Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (8441)	8/19/2009 3:20:30 PM
From: John Koligman	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

"Despite these imprecisions, the difference in the costs of health care administration between the United States and Canada is clearly large and growing. Is $294.3 billion annually for U.S. health care administration money well spent?" Of course it's money well spent - if you are a healthcare CEO. Remember the fiasco with this slimeball from United Healthcare? Look at his numbers spread across the US population - UFB!!! Regards, John Resignation of McGuire On October 15, 2006, it was announced that McGuire would step down immediately as chairman and director of UnitedHealth Group, and step down as CEO on December 1, 2006 due to his involvement in the employee stock options scandal. Simultaneously, it was announced that he would be replaced as CEO by Stephen Hemsley, who has served as President and COO and is a member of the board of directors. [12] McGuire's exit compensation from UnitedHealth, expected to be around $1.1 billion, would be the largest golden parachute in the history of corporate America.[13] McGuire's compensation became controversial again on May 21, 2009, when Elizabeth Edwards, speaking on The Daily Show, used it to support her argument for a public alternative to commercial insurance[14]. Edwards stressed the importance of restoring competition in health insurance markets noting that at one point, "the President of United Health made so much money, that one of every $700 that was spent in this country on health care went to pay him": Estimates of McGuire's 2005 compensation range from $59,625,444 [15] to $124.8 million[16], and the revenue of United Health Care was then $71 billion. It has therefore been suggested that Mrs Edwards may have meant to say that one of every $700 that was spent on United Health Care premiums went to pay McGuire. McGuire's Settlement With SEC On 6 December 2007, the SEC announced a settlement under which McGuire was to repay $468 million, including a $7 million civil penalty, as a partial settlement of the backdating prosecution. He was also barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for ten years.[17][18][19] This was the first time in which the little-used "clawback" provision under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was used against an individual by the SEC. The SEC continued its investigations even after it in 2008 settled legal actions against both United Health Care itself and its former general counsel.[20]. en.wikipedia.org

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (8441)	8/19/2009 4:45:04 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

I don't really know how to respond to a 10-year old study, particularly given that Canadian health care has only recently been determined to have been a failure. But more significantly, I don't think it is sensible way to look at the problem. There are simply too many fundamental differences between the CA and US systems that would affect the issue yet not be either a cause or a result of the systems. A more sensible approach, to me, is to compare Medicare with private insurance in the US, which has been done, and I seem to recall the per-capita administrative costs for Medicare are 30% higher than for private insurance in the US.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (8441)	8/24/2009 12:34:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

A system with multiple insurers is also intrinsically costlier than a single-payer system. In some ways, OTOH you get the benefit of competition which can help push down costs. OTOH 1 - Most "single payer" proponents in the US aren't pushing real single payer. They would not outlaw private insurance, or provide free gold plated health care insurance to everyone (which would drive out private insurance). There would then still be more than one payer. You would probably have fewer payers, likely the public one would be by far the biggest (since if it is subsidized it will drive other companies out of areas of the market, and some from the market completely), but you have multiple payers. Many of the countries with lower costs don't have true single payer, or even nominal single payer, but a "public option", or just mandates and subsidies with the insurance provided by the private sector. Also clearly in the US, and probably in other countries, the common administrative costs estimates for government health care payment programs are well under the actual costs.