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.

(The Fiscal Times)   A cabal of hospitals is using Obamacare as a smokescreen to try and kill insurance companies. I'm OK with this   (thefiscaltimes.com) divider line 61
    More: Interesting, obamacare, plots, hospital system, St. Luke, WellPoint, Kaiser Permanente  
•       •       •

2361 clicks; posted to Business » on 03 Apr 2014 at 2:56 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-03 01:20:03 PM
Wouldn't a group of hospitals be called a murder?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-03 01:58:39 PM
Because it's so profitable they want to take the place of the insurance industry?
 
2014-04-03 01:59:38 PM
 
2014-04-03 02:12:48 PM

vpb: Because it's so profitable they want to take the place of the insurance industry?


Because the insurance companies Hoover up the hospitals' margins (such as they are), all while charging them different amounts for the same procedures and in general making this impossible to understand without a Finance degree and 5 years on the job (at least).

By providing insurance, they (rather than InsurCos) get paid whether you're healthy or sick instead of only when you're sick.

Hospital systems moving into insurance is only a bad thing when everything outside your region is "out of network" (and I really hope they address that issue).
 
2014-04-03 02:20:29 PM
Insurance companies are not a sane way to ration health care.
 
2014-04-03 02:24:35 PM

Dr Dreidel: vpb: Because it's so profitable they want to take the place of the insurance industry?

Because the insurance companies Hoover up the hospitals' margins (such as they are), all while charging them different amounts for the same procedures and in general making this impossible to understand without a Finance degree and 5 years on the job (at least).

By providing insurance, they (rather than InsurCos) get paid whether you're healthy or sick instead of only when you're sick.

Hospital systems moving into insurance is only a bad thing when everything outside your region is "out of network" (and I really hope they address that issue).


Our local Medical behemoth is having this fight with Blue Cross Blue Shield. The behemoth is a fantastic provider of medical care and research, but is really shiatty when it comes to a lot of other things (e.g., they don't have to pay real estate taxes). BCBS responded by buying up its own hospital system in order to compete, to which the Behemoth responded by dropping all the BCBS insurance. So now people like me who have BCBS are at risk of losing their PCPs, unless we either switch to the Hospital's insurance provider or another 3rd party insurance. The problem has gotten so heated that the Commonwealth legislature is actually getting up off their asses to end it through legislation.

There are really no good guys in that fight.
 
2014-04-03 02:36:10 PM

Dr Dreidel: vpb: Because it's so profitable they want to take the place of the insurance industry?

Because the insurance companies Hoover up the hospitals' margins (such as they are), all while charging them different amounts for the same procedures and in general making this impossible to understand without a Finance degree and 5 years on the job (at least).

By providing insurance, they (rather than InsurCos) get paid whether you're healthy or sick instead of only when you're sick.

Hospital systems moving into insurance is only a bad thing when everything outside your region is "out of network" (and I really hope they address that issue).


Yep. If you ask a hospital something like "How much do you charge for an MRI?" they can't answer that. They will ask what insurance company you have. That should be irrelevant. They make deals with insurance companies so the price is different for everyone. 20 people with 20 different insurance companies get 20 different prices. Sometimes people who have NO insurance end up paying less than people with insurance. It's crazy.
 
2014-04-03 02:41:48 PM
The comments are . . . I don't even have word.
 
2014-04-03 02:43:41 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: There are really no good guys in that fight.


Only by comparison, ayup.
 
2014-04-03 03:01:28 PM
**sigh**
 
2014-04-03 03:11:09 PM
What a hospital chain cum insurance company might look like:

pbs.twimg.com

/I said cum
//giggity
 
2014-04-03 03:11:20 PM
FlashHarry: the "fiscal times," eh?

The Fiscal Times (TFT) is an English-language digital news, news analysis and opinion publication based in New York City and Washington, D.C. and founded in 2010. The publication received its initial funding from Peter G. Peterson, founder of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and a billionaire investment banker, who has long advocated deficit reduction, reduced social welfare program expenditures, and cuts to Social Security.


Pretty much all you need to know. A right-wing dick with two additional dicks in his name.
 
2014-04-03 03:18:09 PM
ER. It's the only way to go. Let somebody else pay for it. Or not.
 
2014-04-03 03:20:45 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: There are really no good guys in that fight.


This.

Walker:
If you ask a hospital something like "How much do you charge for an MRI?" they can't answer that. They will ask what insurance company you have. That should be irrelevant. They make deals with insurance companies so the price is different for everyone. 20 people with 20 different insurance companies get 20 different prices. Sometimes people who have NO insurance end up paying less than people with insurance. It's crazy.

As someone who got billed 5x the network rate once (eventually getting the hospital to settle for about 3x the network rate) I'm getting a kick.

As far as I know PPO contracts (and their government sister, Medicare reimbursement rates) are literally the only downwards force on hospital pricing. In an individual negotiation over your bill the only leverage you have is to declare bankruptcy, so you'll never get as good a deal as Aetna gets. And, of course, because of all this opacity you can't price-shop, or even have any idea what you'll get charged until after the fact.
 
2014-04-03 03:23:32 PM

Walker: Yep. If you ask a hospital something like "How much do you charge for an MRI?" they can't answer that. They will ask what insurance company you have. That should be irrelevant. They make deals with insurance companies so the price is different for everyone. 20 people with 20 different insurance companies get 20 different prices. Sometimes people who have NO insurance end up paying less than people with insurance. It's crazy.


We can fix this without having single-payer, by having something called "all-payer rate setting". A board of providers, insurers, and public advocates get together and set rates for everything.

If single-payer doesn't do something like that, it's kind of crappy at cost control (see: Medicare Part D).

The larger point: markets don't work in health care, the only way to keep costs under control is with literal price controls.
 
2014-04-03 03:33:26 PM
youdontsay.jpg

Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.
 
2014-04-03 03:35:07 PM

EvilEgg: Insurance companies are not a sane way to ration health care.


Its a good thing insurance isn't health care then.
 
2014-04-03 03:53:51 PM
So they're describing a privately run version of the NHS?
 
2014-04-03 04:00:02 PM
pikigeek.com
 
2014-04-03 04:04:17 PM

EvilEgg: Insurance companies are not a sane way to ration health care.


Neither is enabling moochers but that's not stopping anybody
 
2014-04-03 04:08:12 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Our local Medical behemoth is having this fight with Blue Cross Blue Shield. The behemoth is a fantastic provider of medical care and research, but is really shiatty when it comes to a lot of other things (e.g., they don't have to pay real estate taxes). BCBS responded by buying up its own hospital system in order to compete, to which the Behemoth responded by dropping all the BCBS insurance. So now people like me who have BCBS are at risk of losing their PCPs, unless we either switch to the Hospital's insurance provider or another 3rd party insurance. The problem has gotten so heated that the Commonwealth legislature is actually getting up off their asses to end it through legislation.


Dr Dreidel: vpb: Because it's so profitable they want to take the place of the insurance industry?

Because the insurance companies Hoover up the hospitals' margins (such as they are), all while charging them different amounts for the same procedures and in general making this impossible to understand without a Finance degree and 5 years on the job (at least).

By providing insurance, they (rather than InsurCos) get paid whether you're healthy or sick instead of only when you're sick.

Hospital systems moving into insurance is only a bad thing when everything outside your region is "out of network" (and I really hope they address that issue).


As a Canadian, nothing that either of you said makes absolutely any sense to me.  You might as well have been speaking Klingon.
 
2014-04-03 04:16:45 PM

Bullseyed: youdontsay.jpg

Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.


And the problem with that is...?
 
2014-04-03 04:23:19 PM

Bullseyed: Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.


The Democrats advocated for a single-payer health care system for people of all ages and incomes, not just the elderly, the disabled and the destitute.  Essentially, an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid or a replacement of those programs for everyone.

Most countries that have a single-payer health care system allow supplemental private insurance.  The two systems work in tandem in the marketplace, allowing those who want better coverage or care to receive it.

In the US, supplemental plans for Medicare are allowed and are specifically known as Medigap plans.  So there is already precedence in this country for this.  And I never recall Democrats suggesting that they wanted to run private insurers entirely out of business.

So how specifically does Obama want to kill insurance?  Last I checked, my stocks in insurance companies have outperformed almost all other stocks I hold.
 
2014-04-03 04:28:48 PM

unyon: As a Canadian, nothing that either of you said makes absolutely any sense to me. You might as well have been speaking Klingon.


Yes, we all know you get Le Grande Socialissimeaux, where syrup-covered curling enthusiasts lovingly inject you with poutine to make you less violent and love Tim Horton's.

You keep that shiat across the 49th, pal.
 
2014-04-03 04:29:16 PM

Smeggy Smurf: EvilEgg: Insurance companies are not a sane way to ration health care.

Neither is enabling moochers but that's not stopping anybody


Oh hey, it's this silly talking point.
 
2014-04-03 04:39:23 PM

GoldSpider: Bullseyed: youdontsay.jpg

Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.

And the problem with that is...?


Nothing at all, assuming you like your healthcare with a dose of incompetence, disinterest, high cost, and low accountability.
 
2014-04-03 04:39:24 PM

EvilEgg: Insurance companies are not a sane way to ration health care.


Heh, and you think hospitals are a better idea?  Now that's funny!
 
2014-04-03 04:39:37 PM

Walker: Dr Dreidel: vpb: Because it's so profitable they want to take the place of the insurance industry?

Because the insurance companies Hoover up the hospitals' margins (such as they are), all while charging them different amounts for the same procedures and in general making this impossible to understand without a Finance degree and 5 years on the job (at least).

By providing insurance, they (rather than InsurCos) get paid whether you're healthy or sick instead of only when you're sick.

Hospital systems moving into insurance is only a bad thing when everything outside your region is "out of network" (and I really hope they address that issue).

Yep. If you ask a hospital something like "How much do you charge for an MRI?" they can't answer that. They will ask what insurance company you have. That should be irrelevant. They make deals with insurance companies so the price is different for everyone. 20 people with 20 different insurance companies get 20 different prices. Sometimes people who have NO insurance end up paying less than people with insurance. It's crazy.


"What's it cost?"

"As much as we can get from your insurance company, and then as much as we can get from you."
 
2014-04-03 04:40:32 PM

GoldSpider: Bullseyed: youdontsay.jpg

Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.


And the problem with that is...?


The problem is that it does nothing for the average person and the ridiculous costs they pay for their health care, and it only moves the profits from the insurance companies to the government. It's the same thing the administration did with student loans; they inserted themselves in the place of Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac and took over those loans, but the price of college continues to skyrocket higher than rents in San Francisco.

I wouldn't cry a single tear for the death of the insurance companies, but if I still have to pay $10-12k per year before I get a single cent of benefit for my health costs, then what's the point? What do I care if the $50/pill I'm spending on a single ibuprofen tablet goes to Aetna or the government?
 
2014-04-03 04:40:37 PM

bdub77: FlashHarry: the "fiscal times," eh?

The Fiscal Times (TFT) is an English-language digital news, news analysis and opinion publication based in New York City and Washington, D.C. and founded in 2010. The publication received its initial funding from Peter G. Peterson, founder of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and a billionaire investment banker, who has long advocated deficit reduction, reduced social welfare program expenditures, and cuts to Social Security.

Pretty much all you need to know. A right-wing dick with two additional dicks in his name.


As long as we get the ad hominem out early...
 
2014-04-03 04:41:42 PM

jjorsett: GoldSpider: Bullseyed: youdontsay.jpg

Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.

And the problem with that is...?

Nothing at all, assuming you like your healthcare with a dose of incompetence, disinterest, high cost, and low accountability.


I fail to see the difference.  You just defined "insurance."

I've had several of the big name providers, and they're all terrible.
 
2014-04-03 04:42:53 PM

jjorsett: GoldSpider: Bullseyed: youdontsay.jpg

Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.

And the problem with that is...?

Nothing at all, assuming you like your healthcare with a dose of incompetence, disinterest, high cost, and low accountability.


I'll take those any day over the current model: deny as many claims by paying customers as possible, because profit.
 
2014-04-03 04:44:42 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: and it only moves the profits from the insurance companies to the government.


Oh man, I would love to hear where you got that from and the reasoning behind it.
 
2014-04-03 04:53:13 PM

GoldSpider: jjorsett: GoldSpider: Bullseyed: youdontsay.jpg

Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.

And the problem with that is...?

Nothing at all, assuming you like your healthcare with a dose of incompetence, disinterest, high cost, and low accountability.

I'll take those any day over the current model: deny as many claims by paying customers as possible, because profit.


Like the old saw "Do you want the people who run the DMV to run your health insurance?", I would *love* to have health insurance with the transparency and consistency of the DMV.
 
2014-04-03 04:57:13 PM

grumpfuff: Oh man, I would love to hear where you got that from and the reasoning behind it.


Instead of paying obscenely high health care costs to the insurance companies, we pay them to the government, instead. Ya know, the exact same thing that happened with student loans?


Hopefully none of this is making your brain hurt too much.
 
2014-04-03 04:57:50 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Walker: Yep. If you ask a hospital something like "How much do you charge for an MRI?" they can't answer that. They will ask what insurance company you have. That should be irrelevant. They make deals with insurance companies so the price is different for everyone. 20 people with 20 different insurance companies get 20 different prices. Sometimes people who have NO insurance end up paying less than people with insurance. It's crazy.

We can fix this without having single-payer, by having something called "all-payer rate setting". A board of providers, insurers, and public advocates get together and set rates for everything.

If single-payer doesn't do something like that, it's kind of crappy at cost control (see: Medicare Part D).

The larger point: markets don't work in health care, the only way to keep costs under control is with literal price controls.


If you ignore the fact that medical facilities today exist that don't take insurance, and things like xrays cost $20, sure.
 
2014-04-03 04:59:24 PM

GoldSpider: Bullseyed: youdontsay.jpg

Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.

And the problem with that is...?


Based on the number of potholes in the streets in the Northeast currently... probably don't want the same group of people managing health care. They can't handle ditch digging and pavement.
 
2014-04-03 05:01:04 PM

Dinjiin: Bullseyed: Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.

The Democrats advocated for a single-payer health care system

So how specifically does Obama want to kill insurance?


If you don't understand how these are mutually exclusive positions, I can't really help you.
 
2014-04-03 05:02:35 PM

Bullseyed: Gaseous Anomaly: Walker: Yep. If you ask a hospital something like "How much do you charge for an MRI?" they can't answer that. They will ask what insurance company you have. That should be irrelevant. They make deals with insurance companies so the price is different for everyone. 20 people with 20 different insurance companies get 20 different prices. Sometimes people who have NO insurance end up paying less than people with insurance. It's crazy.

We can fix this without having single-payer, by having something called "all-payer rate setting". A board of providers, insurers, and public advocates get together and set rates for everything.

If single-payer doesn't do something like that, it's kind of crappy at cost control (see: Medicare Part D).

The larger point: markets don't work in health care, the only way to keep costs under control is with literal price controls.

If you ignore the fact that medical facilities today exist that don't take insurance, and things like xrays cost $20, sure.


If markets worked in health care, there would be no other facilities. You can't make a living selling stuff one can get at Wal-Mart for twice Wal-Mart's prices, after all. So why do hospitals exist that charge $400 for aspirins? Why do uninsured patients, or out-of-network patients (same thing, approximately) go to them?
 
2014-04-03 05:03:33 PM

sendtodave: jjorsett: GoldSpider: Bullseyed: youdontsay.jpg

Obama is trying to use it to kill insurance. Obama wants to replace it with the government.

And the problem with that is...?

Nothing at all, assuming you like your healthcare with a dose of incompetence, disinterest, high cost, and low accountability.

I fail to see the difference.  You just defined "insurance."

I've had several of the big name providers, and they're all terrible.


What a coincidence. Seems like whenever the government is involved, whether it is highly regulated private firms or public versions of the same thing, you get the same result. I wonder how we change that... hmm...
 
2014-04-03 05:05:14 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: grumpfuff: Oh man, I would love to hear where you got that from and the reasoning behind it.

Instead of paying obscenely high health care costs to the insurance companies, we pay them to the government, instead. Ya know, the exact same thing that happened with student loans?


Hopefully none of this is making your brain hurt too much.


This is why you fail.

You are aware that the ACA is a set of rules and regulations, and not a policy that you can buy, right?
 
2014-04-03 05:08:41 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Bullseyed: Gaseous Anomaly: Walker: Yep. If you ask a hospital something like "How much do you charge for an MRI?" they can't answer that. They will ask what insurance company you have. That should be irrelevant. They make deals with insurance companies so the price is different for everyone. 20 people with 20 different insurance companies get 20 different prices. Sometimes people who have NO insurance end up paying less than people with insurance. It's crazy.

We can fix this without having single-payer, by having something called "all-payer rate setting". A board of providers, insurers, and public advocates get together and set rates for everything.

If single-payer doesn't do something like that, it's kind of crappy at cost control (see: Medicare Part D).

The larger point: markets don't work in health care, the only way to keep costs under control is with literal price controls.

If you ignore the fact that medical facilities today exist that don't take insurance, and things like xrays cost $20, sure.

If markets worked in health care, there would be no other facilities. You can't make a living selling stuff one can get at Wal-Mart for twice Wal-Mart's prices, after all. So why do hospitals exist that charge $400 for aspirins? Why do uninsured patients, or out-of-network patients (same thing, approximately) go to them?


Well, they were just getting started before Obamacare made them illegal.  So why would Obama want cheap health care to be illegal?

Re:bolded, if you believe that to be true, you're beyond help. Why is Target still in business? Why do people pay $150 for a Gucci t-shirt that is the same as the $3 one at Walmart? Because people are stupid.
 
2014-04-03 05:10:05 PM

grumpfuff: Why Would I Read the Article: grumpfuff: Oh man, I would love to hear where you got that from and the reasoning behind it.

Instead of paying obscenely high health care costs to the insurance companies, we pay them to the government, instead. Ya know, the exact same thing that happened with student loans?


Hopefully none of this is making your brain hurt too much.

This is why you fail.

You are aware that the ACA is a set of rules and regulations, and not a policy that you can buy, right?


Uh oh, someone is too stupid to read. Probably went to public school.

The post you quoted is someone responding to comments about how "the government should take over hospitals and insurance, making a single payer socialist system."
 
2014-04-03 05:13:02 PM

Bullseyed: grumpfuff: Why Would I Read the Article: grumpfuff: Oh man, I would love to hear where you got that from and the reasoning behind it.

Instead of paying obscenely high health care costs to the insurance companies, we pay them to the government, instead. Ya know, the exact same thing that happened with student loans?


Hopefully none of this is making your brain hurt too much.

This is why you fail.

You are aware that the ACA is a set of rules and regulations, and not a policy that you can buy, right?

Uh oh, someone is too stupid to read. Probably went to public school.

The post you quoted is someone responding to comments about how "the government should take over hospitals and insurance, making a single payer socialist system."



So, your defense of him is that it's not whargarbbl about the ACA, it's whargarbbl about single payer?

Well...ok.
 
2014-04-03 05:20:57 PM

Bullseyed: Re:bolded, if you believe that to be true, you're beyond help. Why is Target still in business? Why do people pay $150 for a Gucci t-shirt that is the same as the $3 one at Walmart? Because people are stupid.


I assume you don't believe in free-market economics then, because obviously people don't make rational economic decisions, as required for those models to result in Pareto optimality?

Gucci and Circo T-shirts aren't the same, but Advil is Advil.

Bullseyed: Obamacare made them illegal.  So why would Obama want cheap health care to be illegal?


By all means, enlighten us about this outlawing of cheap clinics that nobody's heard of (because Liberal Media, like the death panels, amirite?)
 
2014-04-03 05:22:20 PM

vpb: Because it's so profitable they want to take the place of the insurance industry?


Why the assumption that everyone working for hospitals directly are profit driven? Ever consider that people get jobs in the medical industry  to support getting medical care to people who need it?Aren't the people obsessed with profits over human lives getting into finance or the actual insurance industries and economically wrecking things for the rest of us? (Hint: they are)
 
2014-04-03 05:26:42 PM

Dinjiin: So how specifically does Obama want to kill insurance?  Last I checked, my stocks in insurance companies have outperformed almost all other stocks I hold.


That those profits come from human suffering should cause you pause.
 
2014-04-03 05:36:26 PM

Dinjiin: The Democrats advocated for a single-payer health care system... So how specifically does Obama want to kill insurance?

 

Bullseyed: If you don't understand how these are mutually exclusive positions, I can't really help you.


They're not exclusive positions.  A single-payer system can diminish the role of private insurance, but does not eliminate it completely unless supplemental private insurance is expressly prohibited.  I'm not aware of any country that does that.  Even Medicare doesn't do that (see: Medigap).

You're arguing that Obama wants to kill insurance.  Provide something to back it up.  Suggesting that I'm incapable of understanding the nuances of the issue so that you don't have to put your position on the table is a chickensh*t move.
 
2014-04-03 06:31:03 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: vpb: Because it's so profitable they want to take the place of the insurance industry?

Why the assumption that everyone working for hospitals directly are profit driven? Ever consider that people get jobs in the medical industry  to support getting medical care to people who need it?Aren't the people obsessed with profits over human lives getting into finance or the actual insurance industries and economically wrecking things for the rest of us? (Hint: they are)


You don't have much experience with doctors. do you?
 
2014-04-03 06:35:30 PM
FTA:

"Dr. Kenneth L. Davis, CEO and  president of Mount Sinai Health System, the largest health care provider in the state of New York, said that starting next year, Mt. Sinai will begin offering its own Medicare Advantage plan. "

Interestingly enough, Obamacare actually has very little to do with Medicare Advantage.  The ACA essentially left the senior market intact.  I work closely with insurance companies (particularly on the senior insurance side), and I've been seeing more of this.  I actually work somewhat closely (the other guy in my office mainly, but me sometimes) with a hospital owned insurance company.  Relative to other insurance companies, they're about to have a huge windfall in the upcoming years.  Being a nonprofit (extra reimbursement from CMS) and able to essentially negotiate whatever rate they want from the providers (the providers own it) they're in prime position to start eating up a large portion of the market share.  For profit insurance companies (at least in the senior market) are in trouble due to reimbursement rates.

All of this takes place on coconut island, of course.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report