Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Those EVIL Insurance Companies and their Obscene Profits (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=409872)

  • Oct 26, 2009, 02:12 PM
    ETWolverine
    Those EVIL Insurance Companies and their Obscene Profits
    The truth revealed.

    FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53 - Yahoo! News
    Quote:

    FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53

    By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 26, 10:06 am ET

    WASHINGTON – In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

    But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.

    Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

    Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

    Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

    The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

    The insurers may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

    A look at some claims, and the numbers:

    THE CLAIMS

    _"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

    _"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

    _"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.


    THE NUMBERS:

    Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th of 53 industries on the Fortune 500 list. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

    The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

    HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

    The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

    UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

    Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

    But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

    Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

    The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

    ___ Associated Press writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.
    Is anyone going to take notice?

    Probably not.

    Elliot
  • Oct 26, 2009, 02:47 PM
    speechlesstx

    I was impressed that the AP noticed, but it won't go anywhere... doesn't fit the propaganda.
  • Oct 26, 2009, 07:42 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    The truth revealed.

    FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53 - Yahoo! News


    Is anyone going to take notice?

    Probably not.

    Elliot

    Elliot you make a lot of noise about insurance companies not making adequate profits, but isn't this the vaunted capitalist system in action. No organisation is entitled to super profits and many don't make big profits all the time. In any case the public interest is not well served by big profits being made from health care. What sort of investment do you think is neeeded to be an insurer. No millions invested in production only a building to operate from and someone to answer the phone, etc. Considering the investment required the returns are adequate
  • Oct 27, 2009, 06:21 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Elliot you make a lot of noise about insurance companies not making adequate profits, but isn't this the vaunted capitalist system in action. No organisation is entitled to super profits and many don't make big profits all the time. In any case the public interest is not well served by big profits being made from health care. What sort of investment do you think is neeeded to be an insurer. No millions invested in production only a building to operate from and someone to answer the phone, etc. Considering the investment required the returns are adequate

    Clete, surely you know insurance is purely a risk/reward enterprise which requires substantial investment, millions if not billions. You make it sound as if any ol' Joe can rent a shack and start an insurance company. Regardless it misses the point which is Democrats - starting from the top in Obama - are demonizing everyone from greedy tonsil vulture doctors to super greedy insurance companies preying on innocent health care victims for monstrous profits. The facts tell a different story, their profit margins are very thin, but the left needs an enemy to push whatever it is they have to sell instead of selling us something on its merits.
  • Oct 27, 2009, 06:47 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Elliot you make a lot of noise about insurance companies not making adequate profits, but isn't this the vaunted capitalist system in action. No organisation is entitled to super profits and many don't make big profits all the time. In any case the public interest is not well served by big profits being made from health care. What sort of investment do you think is neeeded to be an insurer. No millions invested in production only a building to operate from and someone to answer the phone, etc. Considering the investment required the returns are adequate

    Yes, this is indeed capitalism at work. And I have no problem with profits being that low if it happens naturally. That's the nature of business.

    But the propaganda being produced by the White House and the Dems in Congress is saying that these insurance companies are "making obscene profits" and that this is the reason that the government has to step in and limit their profits in order to protect the nation.

    The point is what "obscene profits" are they talking about? And if health reform is, at least in part, because of those "obscene profits", and that reason doesn't really exist, that is one less reason to go with the nationalization of health care.

    This shoots one of the major arguments in favor of nationalized health care out of the water.

    Elliot
  • Oct 27, 2009, 07:07 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    But the propaganda being produced by the White House and the Dems in Congress is saying that these insurance companies are "making obscene profits" and that this is the reason that the government has to step in and limit their profits in order to protect the nation.

    Hello Elliot:

    Not surprisingly, you don't understand stuff... It's NOT insurance company profits that's the problem. It's people dying from lack of health care...

    How can you argue cogently when you don't even understand the issues?? The answer is, YOU CAN'T.

    excon
  • Oct 27, 2009, 07:13 AM
    excon

    Hello again, Elliot:

    The insurance companies CHOSE to BE insurance companies... I can't help it if people correctly link their dollars in profits, to DENIED coverage and DEATH.

    That's just the way it IS in the health insurance business. If they were in the computer business, for example, nobody would say their profits correspond to dead people. But, with health insurance, you surly can say that.

    excon
  • Oct 27, 2009, 07:47 AM
    George_1950

    Yes, I need Nanny to get me up in the morning, and Nanny to do my shopping, and Nanny to prepare my meals, and Nanny to clean my home, and Nanny to furnish my home, and Nanny to pay for my doctor, and Nanny to buy my clothes, and... I want those evil corporations and capitalists to just go away! YouTube - BARACK OBAMA KIDS AND HITLER YOUTH SING FOR THEIR LEADER
  • Oct 27, 2009, 07:55 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    Yes, I need Nanny to get me up in the morning, and Nanny to do my shopping, and Nanny to prepare my meals, and Nanny to clean my home, and Nanny to furnish my home, and Nanny to pay for my doctor, and Nanny to buy my clothes, and...I want those evil corporations and capitalists to just go away! YouTube - BARACK OBAMA KIDS AND HITLER YOUTH SING FOR THEIR LEADER

    George, your posts are always very entertaining and fill me with a sense of schadenfreude.
  • Oct 27, 2009, 07:57 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello Elliot:

    Not surprisingly, you don't understand stuff... It's NOT insurance company profits that's the problem. It's people dying from lack of health care...

    Really?

    You wouldn't know it from these comments...

    I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

    "Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

    "Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.
    Quote:

    How can you argue cogently when you don't even understand the issues?? The answer is, YOU CAN'T.

    Excon
    Well, that explains why you can't seem to keep up...

    You see, the Dems have been using several different arguments as their excuse to nationalize health care. These include

    1) lack of accessibility of insurance
    2) high cost of medical expenses and insurance premiums
    3) pre-existing condition rules
    4) the evils of the service providers
    5) the evils of the insurance companies

    I know that you would like to move the goal post again and make the discussion about those who are "dying due to lack of insurance". But that is only ONE of MANY arguments, and this article is addressing a different one.

    I'll get to your argument and destroy it (as I have many times before) in a different thread, if you'd like.

    Elliot
  • Oct 27, 2009, 07:58 AM
    tomder55

    Ex ;it puts a lie to the fallacies that you often cite about "obscene profits "these greedy insurance companies make. Are you now saying their profits aren't an issue ? You've come around. Because from an investors point of view ;I see more returns from scary Theresa Kerry's Heinz ketchup .
    Heinz Still "America's Favorite Ketchup" | BNET Food Blog | BNET
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:00 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    you surly can say that.

    I think that's the problem in this debate, the Dems are "surly" in spewing all kinds of nonsense instead of being honest in their rhetoric and intentions.

    Take Nancy Pelosi (please), yesterday she decided they needed another term for "public option" since that one isn't gaining any steam with the voters so she's trying to be as Orwellian as can be with “the consumer option” or as Debbie Wasserman Schultz thought, the “competitive option.”

    She followed up with this, "You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this,'" Pelosi said. "When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars."

    Let's see, so far Obama's half assed health care is going to cost around a trillion dollars of the public's money yet those who use the term "public option" are misrepresenting things? The Dems are being shamefully deceptive and dishonest and their rhetoric against the insurance companies is just one more example of that.
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:02 AM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    George, your posts are always very entertaining and fill me with a sense of schadenfreude.

    NK, didn't you enjoy the happy faces of all the children? Don't you just tingle?
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:04 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Elliot:

    The insurance companies CHOSE to BE insurance companies... I can't help it if people correctly link their dollars in profits, to DENIED coverage and DEATH.

    That's just the way it IS in the health insurance business. If they were in the computer business, for example, nobody would say their profits correspond to dead people. But, with health insurance, you surly can say that.

    excon

    I see.

    So do we link computer company profits with the number of computers that crash?

    Do we link auto company profits to the number of car accidents?

    Do we link beer sales to the number of cans of spilled beer?

    No. For each of those industries we link profits to sales of a good product.

    So, why with insurance companies do you (and so far it is ONLY YOU who are doing it) link profits to the number of dead people instead of the number of SATISFACTORY INSURANCE POLICIES SOLD?

    Because it suits you to do so politically, not because it has anything to do with reality.

    But all of this misses the point. The point is that Dems have been talking about the "obscenly high profits" of insurance companies, when in fact no such "obscenly high profits" exist.

    Elliot
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:06 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    NK, didn't you enjoy the happy faces of all the children? Don't you just tingle?

    Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "The term Godwin's law can also refer to the tradition that whoever makes such a comparison is said to "lose" the debate."
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:08 AM
    excon

    Hello again, tom:

    I'm easy. If profits are low like the Wolverine says, then I'll say it's not about profits... But, if the profits are high, like I say they are, then they're obscene.

    If I'm not mistaken, the Wolverine once argued that those profit numbers don't really indicate whether an industry is profitable... He kept bringing up ROE, and stuff like that.. Actually, I'm NOT mistaken at all. That's exactly what he argued... Of course, it's HERE, and I'll find it if you insist...

    So, you're not the only side who can pick numbers to fit your argument...

    excon
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:10 AM
    George_1950

    It would be convenient to just forget that both Hitler and Obama are socialists, wouldn't it? But didn't you enjoy the background, including piano, drums, and tambourines?
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:14 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    I'm easy. If profits are low like the Wolverine says, then I'll say it's not about profits... But, if the profits are high, like I say they are, then they're obscene.

    If I'm not mistaken, the Wolverine once argued that those profit numbers don't really indicate whether an industry is profitable... He kept bringing up ROE, and stuff like that.. Actually, I'm NOT mistaken at all. That's exactly what he argued.... Of course, it's HERE, and I'll find it if you insist...

    So, you're not the only side who can pick and choose numbers to fit your argument....

    excon

    Now I know that you haven't read the original post.

    Because the OP speficically mentions (as I did in the posts from the past that you mention) PROFIT MARGIN, (aka profits as a % of total revenues), not actual dollars. This article in fact says EXACTLY what I said in past posts almost WORD FOR WORD.

    The fact that you are acusing ANYONE of picking and choosing numbers when we are looking at the Same THING EVERY TIME WE POST ON THIS SUBJECT can only lead me to believe that 1) you didn't understand what we were posting LAST TIME, and 2) you didn't read the OP this time.

    Go back to sleep, excon.

    We'll wake you when its over.

    Elliot
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:27 AM
    George_1950

    "Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year – each bill more than a thousand pages long – too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question – and the biggest question for this generation." Dismantling of America
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:30 AM
    NeedKarma
    Oh dear, you read and use WND as a credible source for anything. That is disturbing indeed.
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:38 AM
    tomder55

    George ;don't you know yet that you can only cite sources pre-approved by NK ?
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:40 AM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    George ;don't you know yet that you can only cite sources pre-approved by NK ?

    Is NK the censor I'm having problems with?
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:41 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    Is NK the censor I'm having problems with?

    LOL!
    What kind of problems are you having George?
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:43 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question – and the biggest question for this generation.

    Hello again, George:

    I hear you. You are as opposed to Obama, as I was to George Bush. I, too, worried about the Constitution/America being dismantled, piece by piece. You know what I'm talking about... Rendition, military tribunals, Gitmo, torture, FISA violations - THAT kind of stuff.

    Additionally, like you, I thought (and STILL think), it's the biggest question for our generation - especially since Obama has embraced just about ALL of them.

    But, it didn't seem to concern you guys at all. I'm willing to bet that it STILL doesn't concern you...

    In terms of the dismantling you're talking about, most of it is the FIX we had to do, because the dufus broke it. In terms of socialized health care, I'm not terribly torn up about it. I'm a believer in the government providing a safety net...

    excon
  • Oct 27, 2009, 08:47 AM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post

    In terms of the dismantling you're talking about, most of it is the FIX we had to do, because the dufus broke it. In terms of socialized health care, I'm not terribly torn up about it. I'm a believer in the government providing a safety net...

    excon

    The safety net you describe and hope for is burst. There is a huge hole in the dam. Have you ever been at the bottom after the torrent passes through?
  • Oct 27, 2009, 09:01 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Oh dear, you read and use WND as a credible source for anything. That is disturbing indeed.

    NK, why don't you just once and for all list the credible sources we're permitted to use?

    By the way, the 'source' is not WND, it's Thomas Sowell.

    Quote:

    ADDRESS: The Hoover Institution
    Stanford University
    Stanford, California 94305
    (650) 723-3303

    PERSONAL: U.S. Citizen, born June 30, 1930

    EDUCATION:

    Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968
    A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959
    A.B. in Economics, magna laude, Harvard College, 1958


    EXPERIENCE:

    Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September 1980 - present
    Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A. July 1974 - June 1980
    Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September- December 1977
    Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April- August 1977
    Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976 - March 1977
    Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 - July 1974
    Associate Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A. September 1970 - June 1972
    Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969 - June 1970
    Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965 - June 1969
    Economic Analyst, American Telephone & TelegraphCo. June 1964 - August 1965
    Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963 - June 1964
    Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962 - June 1963
    Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961 - August 1962


    PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS:

    On Classical Economics (Yale University Press, 2006)
    Black Rednecks and White Liberals (Encounter Books, 2005)
    The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press,1999)
    Conquests and Cultures (Basic Books, 1998)
    Migrations and Cultures (Basic Books, 1996)
    The Vision of the Anointed (Basic Books, 1995)
    Race and Culture: A World View ( Basic Books,1994 )
    A Conflict of Visions (William Morrow, 1987)
    Ethnic America (Basic Books, 1981)
    Knowledge and Decisions (Basic Books, 1980)
    Say's Law: An Historical Analysis (Princeton University Press, 1972)
    Yeah, he's definitely not a credible source for anything.
  • Oct 27, 2009, 09:02 AM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    NK, why don't you just once and for all list the credible sources we're permitted to use?

    Lol
  • Oct 27, 2009, 09:03 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    The safety net you describe and hope for is burst. There is a huge hole in the dam.

    Hello again, George:

    I don't know what the result will be. I'm not a believer in the government's ability... But, I know that the system CAN be fixed without any additional expenditures... And, I know that the health industry itself can't fix itself. This is a problem that government is DESIGNED to do.

    Indeed, if we are to believe the right wing stuff about EVERYBODY being taken care of ALREADY, then it's just a matter of reallocating our resources so that we take care of EVERYBODY more efficiently...

    A good example of that would be to insure the people who NOW go to the emergency room for their day to day medical care, so that they'll go to their private doctor for that stuff. Then emergency rooms can go back to taking care of emergencies...

    Seems to me, that, and that alone would save BILLIONS. And, there's MORE savings to be wrought.

    Now, I don't think any evil people planned for our emergency rooms to be overwhelmed like they are, but I don't see ANY fix for that OTHER than government intervention...

    excon
  • Oct 27, 2009, 10:15 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    A good example of that would be to insure the people who NOW go to the emergency room for their day to day medical care, so that they'll go to their private doctor for that stuff. Then emergency rooms can go back to taking care of emergencies...

    Seems to me, that, and that alone would save BILLIONS. And, there's MORE savings to be wrought.

    Tell me, are the assets used by a private doctor somehow cheaper than those used by an ER?

    Because if they aren't, then there really isn't going to be any savings at all. All you'd be doing is shifting the location of treatment. There won't be any COST savings whatsoever.

    Seems to me that the aspirin handed out by the private doctor costs the same as the aspirin handed out by the ER. The band-aid costs the same whether you see a private doctor or the doctor at the hospital. The tongue depressor costs the same in both locations.

    The only real difference is that the ER will make sure that the band-aid goes to the patient needing it the most before the one needing it the least.

    Sorry, excon, but shifting the location of treatment doesn't save us a single solitary penny.

    Wrong again.

    Elliot
  • Oct 27, 2009, 11:43 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Seems to me that the aspirin handed out by the private doctor costs the same as the aspirin handed out by the ER. The band-aid costs the same whether you see a private doctor or the doctor at the hospital. Wrong again.

    Hello Elliot:

    I don't know. For a right winger, you don't understand business at all. Then of course, considering you're a banker, it's no wonder we went broke.

    In terms of how much it costs to build an emergency room as opposed to the cost to build a private practice, they are WAYYYYYYY different. That makes the cost to USE those services wayyyy different. Whereas one could charge $.50 for an aspirin and make a profit, the other would have to charge $5.00. I really don't know how you could possibly miss this glaring right wing factoid.

    I say again, if private doctors treated those who are now going to emergency rooms, the savings would be in the BILLIONS.

    excon
  • Oct 27, 2009, 12:34 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    I say again, if private doctors treated those who are now going to emergency rooms, the savings would be in the BILLIONS.

    And we'll all still be stuck with half assed health care. Except for Congress and all those people that can afford the 'platinum' policies in the Democrats' plan.
  • Oct 27, 2009, 12:43 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    In terms of the dismantling you're talking about, most of it is the FIX we had to do, because the dufus broke it. In terms of socialized health care, I'm not terribly torn up about it. I'm a believer in the government providing a safety net...

    excon


    What bill/ plan covers 100%? From what I read it covers 90 to 94 %, so 6 % of 300,000,000 is still 18,000,000 not covered by a governemnt "safety net." Another question is at what cost to TAXPAYORS? Are current government entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid, social security in the black ? Are they going to be around by 2020? If the answer is no, then why try fooling the public with another massive government pipe dream?

    More questions,

    If healthcare reform is so urgent why not tackle issues like TORT REFOM or making health insurance national? Why would any reform take effect in 2013?


    G&P
  • Oct 27, 2009, 12:46 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    The truth revealed.

    FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53 - Yahoo! News


    Is anyone going to take notice?

    Probably not.

    Elliot


    In this bad economy one of the few sectors to grow is healthcare. This administration wants to take over it and make cuts, and make it more efficient? Ha ha ha ha.
    If this administration thinks government is so efficient, why do we have all these "czars?"


    G&P
  • Oct 27, 2009, 12:47 PM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox View Post

    If healthcare reform is so urgent why not tackle issues like TORT REFOM or making health insurance national? Why would any reform take effect in 2013?
    G&P

    Democrats = Tort Reform - Not

    As for taking effect in 2013: the reason I've heard is that the taxes start immediately to 'prefund' the program so as to lower the expected costs (from CBO, et al), thereby making the scheme more acceptable to remaining fiscal hawks.
  • Oct 27, 2009, 12:54 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Elliot you make a lot of noise about insurance companies not making adequate profits, but isn't this the vaunted capitalist system in action. No organisation is entitled to super profits and many don't make big profits all the time. In any case the public interest is not well served by big profits being made from health care. What sort of investment do you think is neeeded to be an insurer. No millions invested in production only a building to operate from and someone to answer the phone, etc. Considering the investment required the returns are adequate

    Don't you think it is arrogance bordering on dictaorship for any one person or government to think they know and dictate what the "correct" profit margin should be?

    Veterans have access to the VA health care system for at least service connected illnesses, do you thinnk that 100 % of veterans only go to the VA healthcare system 100 percent of the time? Do you think that 100 % of Canadians or Brits ONLY go to their government healthcare system? Obviously, the private healthcare system is serving a need that CANNOT be adequately met by the statist solutions. If you look at it this way then the public interest is being served by private enterprise, all of which requires profit to stay in business.



    G&P
  • Oct 27, 2009, 01:37 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello Elliot:

    I don't know. For a right winger, you don't understand business at all. Then of course, considering you're a banker, it's no wonder we went broke.

    In terms of how much it costs to build an emergency room as opposed to the cost to build a private practice, they are WAYYYYYYY different. That makes the cost to USE those services wayyyy different. Whereas one could charge $.50 for an aspirin and make a profit, the other would have to charge $5.00. I really don't know how you could possibly miss this glaring right wing factoid.

    So you are saying that a $.50 bandaid in a doctors office is going to cost $5.00 at the ER.

    Can you prove that statement, or are you just making it up as you go.

    Leaving aside the fact that hospitals buy in bulk, and therefore get bulk discounts, there's also the fact that private doctors get paid better than ER doctors do... which means that your hypothetical switch from the ER to the private doctor has to cover the salary of the private doctor. How does that get accounted for in your math?

    Answer: It doesn't.

    Quote:

    I say again, if private doctors treated those who are now going to emergency rooms, the savings would be in the BILLIONS.

    Excon
    You were as wrong this time as you were the LAST time you said it.

    Elliot
  • Oct 27, 2009, 02:05 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Elliot you make a lot of noise about insurance companies not making adequate profits, but isn't this the vaunted capitalist system in action. No organisation is entitled to super profits and many don't make big profits all the time. In any case the public interest is not well served by big profits being made from health care. What sort of investment do you think is neeeded to be an insurer. No millions invested in production only a building to operate from and someone to answer the phone, etc. Considering the investment required the returns are adequate

    A few questions:

    1) What level of profits do you consider to be reasonable?

    2) What if someone else considers a higher level to be more appropriate?

    3) What if you are the owner of that business and have spent the past year working 60 or 70-hour weeks in order to create that level of profitability? Is it right for someone else to tell you that you don't deserve those profits after all the work you put in?

    4) By what legal right does the government have the authority to nationalize your company if they think you are making too much profit?

    5) What if after all your hard work, and after all the demonization by the government regarding your profitability, it turns out that your net profit margin is only 2%?

    Sorry, I find it to be the height of hubris to assume that YOU know better than the economy as a whole what the value of a company's services for the year OUGHT to earn them, and that you have the right to dictate your decision upon them.

    Elliot
  • Oct 27, 2009, 04:55 PM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post

    4) By what legal right does the government have the authority to nationalize your company if they think you are making too much profit?

    Elliot

    In re: Impeachment of Barack H. Obama:

    Count I: The Manifest Abuse of Power

    Count II: Theft by nationalization of private property.

    There will be many others by the time this crowd is finished.
  • Oct 28, 2009, 12:08 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    A few questions:

    1) What level of profits do you consider to be reasonable?

    2) What if someone else considers a higher level to be more appropriate?

    3) What if you are the owner of that business and have spent the past year working 60 or 70-hour weeks in order to create that level of profitability? Is it right for someone else to tell you that you don't deserve those profits after all the work you put in?

    4) By what legal right does the government have the authority to nationalize your company if they think you are making too much profit?

    5) What if after all your hard work, and after all the demonization by the government regarding your profitability, it turns out that your net profit margin is only 2%?

    Sorry, I find it to be the height of hubris to assume that YOU know better than the economy as a whole what the value of a company's services for the year OUGHT to earn them, and that you have the right to dictate your decision upon them.

    Elliot

    What you fail to consider here Elliot is a reasonable business cycle and the structure of the market, apparently you have too many insurance providers and so economies of scale are lost. With reasonable volume a return (% of gross revenue) 5% after tax should be more than adequate.

    There should be a mechanism where premium rises are regulated this would allow an insurer to push for higher margins based on claims experience.

    Elliot no one said the market is fair, a market position can be wiped out overnight, risk of government legislation is one of the business risks you take on so sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. 2% after tax might be a good return is some instances some businesses like Telcos operate on a 2% gross margin but then they have economies of scale

    So you find it to be the height of hubris that I should suggest a different market structure without having any idea what my qualification or experience might be. Apparently the present one isn't working so you would think suggestions would be welcome but you think these things are the preserve of economists, who apparently have failed miserably. It is not me who would dictate but government and that after all is the purpose of government to decide what should be done for the greater good. What you are saying here is that you disagreed with the choice of government and their policies and that anyone who doesn't think as you do is wrong. I tell you buddy, tough titty, apparently you are in a minority it's a tough place to be, but I am sure you are no stranger to that position.

    I was under the impression we are holding a discussion here, I can only interpret your attitude as you failing to win the debate

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:12 PM.