

Well, that's what I'm saying: McDonalds, WalMart, every minimum wage slave employer out there should be chomping at the bit for a basic single payer system because (1) healthy employees mean less time off and less loss in productivity, (2) it levels the playing field a bit against near minimum wage employers that already offer some level of health insurance, and (3) they wipe out a chunk of the the overhead involved in trying to come up with plans for their middle management.

I mean, health insurance is currently supposed to be a benefit from the employer to the employee in order to help attract workers, but really it's just cutting into profits.


WalMart endorsed healthcare reform in 2009

Link (new window)
 
2012-03-20 10:03:47 AM  

Spaz-master: Bleyo: Why do anti-business Republicans allow this "health insurance tax" to hamstring our job creators?

/Did I do it right?

Because they would be paying for it regardless.... and that is the stupidest part of this debate. You assume that the cost would just mysteriously disappear? The businesses would still receive a shake-down and be forced to pay out of the nose. At least in this system they have some cost control


Know how I know you don't know what amortized risk means?
 
2012-03-20 10:04:18 AM  
Gee, a big drop between 2007 and 2010?

I wonder if anything happened during that timeframe in the insurance market that would have the unintended consequence of companies dropping health insurance coverage.

anyone have any ideas? anyone??
 
2012-03-20 10:05:49 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Well, that's what I'm saying: McDonalds, WalMart, every minimum wage slave employer out there should be chomping at the bit for a basic single payer system because (1) healthy employees mean less time off and less loss in productivity, (2) it levels the playing field a bit against near minimum wage employers that already offer some level of health insurance, and (3) they wipe out a chunk of the the overhead involved in trying to come up with plans for their middle management.


A major company has leverage back. Walmart or whoever has their own people at Aetna/UnitedHealth/BCBS/etc. They can say, "we're taking our 200,000 clients over to X unless you match this rate". Plus, while the admin overhead is big, there is efficiency of scale in that.

What doesn't make any sense at all is why so many owners of small enterprises don't want to get out from that burden. They don't have any leverage at the insurance company. They're likely to get their policy rate-jacked or dropped if one employee's kid gets cancer. They spend untold hours poring over plans and managing contributions. They don't have a benefits department in-house doing all that. It's not their competency.

I can almost see why big business shills for the status-quo-ante. It's a 50-pound-weight, but it's a 100-pound-weight for a smaller competitior. Why small businessmen don't agitate for single-payer? No damned clue.
 
2012-03-20 10:06:18 AM  
Single-payer über alles.

/to hell with for-profit medical insurance companies
 
2012-03-20 10:06:40 AM  
btw, the blog sucks.

nice how the scale on the x-axis goes from 2 years, to 4 to 3 to 2.
 
2012-03-20 10:06:58 AM  
The rest of the world thanks america for the health care system that has brought millions of jobs our way. Keep up the good work.
 
2012-03-20 10:08:15 AM  
OMG, what about the Death Panels!!!!!!


4.bp.blogspot.com

Rush: Save us Sarah you backwards asshat festering ape twat.

Bachmann: Everyone let's hide inside of Rush! He can fit half a dozen Dominican schoolboys in his ass! I know, I have photos!

Sarah: I make retards.
 
2012-03-20 10:09:14 AM  

Lawnchair: Why small businessmen don't agitate for single-payer? No damned clue.


They do, but no one listens, because the power of your voice is proportional to the size of your wallet.
 
2012-03-20 10:10:44 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Vodka Zombie: thomps: 2) the insurance companies are scumbags, but in an ecosystem that includes drug and medical device companies, they aren't even close to the worst offenders to consider.

Case in point, I just saw a commercial for some pricey medication that said "they even paid for my first month." And, the idiot seemed kind of happy with that. Sure, he'll be taking it for the rest of his life, but hey! One month was free, so... what a farking deal!

Any dealer will tell you, the first hit's always free.



I have a friend who out of nowhere was diagnosed with aggressive rheumatoid arthritis two years ago. In case you don't what that actually is, it's an autoimmune disease where her immune system is basically attacking and destroying the lining of her joints as it would a disease or infection. It results in agonizing, body wide pain (it attacks ALL the joints) and can cripple you. It has a genetic cause and she was in absolutely top-notch health otherwise when the RA suddently kicked in out of nowhere.

She was put on some serious drugs, which helped for a while until her body adjusted and the drugs stopped working. The only drug that has managed to work consistently - and make life liveable and healthy for her again - is a new cutting edge crazy biotech drug that they make in hamster ovaries (crazy, right?). Cutting edge also means very expensive. Like $3k a month expensive. It's nobody's fault that she has to take this drug for the rest of her life, it was just random luck that she has the snippet of genetic code that was a timebomb that went off in her 30's, and there is no other effective cure or treatment for her.

Her insurance won't cover it, even though without it she would surely suffer horribly for a long time, be crippled and then die. Medicare won't cover it no matter what, because it's simply too expensive for them. So how does she get it? The drug manufacturer ITSELF gives it to her... for free. No strings attached.

Because drug manufacturers are just like evil drug dealers, right?

Someone needing to take a drug for the rest of their lives is no one's fault. That's just life giving them a shiatty hand. You want to be mad at someone? Be mad at god. Giving them a month of a new drug free, however, may allow them to try a new drug which could work better for them, and make them healthier or happier. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. And there's nothing inherently bad with a company who makes and sells substances which help people be happy and healthy. If they didn't then: A. that drug wouldn't even EXIST for my friend B. nobody would even be able to help her and C. they wouldn't have the money to give shiat away to people who really, really need it and can't afford it.

So go easy on the drug makers, ok?
 
2012-03-20 10:11:09 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Gee, a big drop between 2007 and 2010?

I wonder if anything happened during that timeframe in the insurance market that would have the unintended consequence of companies dropping health insurance coverage.

anyone have any ideas? anyone??


The global economic collapse?
 
2012-03-20 10:11:30 AM  

Lawnchair: Why small businessmen don't agitate for single-payer? No damned clue.


The fear of higher taxes, I would imagine, though this fear is unfounded since they pay for all those emergency room visits through taxes anyway; maybe they don't want to lose the carrot of offering employees insurance (or the threat of losing your insurance if you leave).

The more I think about it, the more the second option seems likely.
 
2012-03-20 10:12:23 AM  

I_C_Weener: antidisestablishmentarianism: If people had to pay their healthcare out of their own pockets I think we would see a single payer system.

If everyone had to pay their taxes instead of letting the employer withhold, we would see some tax reform.

Hiding the costs is one way to perpetuate bad systems


^^^^^^^^^^
 
2012-03-20 10:18:11 AM  

mongbiohazard: So go easy on the drug makers, ok?


Another aspect of drug makers is that it takes around 20 years to research and develop a working drug...not even mentioning all those that fail. So, to make that profitable, they are given limited patents on the drug. Twelve years I think. Which can be extended under certain circumstances. But once it is past the patent, generics can develop it at less cost because the requirements for generics is that the medicine be within 20% of what it is advertised to be...where name brand is closer to 3-4% of what it says it is.

Taken together, that means, that for every workable new drug, the drug manufacturer has to foot the bill for numerous failed drugs, 20 years of development, several lawyers etc... for patents, before it can sell a single pill to start to recover the costs.

This is why we have relatively few large full line drug manufacturers. The costs of a new heart pill or diabetes treatment or OTC pain med is staggering. And the return is limited to a few years of no competition sales, then competition with generic versions.

It is loaded much like professional sports figures who have to get a bulk of their lifetime earning done in the first 8 years after college.
 
2012-03-20 10:18:22 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I don't know why employers are not 100 percent behind single payer. They must enjoy the additional cost of administering and paying their share of health insurance.


And heck, it would also eliminate most of the expenses for workman's compensation.
 
2012-03-20 10:18:33 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: btw, the blog sucks.

nice how the scale on the x-axis goes from 2 years, to 4 to 3 to 2.


Must've been created by some guy in the Fox News graphics derpartment.
 
2012-03-20 10:19:38 AM  

dumbobruni:

WalMart endorsed healthcare reform in 2009



Here is why: "everyone (other businesses and people) must make some contribution"

they aren't dumb, they want other businesses to share the burden.
 
2012-03-20 10:19:49 AM  
That blog sucks.

Get to some point.

Then the political rant.
 
2012-03-20 10:20:23 AM  

DarwiOdrade: tenpoundsofcheese: btw, the blog sucks.

nice how the scale on the x-axis goes from 2 years, to 4 to 3 to 2.

Must've been created by some guy in the Fox News graphics derpartment.


or a person from fark who is notorious for not being able to read charts.
 
2012-03-20 10:20:27 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Gee, a big drop between 2007 and 2010?

I wonder if anything happened during that timeframe in the insurance market that would have the unintended consequence of companies dropping health insurance coverage.

anyone have any ideas? anyone??


The Great Republican Recession?
 
2012-03-20 10:20:59 AM  

thomps: 1) it's silly that our health insurance system is primarily tied to employment. it's a vestige of a wartime work-around to wage freezes and has no logical place in our modern economy

2) the insurance companies are scumbags, but in an ecosystem that includes drug and medical device companies, they aren't even close to the worst offenders to consider.


I think bears repeating, again. Single payer systems are good for the bulk of us who don't make millions a year. And they have some pretty massive advantages for business as well. Only morons don't want them. And they can never come up with a good answer as to why beyond the stupidest answer of them all: SOCILZIMS!
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report