Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHealth Insurance Insider: 'They Dump the Sick'
Retired Health Insurance Executive Blows the Whistle on His Former Industry
Frustrated Americans have long complained that their insurance companies valued the all-mighty buck over their health care. Today, a retired insurance executive confirmed their suspicions, arguing that the industry that once employed him regularly rips off its policyholders.
![[Former health insurance company insider Wendell Potter is expected to pull no punches when he talks about the flaws of his former industry at a hearing before the Senate today.(ABC News Photo Illustration)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/healthcare-2_1.jpg "healthcare-2.jpg")
"[T]hey confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they
can satisfy their Wall Street investors," former Cigna senior executive
Wendell Potter said in remarks prepared for a hearing on health
insurance today before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Potter, who has more than 20 years of experience working in public relations for insurance companies Cigna and Humana, said companies routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
"They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment," Potter said. "&(D)umping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line."
Small businesses, in particular, he said, have had trouble maintaining their employee health insurance coverage, he said.
"All it takes is one illness or accident among employees at a small business to prompt an insurance company to hike the next year's premiums so high that the employer has to cut benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering coverage altogether," he said.
Potter also faulted insurance companies for being misleading both in advertising their policies to new customers and in communicating with existing policyholders.
More and more people, he said, are falling victim to "deceptive marketing practices" that encourage them to buy "what essentially is fake insurance," policies with high costs but surprisingly limited benefits.
Insurance companies continue to mislead consumers through "explanation of benefits" documents that note what payments the insurance company made and what's left for consumers to pay out of pocket, Potter said.
The documents, he said, are "notoriously incomprehensible."
"Insurers know that policyholders are so baffled by those notices they usually just ignore them or throw them away. And that's exactly the point," he said. "If they were more understandable, more consumers might realize that they are being ripped off."
The Senate is also heard from Karen Pollitz, a research professor at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, and Nancy Metcalf, a senior program editor at Consumer Reports.
Pollitz said that insurance companies should provide more information about how coverage works so that consumers are better equipped to compare policies as they shop for coverage.
Metcalf spoke of how many Americans have mistakenly bought lower-cost insurance policies without realizing how little it actually covers.
"They were no match for insurance companies who know exactly how to design and market plans whose gaping holes don't become apparent until it's much, much too late," she said.
Sick Patients, Canceled Policies
As Congress and the White House continue to work on health-care reform, health insurance companies have been subject to intense grilling by lawmakers during several hearings.
Last week, three insurance company executives testified before Congress on the issue of health insurance rescissions -- the cancellation of insurance policies -- for seriously ill policyholders.
A year-long investigation by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce found that three major U.S. insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., Assurant Health and United HealthGroup, canceled nearly 19,800 customer policies between 2003 and 2007.
The companies argue that rescissions are relatively rare and are important in combatting insurance fraud.
"In 2008, WellPoint's affiliated health plans rescinded one-tenth of one percent of new individual market enrollment," WellPoint said in an e-mailed statement to ABCNews.com. "While rescissions impact a very small percentage of applicants for coverage it is important to protect the majority who are honest on their applications for coverage."
Insurance companies are, by law, allowed to rescind policies for customers who found to have purposely lied or omitted information from their policy applications. But some of the rescissions the subcommittee found were for seriously ill people who had simply made mistakes on their applications.
Catching Fraud or Skirting Health Care Bills?
The committee found that the companies saved more than $300 million as a result of the rescissions. One WellPoint employee, the committee said, was awarded with a perfect performance appraisal after saving the company $10 million. (WellPoint told ABCNews.com that the money-saving reference in the appraisal was an "aberration" and said that the employee did not receive any extra salary or bonus.)
"These practices reveal that when an insurance company receives a claim for an expensive, life-saving treatment, some of them will look for a way, any way, to avoid having to pay for it," subcommittee chairman Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said at the hearing.
Two former customers of Blue Cross of California, a subsidiary of WellPoint Inc., told ABCNews.com that the company canceled their insurance policies after such mistakes.
Mark Robison, of Santa Rosa, Calif., said Blue Cross canceled his policy after claiming that he knowingly omitted information about his then 8-year-old son having an undescended testicle. Robison said that Blue Cross already had information on his son's medical history on file. His son was under Blue Cross's coverage when he was initially diagnosed with his condition.
Sally Marrara, of Los Angeles, said the company canceled her policy after determining she never told them about back pain and a history of anti-depressant use. Marrara said the back pain was related to a hysterectomy that she had included in her Blue Cross application, while the anti-depressant use dated back some 10 years. She used the drugs temporarily, she said, to cope with her father's death.
Both Robison, whose son eventually underwent surgery, and Marrara, who was later diagnosed with lupus, are now saddled with thousands in medical bills. Each is suing the company.
"It's a total travesty," Robison said. "It's unwarranted and unconscionable."
Insurance companies argue that health care reforms that ensure coverage for those with pre-existing conditions should help tackle the problem of rescissions.
"In a reformed health care system, individuals and families will never again have to worry that they may lose coverage on the basis of their medical history," Karen Ignagni, the president of the health insurance company lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans, wrote in a letter to Stupak.
Out-of-Network Agony
Today's Senate hearing comes three months after the Senate held hearings on concerns that health insurance companies are forcing consumers to pay more than they should for care from doctors outside the companies' networks.
The March hearings included testimony from a representative of the New York State Attorney General's office. An investigation by the state attorney general found that the insurance industry systematically under-estimates how much it should reimburse policyholders.
UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen J. Hemsley said at a March 31 hearing that the insurance company stands by the integrity of the database -- run by UnitedHealth subsidiary Ingenix -- used to determine reimbursements and health care costs.
A report released today by the Senate Commerce Committee found that in addition to UnitedHealth, at least 17 other major insurance companies used Ingenix data.
The committee has claimed that evidence indicates that Ingenix data is faulty -- a claim the company has denied.
46 Comments so far
Show AllFeds take the insurance Co. Hard Drives, Use the calculators to add up the profit on the currently insured persons being drained to cover themselves in case something happens then are financially ruined when it does (who the heck wins here???? the welfare dudes?), subtract that, then tax the people the rest. You can't tell me it is going to COST MORE per individual insured person or family in these "bad economic times". It SAVES the payor it saves the feds. Let the insurance companies sell AUTO insurance!
P.S. I am a Master's level Health Care researcher/consultant (epidemiologist) Born in California USA (6 generations) Trained in Canada, live & work in Canada. Am working on making the status quo here go away too. So-o-o-o
Just Do It! ....To quote another really good MARKETING campaign for a company that for the longest time took advantage of poor human rights, sweatshop working conditions so as to maintain thier huge profit margins.
REMEMBER TO INCLUDE pharmcare and basic pre school and school age dental prevention in the packages. It is FAR cheaper in the long run for all of us. Happy people are more productive, more creative and just better citizens. You may save on your prison costs, who knows!
Went to the hospital today to pay some bills. I had to pay $2.84 (the maximum allowed by law) per copy for copies of test reports. Which I had just paid the bill for (the tests themselves, I mean). I tried to get a discount, but the workers there are only peons, they said. I also had to pay $13.50 for a CD with a copy of the X-rays, CT scan etc. that they had done.
But at least now I can combat the incompetence of the doctor's offices when I tell them to please have records faxed to them and they *oops* just forget.
So I talked to three people working in the medical profession today and I asked them if they had ever heard of single payer health care. Two utterly dumb looks and one maybe thought she heard something on the news. Sigh.
Let's see, profits are all that business, particularly big business, are required to pursue at the cost of everything else - including any redeeming human values.
They then use these profits to purchase access or control over a corrupt and venal political system that milks businesses for money to maintain their political fiefs.
They, the corporate interests and their selected henchmen, use this access and control to help maintain a political and economic system that ensures their profits, and has been this way since more or less since the founding.
So what's the surprise that health-insurance companies will do anything to maintain and/or increase profits? It's what they're designed and encouraged to do. It would be more surprising if corporate entities in general and health-insurance companies in particular, or at least their decision makers, actually demonstrated any human values.
Tirebiter, it would be astounding if the corporations demonstrated any human values, and not only that, their shareholders could successfully sue them.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Too true. A consequence of the cozy, some might say criminally complicit, relationship between business and government.
The very idea of medical "insurance" is absurd.
Everyone uses medical services - that are as much a part of our basic infrastructure as streets, highways, police, fire. Medicine should be provided exactly as these other services are.
You could easily win the day if 50 million or more would commit to an insurance boycott. Their profits would tank, stock value would drop like a stone and many would go bankrupt. And lastly the government would then have to step in.
If you really want your mind blown, check out this link to the actual testimony by Wendell Potter. If this doesn't make you want to pursue a government health policy option, I don't know what would...
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/
PotterTestimonyConsumerHealthInsurance.pdf
Real Health Story: I went to the doctor last Thursday and was prescribed 2 medications for a bacterial infection. That night, the drug store told me that the insurance company required I get pre-approval for the one medication. Finally, Monday, the doctors office made the approval request. On Tuesday I spoke to the insurance company and they said it would be 3-5 days for the decision on the approval. Due to the pain, I've been paying for portions of the medication without insurance while waiting for the approval decision. I'm still waiting.
Obviously this insurance company is not patient health driven, rather it is profit driven. Fortunately, I can afford this medication without insurance. I don't believe Obama's plan is going to change this.
Every day I read about or listen to the "discussions" about our nation's current healthcare crisis and wonder why virtually NOBODY in the discussion panel is forced to answer one or more of the following vital questions:
1) What is the maximum percentage of the American population that is acceptable to NOT have health care - regardless of ability to pay/affordability/availability of comprehensive coverage?
2) What is more important to you (taking into account the probability of needing one vs. the other in an average citizen's lifetime)?
a) Spending whatever is "necessary and required" for the American government to provide taxpayer-funded military services for every citizen?
b) Spending whatever is "necessary and required" for the American government to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare services for every citizen?
3) What is the maximum percentage of an American citizen's current annual income that should ever be demanded by a healthcare provider for healthcare services? What is the maximum percentage of an American citizen's current net worth that should ever be demanded by a healthcare provider for healthcare services?
4) Is for-profit healthcare moral? Is it "moral" for corporations or medical institutions to be required to provide a profit to one or more medically-uninvolved parties when delivering necessary medical or healthcare services to a prospective patient – and of denying available medical services needed to alleviate the pain or prolong the life of that patient when the required profit cannot be obtained? If so, should there be a government-mandated maximum profit or should it be purely a "market-determined" mechanism?
5) Should "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" be construed to include access to healthcare - regardless of the current ability to pay? If not, why not?
6) Is it right for citizens to be forced to pay for the healthcare of OTHER American citizens and government officials thru mandated taxes (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, V.A. Health Expenses, Tax Payment for Government Official Health Expenses, etc.) but not have their taxes provide for THEIR OWN healthcare first?
7) Is it right for the American taxpayer to fund and guarantee government-provided healthcare coverage of American citizens based solely on age? Why is it that ONLY after they reach the age of 65 are this country's citizens guaranteed access to government healthcare? Isn't this a violation of "equal protection under the law"?
8) Why is it right and proper for our government (be it State or Federal in nature) to provide police protection, fire protection, security protection (FBI/CIA/US Military, etc.), and legal protection to its citizens but NOT provide affordable access to healthcare and medical services? Of what value are any of these other government-provided protections when a citizen or family member is in critical need of healthcare to alleviate pain or prolong life?
9) Are we as a nation getting our money's worth from every dollar we currently spend on our healthcare? What percentage of every current dollar spent on healthcare is actually going to the direct treatment of the patient vs. the percentage going to paperwork, administrative overhead, 3rd, 4th, or 5th party profit, executive compensation, and payments to insurance companies (e.g. litigation insurance)? Couldn't a non-profit government-provided healthcare system be more cost efficient to run and manage if it didn’t have to pay for all these other expenses not directly related to healthcare delivery?
10) Is our healthcare system REALLY better than those in other major industrialized nations - e.g. Canada, England/Germany/Western Europe, Japan, etc.? If it IS better than these other nations, can you prove it statistically and via unbiased comparisons? If it IS NOT better, why are so afraid to elect to adapt the best concepts of some of these other national healthcare policies?
Unless and until we force our citizens and those who are in power (or who have access to our airwaves) to truthfully and completely answer questions like these I do not think we will ever get the healthcare system we deserve. We will likely just muddle along like we are now until the average American citizen gets so overwhelmed and infuriated with the inherent problems in access, affordability, and fairness of our current system that he or she either takes to the streets in violent protest or leaves the country altogether in search of a better life elsewhere.
kw
The US system is definitely better than the European ones - but only for those who cash in, otherwise it is worse on all counts and I wonder why this is still a debate issue: In Europe you have universal health care, you pay less and people are healthier. Nobody goes bancrupt because of the health costs associated with sickness or accident. If I am employed, have a serious car accident and spend 6 months in hospital, undergoing surgery, afterwards rehab, it does not cost me a dollar and my employer can't sack me. The terrible side-effect may be that Europe has less filthy rich people than the US, because you cannot cash in on each and every level of the health care system.
Right now in Austria the government aims to cut health costs by reducing the waste of pharmaceutical products (because doctors sell them in larger than necessary quantities) and by obliging doctors to prescribe generica wherever possible. As a government you can do this and in Europe it does not even have to be a Socialist government to come up with such a scheme. In our case it is a coalition between Conservatives and Socialists.
I don't want to say that Europe is heaven, but concerning health care the US is hell and it is absolutely amazing that not everybody is aware of it.
There was an article on Common dreams some times back, either directly or one linked to by a reader to another site. (YES rings a bell).
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1503
This a very interesting analysis as it goes back some 40 years and points out that Our numbers were all but identical then as far as all the "measurements" go (Mortality rates, life expectancy and the like) .
THEN Canada introduced Single payer. The numbers have grown in Canadas favor since then.
I would point out that Canada has also become much more ethnicaly diverse since then.
Me and my growing army of EUTHENASIA BOMBERS (aka the "uninsurables") call a FATWAH on the ceo's of these deathsellers...
jihad
Insurance companies are no different from those phony sudden discount sales commercials you hear and see everyday. By the time you get down to where the discount is needed, they play you for the sucker and tell you that it's not covered or that the discount is for something else or whatever. Anyone who wants to believe that just because they're employer offers health insurance they're fully covered had better read the fine print and prepare thyself on what's covered vs what you will have to shell out and be prepared to shell out more in case you're told it ain't covered.
I can't speak for all companies but in mine, I have the option of accepting the employee offer or going completely on my own. That's where the problem starts. If it feels cheaper to let an employer fix an employee's coverage with some few options on how much to deduct from your paycheck, chances are most employees will fall for it. I did and I yet none of my money I set aside for insurance came in handy when I needed that coverage. Even reading the fine print, insurance companies find ways to interpret the wording to their liking. Insurance on anything is just a sick joke.
'They Dump the Sick'
This is THE insurance fraud that affords the 'for profit' (is it ever) corporate CEOs an unheared of lifestyle and super deep pockets to bribe our government to keep it so. Politely asking or begging these heartless road agents will not change a thing. This is pitchfork and torch weather.
This is why you NEVER purchase Health Insurance of any kind without the expert advice of a knowledgeable broker. Contrary to popular belief, it costs nothing extra to purchase your Health Insurance through a Broker/Agent. In fact, unlike other Financial Brokers (e.g. series 6, 63, 7 licensed investment brokers)Health Insurance brokers do not work on a fee basis. This being the case, why not tap in to their knowledge base? The vast majority of them have your best interest at heart and can help you delineate between a quality policy and one that is deliberately designed to benefit the carrier and not you!
Empower yourself today by learning the "Ten Questions You Should Ask Your Agent BEFORE You Buy A Policy" at www.sbisvcs.com/ten_question_methodology.htm
Brokers are fraudsters too. I'd rather government actually represent us and use our tax dollars for constructive purposes such as single payer. Even your idea is way too burdensome. Cut the complicated bs math and let's have a real deal already.
CStevenTucker, why should a third of our health care $$$ go into any insurance "overhead"? Not to mention the army of clerks the doctors and hospitals have to employ? 1300 insurers, 1300 different sets of rules and forms for medical professionals to wade through. It's chaotic. And still leaves approaching 50 million Americans uninsured, along with untold millions underinsured because they cannot afford the DeLuxe premiums.
Not only does senator Ron Wyden (OR) mandate insurance but his bill will require you to show proof of insurance every time you "interact" with any federal, state or local agency for any reason. Not to worry, he will be offering a range of plans to "fit your budget". That is, crappy care for the poor, etc. When I called his office I was told alternative practitioners are excluded. And he's calling this a right. A right to pay for something I don't want and can't use. I wonder what his bill would look like coming out of committee. Even worse, I'm sure.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Health care is not a Fundamental Right. I discuss this in detail here: http://www.sbisvcs.com/real_health_care_reform.htm
I also discuss what the Government can do to actually help if they MUST get involved.
Insurance companies deserve to make profits too. Single payer is just a waste of taxpayer money. You lazy welfare queens crying for single payer need to shut up and get a job or turn to self-employment. Single payer isn't in the Constitution and health care deserves to remain a privilege rather than a right for lazy welfare queens.
I thought you were dead President Reagan.
Insurance companies are a form of stealing from the desperate and giving to the rich. Medicare for all, also known as 'single-payer' would focus on making America a better place for Americans.
Medical care isn't for welfare queens -- it's the leading cause of middle class bankruptcy and housing foreclosure. Have a heart attack? Expect to lose that house.
It's not a 'right' for a person to eat good food, breathe clean air, or have their sickness cared for. That's why we have laws.
Actually, the laziest welfare queens are the corporations which profit due to government bailouts, tax cuts, preferences, and subsidies.
Insurance companies may deserve to make profits selling life insurance.
So-called 'health insurance' is a different matter.
Health care is a human right, whether you believe it or not, so it should NEVER be a for-profit scheme. Like police, firefighting, sanitation and other necessary services for all people in a healthy society, it should be available to everyone as part of their government services paid for by progressive income taxes.
What we has ourselves here is one of the few, the proud, the 20% that support the government's helping insurance companies defraud the public. Yes, the recent NYT's poll showed, that despite the biased coverage of the debate, even one half of Republicans support "a government administered plan like Medicare."
When GWB ran the country into the ditch, repeatedly, about 18% still approved. I'm thinking these are the same people, the same 20% whose best argument is a fear that "lazy welfare queens" (old Republican code for "black people") will steal from the government. Apparently they don't mind a corporate theft equivalent to an Iraq War every year, just so long as some "lazy welfare queen" doesn't get healthcare.
Obama always said he could bring along the Republicans. I'll bet EncinoM voted for Bush twice before he voted for Obama.
P.S. I am self employed. The self employed are the group most exploited by the insurance companies. "Lazy welfare queens" are covered under Medicaid. No doubt you want to get rid of that, too. But you know who the real welfare queens are, don't you? It's the Wall Street finance firms sucking on America's teet. Obama is all for it, just like his supporters like you are.
All of you above are wasting your time. First of all, EncinoM is surely not reading any of this. Second, the posted comment makes me think of a robocall. It pops up, word for word whenever single payer is being discussed. Troll.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I guess you stopped reading after "provide for the common defense".... it goes on to say "promote to the general welfare".... Note that "insurance companies" do not actually provide any "health benifits". Their primary goal is to take your money and then DENY payment for medical treatment. FYI, I am NOT a "welfare queen". I have a good job with federal health insurance, but since I still have to put in over $400.00 a month in addition to what my employer pays, I'd say that if all that money went to a general fund to insure more people, I and others would be better off. And just WHAT makes you belive that any company "deserves to make a profit"? I submit that they deserve the opportunity to TRY to make a profit, but also deserve the opportunity to fail and go out of business. Either way, they should be obligated to PAY for services rendered when one of their clients submits a legitimate claim.
Insurance companies don't deserve to make profits by falsely claiming that they will pay your medical bills when you get sick, taking your premiums for years, and then weaseling out of paying by LYING. Honestly, you Republican-fascists make me sick with your constant whining about the poor corporations, and how if they are made to bear some responsibility for the myriad problems they cause the world will end. However, I do agree with one thing you said: If you, EncinoM, ever are sick and need your insurance to come through for you, I hope that you're informed in a polite letter that healthcare is a "privilege, rather than a right," and that you don't qualify for it. That would be justice.
All for the sake of the almighty dollar EncinoM. How about a non-profit medical model. So that people's welfare isn't put against corporate profit models? Do you really think this is about lazy welfare queens? 66% of bankruptcies last year were due directly to medical bills, and most of those people are middle class.
EncinoM,you should go look deep into your history books and see other examples that are relevant here. During the height of the Roman Empire they operated a for profit system for firefighting. Basically firefighters would come to your burning house and barter for most of your possessions to put the fire out. If it is all going to get burnt up anyways, you will give up close to everything just to put out the fire. The analogies are also true for health care. People will pay anything to get well.
Eventually there was a pattern of arson in Rome. And it was eventually discovered that those setting the fires were the same as the ones who were being payed handsome sums to put them out. They decided back then to make firefighting a municipal service, as it has stayed that way since then, and is still that way today.
If you look at our medical system, currently ranked 37th in the world by the WHO, you can see that in the last 20 years there has been no major advancements on the "curing" side of health and disease, yet there has been major growth in the "treatment" side of health and disease. WHY? well look closely at any business model. If you cure them now, you don't have any repeat business, however, if you can get them to take a pill, or get regular treatments, you have a customer for life.
All for the sake of the almighty $$$. Oh and by the way for the record Erectile Dysfunction (ED) is not a disease or an ailment. It is what happens to men when they get old, especially those not in good health. It was originally a drug being tested for heart disease, and they found this wonderful side effect, 4-hour hard-ons. So they marketed it and told all these men going through the normal aging process that they had a problem.
This is what a for profit medical model gives you. We are the only industrialized nation that has this model. The single-payer, while government run, is the closest thing that human beings have erected (pun intended) to a not for profit health care system. It is great for preventative care and for promoting healthy living, not so much for elective surgeries or highly specialized care. However, it is far better than what we have in the USA here and now.
QUAMIS
Good post.
Especially the cure vs treatment situation. It's about money not health, you're absolutely right!
Your observation about single payer being great for promoting and maintaining healthy living but may not be able to handle highly specialized care or elective procedure is right on. Perhaps that's an area for private insurance.
Sioux Rose
Quamis: Great post! You really can see through BS with clear eyes!
Hopefully, retard, you won't lose whatever asshole job you have and need healthcare. You deserve the system as is. The rest of us want soemthing for our tax dollars.
How about "life, liberty and ...." I'd say that the right to health care is covered under that "life" clause.
why can't we get a million people in the streets like Iran ?
thats the ONLY thing that will change anything.
from the streets force change down their throats!!
Americans are sheep....
Why? Because we have no shepherd to lead us, and no plan.
I still have two words for these sorts of corporations; Single Payer.
End this sort of organized crime, it's more than just a drain on the economy and the needless deaths and suffering of the population.
Keep up the pressure on your representatives and Senators. I call twice a week to all of them and reiterate that I want single payer health care, not disease insurance that will be denied if I get sick.
Please call them - they all have local offices and you can make a difference.
I'm along way from this argument in Australia, can someone explain the 'Single Payer' doctrine please
The short version:
"Single Payer" means medical insurance provided by the government with (nearly) all citizens enrolled. Under this program, doctors, hospitals, labs, etc. all submit their bills to the government for payment. Thus, government is the "single payer".
This eliminates the confusion and expense of requiring providers to deal with hundreds of insurance companies (all with different policies, forms, procedures, etc.) for reimbursement.
Currently, Medicare for the elderly (over 65) is the closest thing to the single payer model in the U.S. And, whereas corporate insurance companies add about 30%+ to the total health care expense in the U.S., Medicare performs its administrative functions for about 6% = 5 TIMES MORE EFFICIENT! And, the admin cost for universal single payer would probably decline due to expanded scalar efficiencies.
Incidentally, Medicare, in my experience, does a good job of reviewing and policing those indecipherable bills issued by providers; they've saved a relative substantial money several times by challenging hospital bills and geting them adjusted.
The depredations of the American "Health insurance" industry is becoming so profound that the only people besides those in that business whom are against Single Payer are their paid shills (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.) & the executive douche bags who would actually have to find a real job.
SiCKO got it right. So now these sleazebags are saying trust us, we will reform ourselves. Makes me think of Jack Kemp's comment "You can't tax the rich. They will just obfuscate their income". The insurance industry will just find creative new loopholes for ripping us off. After all, that's what they're in business to do. Take as much of our money as they can and give back as little as possible.
And still, the words "single payer" aren't crossing anyone's lips.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Sicko did do a great job of showing the profit driven motives of the medical insurance industry. I wish he would have shown the similar problems/motives of the drug companies and conventional medicine, but the movies a good start at getting more people to see the problem.
Insurance companies are amoral thieves. When will the people of the United States get health care instead of health insurance terror?
I would say as long the American people don't enforce Thomas Jefferson's words...
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
... and make the government fear the people.
As I see it, people are afraid of the Government and don't insist!
The government fears plenty of people - it fears all the people with a net worth over a few million dollars.
Especially now that corporations are people.
THOSE people the government fears.