re: Healthcare industry bitching about lost revenue thanks to glp-1s

quote:

---

"If you don't like it why don't you start your own health insurance company" arse post

---

"I'm a victim/conspiracy theorist" arse post.

We have anti trust laws and competition for a reason. United is not the only healthcare insurance company and companies change plans all the time to get better premiums and more value for their employees.

If the cost of something, healthcare and pharmaceuticals included, is not exceeded by the real or perceived benefit, you have the choice to not do it. But you do not have a RIGHT to that thing. And guess what, if enough people don't buy it, the price will come down. CAPITALISM!!

I responded with my email to your post in that other thread yesterday

We have a sickcare system; not a healthcare system. There's no money in losing clients.

Yes one does have a RIGHT to treatment. And anything else a physician or therapist says is needed. Managed care providers should have zero say so. Just pay the claim. Notice I call it “managed care,” because it certainly isn’t “health insurance.”

quote:

---

FAT is also a hard disk format for you techies out there.


I guess they are now exFAT

---

I was not expecting that reply.

I guess some times the jokes write themselves.

quote:

---

If people and companies think they are paying too much for a good or service they can not pay it or get that good or service elsewhere. That's the beauty of capitalism and why it is great for innovation, competition, and the consumer. Of course, the govt picking winners and meddling does the opposite of all those things.

I do love the tact often taken here with throwing out a big profit number and suggesting it's cruel and unusual. If companies should not be allowed to make a profit, who should get to decide what is reasonable? You? Government?

You simply do not have a RIGHT to a treatment, service, pharmaceutical product, etc, just like you don't have a right to anything else that requires someone else's time, effort, money, or innovation. Otherwise, let's all gang up on Apple and their $112 BILLION in profit last year.

---

Ehh...health insurance is tied to jobs(for better or worse)....so I'd argue that individuals don't have much say in getting the service elsewhere. The for profit mechanism isn't tied to the realities that capitalism should bring. If we had a truly open market like say car insurance or life insurance where every company can compete on a level playing field across state lines, then I think the health insurance industry would look a lot different.

As to your other comment about Apple making profits, my answer is similar. Apple is playing in a space that is based entirely in a free capitalist market. I can chose to buy an apple phone or one of the hundreds of google phones. I can buy a macbook pro or a PC. Or, I can chose to not buy anything at all. People require health care like they require clean water. At some point you will need the assistance of a medical professional. You don't need a computer.

I'm not saying I have all the answers but this current system is highly flawed and isn't doing what's best for the consumer.

quote:

---

Notice I call it “managed care,” because it certainly isn’t “health insurance.”

---

I work in healthcare and that is the proper term from a business perspective.

As far as healthcare companies, as in hospital systems, not wanting people to lose weight because it loses them money, it's really not that big of a needle mover for two big reasons -

1. High rates of obesity inversely correlate with socioeconomic status. Health systems lose money on Medicaid patients. And their biggest loss every year, by far, is from uninsured patients entering their hospitals. Having fewer of these patients is a good thing and could offset losses to #2. One caveat: lower socioeconomic people haven't ramped up their GLP-1 usage much because of cost, but there is a push to have Medicaid cover it. There will be lobbying from health systems to have Medicaid provide generics soon.

2. Obesity related health issues really start to explode as a patient gets older and age into Medicare and health systems barely break-even on Medicare. A lifetime of being fat really comes back to bite them as they approach and pass 60/65. So even a huge portion of the "insured" obese people in higher socioeconomic status don't have major obesity related health issues until they're older.

I did a lot of work on some strategic plans for 2 health systems around this. They were wanting to understand the long term impact on their patient populations.

GLP-1, assuming there isn't some awful side effect we don't know about, should save insurers money long term. It hasn't been realized yet, as it's fairly new. GLP-1's should also not really hurt health systems/providers/hospitals.

Now, whether insurance companies reduce premiums because of this is another thing, they might just see margin expansion and never move. It's like once there is a tax, that tax likely isn't ever going away.

quote:

---

I work in healthcare and that is the proper term from a business perspective.

As far as healthcare companies, as in hospital systems, not wanting people to lose weight because it loses them money, it's really not that big of a needle mover for two big reasons -

1. High rates of obesity inversely correlate with socioeconomic status. Health systems lose money on Medicaid patients. And their biggest loss every year, by far, is from uninsured patients entering their hospitals. Having fewer of these patients is a good thing and could offset losses to #2. One caveat: lower socioeconomic people haven't ramped up their GLP-1 usage much because of cost, but there is a push to have Medicaid cover it. There will be lobbying from health systems to have Medicaid provide generics soon.

2. Obesity related health issues really start to explode as a patient gets older and age into Medicare and health systems barely break-even on Medicare. A lifetime of being fat really comes back to bite them as they approach and pass 60/65. So even a huge portion of the "insured" obese people in higher socioeconomic status don't have major obesity related health issues until they're older.

I did a lot of work on some strategic plans for 2 health systems around this. They were wanting to understand the long term impact on their patient populations.

GLP-1, assuming there isn't some awful side effect we don't know about, should save insurers money long term. It hasn't been realized yet, as it's fairly new. GLP-1's should also not really hurt health systems/providers/hospitals.

Now, whether insurance companies reduce premiums because of this is another thing, they might just see margin expansion and never move. It's like once there is a tax, that tax likely isn't ever going away.

---

Your entire underlying premise is based off of existing cost structure for providing care. I think this will have to change along with many other things. Is it fair? Most will say no. That said, I'd point you to what healthcare professionals make in other countries.

THAT is the real conversation no one is willing to have. And yes, I know what I'm typing out is going to be highly controversial, but we're going to have to have that conversation sooner or later. We're already starting to see some of it with the huge influx of NPs and PAs. And yes, I know the reason it's higher than other countries is because we have some of the best doctors and specialists in the world.