Politics Private Equity, UnitedHealth Take a Huge Loss as Oregon Bans Corporate Control of Doctors

[Phatguysrule]

Private Equity, UnitedHealth Take a Huge Loss as Oregon Bans Corporate Control of Doctors

Oregon passes SB 951, a bill that prohibits private equity and corporate decision-making in health care. UnitedHealth Group, Amazon, and private equity lobbied fiercely, but lost. Is it a trend?

Two days ago, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed the nation’s strictest law against corporate control of health care practices in the state. It’s a major defeat for private equity and large health insurers, and something that advocates and physicians have been advocating for years, as more and more of the state’s capacity got bought up by financiers. It’s also a ground-breaking event that could catalyze the creation of a new health care system, one managed by medical professionals and patients instead of Wall Street. And it’s all thanks to UnitedHealth Group.

Read More

 

[Phatguysrule]

It’s also a ground-breaking event that could catalyze the creation of a new health care system, one managed by medical professionals and patients instead of Wall Street.

Any thoughts on this? Seems like the only way this happens without Wall Street as if the government steps in financially to offer stability...

 

[riverman]

government steps in financially to offer stability...

oxymoron....they can't even fund the govt and they've never fixed health care..this law should address an old on going problem with the health care system...whether it gets funding is another ball of wax. I don't think RFK Jr is fixing anything

 

[Phatguysrule]

oxymoron....they can't even fund the govt and they've never fixed health care..this law should address an old on going problem with the health care system...whether it gets funding is another ball of wax. I don't think RFK Jr is fixing anything

Medicare works incredibly well... With like 3% overhead cost and far lower waste than for-profit healthcare (Which is also at 17%-20% overhead).

Same with Oregon Healthcare (Care Oregon).

Government does healthcare very well.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Oregon has around 5700 doctors.
And a population of 4,272,000

That is about 750 patients per doctor (this is within reason, as far as I can tell. I've seen estimates of 1000 people per doctor as an average workload).

If each doctor makes around $500,000 per year that would cost $55 per person per month. Most doctors make about $250,000 per year in the private sector.

Cutting out the middle man would be huge. And everyone in Oregon could see a doctor twice per year if they wanted.

Add another $55 for dentists. Add another $55 for vision. Now all of the people we need to pay to give healthcare to every Oregonian has a cushy salary. Double that so you can cover support staff.

Now we're at about $330 per month per person ($3,960 per year). That's a long way from the $14,750 per year per person average in the US. And nearly all of those providers are making more money than they would be making in the private sector...

 

[Phatguysrule]

oxymoron....they can't even fund the govt and they've never fixed health care..this law should address an old on going problem with the health care system...whether it gets funding is another ball of wax. I don't think RFK Jr is fixing anything

I agree, though. RFK Jr isn't fixing anything.

 

[crandc]

I agree, though. RFK Jr isn't fixing anything.

More breaking everything.

 

[Phatguysrule]

More breaking everything.

100%

 

[BlazerWookee]

I agree, though. RFK Jr isn't fixing anything.

I still can't wrap my head around how that whack job got through the confirmation process in the Senate.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I still can't wrap my head around how that whack job got through the confirmation process in the Senate.

Fear of retaliation by Trump. That's how. The same as everything else that's going wrong right now.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Fear of retaliation by Trump. That's how. The same as everything else that's going wrong right now.

Bollocks. I don't think Trump ever wanted him in that position, much less believed that he would make it through confirmation. I believe Trump only offered it to him to get him to stop campaigning against Trump.

 

[Strenuus]

Bollocks. I don't think Trump ever wanted him in that position, much less believed that he would make it through confirmation. I believe Trump only offered it to him to get him to stop campaigning against Trump.

You reap what you sow when youre a narcissistic bully with no redeeming qualities.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Bollocks. I don't think Trump ever wanted him in that position, much less believed that he would make it through confirmation. I believe Trump only offered it to him to get him to stop campaigning against Trump.

I definitely think you're right that Trump only offered it to him to get him to stop campaigning against him.

However, once he offered it to him I think Trump felt like it would make him look weak if his picks weren't confirmed.

In fact, I think Trump made threats about serious consequences for opposing his picks just prior to (and during) that confirmation hearing.

It was made clear that there would be consequences.

 

[BlazerWookee]

I definitely think you're right that Trump only offered it to him to get him to stop campaigning against him.

However, once he offered it to him I think Trump felt like it would make him look weak if his picks weren't confirmed.

In fact, I think Trump made threats about serious consequences for opposing his picks just prior to (and during) that confirmation hearing.

It was made clear that there would be consequences.

IIRC, I was hearing that type of comment before Hegseth and a couple others, but on the Kennedy nomination he was eerily quiet.

As far as the consequences, what could he do beyond not helping/actively campaigning against particular people during the mid-terms? Many House Republicans (and a few in the Senate) are burning that bridge anyway by not lobbying for even a dime of the Doge (or any other) cuts in the budget bill. That'll cost the party both Houses if they keep going down that road.

 

[BlazerWookee]

You reap what you sow when youre a narcissistic bully with no redeeming qualities.

Gee, Stren, thanks for sharing your insightful, well-thought-out opinion. /s

 

[Strenuus]

Gee, Stren, thanks for sharing your insightful, well-thought-out opinion. /s

I mean, it's my opinion about who the person is, well thought out over years of watching him do nothing but evil.

 

[Phatguysrule]

IIRC, I was hearing that type of comment before Hegseth and a couple others, but on the Kennedy nomination he was eerily quiet.

As far as the consequences, what could he do beyond not helping/actively campaigning against particular people during the mid-terms? Many House Republicans (and a few in the Senate) are burning that bridge anyway by not lobbying for even a dime of the Doge (or any other) cuts in the budget bill. That'll cost the party both Houses if they keep going down that road.

They were making threats on January 26th, in response to Hegseth needing JD Vance to break the tie. Just prior to the hearings for the group including RFK Jr (on the 29th).

WASHINGTON — The White House is seeking to send a message to reticent Senate Republicans to get on board with all of President Donald Trump’s nominees, warning of political consequences for those who defy him.

“It’s pass-fail. You either support everyone or you don’t,” a senior White House official told NBC News. “The Senate needs to advise and consent, not advise and adjust.”

The Republican-controlled Senate gave Trump a scare Friday when Pete Hegseth squeaked through by the slimmest possible margin, losing three GOP senators and requiring Vice President JD Vance to break the tie to confirm him as secretary of defense.

And there are more controversial nominees coming before committees this week, including Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services secretary and Kash Patel for FBI director. All face a rocky path, and their hearings could be decisive.

“There is a very well-funded consortium of outside groups and political actors that are sophisticated, smart and tough. We’ve already seen that they’ve provided air support and narrative support to some nominees,” said the official, referring to allied groups close to, but not directly controlled by, the White House. “They’ll still be very well-funded when the nominations are over, and they’ll exact consequences, I’m sure, to those who do not support the president’s nominees and get them to the finish line.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...mp-nominees-political-consequences-rcna189288

 

[Stevenson]

Private Equity, UnitedHealth Take a Huge Loss as Oregon Bans Corporate Control of Doctors

Oregon passes SB 951, a bill that prohibits private equity and corporate decision-making in health care. UnitedHealth Group, Amazon, and private equity lobbied fiercely, but lost. Is it a trend?

Two days ago, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed the nation’s strictest law against corporate control of health care practices in the state. It’s a major defeat for private equity and large health insurers, and something that advocates and physicians have been advocating for years, as more and more of the state’s capacity got bought up by financiers. It’s also a ground-breaking event that could catalyze the creation of a new health care system, one managed by medical professionals and patients instead of Wall Street. And it’s all thanks to UnitedHealth Group.

Read More

Wow, this is such great news. Did not know about this law. Thanks!

 

[Phatguysrule]

Wow, this is such great news. Did not know about this law. Thanks!

I certainly hope it's great news. I was really hoping somebody who knew a lot about this could fill us in.

 

[barfo]

As far as the consequences, what could he do beyond not helping/actively campaigning against particular people during the mid-terms?

Hmm, what could a powerful, lawless, vindictive person do?

Many House Republicans (and a few in the Senate) are burning that bridge anyway by not lobbying for even a dime of the Doge (or any other) cuts in the budget bill. That'll cost the party both Houses if they keep going down that road.

If it's what you say I love it, especially later in the election cycle.

barfo