After UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty’s appearances at two congressional committee hearings last week, I had planned to write a story about what the lawmakers had to say.
I watched the testimony of "Sir" Andrew Witty's appearance before the Senate Finance Committee. This man refused to take any responsibility for the incredible hack incident that occurred at UHC, and in fact waited more than 60 days before reporting it to potential affected patients, in violation of the law.
It is clear to me that Medicare Advantage is a rip-off for Seniors Citizens in the USA, and it is time to dismantle Medicare (dis)Advantage Policies and allow policy holders to revert back to, or sign up for Traditional Medicare policies without penalization such as the discriminatory method of unilaterally excluding preexisting conditions, which frankly is an inhumane and a barbaric practice that MUST be banned. All patients should receive care equally, whether they are rich or poor or middle-class. The days of exploitative Capitalism in health care must be banned. Witty as UHC CEO ought to be fired for purposeful incompetence in handling this hacking debacle.
Finally, it is time to vote out Members of the US Senate, particularly those who had previously met with Mr. Witty prior to this committee meeting, and refused to use their time to insist on radical changes, but were syncopates currying favors with the greedy Corporate CEO. Shame on those Members of the US Senate who are NOT focused on representing their real constituents, but only their special interest lobbies for re-election funds. A large number of those US Senators have taken huge contributions from United Health Care for their re-elections. This is corruption of the worst sort that must be prohibited as well. Term limits and strict ethics must replace these corrupt politicians who lack any moral compass to do the work of the American People they supposedly represent.
To the Members of the US Senate. Why has it taken more than 2 years for you to realize that Medicare (dis)Advantage is denying and delaying healthcare to Senior Citizens, and on top of that has been spending 22% more supposedly on Senior Care than Traditional Medicare pays out. Why has this been a shock to you if politicians were actually listening to their constituents? To me this is a systemic problem, where politicians are more concerned with their own advancement and personal wealth than the business of Representing constituents. I think at least half of the Members of the Senate Finance Committee are not even interested in fixing these systemic corruption issues because many are on the take and any serious investigation would expose these politicians as corrupt and crooked. It is way past the time for draining the swamp that is primarily in the GOP, though admittedly there are those US Senators who are Democrats in name only who are not living up to the expectations that we voters are demanding from our Public Servants.
Yep, may daughter is being forced by the corporate general medical practice to undergo a $500 medical test that she does not need. She was told either she has the procedure done or she will be dropped from the practice. Her doctor keeps telling her that she really doesn't need the medical test, but it is really the corporate medical practice that is requiring it for liability and/or the money. She has a $1500 deductible that must be met before her medical insurance company will pay out. My daughter is a healthy thirty-five year old female, and she is a victim of our "great" American healthcare system.
No one should undergo unneeded medical testing or procedures, and I say this as a licensed physician. Your daughter should change medical practices if your statements are true at face value. She should at least seek a second opinion if there is doubt. At the end of the day, the risk she assumes can be documented if she is decisional regarding her body and her health care.
Why is it that everyone thinks everyone but himself is "greedy". Self-interest is controlled by market forces which balances off everyone's looking after himself. The medical insurance problem is that federal tax policy favors employer provided medical "insurance", which isn't insurance at all, but simply pre-paid medical care that covers everything. Imagine what homeowner's insurance would be like if someone was paying the premium for you and it covered everything that went wrong in your house. Here's what would fix the "greedy" medical insurance company problem. Your employer pays you a higher salary instead of medical benefits. You buy your own medical insurance and insurers complete for your business by offering the best deals they can consistent with staying in business.
You would pay more for insurance buying it on your own than going with the company policy, especially if it is a large company. And the people that go without insurance run the risk of breaking an arm or needing a hernia fixed (which are not typically emergent surgeries), and not being able to get the outpatient surgeries due to upfront costs. The issue to me is that medical insurance for this country should be more fixed prices and not whatever the large insurance companies want to make you pay and then fight you for every dollar spent of it.
1. Absent the tax incentivization by the feds for employer purchased insurance there would be many opportunities for lower cost group purchase, such as social organizations, etc, or even through employer if he wished to set one up. In this case one would have a group savings but would pay individually. This would have a great many advantages. The insurance purchased by an individual would be like other insurance, covering only high-cost unexpected events and would have markedly lower premiums as well as no interference from the insurance company except for covered items. The type of insurance purchased would be suited to the individual needs rather than that selected by the employer. The problem of "job lock" to medical coverage would be ameliorated.
2. Employer based medical insurance is of course factored into the employee compensation by the employer. This compensation could be in the form of salary rather than wasteful unnecessarily high-cost medical insurance which covers even small items such as routine lab tests. This type of "insurance" that covers everything is doubly expensive since insurance company administrative costs are built into all transactions and market forces are interfered with so that no providers compete on price for the patient's business.
3. I am not advocating against insurance for higher cost items such as you describe. People would buy it such as they do for their cars and homes. I am also not against government help for those who cannot help themselves. However, in a real medical market, items such as outpatient surgery would be much more affordable. This is well demonstrated in the few scattered surgery centers around the country who do not accept insurance but instead are paid directly by patients. One such center is the Surgery Center of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City where they advertise their prices for a host of out-patient surgery procedures such as those you describe. This center has an excellent medical reputation, and its prices are markedly lower that those charged in local surrounding hospitals. In fact most of their surgeons work in both places.
It’s all performative, nothing more. Wake me when citizen’s united is done away with and politicians can no longer accept money from corporations or buy/own stock while in office.
I watched the testimony of "Sir" Andrew Witty's appearance before the Senate Finance Committee. This man refused to take any responsibility for the incredible hack incident that occurred at UHC, and in fact waited more than 60 days before reporting it to potential affected patients, in violation of the law.
It is clear to me that Medicare Advantage is a rip-off for Seniors Citizens in the USA, and it is time to dismantle Medicare (dis)Advantage Policies and allow policy holders to revert back to, or sign up for Traditional Medicare policies without penalization such as the discriminatory method of unilaterally excluding preexisting conditions, which frankly is an inhumane and a barbaric practice that MUST be banned. All patients should receive care equally, whether they are rich or poor or middle-class. The days of exploitative Capitalism in health care must be banned. Witty as UHC CEO ought to be fired for purposeful incompetence in handling this hacking debacle.
Finally, it is time to vote out Members of the US Senate, particularly those who had previously met with Mr. Witty prior to this committee meeting, and refused to use their time to insist on radical changes, but were syncopates currying favors with the greedy Corporate CEO. Shame on those Members of the US Senate who are NOT focused on representing their real constituents, but only their special interest lobbies for re-election funds. A large number of those US Senators have taken huge contributions from United Health Care for their re-elections. This is corruption of the worst sort that must be prohibited as well. Term limits and strict ethics must replace these corrupt politicians who lack any moral compass to do the work of the American People they supposedly represent.
To the Members of the US Senate. Why has it taken more than 2 years for you to realize that Medicare (dis)Advantage is denying and delaying healthcare to Senior Citizens, and on top of that has been spending 22% more supposedly on Senior Care than Traditional Medicare pays out. Why has this been a shock to you if politicians were actually listening to their constituents? To me this is a systemic problem, where politicians are more concerned with their own advancement and personal wealth than the business of Representing constituents. I think at least half of the Members of the Senate Finance Committee are not even interested in fixing these systemic corruption issues because many are on the take and any serious investigation would expose these politicians as corrupt and crooked. It is way past the time for draining the swamp that is primarily in the GOP, though admittedly there are those US Senators who are Democrats in name only who are not living up to the expectations that we voters are demanding from our Public Servants.
Yep, may daughter is being forced by the corporate general medical practice to undergo a $500 medical test that she does not need. She was told either she has the procedure done or she will be dropped from the practice. Her doctor keeps telling her that she really doesn't need the medical test, but it is really the corporate medical practice that is requiring it for liability and/or the money. She has a $1500 deductible that must be met before her medical insurance company will pay out. My daughter is a healthy thirty-five year old female, and she is a victim of our "great" American healthcare system.
No one should undergo unneeded medical testing or procedures, and I say this as a licensed physician. Your daughter should change medical practices if your statements are true at face value. She should at least seek a second opinion if there is doubt. At the end of the day, the risk she assumes can be documented if she is decisional regarding her body and her health care.
Buddy Carter, GA, that's one for him. But on the other hand, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Carter
Interesting……
Why is it that everyone thinks everyone but himself is "greedy". Self-interest is controlled by market forces which balances off everyone's looking after himself. The medical insurance problem is that federal tax policy favors employer provided medical "insurance", which isn't insurance at all, but simply pre-paid medical care that covers everything. Imagine what homeowner's insurance would be like if someone was paying the premium for you and it covered everything that went wrong in your house. Here's what would fix the "greedy" medical insurance company problem. Your employer pays you a higher salary instead of medical benefits. You buy your own medical insurance and insurers complete for your business by offering the best deals they can consistent with staying in business.
You would pay more for insurance buying it on your own than going with the company policy, especially if it is a large company. And the people that go without insurance run the risk of breaking an arm or needing a hernia fixed (which are not typically emergent surgeries), and not being able to get the outpatient surgeries due to upfront costs. The issue to me is that medical insurance for this country should be more fixed prices and not whatever the large insurance companies want to make you pay and then fight you for every dollar spent of it.
1. Absent the tax incentivization by the feds for employer purchased insurance there would be many opportunities for lower cost group purchase, such as social organizations, etc, or even through employer if he wished to set one up. In this case one would have a group savings but would pay individually. This would have a great many advantages. The insurance purchased by an individual would be like other insurance, covering only high-cost unexpected events and would have markedly lower premiums as well as no interference from the insurance company except for covered items. The type of insurance purchased would be suited to the individual needs rather than that selected by the employer. The problem of "job lock" to medical coverage would be ameliorated.
2. Employer based medical insurance is of course factored into the employee compensation by the employer. This compensation could be in the form of salary rather than wasteful unnecessarily high-cost medical insurance which covers even small items such as routine lab tests. This type of "insurance" that covers everything is doubly expensive since insurance company administrative costs are built into all transactions and market forces are interfered with so that no providers compete on price for the patient's business.
3. I am not advocating against insurance for higher cost items such as you describe. People would buy it such as they do for their cars and homes. I am also not against government help for those who cannot help themselves. However, in a real medical market, items such as outpatient surgery would be much more affordable. This is well demonstrated in the few scattered surgery centers around the country who do not accept insurance but instead are paid directly by patients. One such center is the Surgery Center of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City where they advertise their prices for a host of out-patient surgery procedures such as those you describe. This center has an excellent medical reputation, and its prices are markedly lower that those charged in local surrounding hospitals. In fact most of their surgeons work in both places.
It’s all performative, nothing more. Wake me when citizen’s united is done away with and politicians can no longer accept money from corporations or buy/own stock while in office.