The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 18, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Unbiased reporting the the health care industry
Nanheyangrouchuan    10/16/2009 9:49:43 PM
Relentlessly punish the health insurance industry.

"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33343181/ns/business-motley_fool/"

Skip navigation
Click here to find out more!
msnbc.com home

*
* MSN Home |
* Mail
* More
o Hotmail
o Messenger
o My MSN
o Download IE8
o Airfares & Travel
o Autos
o Careers & Jobs
o City Guides
o Cooking
o Dating & Personals
o Games
o Health & Fitness
o Horoscopes
o Lifestyle
o Maps & Directions
o Money
o Movies
o Music
o News
o Real Estate/Rentals
o Shopping
o Sports
o Tech & Gadgets
o TV
o Weather
o White Pages
o Wonderwall
o Yellow Pages
o MSN Directory
* Sign In
* msn.com

* featuring
* TODAY
* Nightly News
* Dateline
* Meet the Press
* msnbc tv
* NBC Sports

* Business
* Motley Fool

sponsored by Don't be a FOOL - Click here!
Categories
U.S. news
World news
Politics
Business
Stocks & economy
U.S. business
World business
Autos
Real estate
Retail
Careers
Personal finance
Small business
Viewpoints
Sports
Entertainment
Health
Tech & science
Travel
Local news
Weather
Browse
Video
Photos
Disable Fly-outWhat are flyouts?
The Daily Walk of Shame: "Unbiased" Health Insurance Industry Report
A recent PwC report on health-care reform seems factually flawed and politically timed.

The Motley Fool
? The Market's 10 Best Stocks Revealed
? The Greatest Secret of All
? Stock Advice That Will Change Your Life
? 10 Time Bomb Tickers
? Be Better Than Buffett
Most popular
? Most viewed ? Top rated ? Most e-mailed
Pilot survives crash, hikes 20 miles to safety
Baby OK after train hits stroller in Australia
Sheriff: No indication balloon ordeal was hoax
Calif. man charged with threatening Obama
Shortage of shots as more kids die of swine flu
Most viewed on msnbc.com
?Dr. Joe? treats uninsured patients with dignity
Okla. mom charged with locking son in closets
Rare disease turns 3-year-old?s muscles to bone
School goes from worst to among best in 3 years
FAA proposes historic fines against 2 airlines
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Pilot survives crash, hikes 20 miles to safety
Federal deficit triples from year ago
The Daily Walk of Shame: "Unbiased" Health Insurance Industry Report
Israelis bring green power to West Bank village
Health care reform: Saving American lives
Most viewed on msnbc.com
By Jordan DiPietro
updated 3:17 a.m. MT, Fri., Oct . 16, 2009

This new Motley Fool series examines things that just aren't right in the world of finance and investing. Here's what's got us riled today. If something's bugging you, too -- and we suspect it is -- go ahead and unload in the comments section below.

Today's subject: One day before a critical vote was to occur in the Senate committee on health-care insurance reform legislation, PricewaterhouseCoopers released a report warning of increased family premiums and an overall increase in health care costs if comprehensive health-care legislation was passed. The report, paid for by the industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), is intended for circulation on Capitol Hill and will also be promoted in new advertisements. Karen Ignagni, AHIP's President and CEO, said "between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system".

This all comes out despite a report released last week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stating that the legislation in question would reduce the federal deficit by $81 million by 2019 and would probably extend coverage to about 29 million Americans who currently lack insurance.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Click here to find out more!

Why you should be indignant: Where to begin? There are at least three very good reasons to be apprehensive of PwC's report.

1. Because the report is commissioned by AHIP, a group that represents health policies from companies like Aetna (NYSE:AET), Aflac (NYSE:AFL), and Humana (NYSE:HUM), PwC should have been extra careful to dispel any apparent conflict of interests. However, instead of performing tremendous due diligence, PwC seemed to have produced a report with too many holes to poke through and too much room left to be guessing about the legitimacy of their work.
2. It is possible that PwC was not aware when AHIP was going to release their report. However, the fact that it was unveiled one day before a critical Senate committee vote seems to be suspicious at best, and politically motivated at worst. Officials of the Obama administration questioned the timing and authorship of the report.
3. John Gruber, a health care economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he evaluated the report the day after its release and found it deeply flawed. Among the problems with PwC's analysis, Gruber highlighted:

a. The report fails to take into account administrative overhead costs that he said will "fall enormously" once insurance policies are sold through new government-regulated exchanges.
b. It also failed to consider government subsidies that would be provided to help moderate-income American's purchase insurance.
c. It reaches the opposite conclusion as Gruber, who says that premiums would actually decline for individuals purchasing and families purchasing insurance, with or without government subsidies.

The bottom line: Gruber says "If you literally take the data from the CBO, you can see that individuals will be saving money in a nongroup market."

What now? Well, you can choose to believe PwC's report or you can choose not to. Before you reach any conclusion, consider this: In the early 1990's PwC performed similar studies for the tobacco industry, which included bigwigs like Phillip Morris International (NYSE:PM) (then part of Altria) and Reynolds American (NYSE:RAI). They provided supposedly hard data that showed how a new excise tax on tobacco would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The report was apparently so lopsided that another consulting firm, Arthur Andersen, reviewed PwC's work. They found "serious methodological problems and errors of omission (one-sided analyses likely to lead to misinterpretation) in both the PW Report and the [tobacco industry's Tobacco Institute] Estimates." Ultimately, the string of blunders made by PwC led Andersen to report that "these and other serious flaws in the Price Waterhouse Report and the Tobacco Institute Estimates build upon one another in a cumulative fashion to present grossly exaggerated and misleading estimates of job loss from an increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco products."

There are some eerie similarities here considering that one of the methods considered for funding health-care reform is a tax on some very expensive "Cadillac" health-care plans. Looks to me like another case of lobbyists hiring consulting groups to find data that supports their claims instead of performing a comprehensive, objective analysis.

This report has conflict of interest written all over it. Ill-timed. Factually debatable. Contrary to reports by the CBO. I'm not buying one word of it.

Put aside the crazy town hall meeting thoughts on health-care reform for one moment and let me know -- what do you think about the PwC health insurance industry report?

Fool contributorJordan DiPietrodoes not own shares of any companies mentioned. Aflac is aMotley Fool Stock Advisorpick. Phillip Morris is aGlobal Gainsselection. The Fool has adisclosure policywith no conflict of interests and which releases information in a timely manner.

* Discuss Story On Newsvine
* Rate Story:
View popularLow
Rate it 0.5
Rate it 1
Rate it 1.5
Rate it 2
Rate it 2.5
Rate it 3
Rate it 3.5
Rate it 4
Rate it 4.5
Rate it 5
High
3.5 after 138 ratings
* Email
* Instant Message
* Print

MORE FROM MOTLEY FOOL


Do Blue-Chip Penny Stocks Exist?
This Week's 5 Dumbest Stock Moves
Are You Ready to Make Real Money?
Friday's Top Stories in 337 Words
The Daily Walk of Shame: "Unbiased" Health Insurance Industry Report
Do Blue-Chip Penny Stocks Exist?
Do You Have the Guts to Buy?
How Low Can Stocks Go?
Wednesday's Biggest Stock Stars
Buy These Stocks Before the Trend Reverses
These Stocks Will Burn You
Motley Fool Section Front

Top msnbc.com stories
Pakistan to target Taliban sanctuary
Federal deficit triples to $1.42 trillion
Dodgers top Phillies in NLCS Game 2
Burned pilot hikes 20 miles to safety
Balloon family faces questioning
NBC News highlights
White justice won't marry interracial couple
Kylie Minogue goes Bollywood or bust
Baby's survives train collision
Makeover! Zookeeper goes on prowl
Balloon boy dad: It wasn?t a stunt
SPONSORED LINKS Get listed here



Sponsored links
Scottrade: Trade Stocks
Open an Account Online Today! $7 Trades & Powerful Trading Tools.
www.scottrade.com



Resource guide
Click Here!

Our rates vs. the others

Click Here!

Scottrade: $7 online trades

Click Here!

Same Day Shipping, Shop Now!

Movies delivered - Try free

Movies delivered - Try free

Click Here!

Locations near you!

Featuring

* TODAY
* Nightly News
* Dateline
* Meet the Press
* msnbc tv
* Newsweek

Categories

* Top stories
* Local news
* U.S.
* World
* Politics
* Business
* Sports
* Entertainment
* Health
* Tech & science
* Travel
* Weather

About

* About us
* Contact
* Site map
* Jobs
* Stock data
* Terms & conditions


News alerts

E-mail highlights

RSS & feeds


Mobile headlines

Podcasts

Widgets

* © 2009 Microsoft
* MSN Privacy
* Advertise

* Help

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Zhang Fei       10/21/2009 6:20:27 PM
The repulsive audacity of Ogabe:
It is one thing for the government, the administration, to attack opponents, institutions, media. It is another to go out and try and delegitimize them and destroy them.

 

I thought it was sort of repulsive audacity on the part of the administration to go out and to declare Fox is not a real news organization, particularly when there might be big companies out there who might think twice about having an ad on Fox or other news media who might think twice about following a Fox story because it might incur the displeasure of the administration.

 

Similarly, to go after the Chamber of Commerce — you can argue against it, defend yourself on the arguments — but to try to induce defections as a way to destroy it is a new level. It's Chicago-level politics.

 

Look, there is nothing illegal about it. It is not unconstitutional. But it is outside the Democratic norms of our society, which is Madisonian.

 

Our idea is that you have — as a way to protect against tyranny in government — the growth, the interaction, and the clash of what Madison called "factions" but what we call "interests," special and otherwise. You argue, interact and you clash. But you don't undermine, delegitimize, and destroy.

 

That is the Madisonian way, and we are getting, instead, is the Chicago way.

?.It isn't a question of defending the Chamber. It is a question of being offended by a certain style of politics. And that's what I think is the problem here.

 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei       10/21/2009 6:44:10 PM
Network and print political commentators invited to the White House (except for Fox News commentators, of course)
Here's a curious turn in the White House vs. Fox News fight.

On Monday, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were among several people who attended an off-the-record briefing with Pres. Obama at the White House. Sources tell us other attendees at the two-and-a-half hour chat included Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS and Gloria Borger of CNN. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one from Fox News was in the room.

This fact quickly turned into ammunition for the folks at FOX. Last night on "Special Report," Bret Baier revealed the information pointing out that opinion hosts from one channel were being invited to a briefing with the Commander-in-Chief, all the while Fox was declared not a news organization.

 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       10/21/2009 8:10:23 PM
It is shocking to see Johnny Fei's worshiping one of the media's and world's wealthiest and influential people when Murdoch is an unabashed, out front panda licker.  The only joy I get from hearing about Murdoch is how much he is constantly losing in China trying to buy media access and how his Chinese wife (a general's daughter, married him for money, her for attempted influence) is going to tear his family and company apart as she is laying claim to a huge amount of the family fortune and News Corp.
 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei       10/21/2009 10:08:09 PM
It is shocking to see Johnny Fei's worshiping one of the media's and world's wealthiest and influential people when Murdoch is an unabashed, out front panda licker. 
 
I find it amusing how you have yet again not addressed any of the criticisms leveled at the so-called anchor reporters who turn their news programs into commentary programs with epithets like teabaggers - that wouldn't be tolerated on the conservative side of the commentary spectrum.
 
And this stuff about panda licking is silly - News Corp papers and channels publish all the dirt about China, just like all the other media companies. The Wall Street Journal has consistently provided critical coverage about China, even stooping to cover the latest hysteria over drywall issues (which I consider a combination of psychosomatic bunk and trial lawyer over-reaching).
 
Murdoch is a businessman. All over the world, Murdoch owns both explicitly liberal and conservative papers. In the US, all media are explicitly liberal. He saw the niche (50% of the population is a big niche) and moved right in - a conservative news channel for people who were tired of Tweedledee and Tweedledum liberal news channels.
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       10/22/2009 12:01:36 AM

It is shocking to see Johnny Fei's worshiping one of the media's and world's wealthiest and influential people when Murdoch is an unabashed, out front panda licker. 

 

I find it amusing how you have yet again not addressed any of the criticisms leveled at the so-called anchor reporters who turn their news programs into commentary programs with epithets like teabaggers - that wouldn't be tolerated on the conservative side of the commentary spectrum.

 

And this stuff about panda licking is silly - News Corp papers and channels publish all the dirt about China, just like all the other media companies. The Wall Street Journal has consistently provided critical coverage about China, even stooping to cover the latest hysteria over drywall issues (which I consider a combination of psychosomatic bunk and trial lawyer over-reaching).


 

Murdoch is a businessman. All over the world, Murdoch owns both explicitly liberal and conservative papers. In the US, all media are explicitly liberal. He saw the niche (50% of the population is a big niche) and moved right in - a conservative news channel for people who were tired of Tweedledee and Tweedledum liberal news channels.


Fox wouldn't use "teabag" because conservatives wince at any talk of sex.  But they sure do love stereotyping.
We are in your head Johnny and it shows in your tirades.
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/22/2009 2:50:11 PM
I want to have sex with Nan.
 
 
Well, not really, but I wanted to show that conservatives aren't afraid to talk about sex.  (You watch Bill O'Reilly lately? The dude is all about sex.)  Was there a particular sexual topic you wished to address, Nan?  I'll warn you that I'm not into the kinky stuff. 
 
What Fei is referring to is MSNBC and CNN referring to Tea Parties as "teabagging," which I can explain more fully if anyone here is unfamiliar with it.  It's toilet humor, and the anchors are snorting and giggling about it like kindergartners if someone busts a fart during nap time.  Walter Cronkite and Edward Murrow would've been sickened at such sophomoric antics on national TV, and rightfully so.  Cronkite may have been a diehard liberal, but the man had class.  He wouldn't have done that. 
 
It reminds me of schoolyard arguments back when I was in high school, which usually ended in "Oh yeah? Well, you're gay!"  when the other side couldn't defend their own views or just wanted to put down the other person.  That's basically what the "teabagging" references are, or the "HUR HUR PALIN IZ DUM" meme on Everyone-But-Fox mainstream media outlets.  They don't understand what the Tea Parties are about, and don't care to actually find out if Palin is dumb, but since they're conservatives...open season to be the schoolyard bully:  "Oh yeah? Well...you're stupid, you stupidhead!"
 
Hell, we'd be better off if Elmo was running "Countdown."
 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei    And now for a few words from Reverend Al Sharpton   10/23/2009 1:30:56 PM
And now, for more unbiased reporting from the news (i.e. not Fox) media:
 
Well, this was really amazing: Contessa Brewer, an anchorwoman for MSNBC, was introducing the Rev. Jesse Jackson. But she introduced him as: the Rev. Al Sharpton. According to the Associated Press, ?Jackson stared at the camera from a studio in Burbank, Calif., and said, ?I?m Rev. Jesse Jackson.?? Recovering, Brewer said, ?We all know who you are, Rev. Jackson. I?m so sorry.?

 

Fine, fine. We all slip up. An understandable mistake. But I ask you: What if that mistake had been made by a Fox News person? Can you imagine? Can you imagine? ?Fox News, the right-wing network, can?t even tell two black men apart — can?t even tell the two reverends apart. They?re all the same to them.? La Contessa is lucky she works for a network known as left-wing.

 

(By the way: Al Sharpton must have loved it, Jackson?s being introduced as Sharpton.)

 

You?ve perhaps heard about Contessa Brewer before. She?s the one who reported interestingly on the Second Amendment protest staged in Phoenix, outside the Convention Center, where President Obama was giving a speech. MSNBC showed a man — the middle of his body — packing heat. Brewer said, ?There are questions about whether this [the protest] has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns.?

 

Unfortunately for La Contessa and MSNBC — you would think — the man being featured, Christopher Broughton, was black.

 

Oh, well. These are really weird times, in the media especially.

 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    NHS   10/23/2009 5:26:34 PM
I am 61 and pay $160 per month state health insurance.
 
For that, all my medical bills are nil; from basic anti-biotics to  major surgery, all free. The only thing that isn't free is non-medical nursing care and even that is subsidised by the state if the money runs out.
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       10/23/2009 6:51:49 PM




Assault the liberty and property of Americans because (depending on how you look at it) the accounting industry lied about the insurance companies.



 



 







 

Insurance companies assault Americans' bodies with "no storms".  Can you think of any other industry sector in which you pay in full and on time for a service and can be legally refused use of that paid for service?


 Didn't Get What I Paid For? Pick a day of the week, just recently I specifically ordered a number14 with fries and got a number 2 with onion rings.
Tell ya what, why don't you show me a country where purchasing a good or a service a requirement of lawful citizenship and then I'll compare that to the system here, warts and all.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       10/23/2009 7:51:26 PM

I am 61 and pay $160 per month state health insurance.

 

For that, all my medical bills are nil; from basic anti-biotics to  major surgery, all free. The only thing that isn't free is non-medical nursing care and even that is subsidised by the state if the money runs out.




 
For all I know, I'm about to shoot myself in the foot, as I have no particular knowlege about health care in the uK, but here goes....
 
There are about 60million people in the UK, which I'd guess means about 45million adults, which I'd guess means about 30million people who make insurance payments.
 
30million x $160 x 12 = $58billion.
 
I'm guessing the UK health care budget is higher than that.  If so, where do you suppose the rest of the money comes from to pay for it?
 
I'm suggesting that payments made explicitly to fund "health care" may not be the only payments you make that ultimately end up funding health care.  Again, I realize I may be wrong.  I only bring it up because the way you said that seemed to leave open the possibility that you might not be accounting for all that you pay for health care.
 
Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me whether I am right or wrong with this guesswork with regard to American health care, as to me the issue of socialized medicine in America (like so many other issues of the day) has nothing to do with how much it costs--at least not until after it is first shown to satisfy the mandatory prerequisite consideration for all federal government action:  Does the federal government have the authority to act in the manner proposed?
 
And of course the answer to that question regarding this subject is, "Clearly none whatsoever."
 
 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei       10/24/2009 7:42:14 AM
warpig: 30million x $160 x 12 = $58billion.

NHS's 2008 budget was about $160b. $100b was made up from other sources that include VAT, and gasoline taxes. Divided by 30m taxpayers, that's about $277 per taxpayer per month, meaning that that $160 premium was actually a (160+277) = $437 premium. The NHS makes insurance appear cheaper by charging the part of the budget that isn't covered by premiums to wealthy people (who drive more and buy more things).
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       10/24/2009 10:41:25 AM
The price really doesn't matter to this bunch. The price is either gouging, fixing or undercutting. You can't placate liberals.
What Nan, MSNBC, and corruptocrats want is people to charge what people can afford to pay, they want the market to work like taxes. They want the government to engage in a monopoly and price fixing for them. Of course,they don't want to commit their own labor to what people can afford to pay, but by golly, if they want a corvette and can only afford a hyundai, then somebody owes them something, and it should be permanent law.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy