November 8, 2010 at 6:00 pm in INFORUM
Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota has trimmed 13 percent of its payroll by laying off 63 employees and not filling 57 vacancies as part of a cost-cutting strategy.
Tags: BCBS, blue cross blue shield, blues, Business, cuts, Employment, job cuts, North Dakota 79 Comments »
If you take away Vonebers $500,000 bonus, plus Tim Huckleâ€™s $250,000 bonus, and Mark Tchsiderâ€™s $125,000 bonus, you could keep 21 of those workers @ $40,000/yr. How many more VPs are there? Enough to keep all 63 workers Iâ€™m sure. By the way, shouldnâ€™t all those VPs be reprimanded for hiring too many workers in the first place? But now they will get an even bigger bonus for creating the illusion that they are cutting costs.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 79 21
Mostly looks like thsoe VPs are incompetent bunglers…might be a good time to switch our company to medica
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 35 12
I’d like to see proof that those people got those bonuses in the numbers you state. VonEbers hasn’t even been with the company that long to get a bonus like that.
Like or Dislike: 11 13
It was in the Forum a while back. I’m assuming Vonebers gets the same as the previous guy or he possibly negotiated even more.
Like or Dislike: 4 5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
How’s that Obama care working out for you?
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 39 51
Actually Obamacare doesnâ€™t go far enough. What we really need is a single payer system. A single payer system is the only system that would allow us to negotiate better health care prices. Insurance is a complete waste of health care dollars. No value added to health care. Our health care dollars should be spent on health care not insurance. With a single payer system only one claimâ€™s processor would be needed and we could get rid of all the health insurance companies. The health insurance industry has effectively eliminated the need for providers to compete. Therefore, if the providers donâ€™t/wonâ€™t compete, then we need a way to negotiate better prices. A single payer system is the only way to do that.
By the way, if Obamacare has caused BC to cut costs, isnâ€™t that a good thing? Please post your solution to the health care crisis.
Hot debate. What do you think? 40 35
“Single payer system” is just a code phrase for health care rationing. Nawnaw and Papaw will be the first to go!(:^(
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 23 45
Over 60% of all health care expenditures already go through a single payer system in the US. Why not the remaining 40%? Nawnaw and Pawpa are the ones being saved by that single payer system. I donâ€™t see any rationing going on. Ask those millions of people who canâ€™t afford health care about rationing.
Please post a solution. You are all BS but no solutions.
Hot debate. What do you think? 28 19
The the solution is in the free market; check the cost history of Lasik surgery.
Like or Dislike: 10 15
Lasik is an elective procedure that people will shop around for, and yes, competition has brought prices down. Non-elective services are different and price competition will mean nothing.
If you child has cancer, will you look for the cheapest treatment or will you say, “get me the best doctors whatever it costs!”
Like or Dislike: 17 3
Unfortunately, if single payer takes over in society, your child having cancer will then have the government decide what treatments and how much is spent, you may not even be told by the Doc if there is something available because they have been incentivized to keep their individial billing costs down, by being given bonuses to be stingy with care.
Ask a socialized medicine country’s residents how much they are limited to and what treatments or meds are OFF the list of approved care plans. People are being denied treatments that prove effective here in America, but are costly and therefore, NOT approved by their government controlled healthcare.
Anytime someone comes with the “cost-benefit analysis” line, be prepared to be told NO. they may or may not say “sorry”. It’s unfortunate but a sad reality that other countries already live.
In England, women give birth in hallways, elevators, and taxi cabs because there is a severe shortage of midwifes and maternity wards to handle the patient care load.
I can’t imaging a single American woman accepting (too full/no Doc) as an excuse to give birth, laying on a gurney in the hospital hall. I can only see a future trainwreck…government enters the “medical field”, then is forced(by budget)to systematically slash certain treatments or meds, using one’s age or some such factor as a part of the care equation that would be the LIFE of an individual.
Can you smell lawsuit? Something as trivial as forcing the pledge of allegence has gotten some entities into hot water. People get their hackles up over a few lines…but appear to ignore the potential rise in civil rights suits that lurks just below the surface of this horrible example of legislation, crammed thru without being read.
Can you imagine how HOT someone would be if they(or a loved one) are denied treatment because of a government controlled analysis that involves their AGE, physical ability, or mental capacity?
Like or Dislike: 15 9
Kevin – Maybe you can afford a $200,000 surgery out of pocket (all at onec) but your mama an papa can’t.
Like or Dislike: 10 10
Rieka – Health Care Lobbyist money well spent on you. None of what you have said is happening to people on Medicare.
Like or Dislike: 8 8
Until you have dealt with North Dakota MA, or just MA in general, I think you would re-state your opinion. I have fought time and time again for services for my child (and I have BCBS as my primary, and ND MA as my secondary). A single payer system, IMO, is NOT the way to go. Competition, and open competition, would be a good thing – allow for BCBS of ND to compete easier. That would lower rates, and lower costs. While we would have some consolidation, it would also allow for the stronger, and better managed companies to thrive and lower our rates. How does a single payer system allow for competition? It doesn’t. It also doesn’t easily allow for appeals in the event of something is denied.
If you go for single payer system, health care rationing will take place. There’s no doubt about that. Allowing for competition also allows for the hospitals to continue their research efforts into curing things such as cancer, AIDS, lupus, and other degenerative diseases. This is a good thing. Without the research funding or costs, then we will suffer a setback in medical technology and advancement that will harm us all.
Hot debate. What do you think? 24 20
Explain how allowing competition amongst insurance companies would happen if the providers donâ€™t compete on prices? If all the providers in ND charge $100 for a visit, then it doesnâ€™t matter how many insurance companies try to compete in ND, all those insurance companies would have to charge you $100 plus their administrative costs in premiums.
Iâ€™m all for competition, but it has to be on the provider side. And since we donâ€™t have that (because of insurance), then we need a way to negotiate better health care prices. And a single payer will be the only way to do that.
Explain how you would legislate provider competition on prices.
Hot debate. What do you think? 16 17
Mandate High Deductible Health Plans. This forces people to pay more upfront actual costs for care in return for lower premiums and still provides a safety net for catastrophes. And when people are paying out of their own pocket, they will care about prices, thus forcing competition.
Like or Dislike: 7 12
Most people alreay have high deductible health plans. Where’s the competition?
Like or Dislike: 5 11
No, most people do not have HDHPs. In fact, only 13% do.
I’m not sure why you keep trying to shoot down others when you keep basing your discussion points on assumptions, generalizations, and outright lies.
Like or Dislike: 7 10
So getting people to not go to the doctor until it’s possibly too late is your solution. Not a very good health care system if you ask me. Providers will still band together to set the prices to what they want them to be. Shouldn’t we have the same option?
Like or Dislike: 7 6
Oh I see. It’s all a big price-fixing conspiracy and only the government can stop that. Regardless of the argument you have made previously about lasik.
It’s impossible to have meaningful discussions with people like you.
Like or Dislike: 6 5
So how do you propose we legislate provider competition?
Since you don’t think there is any price fixing, then how come there isn’t price competition already? Why would all of a sudden a HDHP change that? It hasn’t and it wouldn’t.
No, the single payer system could negotiate the prices since providers will never compete.
What if the single payer was not the government? What if it was BCBSND? Is the word “government” the word that scares you.
Why do you pay money into the BCBSND PAC? It’s to protect BCBSND. Billions of dollars spent on Health Cartel lobbyists proves I’m more correct than you. Otherwise it wouldn’t cost BCBSND a penny for lobbyists.
Like or Dislike: 5 7
HDHPs would work based on the same capitalistic principles that drive every other aspect of our economy. Not that difficult to understand. Obviously it isn’t going to work overnight when only 13% of employer groups are on them right now (up from just 8% last year).
And sorry, BCBSND does not spend billions of dollars on any lobbyists, nor have I ever contributed anything to any PAC. But sadly lobbyists are needed to set people like you straight on the facts.
The only thing you are right about is that a sigle payer system would be administered by private companies just as Medicare is today. You have stated in previous discussions though that isn’t acceptable to you, so I’m not sure why you are bringing it up again.
Like or Dislike: 5 4
Capitalist principles require that the providers compete on prices. Providers would already be competing regardless of a HDHP or not. But they are not. That’s not too hard to understand for you is it?
“Raise their deductible, that should curb costs!” is what insurance companies have been touting for 25 years (not just recently). Raising deductible hasn’t caused providers to compete at all. So what would be different with a HDHP. Nothing. That’s not too hard to understand for you is it?
A single payer system IS acceptable to me. That single payer system wouldn’t have to be run by private companies.
Billions of dollars have been spent by the Health Care Cartels (of which BCBSND is part) to brainwash people like you. All they have to say in an ad is the word “government” and it gets people like you all uptight. Money well spent on you.
Like or Dislike: 4 6
I’m guessing you don’t know what a HDHP actually is. There is a big difference between a co-pay going from $10 to $20 and making people pay FULL costs up to $5000 out of their pocket.
You can’t claim that Lasik prices have come down due to competition and then in the next discussion tell us that HDHPs would do nothing to curb costs. Unless, of course, you don’t understand what you are talking about.
Interesting how you claim it is a big cartel conspiring to brainwash us yet down below you tell others they are the ones with the tinfoil hats.
Like or Dislike: 2 3
Yea! Put the government in charge of healthcare. That will reduce cost and increase quality and access at the same time. That works every time! Can’t see how that could possibly go wrong.
Hot debate. What do you think? 26 20
It does work. Ask your older relatives how they would get coverage without Medicare. Over 60% of all health care expenditures already go through Medicare.
Post your solution.
Hot debate. What do you think? 24 14
Medicare is funded by people who do not receive service from the program. Also, it is going bankrupt – ie. even subsidized, it cannot stay solvent. I would assume if insurance companies/hospitals were able to force people who do not use their services to pay for others who do, they may be able to deliver care to those who are allowed in the program.
My solution is this – allow people to buy the level of insurance they desire – no mandates for phsych care, chiropractic, preventatitve care, drugs, office visits, etc. If someone wants a bare bones policy, let them buy one. If someone wants one with all the bells and whistles, let them buy that too. Make insurance deductible for the individual. Put people in charge of their health care expenditures and usage will go down, along with costs.
Like or Dislike: 9 8
Tommy – Medicare is funded for YOU when you get older. And YOU will need it because YOU wonâ€™t have any other options. Medicare should be for all citizens (and we could use the money we are currently overpaying for services to pay for Medicare for all). Medicare is only under funded right now because the Medicare rates (withholding rates) havenâ€™t gone up since 1989(?). When was the last time your insurance rates went up? Yesterday and the day before that too probably?
Your solution already exists. Itâ€™s not a solution because it already exists and it does not work. It does not prevent providers from charging what they want for services. Because if â€œusage goes downâ€ then â€œprices must go upâ€ to keep those providers â€œin the moneyâ€.
Like or Dislike: 10 11
I believe you are highly misinformed as to the sources of funding for Medicare and MA, and even how it works, and how the appeals processes work. The costs of those on Medicare is SUBSIDIZED by those of us who are not on it. For example, let’s say a child is in the NICU for 6 months, and through some weird miracle they have the exact same issues, etc. The parents of the child who have BCBS will have insurance pay out over $1,250,000. During that exact same timeframe, MA will pay out $250,000. Same level of care, but the money that MA pays out does not even compare to the amount that BCBS would pay out. Why? Because that is what MA states they will pay. That’s it. The person with insurance (in this case, BCBS) pays out over $1.2 Million. What is wrong with this scenario you ask? The costs paid out by MA does not even come close to covering the actual costs the hospitals endure. The person with insurance is subsidizing the person without. That is exactly what is happening with Medicare and MA – doctors and hospitals are losing money on Medicare and MA patients! This is part of the reason why health care costs are so high. MA is not just some magic tree that produces money and butterflies and honey, and forcing everyone to be on gov’t cheese/healthcare only lowers quality of care for everyone.
Like or Dislike: 15 6
Yes – Medicare is funded just like Social Security is funded, working people fund the programs for the non-working, so when you are done working, the workers of that day will fund your program. The problem with that ponzi scheme is that people are living longer, there are less workers per non-worker, the government is not ‘saving’ the extra payments (they are spending it), and they are not collecting enough from the current workers to fund the programs. Also, the reason I have to rely on Medicare when I get older (which is not true), is that Medicare, being subsidized by the government (ie. taxpayers) can undercut all other insurance providers – which is exactly what they are trying to do with the ‘single payer’ scheme.
My solution does not exist – you cannot buy a bare bones policy that is not loaded down with state mandates and insurance is not deductible for the individual. Just because you say it is so, does not make it so. You cannot change facts by just saying they don’t exist. Also, you cannot change the laws of economics – ‘if something is in less demand, its costs will go up because the provider of the service needs to make his money’ – goes 180 degrees opposite of the laws of economics. It is a falsehood. Unlike you, that is not my opinion, that is fact.
Like or Dislike: 8 6
I am fully aware of how Medicare works and how itâ€™s funded. The problem in your scenario is the outrageous price the Hospital charges for the care to begin with. Not with who subsidizes whom. If everyone were on Medicare then everyone would subsidize everyone else. Just like now in the private system. You pay for my healthcare already and I pay for yours. If everyone was on Medicare, then we would all get the same â€œnegotiated/bestâ€ price for services. That is unless the providers would actually start to compete. And then they could charge less if they would want to. Doctors and Hospitals are not losing any money from Medicare patients. Thatâ€™s lobbyist BS (See below). Medicare is the only thing keeping Doctors going in the remote parts of the state.
Whatâ€™s your solution then?
Like or Dislike: 7 14
Again, you just ignore facts and say the don’t exist. You say you know how Medicare works, and then you show you don’t. Medicare pays less than the going rate for many services. Currently, providers either pass the costs on to others (those with private insurance) or just refuse or limit their Medicare patients. To say that the government coming in and telling everyone what they will charge will have no affect on the quantity and quality of service is just insane. Houses cost a lot also. Do you think if the governement came in and said no house can cost more than $100,000, you would get the same quality and selection of houses you have today? I know you will say my facts don’t exist, but, sadly, they do.
You keep asking for my solution, I give it, and you express your opinion as fact. My response is not ‘What is your solution’, mine is ‘Your solution sucks’.
Like or Dislike: 11 7
Tommy – A single payer system is a ponzi scheme? Really? Faux News? If we all were on Medicare we would ALL benefit from the ability to negotiate better health care prices with a single unified voice.
Your solution does exist. You can buy Major Medical insurance and have high deductibles to lower your costs. Just what do you think your bare bones coverage would do for you if you ever got sick? Our country makes itâ€™s citizens declare bankruptcy because they cannot afford health care. Just like youâ€™d have to do if you get sick and your bare bones policy didnâ€™t cover your illness. Or maybe we could subsidize our excellent private health care system with yet â€œAnother Pancake Feedâ€ or â€œSilent Auctionâ€ to cover the costs of your health care. Should I fire up the griddle again.
Itâ€™s not just ME that says a single payer system would be better than our current system. Itâ€™s also the health care PROVIDERS themselves. The Health Care Cartels (thatâ€™s lobbyists for insurance companies, health care providers, drug companies, etc.) have spent BILLIONS of dollars to â€œeducateâ€ (i.e. brainwash) people like you against a single payer system. The Health Care cartels know that a single payer system could control the costs better. The whole reason for lobbyists is to make money for the people spending the money on lobbyists. They wouldnâ€™t need to spend a single penny if I were wrong.
I wonder how many of those laid off people contributed to BCBSNDâ€™s PAC? What a waste of money for them if they did. A lesson for the rest of you still stuck at BC.
Like or Dislike: 9 13
Tommy – How does having some ability to negotiate better health care prices “Suck” as you say?
Like or Dislike: 6 10
A single payer does not ‘negotiate’, they ‘dictate’. When they start dictating pricing, quality and availability go down. If your idea worked, we could just institute governmental price controls on anything we deem ‘expensive’ and the problem is solved – we get the same product for less, no affect on the product or the market.
Like or Dislike: 12 6
It doesn’t “dictate” price controls any more than your already readily available solution. Which hasn’t worked.
Like or Dislike: 2 6
“For example, the company is looking into ways customers can help themselves by using automated systems and consolidating its calling centers, she said.
The company is also investing in areas of critical importance, such as $2.5 million in initiatives to reduce claims, including those to curb medical costs by better managing chronic and rare diseases.”
So, now we get to try to get our coverage from an automated phone call? I also fail to see how this situation is any better than the government getting in between patient and doctor.
Like or Dislike: 16 12
Finally the forum has a real Poll question, instead of questions like “How many pieces of toast do you toast for breakfast?”
It things are so bad they have to lay off 63 people, I wonder how much the management bonuses for doing a good job were cut? I also wonder with their salaries and bonuses, how they can keep their “Overhead” to 7%? Hmmmmm…
Oh, you mean that does not count toward their overhead?
Hot debate. What do you think? 17 13
Put the government in charge of health care? they can’t even make a ham sandwich,
Hot debate. What do you think? 20 22
You are or will be on Medicare. And you will like it because you will have no other option.
How is putting the government (just people) in charge of health care any different than putting your employer, or your evil HR director, or the health insurance overpaid VPs, any different? Iâ€™d rather have the government in charge of health care than Vonebers, Tim Huckle, or Mark Tschider.
Like or Dislike: 14 10
Medicare is bankrupt.
Like or Dislike: 4 9
That’s because it’s underfunded because the withholding rates haven’t been raised since 1989(?). When were your rates raised. Today. And the day before that.
So your plan is to turn your mama and papa into Soylent Green?
Like or Dislike: 5 6
By the time obama is through, no one will have a job anywhere.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 20 32
What’s your solution?
Like or Dislike: 11 11
Move to Canada.
Like or Dislike: 6 9
I’ll move to Canada if that would fix the US Health Care system.
Another no solution poster.
Like or Dislike: 9 11
yhnbgt, Your solution is to cut down three big shots that made under one million in bonuses. Your math on your first post is a joke and is off by millions. Then your solution is a government controlled system because you say so. What a joke.
Like or Dislike: 13 10
Chins – $875,000/40000=21.875. So yes, when I said 21 workers, I really meant to say 21.875. Thanks for catching that. BTW – How is that off by millions?
Also, itâ€™s not just me that says a single payer system would be the way to go. Do you realize that the Health Care Cartels (thatâ€™s lobbyists for insurance companies, health care providers, drug companies, etc.) have spent BILLIONS of dollars to â€œeducateâ€ (i.e. brainwash) people like you against a single payer system. Therefore, the providers themselves actually AGREE with me that a single payer system would be a way to control costs. Otherwise they wouldnâ€™t have needed to spend a single penny. But then again, you wonâ€™t understand this post. Lobbyist money well spent I guess.
Post your solution please.
yhnbgt, It costs about 1.7 times what the persons salary is to come up with a true cost (any business owner please correct me-it is probably much higher). So, yes, your math is a joke. If you took their bonuses at 875k, you could save 13 jobs. They probably were paid bonuses for saving multi millions.
I am very happy with my insurance and do not want it messed with by the government. The lions share of people are happy with their insurance and realize they need to pay for it and do not expect someone else to pay for it. Yes, money well spent for the best health care in the world.
Like or Dislike: 8 9
Chins – I was using $40,000/yr as a total employee cost not just salary. That still doesn’t come out to millions that I was wrong. The “jokes” on you. And those VPs were not paid their bonuses for saving multi-millions of dollars. Another “joke”? By the way – We do not have the best health care in the world. Look it up.
Like or Dislike: 7 11
Their cost cutting of the 60 plus jobs was saving over $3,000,000. You mathis off by over $2,225,000. That is millions my friend! Why were they paid the bonuses then?? They saved or generated revenue. A single payer system will not be close to our quality. No county with a large population has anything close to us.
Like or Dislike: 9 7
My math was spot on. Get over it already.
No country with a large population WANTS anything close to us. That’s the whole point.
60,000,000 people were without health insurance at one time within the last year. Is that acceptable to your “class” of people. It’s not acceptable to me.
Like or Dislike: 3 5
Your math is off by 70% and millions on a three million doller issue. You are not right about your math if you just repeat it again and again.
So again, which country is it that WANTS our health care system?
And 60,000,000 people without insurance at some point in a year is an acceptable number for you? It’s unacceptable to me.
Like or Dislike: 2 4
Glad you are over defending your math errors! Every country wants our quality. That is why many world leaders and others come here for the best care in the world. Why do you think a government system for 300,000,000 would be better. I want everyone covered in some fashion and they today cannot be denied care. It can be improved but don’t bring the quality down for people that pay for it.
Like or Dislike: 1 2
No they don’t want our quality. Look it up.
Why would a single payer system be better? For the nth time (are you sure you are not a BCBSND executive?). We could use our health care dollars for health care not insurance (insurance provides no value added to health care). And we would have a way to negotiate better health care prices. How would a single payer system bring down quality any more than a HDHP (that Pete suggests would cause competition but it hasn’t and won’t)?
Why don’t you look up how much our current health care system already costs? And that’s with 60,000,000 without insurance at some point in the year.
Like or Dislike: 1 6
Chins – Are you a BCBSND executive?
Like or Dislike: 6 12
No I not a BC exec, just a working bum, but you need it quit the diversion and class warfare crap. You need to quit hating the businesses and industries that make this country strong and pay the bills and start questioning the government that has their boot on the neck of the job creators. Do you still believe that a government run healthcare system or Obamacare will reduce the debt??
Like or Dislike: 12 10
How is saving money via a single payer system against “business”?
Obamacare will not reduce the debt. A single payer system would be easier and cheaper to implement than Obamacare. The mechanism is already in place.
60,000,000 people in the US were without health insurance at one time during the year (you can probably add those 63 that were just laid off too). I guess that’s an acceptable number for your “class” of people. That’s not very “classy”. That number is unacceptable to me.
The system needs to be corrected and fixed but again most people are happy with there care and insurance. Solutions: 1) Tort reform will reduce unneccesary care and tests that account for up to 20% of all costs 2)health savings accounts like mini 401k’s that (started at 21 years old and employer matching) would have around an average of $1,000,000 at retirement and would cover your heath care and nursing home care. 3) Heathcare insurance vouchers to low income families 4) Cover the others that can’t afford it. 5) Insurance across state lines. There are tons of solutions that all up to real change but the government will not allow common sense solutions.
Like or Dislike: 6 1
How does that make providers compete?
Like or Dislike: 1 4
Have quick clinics that you sign your rights away to sue when you have something simple like poison ivy. I had it this summer and the had me fill out a ton of forms, weigh me, blood pressure, heart beat and all of the crap and it costs $400 at a walk in clinic. The cost could be $25.00 for them to see it is poison ivy and get the cream to get rid of it. Eye clinics run specials, they could do the same. The example of eye surgery and the price is down 75%.
Like or Dislike: 2 1
Tort reform wouldn’t save much of total health care costs. And I agree, we should go after whatever it would save. However, there’s no way the providers are going to pass their savings to the customers. They don’t have to because they aren’t competing. We already have quick clinics but they don’t compete on prices either.
Good luck in getting any providers for your clinic. They wouldn’t even let you look into the window for $25.
Like or Dislike: 1 3
If you don’t like using BCBS you can just switch to another company to get your insurance, or you could use your own tax free healthcare savings account to save up money to pay for your care…oh nevermind I forgot allowing people to take control of their lives and freemarket competition was not part of Obama care.
Explain how there is free market competition when the providers won’t compete on prices?
Like or Dislike: 9 12
The provider won’t compete on prices because they don’t have to. The consumer of healthcare is insulated from it’s cost. If your car insurance paid for oil changes with only a $5 copay, would you care how much the insurance company was actually getting charged for the oil change? No. That is what is happening in the healthcare market. As Raven explained, the solution is getting the consumer back into the market and allowing them to choose and control costs. But, as per your norm, you dismiss anything that doesn’t follow your ‘government needs to control costs’ line of thinking.
Like or Dislike: 18 4
Well said Tommy! Also, the state governments continue to add more and more things that insurance needs to cover like Viagra, smoking programs.
Like or Dislike: 14 6
Providers donâ€™t compete on prices because they donâ€™t have to because of INSURANCE period. Your solution is to make deductibles so high and cover nothing so that people donâ€™t use health care until itâ€™s possibly too late. Not a very good health care system if you ask me. That still doesnâ€™t prevent the remaining providers to band together and set prices to what they want them to be. If the providers can get together and set prices, shouldnâ€™t we also be able to do the same thing?
What if the single payer wasnâ€™t a government agency? What if it was BCBSND? Is the word â€œgovernmentâ€ the word that gets to you? Billions of Health Care Lobbyist dollars well spent on you.
Like or Dislike: 3 6
I agree – providers don’t compete because of insurance. They negotiate their price with the insurance companies – my contention is that the consumer is insulated from the price via insurance. Put the consomer in control (ie. have them more responsible for the final cost of medical care) and prices will go down. Your point about high deductibles is exactly the thinking that got us into this high priced medical care environment. YES – make deductibles high and the consumer will pay LESS for insurance and MORE of the direct cost of medical care. In that case, they will choose to not use as much medical care and shop around for the best price when they do. Your comment about single payer seems to go against all your other comments/thoughts – you believe the providers have a monopoly on care and conspire to keep prices high, however, you think setting up a monopoly on the insurance side will drive prices down. Don’t you think the insurance monopoly will have no incentive to bring prices down and the cycle or price increases will only accelerate?
Deductibles, coinsurance, and copays, have all been increasing for 25 years. Tell me at what point will providers start to compete? They haven’t started to compete yet. They never will even if we raise the deductible so only the rich can afford health care. That’s why we need a single payer system. The only system that will allow us to negotiate the prices.
Like or Dislike: 2 5
They will start to compete when doctor visits and drugs are paid out-of-pocket. Then people will start to realize that an office visit isn’t $20, it is $150. They will then either decide not to go or shop around to see if they can get a doctor visit for $120 somewhere else.
Like or Dislike: 3 3
More stress and more work for the current employee’s. If you have no degree in Fargo you won’t get a job, if you get a job you are lucky, hope that it covers Health Care. If your age is 40 and above, good luck in getting hired also, thank you Luther Social Service’s for bringing in so many refugee’s and the press for broadcasting that the unemployment in Fargo and ND is the lowest in the Nation, not! Is there any proof that BCBS hired a new Executive as previously posted or was this just rambling.
Like or Dislike: 12 2
You people are losing sight of the original topic. This is not all about BCBSND. It is also about Noridian as a company staying competitive in the Medicare contracting business and that was a main driving factor in this. For the record, FOUR executive positions have been dropped or are about to be dropped in the past year at Noridian Administrative Services. And these savings won’t have any noticeable impact at all on BCBS premiums.
Please learn at least a couple facts before ranting about things you know nothing about other than what some windbag told you on a talk show. 63 people are out of work in this town and that is not anything to gloat about or make fun of.
Perhaps instead you should start asking The Forum why they don’t provide the same kind of negative coverage for Sanford and why Adam Hamm has yet to launch a politically-motivated attack against them, even as they spend HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in unnecessary expenditures.
Like or Dislike: 12 5
Pete must be a Noridian employee as am I. He is dead on with his assessments. People have been posting with rabid jealousy about NAS and BCBSND ever since the idiot Patrick Springer began writing his biased stories and the ultra idiot Ed Schultz was broadcasting mis-information and whipping up a feeding frenzy. People are so jealous if anyone has something they don’t. Its pathetic and disgusting. If you don’t like your job and think NAS or BCBS is a better place to work then try to get hired there. For the record they are not only shedding jobs, but benefits and perks as well. I only wish MU were still at the helm, things would be so much better.
Like or Dislike: 7 7
Pete and Marty, Please don’t confuse people like yhnbgt with the true and the facts!! It is easier for them to hate people when they can have a made up villian.
Like or Dislike: 5 3
And please give Chins a math lesson.
And how do I “hate” people. I’m the only one here that wants to cover “all” people. How is that “hating people”?
Like or Dislike: 3 9
You seem to hate anyone that MAY earn more than you, you hate profit, you hate everyone that is somehow screwing. But you seem to love and trust the government.
The government is only people. You can take off your tin foil hat now. If a single payer system allows “we the people” (that would be government to you) to have a say in better health care prices, then yes, I trust the people.
Are you saying you don’t like our government? Maybe you should move to Canada sarcasmoff/
Like or Dislike: 2 10
You wanted solutions throughout your post and responded only to tort reform. To then claim the saving would not be passed on. What profit margin is fair in you mind? Is 4% too much?
Like or Dislike: 8 1
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company