FallingOsh 0 #101 December 9, 2009 Quote I found similar data. Good. So we can agree that insurance companies aren't just soaking up the billions as part of a giant corporate conspiracy. They have operating costs and yes, they will turn a profit. 3.4% is nothing to call evil. Quote Free country; free to be ill as your countrymen watch. See, you flag wavers tend to forget the "By the people, of the people, for the people" catchy little phrase. "By the people, of the people, for the people" means tax the shit out of some to give away to others? I always thought it meant something more like everyone pitch in, work hard, get out of life what you put in. Quote You think freedom means to allocate massive sums of money to private corporations from teh government, Ok. Let me get this straight. You're pissed off because corporations receive money from the government.... and you advocate a government run healthcare plan? Who do you think all those subsidies will go to? Doctors, businesses, and corporations. You bitch and bitch and bitch about corporate welfare and then advocate the government paying out more money to businesses and corporations. Quote in whatever industry, and then allow that corp to operate how they want, exclude who they want Name one industry that operates however they want. Quote and pay how many ever 100's of millions in salary to the waste at the top - then call that freedom. If a private company chooses to pay it's employees 100's of millions of dollars (approved by the board and the shareholders) then yes... i would call that part of operating in a free country. I suppose you'd rather place government mandated caps on private industry employees and then whine when those businesses move overseas. Quote And that's because you picture a nation's medical health as a business decision, a corporate model, etc. I don't picture it that way. It is that way. Healthcare is not free. Drugs don't develope themselves. Technological advances don't appear in the bottom of a cereal box. Hospitals cost money to run, doctors need paychecks, and medical advances require funding for research. Try funding a hospital on hopes, dreams, and lollipops for a week. Quote The rest of the world, the civilized part, refers to HC as a necessity, not a business; that's where conservatives really are a mess. HC is a necessity. I've never contended that. That's why I've always had insurance, my family has always had insurance, and my parents have always had insurance. It's a necessity that we're dedicated to provide which does in fact (gasp) require money which may in fact (gasp) require insurance to be a funding priority. That's where you and the rest of the gimme gimme's are really a mess. You think every necessity should be provided for you. A product of service isn't either a necessity or a business. It can be both and very often is. Food is a necessity. The food industry is a business. You going to start whining that you have to pay for groceries? Quote I get it, 2% of the world - US connies are right, the rest of the world is wrong. Here we go with the temper tantrum. You're claiming 98% of the world has government provided healthcare? Quote Of course its those connies who stuck us most of 12T in debt You want to talk about Presidents and debt? But... but.. but... Obama's is different. Quote while the rest of the world has killed our currency, so we've almost ousted those genius American conservatives - more to go. Ousted conservatives? Time to back peddle. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #102 December 9, 2009 QuoteIt would be nice to know what number this 3.4% corresponds to. Nice, maybe. Still irrelevant. Why does it matter what dollar amount they're taking home? If their profit margin was in the 50's then there would be some merit to screaming about the evil insurance industry price gouging. Quote But you will also pay if there is no healthcare reform, I'm pretty sure somewhere in this thread I've said I favor some kind of healthcare reform... mostly in tort reform and that sort of approach. Something that will fix the system versus more taxes and subsidies. QuoteWhy don't you try to calculate which way you'd pay LESS? I don't have the time, data, or calculator to do that myself. The CBO has some words, though. From what I've recently read, my costs would either remain the same or increase under the Senate bill. Tax increases would compound the issue. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #103 December 9, 2009 Quote Nice, maybe. Still irrelevant. Why does it matter what dollar amount they're taking home? If their profit margin was in the 50's then there would be some merit to screaming about the evil insurance industry price gouging. Because it's the amount which matters, not percentage. As I said, my income went up 45%, so does it mean I'm making ten times more than the insurance company? Of course not. We need to compare real profits, not abstract percentages. Quote I'm pretty sure somewhere in this thread I've said I favor some kind of healthcare reform... mostly in tort reform and that sort of approach. Something that will fix the system versus more taxes and subsidies. I do not see how tort reform would fix the cases when people go to ER and do not pay. I do not see how it fixes people with pre-existing conditions which cannot get insurance (so they instead go to ER and do not pay). Also we discussed it recently, and there were a few examples showing that tort reforms do not work for reducing costs - insurance companies do not lower premiums, they just packet more profits, so this did not lower the costs in Georgia. Quote I don't have the time, data, or calculator to do that myself. The CBO has some words, though. From what I've recently read, my costs would either remain the same or increase under the Senate bill. Tax increases would compound the issue. But you're looking only on immediate effects. Did you also take in account the health insurance premiums which doubled in last ten years? And how much would _your_ costs increase? I mean, extra $1 a year is technically "cost increase" but it's not something I'd fight till death.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #104 December 9, 2009 Quote Good. So we can agree that insurance companies aren't just soaking up the billions as part of a giant corporate conspiracy. They have operating costs and yes, they will turn a profit. 3.4% is nothing to call evil. If their profit is 3.4% of all collected premium, then assuming 200M people paying for insurance (Republicans tell us 80% of Americans have private insurance, but let's be more conservative), and average 2009 yearly premium is $7.5K, we have total premium of 1.5e12, and 3,4% of this amount is 51B. This is split mostly by ten or so large companies, giving us conservatively 4B per large insurance company. Not exactly a small amount.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #105 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote Good. So we can agree that insurance companies aren't just soaking up the billions as part of a giant corporate conspiracy. They have operating costs and yes, they will turn a profit. 3.4% is nothing to call evil. If their profit is 3.4% of all collected premium, then assuming 200M people paying for insurance (Republicans tell us 80% of Americans have private insurance, but let's be more conservative), and average 2009 yearly premium is $7.5K, we have total premium of 1.5e12, and 3,4% of this amount is 51B. This is split mostly by ten or so large companies, giving us conservatively 4B per large insurance company. Not exactly a small amount. And that's how much, in comparison to the several trillion that Obamacare is projected to cost?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #106 December 9, 2009 Quote Because it's the amount which matters, not percentage. The dollar amount that their profit margin equals? How do you compare that to other companies? Of course their actualy dollar amount is going to be higher than some smaller industries. It could also be lower. Profit margin is way to see that they are not out to just blindly take everyone's money. Operating at a low profit margin, even if the dollar amount is high, shows that a company is running nearly equal income and expenses. In this case it shows me that all of these claims about the evil, price gouging insurance companies is just rhetoric. QuoteAs I said, my income went up 45%, so does it mean I'm making ten times more than the insurance company? Well, no. That's not profit margin. If your personal business's profit pargin was 45% then yes, I would say you have no right to critisize the health insurance industry for being too money hungry. QuoteOf course not. We need to compare real profits, not abstract percentages. Haha. Ok, go explain to a company how profit margin is an 'abstract percentage.' QuoteI do not see how tort reform would fix the cases when people go to ER and do not pay. I do not see how it fixes people with pre-existing conditions which cannot get insurance (so they instead go to ER and do not pay). Tort reform gets at one of the issues causing a rise in healthcare costs. It includes law suit standards and limitations, non-payment regulations, etc. Would if fix people walking into the ER, maybe not. My point is that we need to fix the problem, not subsidize it. QuoteAlso we discussed it recently, and there were a few examples showing that tort reforms do not work for reducing costs - insurance companies do not lower premiums, they just packet more profits, so this did not lower the costs in Georgia. And history shows that subsidizing or starting a government option increases the cost to the point of bankruptcy; ie. Hawaii Quote But you're looking only on immediate effects. Which effects would you like me to look at? QuoteDid you also take in account the health insurance premiums which doubled in last ten years? The CBO said costs likely to stay the same or increase. That assessment is independant of premiums doubling over the last ten years. Again, subsidizing or raising taxes will not change the fact they doubled and does nothing to address the issue of why they doubled. QuoteAnd how much would _your_ costs increase? Don't know. The bill isn't released yet. All I can go by is what the official estimates are and that was stay the same or increase. I don't know how much that means, but it answers your original question of which situation costs less. Quote I mean, extra $1 a year is technically "cost increase" but it's not something I'd fight till death. It still wouldn't address the real issues. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #107 December 9, 2009 Quote And that's how much, in comparison to the several trillion that Obamacare is projected to cost? It's larger than equator.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #108 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote Nice, maybe. Still irrelevant. Why does it matter what dollar amount they're taking home? If their profit margin was in the 50's then there would be some merit to screaming about the evil insurance industry price gouging. Because it's the amount which matters, not percentage. As I said, my income went up 45%, so does it mean I'm making ten times more than the insurance company? Of course not. We need to compare real profits, not abstract percentages. along the same argument you just tried to make ($1 increase not significant) - if health care is so expensive, are we really going to be any happier if it's made not for profit and our costs go down 3%? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #109 December 9, 2009 Quote In this case it shows me that all of these claims about the evil, price gouging insurance companies is just rhetoric. Yeah, they just pocketing 51 billion a year for just getting and receiving money, after all expenses are paid. Doesn't the idea of government doing the same and saving us 51B a year look attractive? Quote Well, no. That's not profit margin. If your personal business's profit pargin was 45% then yes, I would say you have no right to critisize the health insurance industry for being too money hungry. Neither I nor health insurers are resellers, so there is no profit margin (and no gouging in traditional terms either). Quote Haha. Ok, go explain to a company how profit margin is an 'abstract percentage.' It can explain whether the insurers are poor and operating just above their expenses. 3.4% looks like a small number until you see the real amount behind it. Quote Tort reform gets at one of the issues causing a rise in healthcare costs. It includes law suit standards and limitations, non-payment regulations, etc. Would if fix people walking into the ER, maybe not. My point is that we need to fix the problem, not subsidize it. So how would you fix it, and make sure the insurers would lower malpractice premiums, instead of just packing more profit (which is exactly what seem to happen in Georgia)? Quote And history shows that subsidizing or starting a government option increases the cost to the point of bankruptcy; ie. Hawaii But you have USPS which is a "government option", and which works very well. From the other side, you have Enron, AIG, GM and a bunch of other superior private companies, which are not. Quote Which effects would you like me to look at? Something like ten year perspective, at least. Like contributing to your 401(k) - if you're looking on intermediate effects only, you're losing money, right? Quote The CBO said costs likely to stay the same or increase. Please quote the line from CBO report where it says the cost for all consumers will increase? I'm asking this because I went through the report, and it was quite hard to understand it, so please the exact page/line. Quote Again, subsidizing or raising taxes will not change the fact they doubled and does nothing to address the issue of why they doubled. The bill addresses most of the issues insurance companies claim which led to doubling the costs. This is supported by the fact that neither increase in my premiums gave my doctor more money for the services performed. Quote Don't know. The bill isn't released yet. But you're still concerned about increase. Lol.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #110 December 9, 2009 Quote along the same argument you just tried to make ($1 increase not significant) - if health care is so expensive, are we really going to be any happier if it's made not for profit and our costs go down 3%? Savings of 51B? Yeah, that would be significant.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #111 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote along the same argument you just tried to make ($1 increase not significant) - if health care is so expensive, are we really going to be any happier if it's made not for profit and our costs go down 3%? Savings of 51B? Yeah, that would be significant. Too bad it's not likely to happen.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #112 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou think the military runs well? We should always wait to do things until we can do them well. In other words, we should never do anything. Ever. Because there's always someone with higher standards. Even if you don't think the military runs well, it is still the strongest military on the planet. In any event, it's not about how well it's run, by your definition, it's about doing better than what we have now. That means an end to economic discrimination of healthcare, for starters. It also means removing the corrupt insurance companies from the equation. And give control to the more corrupt government? the one that denies a higher percentage of claims then the insurance companies? the one that runs medicade and medicre that pays less than the cost of the treatment? the one that has bankrupted the one they do run? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #113 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote along the same argument you just tried to make ($1 increase not significant) - if health care is so expensive, are we really going to be any happier if it's made not for profit and our costs go down 3%? Savings of 51B? Yeah, that would be significant. And how much of that will go to pay for the 45mil uninsured? leaving how much for all the new government employees that will receive retirement packages like congress, post office and military when they retire? still sound good? how much more do you want to pay for health care? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #114 December 9, 2009 >It's larger than equator. Yes, but the current suffering is bigger than Jupiter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #115 December 9, 2009 Quote Too bad it's not likely to happen. Of course not, as they will be out of business * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #116 December 9, 2009 Quote And give control to the more corrupt government? the one that denies a higher percentage of claims then the insurance companies? The question is, how many of denied claims were valid? I have two friends who're on Medicare, and they never have any claims denied. I, however, have personally had one claim denied by my insurer, which they only paid after I sent them a threatening letter. Quote the one that runs medicade and medicre that pays less than the cost of the treatment? Proof? Quote the one that has bankrupted the one they do run? You guys are probably crying loud that your Social Security retirement is managed by a corrupt denying inefficient government, and not a nice profitable private company like Madoff, right?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #117 December 9, 2009 Quote And how much of that will go to pay for the 45mil uninsured? Probably no more than we're paying right now. Those 45mil uninsured are receiving the service, they just do not pay for it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #118 December 9, 2009 >Those 45mil uninsured are receiving the service, they just do not pay for it. Which is the GOP healthcare plan in a nutshell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #119 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote And how much of that will go to pay for the 45mil uninsured? Probably no more than we're paying right now. Those 45mil uninsured are receiving the service, they just do not pay for it. The same, accurate, point has been made dozens of times already. You might as well be talking to a brick wall.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #120 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Good. So we can agree that insurance companies aren't just soaking up the billions as part of a giant corporate conspiracy. They have operating costs and yes, they will turn a profit. 3.4% is nothing to call evil. If their profit is 3.4% of all collected premium, then assuming 200M people paying for insurance (Republicans tell us 80% of Americans have private insurance, but let's be more conservative), and average 2009 yearly premium is $7.5K, we have total premium of 1.5e12, and 3,4% of this amount is 51B. This is split mostly by ten or so large companies, giving us conservatively 4B per large insurance company. Not exactly a small amount. And that's how much, in comparison to the several trillion that Obamacare is projected to cost? You wouldn't by any chance be confusing profits with total cost of operations, would you? Oh, yes, that IS what you're doing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #121 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote along the same argument you just tried to make ($1 increase not significant) - if health care is so expensive, are we really going to be any happier if it's made not for profit and our costs go down 3%? Savings of 51B? Yeah, that would be significant. In the perfect world, where you get your wish to take any profit incentive away, 200M Americans save $255/year. sorry, that's fucking retarded, if that's your argument. Let's screw up the entire system for a potential savings of $20/month on premiums? Since we're spending so much more on health care than anyone else, it seems like we ought to do better than 3% by actually addressing costs, rather than engaging in this silliness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #122 December 9, 2009 QuoteThe same, accurate, point has been made dozens of times already. You might as well be talking to a brick wall. I'm used to it. My two year old son often needs the same thing to be repeated more than a dozen times until he finally understands it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #123 December 9, 2009 Quote Quote Too bad it's not likely to happen. Of course not, as they will be out of business No, they won't...who do you think is going to be running the 'marketplaces'?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #124 December 9, 2009 Quote In the perfect world, where you get your wish to take any profit incentive away, 200M Americans save $255/year. As a matter of discussion, it would probably be the first year in history then when insurance premiums actually went down. Personally we would definitely use extra $510 a year; if you don't need yours, I would gladly collect it too. And I don't really understand your objections. Are you saying that unless the bill immediately provides something like 50% of savings comparing to today's costs, it's useless and shall not pass? Quote Since we're spending so much more on health care than anyone else, it seems like we ought to do better than 3% by actually addressing costs, rather than engaging in this silliness. I don't believe there is a single item which you can fix and get immediate 20% savings. However I believe there may be ten items, and each of them might give 3-5% of savings. Implementing all of them would give approximately 40% of saving.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #125 December 10, 2009 Quote>Those 45mil uninsured are receiving the service, they just do not pay for it. Which is the GOP healthcare plan in a nutshell. So the Dem plan would be a combination of: "Let them die from early breast cancer" "Let them die from heart disease because pacemakers are more expensive than pain pills" "Let them die from neglect after we cut the home care funds out of medicare"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
