3M Co. will drop retirees from health plans, steer to Medicare

Boo Radley · Oct 7, 2010

The_Patriot said:
I have only history to go by and historically the insurance companies acted reasonably and didn't prohibit people without health insurance from paying for their own medical bills. The problems started when the government interferred with the 90% income taxes in the 40's and companies having to resort to using health insurance as compensation to protect their worker's wages from income taxation. Also, since I'm a Constitutionalist *points to avatar* there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States for the federal government to mandate to the people to buy a good or face severe penalties.

Really. Support this reasonableness. They have a large buracracy with tons of paper work that has always seemed deisigned to frustrate the poplace so as to not be covered when they need it, as long as we're going with our perceptions instead of documented evidence.

I don't believe you have an accurate view of the history of health insurance. But feel free to offer some support, and they type you asked for, not opinion, but actual evidence.

Boo Radley · Oct 7, 2010

The_Patriot said:
My point is that it's not just the insurance companies at fault. It's both the government's and insurance companies fault.

This you're right about. Our problems with health care are not limited to just insurance companies. but that doesn't let insurance companies off the hook either.

The_Patriot · Oct 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Really. Support this reasonableness. They have a large buracracy with tons of paper work that has always seemed deisigned to frustrate the poplace so as to not be covered when they need it, as long as we're going with our perceptions instead of documented evidence.

I don't believe you have an accurate view of the history of health insurance. But feel free to offer some support, and they type you asked for, not opinion, but actual evidence.

Will this, this, and this suffice?

Boo Radley · Oct 7, 2010

The_Patriot said:
Will this, this, and this suffice?

They don't support your claim. For example, the largest change wasn't the government. See:

As the twentieth century progressed, several changes occurred that tended to increase the role that medicine played in people's lives and to shift the focus of treatment of acute illness from homes to hospitals. These changes caused the price of medical care to rise as demand for medical care increased and the cost of supplying medical care rose with increased standards of quality for physicians and hospitals.

The_Patriot · Oct 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
They don't support your claim. For example, the largest change wasn't the government. See:

As the twentieth century progressed, several changes occurred that tended to increase the role that medicine played in people's lives and to shift the focus of treatment of acute illness from homes to hospitals. These changes caused the price of medical care to rise as demand for medical care increased and the cost of supplying medical care rose with increased standards of quality for physicians and hospitals.

You missed the part where all three stated that due to the 90% income tax rate that companies offered health insurance as a way to get past the income tax in the 40's. The government agreed. I said nothing about the changes in treatment from homes to hospitals. You are ascribing something to me that I did not say.

apdst · Oct 7, 2010

tlmorg02 said:
How is wanting everyone to be able to recieve medical treatment putting politics first?

It's putting politics first, because Obamacare isn't going to work, yet all we're going to hear from The Messiah, is how he fixed the healthcare system. his ultimate goal, is to collapse the healthcare system, so the government has to step in, save the day and create a single payer system.

This has nothing to do with providing everyone with insurance and everything to do with a political agenda.

Everyone already has access to medical treatment. We didn't need this bill.

buck · Oct 7, 2010

The_Patriot said:
I see no data in this opinion piece to back up your statements that they made record profits. I want the numbers not an opinion piece.

I would argue that "record profits" is a fairly meaningless term. When companies spend more they are obviously going to have to charge their customers more, which means "record profits". I think a better metric is profit margin.

The profit margin of the health insurance industry is currently 4.8%. This is not a large profit margin,and does not indicate that insurance companies are raising premiums beyond reasonableness.

Industry Browser - Healthcare - Health Care Plans Industry - Company List

Prior to the economic downturn, the inidustry was still only at 6.2% profit margin. Again, not unreasaonable. At the time, I was nearly making that in my risk-free money market account.

Fortune 500 2008: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues

Boo Radley · Oct 7, 2010

The_Patriot said:
You missed the part where all three stated that due to the 90% income tax rate that companies offered health insurance as a way to get past the income tax in the 40's. The government agreed. I said nothing about the changes in treatment from homes to hospitals. You are ascribing something to me that I did not say.

You mean this:

Blue Cross and Blue Shield were first to enter the health insurance market because commercial insurance companies were reluctant to even offer health insurance early in the century. As previously mentioned, they feared that they would not be able to overcome problems relating to adverse selection, so that offering health insurance would not be profitable. The success of Blue Cross and Blue Shield showed just how easily adverse selection problems could be overcome: by focusing on providing health insurance only to groups of employed workers. This would allow commercial insurance companies to avoid adverse selection because they would insure relatively young, healthy people who did not individually seek health insurance. After viewing the success of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, commercial health insurance companies began to move rapidly into the health insurance market. As shown in Figure 1, the market for health insurance exploded in size in the 1940s, growing from a total enrollment of 20,662,000 in 1940 to nearly 142,334,000 in 1950 (Health Insurance Institute 1961, Source Book, p. 10). As the Superintendent of Insurance in New York, Louis H. Pink, noted in 1939

If so, explain the problem.

The_Patriot · Oct 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
You mean this:

Blue Cross and Blue Shield were first to enter the health insurance market because commercial insurance companies were reluctant to even offer health insurance early in the century. As previously mentioned, they feared that they would not be able to overcome problems relating to adverse selection, so that offering health insurance would not be profitable. The success of Blue Cross and Blue Shield showed just how easily adverse selection problems could be overcome: by focusing on providing health insurance only to groups of employed workers. This would allow commercial insurance companies to avoid adverse selection because they would insure relatively young, healthy people who did not individually seek health insurance. After viewing the success of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, commercial health insurance companies began to move rapidly into the health insurance market. As shown in Figure 1, the market for health insurance exploded in size in the 1940s, growing from a total enrollment of 20,662,000 in 1940 to nearly 142,334,000 in 1950 (Health Insurance Institute 1961, Source Book, p. 10). As the Superintendent of Insurance in New York, Louis H. Pink, noted in 1939

If so, explain the problem.

The part you keep skipping over is the government's 90% income tax rate which forced employers to offer a tax-free compensation alternative in the form of health insurance.

Boo Radley · Oct 7, 2010

The_Patriot said:
The part you keep skipping over is the government's 90% income tax rate which forced employers to offer a tax-free compensation alternative in the form of health insurance.

I've read the entire thing. Quote the part you are refering to and explan the problem.

The_Patriot · Oct 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
I've read the entire thing. Quote the part you are refering to and explan the problem.

From the first link.

Private insurers accelerated these efforts in the 1940s when businesses, seeking ways to get around wartime wage controls, began to compete for labor by offering health insurance. If government regulators had thought to freeze fringe benefits along with wages, we might have avoided making the workplace primarily responsible for supplying health insurance, a role that most people now agree was ill-advised. Instead, the government jumped on the bandwagon by exempting from the income tax company expenses associated with health care.

Second link.

Offering insurance policies to employee groups not only benefited insurers, but also benefited employers. During World War II, wage and price controls prevented employers from using wages to compete for scarce labor. Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers.

Third link.

Employee benefit plans proliferated in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Strong unions bargained for better benefit packages, including tax-free, employer-sponsored health insurance. Wartime (1939-1945) wage freezes imposed by the government actually accelerated the spread of group health care. Unable by law to attract workers by paying more, employers instead improved their benefit packages, adding health care.

Before 1940, health insurance was limited to Blue Cross/Blue Shield non-profit organizations. It was a single payer system where the patient paid the hospital/doctors directly for medical care. Health insurance didn't take off until the government intervened in the workplace by enacting a 90% income tax and wage controls in the 1940's. In order to ensure that workers were taken care of, companies offered health insurance as part of the compensation package because it was tax free. That is what I said when you demanded I produce proof that the problem originated with the government intervening in the workplace.

Boo Radley · Oct 7, 2010

Right it took off. Why do you see this as a problem? Medicine had changed. People could no longer get care at home, and hospitals were not affordable for the mass population. You presented this as a bad thing government did, and I'm still unsure as to why. it is the negative you attach to it that I don't get. Would we have been better off, as we were before these efforts, having advanced care only for those who could afford it? Then as now, few could afford advanced care. There is no chance it would have become affordable for all without insurance.

The_Patriot · Oct 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Right it took off. Why do you see this as a problem? Medicine had changed. People could no longer get care at home, and hospitals were not affordable for the mass population. You presented this as a bad thing government did, and I'm still unsure as to why. it is the negative you attach to it that I don't get. Would we have been better off, as we were before these efforts, having advanced care only for those who could afford it? Then as now, few could afford advanced care. There is no chance it would have become affordable for all without insurance.

It's called cause and effect. Prior to government intervention, health care was affordable. After, it's the mess we have now. The solution isn't more government, but less.

Boo Radley · Oct 7, 2010

The_Patriot said:
It's called cause and effect. Prior to government intervention, health care was affordable. After, it's the mess we have now. The solution isn't more government, but less.

No, it wasn't. See, that's why I quoted the first thing I quoted in response. Advances changed that. It couldn't be done at home any more and was not affordable. And the more we advanced, the less affordable it became. The major factor in cost was medical advancement that move care from the home and family doctors, who often traded services from fruits and vegteables (soemthing we won't return to). And these adbancements neccestated more training and education. So the horse doctor could no longer function as our doctor any more. Nor could the local healer. Medicane had changed, and so did the cost. It was never ever going to be affordable for all ever again.

The_Patriot · Oct 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
No, it wasn't. See, that's why I quoted the first thing I quoted in response. Advances changed that. It couldn't be done at home any more and was not affordable. And the more we advanced, the less affordable it became. The major factor in cost was medical advancement that move care from the home and family doctors, who often traded services from fruits and vegteables (soemthing we won't return to). And these adbancements neccestated more training and education. So the horse doctor could no longer function as our doctor any more. Nor could the local healer. Medicane had changed, and so did the cost. It was never ever going to be affordable for all ever again.

First off, the changes within the medical establishment was the result of government interference based off of AMA recommendations. In restricting the amount of doctors that could be enrolled increased the cost for the doctors due to supply and demand. Part of this was the advent of state licensing boards which the state governments required doctors to be licensed. I could go on about this, but early medical care has nothing to do with insurance. When I was a kid, I'm 41 now, you still had the option to pay and health insurance still wasn't to the point where it is now. In any case, the government intervenes in some manner and affects the prices of health care either through expensive licensing, regulations, and FDA approval. The insurance do not play a role in this aspect since this is what the government does. Insurance was created to overcome the problems of the government interfering in health care and the workplace to begin with.

Boo Radley · Oct 7, 2010

The_Patriot said:
First off, the changes within the medical establishment was the result of government interference based off of AMA recommendations. In restricting the amount of doctors that could be enrolled increased the cost for the doctors due to supply and demand. Part of this was the advent of state licensing boards which the state governments required doctors to be licensed. I could go on about this, but early medical care has nothing to do with insurance. When I was a kid, I'm 41 now, you still had the option to pay and health insurance still wasn't to the point where it is now. In any case, the government intervenes in some manner and affects the prices of health care either through expensive licensing, regulations, and FDA approval. The insurance do not play a role in this aspect since this is what the government does. Insurance was created to overcome the problems of the government interfering in health care and the workplace to begin with.

yes, to a degree, but these recommendations were not made in a vaccum. The science and technology have improved. Wealthy people were seeing the fruits of this improvement, and poorer people were not. Quacks were out there, and we could recoginze them better. Public safety was an issue. Again, these were positive moves. We would not be better off if doctors had no standards to meet. We would not be better off if anyone could claim to be a doctor and do anything.

BTW, I turn 52 this month. Spent much of my life without insurance and thus without proper care. As a child I was hospitalzed a few times (blood poisoning, a serious burn, and an ankle fracture in three places). Only had insurance for the last one. Had no money to pay for any of them. But I damn sure am glad those who treated me knew what they were doing, and that someone made sure there was a professional standard.

Look, every problem requires people get together and seek solutions. There is nothing easy about doing this. goivernment is faced witha problem, in this case, public health and safety. This requires they get information and make decisions. Advances had changed the world. And good care was less affordable, and becoming even more expensive the more we learned. So, changes had to be made. They got a report. Considered the options and make the call. I think they got it right. But the factor that led to this was the advances in medicine. With these changes, we'd likely see a larger division between those who have care and those who don't.

The_Patriot · Oct 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
yes, to a degree, but these recommendations were not made in a vaccum. The science and technology have improved. Wealthy people were seeing the fruits of this improvement, and poorer people were not. Quacks were out there, and we could recoginze them better. Public safety was an issue. Again, these were positive moves. We would not be better off if doctors had no standards to meet. We would not be better off if anyone could claim to be a doctor and do anything.

BTW, I turn 52 this month. Spent much of my life without insurance and thus without proper care. As a child I was hospitalzed a few times (blood poisoning, a serious burn, and an ankle fracture in three places). Only had insurance for the last one. Had no money to pay for any of them. But I damn sure am glad those who treated me knew what they were doing, and that someone made sure there was a professional standard.

Look, every problem requires people get together and seek solutions. There is nothing easy about doing this. goivernment is faced witha problem, in this case, public health and safety. This requires they get information and make decisions. Advances had changed the world. And good care was less affordable, and becoming even more expensive the more we learned. So, changes had to be made. They got a report. Considered the options and make the call. I think they got it right. But the factor that led to this was the advances in medicine. With these changes, we'd likely see a larger division between those who have care and those who don't.

The problem with the AMA is that they removed holistic and other forms of treatment that are perfectly valid in their push to make science based medicine the only provider of medical care. They used the government to reach their goals.

Happy early birthday.

Mine was last month. :lol:

I do not see a delegation of power from the states to the federal government for public safety and health. Just like I do not see a delegation of power for the federal government to intervene into the market. I also do not see the authority for the government to make you purchase a service just for being alive.

Boo Radley · Oct 8, 2010

The_Patriot said:
The problem with the AMA is that they removed holistic and other forms of treatment that are perfectly valid in their push to make science based medicine the only provider of medical care. They used the government to reach their goals.

Happy early birthday. Mine was last month. :lol:

I do not see a delegation of power from the states to the federal government for public safety and health. Just like I do not see a delegation of power for the federal government to intervene into the market. I also do not see the authority for the government to make you purchase a service just for being alive.

How valid some of them are is debatable. But if my choice is between a standard that might remove one questionably valid option along with countless clearly not valid options and allowing anything goes, I choose having a standard.

Well, thanks and happy belated birthday to you. :lol:

I think you misread the bill. You're not buying the service just for being alive. You'll buying it to cover when you guess wrong, in order to prevent us from paying for your stupidity. In that sense, it is no different than auto insurance. The purpose is to not have the rest of us pay for the foolishness of others. Now, if you can come up with a way that all or most will accept in which an critically injuryed or ill person would not be treated because they can't pay, then there might be an argument not to have mandatory insurance coverage. While I firmly believe a public option would have served us better than this deal with thte insurance cmpanies, once we removed the that superior option, this really was the best remaining choice.

The_Patriot · Oct 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
How valid some of them are is debatable. But if my choice is between a standard that might remove one questionably valid option along with countless clearly not valid options and allowing anything goes, I choose having a standard.

Well, thanks and happy belated birthday to you. :lol:

I think you misread the bill. You're not buying the service just for being alive. You'll buying it to cover when you guess wrong, in order to prevent us from paying for your stupidity. In that sense, it is no different than auto insurance. The purpose is to not have the rest of us pay for the foolishness of others. Now, if you can come up with a way that all or most will accept in which an critically injuryed or ill person would not be treated because they can't pay, then there might be an argument not to have mandatory insurance coverage. While I firmly believe a public option would have served us better than this deal with thte insurance cmpanies, once we removed the that superior option, this really was the best remaining choice.

Thank ya for the birthday wish.

For failuring to have health insurance the IRS will enforce the fines for not having it. Since this is the IRS, I do not have a lot of faith in them to not prosecute those for failing to pay their taxes under criminal statutes. If you're alive the federal government said that you have to have health insurance just for living here. I see no delegation of power in the Constitution for the government to do this. Also, the health care bill will place an additional burden on the poor by mandating that they spend a minimum of 16% of their annual income for health insurance. These people are living paycheck to paycheck and that 16% will mean many of them will be on welfare which further places a drain on the government.

Boo Radley · Oct 8, 2010

The_Patriot said:
Thank ya for the birthday wish.

For failuring to have health insurance the IRS will enforce the fines for not having it. Since this is the IRS, I do not have a lot of faith in them to not prosecute those for failing to pay their taxes under criminal statutes. If you're alive the federal government said that you have to have health insurance just for living here. I see no delegation of power in the Constitution for the government to do this. Also, the health care bill will place an additional burden on the poor by mandating that they spend a minimum of 16% of their annual income for health insurance. These people are living paycheck to paycheck and that 16% will mean many of them will be on welfare which further places a drain on the government.

no, the being alive spin is just that, spin. The reason is to protect the rest of us. Again, if you can show that a person can be critically injuryed or ill and not be treated when they can't pay, the objection might hold water. But just as an auto vehicle driver can't assure he won't have an accident, we can't assure we won't be critically injuryed or ill. The premise is the same. The only difference being it is easier to aviod driving or owning an auto mobile than it is to avoid being critically injuryed or ill.

The_Patriot · Oct 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
no, the being alive spin is just that, spin. The reason is to protect the rest of us. Again, if you can show that a person can be critically injuryed or ill and not be treated when they can't pay, the objection might hold water. But just as an auto vehicle driver can't assure he won't have an accident, we can't assure we won't be critically injuryed or ill. The premise is the same. The only difference being it is easier to aviod driving or owning an auto mobile than it is to avoid being critically injuryed or ill.

Invalid comparison logical fallacy since car insurance is not health insurance. With car insurance you have a choice to not own a car and not buy insurance. With health insurance you must buy it because you are alive.

Boo Radley · Oct 8, 2010

The_Patriot said:
Invalid comparison logical fallacy since car insurance is not health insurance. With car insurance you have a choice to not own a car and not buy insurance. With health insurance you must buy it because you are alive.

No, not invalid. While there are some minor differences, the premise is the same. Both are mandatory because they want to save those not irresponsible and reckless from paying for the mistakes of those who are irresponsible and reckless. In this respect, they are alike.

And if you read my entire response, you will noticed I mention the difference concerning owning a car:

The premise is the same. The only difference being it is easier to avoid driving or owning an auto mobile than it is to avoid being critically injuryed or ill.

The_Patriot · Oct 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
No, not invalid. While there are some minor differences, the premise is the same. Both are mandatory because they want to save those not irresponsible and reckless from paying for the mistakes of those who are irresponsible and reckless. In this respect, they are alike.

And if you read my entire response, you will noticed I mention the difference concerning owning a car:

Your statement is incorrect since it should read, "The premise is the same. The only difference being it is easier to avoid driving or owning an automobile than it is to being alive and forced to buy health insurance."

Boo Radley · Oct 8, 2010

The_Patriot said:
Your statement is incorrect since it should read, "The premise is the same. The only difference being it is easier to avoid driving or owning an automobile than it is to being alive and forced to buy health insurance."

No, because you don't have to buy because you're alive. That simply isn't the reasoning.

tlmorg02 · Oct 8, 2010

The_Patriot said:
Your statement is incorrect since it should read, "The premise is the same. The only difference being it is easier to avoid driving or owning an automobile than it is to being alive and forced to buy health insurance."

Doctors are forced to provide assistance to people regardless of whether they have insurance. That is one of the reasons healthcare costs are increasing, people use the ER as a general practitioners office due to lack of insurance. Thus, is it not fair to somewhat protect these doctors and require people to buy even some minimal amount of coverage to insure that doctors are compensated something for their work?