Aren't Private Companies In The Business Of Making Profit?

[boedicca]

So your thinking is politicians are going to run a stand alone entity that competes on it's own without government funding against private companies and taxpayers aren't going to end up footing the bill for the ridiculous promises it'll make it's customers? Why am I skeptical? Do the names Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae mean anything to you?

I suppose you want to assert that Freddy and Fannie were govt. run and not privately held companies?

On September 7, 2008, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director James B. Lockhart III announced pursuant to the financial analysis, assessments and statutory authority of the FHFA, he had placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA. FHFA has stated that there are no plans to liquidate the company.[33][34] The announcement followed reports two days earlier that the federal government was planning to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and had met with their CEOs on short notice.[50][51][52] Under plan announced September 7, 2008, the federal government, via the Federal Housing Finance Agency, placed the two firms into conservatorship, dismissed the firms' chief executive officers and boards of directors, and caused the issuance to the Treasury new senior preferred stock and common stock warrants amounting to 79.9% of each GSE.



Furthermore it was the capiltalist GREED that did them in.

On December 18, 2006, U.S. regulators filed 101 civil charges against chief executive Franklin Raines; chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard; and the former controller Leanne G. Spencer. The three are accused of manipulating Fannie Mae earnings to maximize their bonuses. The lawsuit sought to recoup more than $115 million in bonus payments, collectively accrued by the trio from 1998–2004, and about $100 million in penalties for their involvement in the accounting scandal.

So government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and when they crashed you use them as an example of the failure of capitalism. All roads lead to Rome for liberals, where Rome is the inherent truth of liberalism. Even when socialism fails, it's proof of the need for socialism. You just made a great case against government creating a health care insurer to compete against private insurers. Think about it...

It's pretty typical that Progressives blame the failure of Big Government Programs to centrally manage the economy upon the Free Market Capitalism that such programs destroy.

 

[kaz]

I have never seen a situation where someone filed for bankruptcy due to medical costs but were otherwise managing their money well. Every single case I've seen shows expensive (for them) car payments, houses they could not afford, and little to no savings when a major life threatening illness strikes. Failure to plan for medical costs is the problem, not the "healthcare system."

Usually, personal bankruptcy is filed to discharge or restructure some debts while saving assets. In other situations I've found that the person in question was unaware of the limitations in their insurance policies. Again, a failure to plan.

Do you realize that the average Joe Schmoe lives check to check? Barely paying all their bills if that? With the demise of wages one is lucky these days to be able to pay all their bills and have enough money for a French fries.

Interesting that in a country where the average shmoe lives paycheck to paycheck we have full sports arenas at 75 a tricket to just about every game of everty sport...we have movies grossing hundred million a weekend, we have a cell phone in nearly every pocket...we have
iPads back ordered, laptops everywhere, starbucks making big time profits....we have those "struggling people" attending ralleys at the cost of a workday....we have game boys and x boxes....kids over eating...McDonalds needing toi hire 50K people to meet the demand...

Average Joe living paycheck to paycheck...talking point....he lives paycheck to paycheck becuase he likes to enjoy as much as his paycheck allows him.

As someone who's responsible, takes care of yourself and works hard you should be ashamed. You owe apologies and checks to those who don't, what sort of uncaring cad are you?

 

[logical4u]

So tell me...how does a private company make a profit out of taking care of old ladies with cancer?

I believe the same argument the Republicans were making previously about "death panels" is exactly what they are inviting into with Ryancare.

There seems to be a contradiction between providing the care these vulnerable people need and making the profit that comes from not paying for the care these vulnerable people need.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

"Obamacare" forces resources away from healthcare; there is no profit, the workers, the resources will not be "invested". For "you", that means the "best & the brightest" will choose other fields where they can earn "more" of a profit.

A "private company" provides a service for a "price". It does not matter if it is from the individual, the insurance company, or to some extent from the government. The company's profits, determine the "quality" of people that will work for it. The more profits, the better empoyee benefit packages are. The people, will access to such care pay for the "best" care, money can buy. Because of this, improvements are made in healthcare (if a doctor wants to experiment with a new treatment in a "hopeless" case, the patient is willing to "fund the research" as well as provide the "guinea pig", themselves). This improves the health care for all. Others in the medical profession, will compete for those dollars, providing "better" service, or expanding to "well being care", etc. These same companies that have become "profitable" support hospitals and treatment centers where "those that do not have access to medical care" can go and be treated. The medical personnel that work in these places may be working at improving their experience or skills so they can move to one of the "better medical facilities" for better pay. To do that, they work hard, and try to give the patients the best treatment. The system of "profit" improves health care for all.

"Obamacare" support "professionals" that are looking to get a job with security. The medical professions will be unionized and care will resemble snow removal in "unionized" cities. The "employee" benefit packages" will be on par with government workers where slackers pay will be equal to high performers (that means the "performers" will find a place where they can be compensated according to their skills) which will mean "worse" care. Experimentation and research will not be "approved" because it will take money from union members. The medical care will have few or no advancements and the entire country will suffer as a result.

This is just my opinion, from watching "civilization" over a few decades, but what do I know?

 

[MarcATL]

Its also pure speculation that a single payer or public option system would cure all of our health care ills, but its speculation you like, so in you mind it makes it valid.

The fact you are defending the DMV is just funny. I guess you like paying for a service that you have absolutely no feedback to or ability to influence, and that you have to modify your own schedule to meet.

Goverment should serve US, we shouldnt have to accomodate IT.

I'm not defending the DMV. In fact, I didn't realize the convo turned into a pro/anti DMV debate.

I'm simply suggesting that those of your ilk who like to demonize and bash government to the point of stifling them financially...then turn around and complain when the services rendered aren't up to par.

Well what do you expect?

In the free market, don't the companies with the most money have better services? Isn't there a correlation between having the financial backing and the services rendered. The chicken and the egg scenario notwithstanding.

I don't know how you could expect to want to drown it in the bathtub, but then expect it to serve you at the drop of a dime.

That just. doesn't. make. sense.

 

[asterism]

I have never seen a situation where someone filed for bankruptcy due to medical costs but were otherwise managing their money well. Every single case I've seen shows expensive (for them) car payments, houses they could not afford, and little to no savings when a major life threatening illness strikes. Failure to plan for medical costs is the problem, not the "healthcare system."

Usually, personal bankruptcy is filed to discharge or restructure some debts while saving assets. In other situations I've found that the person in question was unaware of the limitations in their insurance policies. Again, a failure to plan.

Do you realize that the average Joe Schmoe lives check to check? Barely paying all their bills if that?

Yes. Neither Bush, the "neocons," the healthcare system, nor any big greedy corporation caused that. None of the big government solutions are going to fix it either.

With the demise of wages one is lucky these days to be able to pay all their bills and have enough money for a French fries.

That's simply not true. First, there has been no demise in wages. Certain quintiles have grown less than others and some industries do not pay as well as in the past, but generally everyone is better off except for those who made bad decisions. Second, at any level above poverty it's possible to live comfortably within one's means. That people refuse to do that is their own fault, nor is there any solution the government can provide.

 

[BlindBoo]

A company's ability to make profit enables it to make the innovations to provide more care to more people, bub.

Do you happen to have a list of the Health Insurance Companies list of inovations they have created for the healthcare industry over the years?

If you bothered to read, you would already know that I do not view the health insurance industry as operating in a proper free market. It is full of large corporations that are Big Government Cronies.

Be that as it may, they still do innovate.

You sad little moonbats would benefit from a real innovation: the search engine.

Earlier today, ActiveHealth Management, an Aetna subsidiary, announced it has entered into a significant relationship with IBM to jointly design, develop, market and operate a unique product called Collaborative Care Solution. The solution will enable medical practices, hospitals and states to effectively change the way they deliver health care – using health information exchange and real-time clinical decision support – and demonstrate that they are providing better quality care at a lower cost.

The solution is not simply enablement of electronic exchange, but gives care teams the ability to improve the care that they deliver. The solution harnesses data from multiple sources to create a more complete view of the patient, and enables doctors to act on it at the point of care. They can communicate with their patients, either in person or electronically through secure channels, or with other members of the extended care team, such as nurse practitioners or physician extenders. Importantly, the solution is based on ActiveHealth’s CareEngine® technology. This technology delivers insights based on evidence-based guidelines as well as detects gaps or omissions in care. It has proven to improve care while reducing costs(1). This “early warning system” not only helps identify patients in greatest need, it also provides a tool that permits the entire care team to engage to protect and improve the health of patients before they need a visit to the emergency room or hospital.

News release


"WellPoint is pleased to be recognized by InformationWeek as a top technology innovator in America," said Lori Beer, Chief Information Officer, WellPoint, Inc. "WellPoint is committed to using technology and data to better understand the health and health-behaviors of its members so that we can create programs and products designed that can help improve their health and the quality of their lives."

InformationWeek identifies and honors the nation's most innovative users of information technology with its annual 500 listing and also tracks the technology, strategies, investments and administrative practices of America's best-known companies. The InformationWeek 500 rankings are unique among corporate rankings as it spotlights the power of innovation in information technology, rather than simply identifying the biggest IT spenders.

"For 22 years, the InformationWeek 500 has honored the most innovative users of business technology," said InformationWeek Editor In Chief Rob Preston. "As we start to emerge from the worst recession in decades, the IT focus is now on driving growth - new sources of revenue, new relationships with customers, even new business models. This year's ranking placed special emphasis on those companies and business technology executives leading that charge."

WellPoint Recognized on the 2010 InformationWeek Top Technology Innovators Across America List -- INDIANAPOLIS, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

I was going to thank you for the information but you're such a snot with your sad little insults.

I'll point out that the innovations I was referring to was for actual medical innovation not IT innovations.

Nonetheless it is innovation.

ActiveHealth operates as a branded, standalone business. Today, ActiveHealth Management creates evidence-based health information technology solutions that deliver proven benefits in quality and costs.

A software company.

 

[MarcATL]

I have never seen a situation where someone filed for bankruptcy due to medical costs but were otherwise managing their money well. Every single case I've seen shows expensive (for them) car payments, houses they could not afford, and little to no savings when a major life threatening illness strikes. Failure to plan for medical costs is the problem, not the "healthcare system."

Usually, personal bankruptcy is filed to discharge or restructure some debts while saving assets. In other situations I've found that the person in question was unaware of the limitations in their insurance policies. Again, a failure to plan.

Do you realize that the average Joe Schmoe lives check to check? Barely paying all their bills if that?

Yes. Neither Bush, the "neocons," the healthcare system, nor any big greedy corporation caused that. None of the big government solutions are going to fix it either.

With the demise of wages one is lucky these days to be able to pay all their bills and have enough money for a French fries.

That's simply not true. First, there has been no demise in wages. Certain quintiles have grown less than others and some industries do not pay as well as in the past, but generally everyone is better off except for those who made bad decisions. Second, at any level above poverty it's possible to live comfortably within one's means. That people refuse to do that is their own fault, nor is there any solution the government can provide.

This is the crux of the problem. You and your ilk have this belief that everything is fine for everyone "except those that have made bad decisions."

This is NOT the story of the current middle class. They aren't living that fantasy reality you are. And they aren't living reckless squandering lifestyles either.

The middle-class will punish the Republicans for this...mark my words.

 

[asterism]

Do you realize that the average Joe Schmoe lives check to check? Barely paying all their bills if that?

Yes. Neither Bush, the "neocons," the healthcare system, nor any big greedy corporation caused that. None of the big government solutions are going to fix it either.

With the demise of wages one is lucky these days to be able to pay all their bills and have enough money for a French fries.

That's simply not true. First, there has been no demise in wages. Certain quintiles have grown less than others and some industries do not pay as well as in the past, but generally everyone is better off except for those who made bad decisions. Second, at any level above poverty it's possible to live comfortably within one's means. That people refuse to do that is their own fault, nor is there any solution the government can provide.

This is the crux of the problem. You and your ilk have this belief that everything is fine for everyone "except those that have made bad decisions."

No, not literally "everyone." Generally yes, those who have made bad decisions are worse off for them though. Running up credit card debt for clothes and big TVs while at the same time having 2 car payments more than a typical mortgage and not saving?

Bad decision.

This is NOT the story of the current middle class. They aren't living that fantasy reality you are. And they aren't living reckless squandering lifestyles either.

Show some data to back that up. The savings rate is this:

FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed[1][id]=PSAVERT&s[1][range]=10yrs

While the increase in compensation is this:

Employment Cost Index: Wages & Salaries: Private Industry Workers (ECIWAG) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

And entertainment spending is this:

US Entertainment Spending | The Big Picture

(more information at the link)

Doesn't look like they are just getting by to me. It amazes me that the bottom quintile cut out of home entertainment expenditures by 39% between 2000 and 2009. If they are so poor and need so much help how are they able to have any money to spend on out of home entertainment at all?

The middle-class will punish the Republicans for this...mark my words.

They already did in 2008. How did that one work out?

 

[kaz]

This is the crux of the problem. You and your ilk have this belief that everything is fine for everyone "except those that have made bad decisions."

This is NOT the story of the current middle class. They aren't living that fantasy reality you are. And they aren't living reckless squandering lifestyles either.

The middle-class will punish the Republicans for this...mark my words.

It's not about making bad decisions, it's about not making good decisions. Anyone who works hard and has half a brain can make it. And how you do it is by doing what I did my whole working career, live below my means. That is how I saved enough money to start buying businesses. "Luck" had nothing to do with it and there's nothing I do anyone else can't. No one checks my race, religion or sex to help me, and it doesn't protect me from the consequences of poor decisions. If people can't make it here, they can't make it anywhere in the history of man.

And I do help them, but it's out of the goodness of my heart, not because I owe them anything and I'm sick of the Left telling me somehow I'm inferior and should be embarassed because I've worked hard and lived below my means and I'm sick of the Left telling the "poor" they should have zero appreciation or respect for the people who earned the money they are spending and in fact the ills of the world are all our fault.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's not about making bad decisions, it's about not making good decisions.

The force (deceit) is strong in this one

 

[kaz]

It's not about making bad decisions, it's about not making good decisions.

The force (deceit) is strong in this one

What's deceitful about it? If you bet all your money on a horse and can't pay your rent you made an actual bad decision. If you save 10% of your income you made a good decision. If you neither blow your money nor save, you just spend it every month, you neither made a ban nor good decision, you made no decision.

Seems pretty clear to me. Though I realize I didn't blame the rich or in any other way support a liberal objective, so by the rules of liberal logic it's deceitful, but I meant how is it deceitful according to actual logic?

 

[Jarhead]

It's not about making bad decisions, it's about not making good decisions.

The force (deceit) is strong in this one

What's deceitful about it? If you bet all your money on a horse and can't pay your rent you made an actual bad decision. If you save 10% of your income you made a good decision. If you neither blow your money nor save, you just spend it every month, you neither made a ban nor good decision, you made no decision.

Seems pretty clear to me. Though I realize I didn't blame the rich or in any other way support a liberal objective, so by the rules of liberal logic it's deceitful, but I meant how is it deceitful according to actual logic?

I disagree....

If you spend every penny of your paycheck, but some of that money went to extra things, such as dinner out....you made a really bad decision as you are counting on still having your job next week.....but maybe you wont?

 

[kaz]

The force (deceit) is strong in this one

What's deceitful about it? If you bet all your money on a horse and can't pay your rent you made an actual bad decision. If you save 10% of your income you made a good decision. If you neither blow your money nor save, you just spend it every month, you neither made a ban nor good decision, you made no decision.

Seems pretty clear to me. Though I realize I didn't blame the rich or in any other way support a liberal objective, so by the rules of liberal logic it's deceitful, but I meant how is it deceitful according to actual logic?

I disagree....

If you spend every penny of your paycheck, but some of that money went to extra things, such as dinner out....you made a really bad decision as you are counting on still having your job next week.....but maybe you wont?

I'm actually with you on that, but I was trying to lower the bar for the liberal

 

[logical4u]

So tell me...how does a private company make a profit out of taking care of old ladies with cancer?

I believe the same argument the Republicans were making previously about "death panels" is exactly what they are inviting into with Ryancare.

There seems to be a contradiction between providing the care these vulnerable people need and making the profit that comes from not paying for the care these vulnerable people need.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

"Obamacare" forces resources away from healthcare; there is no profit, the workers, the resources will not be "invested". For "you", that means the "best & the brightest" will choose other fields where they can earn "more" of a profit.

A "private company" provides a service for a "price". It does not matter if it is from the individual, the insurance company, or to some extent from the government. The company's profits, determine the "quality" of people that will work for it. The more profits, the better empoyee benefit packages are. The people, will access to such care pay for the "best" care, money can buy. Because of this, improvements are made in healthcare (if a doctor wants to experiment with a new treatment in a "hopeless" case, the patient is willing to "fund the research" as well as provide the "guinea pig", themselves). This improves the health care for all. Others in the medical profession, will compete for those dollars, providing "better" service, or expanding to "well being care", etc. These same companies that have become "profitable" support hospitals and treatment centers where "those that do not have access to medical care" can go and be treated. The medical personnel that work in these places may be working at improving their experience or skills so they can move to one of the "better medical facilities" for better pay. To do that, they work hard, and try to give the patients the best treatment. The system of "profit" improves health care for all.

"Obamacare" support "professionals" that are looking to get a job with security. The medical professions will be unionized and care will resemble snow removal in "unionized" cities. The "employee" benefit packages" will be on par with government workers where slackers pay will be equal to high performers (that means the "performers" will find a place where they can be compensated according to their skills) which will mean "worse" care. Experimentation and research will not be "approved" because it will take money from union members. The medical care will have few or no advancements and the entire country will suffer as a result.

This is just my opinion, from watching "civilization" over a few decades, but what do I know?

Private health providers offer "choice" for everyone. Obamacare is not about opening those "choices" to everyone, but to limit those "choices" to those that can "afford" them.

 

[RDD_1210]

So tell me...how does a private company make a profit out of taking care of old ladies with cancer?

I believe the same argument the Republicans were making previously about "death panels" is exactly what they are inviting into with Ryancare.

There seems to be a contradiction between providing the care these vulnerable people need and making the profit that comes from not paying for the care these vulnerable people need.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

"Obamacare" forces resources away from healthcare; there is no profit, the workers, the resources will not be "invested". For "you", that means the "best & the brightest" will choose other fields where they can earn "more" of a profit.

A "private company" provides a service for a "price". It does not matter if it is from the individual, the insurance company, or to some extent from the government. The company's profits, determine the "quality" of people that will work for it. The more profits, the better empoyee benefit packages are. The people, will access to such care pay for the "best" care, money can buy. Because of this, improvements are made in healthcare (if a doctor wants to experiment with a new treatment in a "hopeless" case, the patient is willing to "fund the research" as well as provide the "guinea pig", themselves). This improves the health care for all. Others in the medical profession, will compete for those dollars, providing "better" service, or expanding to "well being care", etc. These same companies that have become "profitable" support hospitals and treatment centers where "those that do not have access to medical care" can go and be treated. The medical personnel that work in these places may be working at improving their experience or skills so they can move to one of the "better medical facilities" for better pay. To do that, they work hard, and try to give the patients the best treatment. The system of "profit" improves health care for all.

"Obamacare" support "professionals" that are looking to get a job with security. The medical professions will be unionized and care will resemble snow removal in "unionized" cities. The "employee" benefit packages" will be on par with government workers where slackers pay will be equal to high performers (that means the "performers" will find a place where they can be compensated according to their skills) which will mean "worse" care. Experimentation and research will not be "approved" because it will take money from union members. The medical care will have few or no advancements and the entire country will suffer as a result.

This is just my opinion, from watching "civilization" over a few decades, but what do I know?

Private health providers offer "choice" for everyone. Obamacare is not about opening those "choices" to everyone, but to limit those "choices" to those that can "afford" them.

Incorrect on multiple levels. Please start over.

 

[sinister59]

So tell me...how does a private company make a profit out of taking care of old ladies with cancer?

I believe the same argument the Republicans were making previously about "death panels" is exactly what they are inviting into with Ryancare.

There seems to be a contradiction between providing the care these vulnerable people need and making the profit that comes from not paying for the care these vulnerable people need.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

everyone is in the business of making money , from religouse organization to racial groups , Charity's ,
look how much Haiti generated , but look how much got to the people .

now musician and actors are at it again with Japan ,
every-time a disaster happens their out there getting richer .

lots of non for profit groups but salaries must get paid , over head ,
its the volunteers that work for nothing not the organisers .