Whole Foods CEO vs. Obama's health insurance reform

Greed is good. People wanting to make a profit is good. "Insert insurance company here" needs to satisy their member (offer good coverage at a acceptable cost) to make money. If they don't, the member leaves and goes to a different carrier.

On pre-existing and chronic conditions, I have to agree with the insursance companies stance. If they know a perspective member will cost them money, why would they want to have them as a member...I come into your coffee shop or restaurant and spend $5 but 5 times in a row I started smashing cups and breaking tables, eventually the proprieter will tell me not come back because I cost them money.

Gotta love your honesty. Not too many folks will quote Gordon Gekko with such conviction. However excuse me while I question your morality about a corporation making money on the back's of people's health or lack of health care services. Then again I also find arms dealing immoral understand that others might find my selling coffee and beer immoral (just so you understand I can see multiple points of view).

I would also argue the point that there is a big difference between someone walking into a shop and doing malicious damage to the premises and someone who has a preexisting condition such as a heart murmur, congenital birth defect or asthma. You're analogy is false and simply a straw man ripe for the knocking down.

The insurance industry has one priority - making money. Health care is about making people healthy these two ideas are not mutually exclusive but in the current American context it's clear that profit wins out over health care nearly every time. To me that is distasteful, primitive and immoral.

One more point - greed is different from the profit motive. Greed is the word we use to describe a person unable to ever be satisfied no matter what level of profit he or she earns. Greed is an addiction.

"Health care is about making people healthy..."

Uhhh no...it's about treating or managing disease.

I love all the health plan experts on the forum.

Some reasons health care costs a lot:

1. Lack of reasonable tort reform.

addressing this point specifically, as I stated previously tort reform is something I support but let's take a look at what kind of savings can be accomplished by doing so...

"It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”
Insurance costs about $50-$60 billion a year, Baker estimates. As for what’s often called “defensive medicine,” “there’s really no good study that’s been able to put a number on that,” said Baker.

So at best tort reform is a small portion of overall reform and should not be the leading reform. It cannot affect the overall growth in costs of medical care in the US in anything other than a marginal way.

"Health care is about making people healthy..."

Uhhh no...it's about treating or managing disease.

If that is your primary criticism of my last post I accept it and agree that I misspoke. Health care is about Treating and managing disease, the point of which is to make people healthy or healthier. Better?

You can post some statement by an academic lawyer and guess what....tort reform doesn't help. No surprise there. I'll post one by an academic physician.

"Defensive medicine is a significant contributor to the cost of general medical care. Reasonable tort reform is needed in any reform package to reduce costs. True malpractice should not be affected in the least."

Mark E. Head
Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine
University of Louisville School of Medicine

I would also argue the point that there is a big difference between someone walking into a shop and doing malicious damage to the premises and someone who has a preexisting condition such as a heart murmur, congenital birth defect or asthma. You're analogy is false and simply a straw man ripe for the knocking down.

Perhaps a better analogy would be trying to buy home owners insurance after your house has burned down?

We can find some solution to the preexisting condition issue that doesn't involve moving to a single payer system. I have no problem with judicious Government regulations of a health insurance free market.

The insurance industry has one priority - making money. Health care is about making people healthy these two ideas are not mutually exclusive but in the current American context it's clear that profit wins out over health care nearly every time. To me that is distasteful, primitive and immoral.

What is it with (some) purveyors of coffee based beverages and the distaste for insurance company profits. Profit on coffee is good. Profits on insurance is bad.

I bet that purveyors of coffee based beverages would not be in that business if it wasn't profitable; but I'm still pretty sure that a vast majority of them want to deliver a good product and fair value for the dollar. How is it that profits can taint medical care, but not the coffee business?

Doesn't the purveyor of coffee based beverages have a perverse incentive to cut corners, make weak coffee, and advertise wholesome organic ingredients and secretly substitute industrial agricultural dreck in order to increase profits?

What is it with (some) purveyors of coffee based beverages and the distaste for insurance company profits. Profit on coffee is good. Profits on insurance is bad.

No what I said was profiteering on health insurance is immoral.

I have no problem with other kinds of insurance. I believe health care is a human right and not something up for sale if you can meet the cost. You disagree. That's fine. I love the first amendment.

Oh and as for the second statement:

Doesn't the purveyor of coffee based beverages have a perverse incentive to cut corners, make weak coffee, and advertise wholesome organic ingredients and secretly substitute industrial agricultural dreck in order to increase profits?

Uh have you heard of McCafe? Folgers? or coffee served at any old gas station? The majority of the coffee industry is already doing just that. The difference is they are not directly responsible for the life or death of their customers. health insurance companies make life and death decisions every day.

You can post some statement by an academic lawyer and guess what....tort reform doesn't help. No surprise there. I'll post one by an academic physician.

"Defensive medicine is a significant contributor to the cost of general medical care. Reasonable tort reform is needed in any reform package to reduce costs. True malpractice should not be affected in the least."

Mark E. Head
Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine
University of Louisville School of Medicine

I previously agreed that tort reform is needed. I just disagree with you that it's the number one reason health care costs in the USA are 15% GDP vs. half that in most countries using a single payer system. It's one of many reasons but not the primary one. I would guess (I don't know) that those same countries using a single payer system already have enacted tort reforms as another step in reducing overall costs.

Please read what I said. Let me quote it:

So at best tort reform is a small portion of overall reform and should not be the leading reform. It cannot affect the overall growth in costs of medical care in the US in anything other than a marginal way.

I did not say tort reform would not help. Please sir take another moment to read what I'm writing instead of paraphrasing me incorrectly.

No what I said was profiteering on health insurance is immoral.

What do you suppose the usual profit margin of health insurance companies is? If the profitability for purveyors of coffee based beverages was generally higher, would that change your opinion? At what threshold does profitability become profiteering?

I have no problem with other kinds of insurance. I believe health care is a human right and not something up for sale if you can meet the cost. You disagree. That's fine. I love the first amendment.

Can you explain how medical care is a right? How do you exercise your human right to medical care? Does nature provide a class of non-human medical care providers to look after your health?

A true human right, doesn't depend on taking services from another human being without a mutually agreeable rate of exchange. From the perspective of a human medical care provider (as opposed to an imaginary one), what you are describing is a form of servitude. Your "right" to health care equals the requirement of servitude from another. This equation doesn't balance because health care is not a human right.

Doesn't the purveyor of coffee based beverages have a perverse incentive to cut corners, make weak coffee, and advertise wholesome organic ingredients and secretly substitute industrial agricultural dreck in order to increase profits?

Uh have you heard of McCafe? Folgers? or coffee served at any old gas station? The majority of the coffee industry is already doing just that. The difference is they are not directly responsible for the life or death of their customers. health insurance companies make life and death decisions every day.

Yes the customer has a choice in the quality of coffee based beverages he might consume. Unlike you, I'd like the customer to have a choice in the quality of health care coverage they want.

If people don't eat they will die right? How come we don't hear calls to nationalize the production and distribution of food? People need water right? Where's our nationalized water provider?

Look, you can sue your insurance company if they do not meet the terms of your policy. There's also the punitive damages plus any government fines that would get piled on.

Insurance companies need customers to stay in business, just like purveyors of coffee based beverages. Both would go out of business If they don't do a good enough job of satisfying their customers.

And you know what? Single payer systems deny coverage too. Except you can't sue the government. And you would have no chance to switch to a different plan, since there's only one provider.

I think this thread is losing focus and is truly not shedding any additional light on the issue IMO. I'm not aware that any of the proposals under serious consideration by Congress at this point are favoring, nor suggesting, a single payer approach. The closest proposal is considering a public option alternative to private insurance, but that isn't anyplace close to the single payer options that is in Canada and most of Western Europe.. So let's veer just slightly away for just a moment.

Do you feel we can have Health Care reforms, that reduce costs and improve outcomes, without a single payer option? If you believe this is possible, what specific reforms/changes would you make to the existing system?


Bill

Here's some more single payer system denials.

And another

Yet another

I like France..........(just thought I'd throw something else out there)

I think this thread is losing focus and is truly not shedding any additional light on the issue IMO. I'm not aware that any of the proposals under serious consideration by Congress at this point are favoring, nor suggesting, a single payer approach. The closest proposal is considering a public option alternative to private insurance, but that isn't anyplace close to the single payer options that is in Canada and most of Western Europe.. So let's veer just slightly away for just a moment.

Do you feel we can have Health Care reforms, that reduce costs and improve outcomes, without a single payer option? If you believe this is possible, what specific reforms/changes would you make to the existing system?


Bill

Sure we need some reforms. Incremental reforms that don't involve putting the whole system through a sausage grinder. Provide tax credits to businesses for providing insurance, etc.

I don't see any way the government can pass policy to improve "outcomes". Things like genetics, life style, basic sanitaion, etc. have as much or more of an influence on health than the medical system. What outcome do you want to "improve"?

I like France..........(just thought I'd throw something else out there)

I love French food!

I I'm not aware that any of the proposals under serious consideration by Congress at this point are favoring, nor suggesting, a single payer approach. The closest proposal is considering a public option alternative to private insurance, but that isn't anyplace close to the single payer options that is in Canada and most of Western Europe..

The government option is the single payer camels nose in the tent.

Do you feel we can have Health Care reforms, that reduce costs and improve outcomes, without a single payer option? If you believe this is possible, what specific reforms/changes would you make to the existing system?

Allow new hospitals and specialty hospitals to open without state approval.

Take the physicians' monopoly away, and allow more clinic run by nurse practitioners, and maybe a new class of providers (medical practioners, MPs perhaps?) can be created between NPs and MDs. There's no reason that front line health care requires 12 years of post graduate medical education and training.

Allow these new clinics staffed by NPs of MPs to open anywhere. The current crop of general practice MDs would have to compete with those folks for the basic stuff, but they could offer more advanced diagnostic services and treatments to them also. This is how you break the primary care bottle neck.

Require health plans to offer coverage for preexisting conditions. This will raise the cost somewhat for everybody.

Encourage HSA, high deductible, and catastrophic plans. The government might be the underwriter of last resort for the really expensive cases. Either way, plans with higher limits must be more expensive for the market to work.

All plans must have co-pays. Patients must have skin in the game to encourage them to actively participate in their health care decisions and judge its costs.

Break the employee/health insurance linkage. Do this by allowing any group or association to acquire group rates for their members. Groups of small businesses could join together to acquire a group plan. Neighborhood associations could do the same. Credit unions could also do it.

Encourage insurance plans that would allow patients to consult with independent councilors about their condition and their health car options. These could be MD's not directly involved with their care. Encourage medical schools to develop training for these professional medical councilors.

Tort reform is important. For complaints against health care providers, I think local investigation and compensation boards might work, if they are required to include patient advocates that don't practice medicine. Monetary damages would still be paid from malpractice policies. There probably ought to be some way to still sue the board (not individual members) if it looks like they're being negligent or biased.

I don't think health insurance companies should be protected from lawsuits.