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

[RDD_1210]

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

Tell us about some of the innovations that your health insurance company has come up with.

An insurance company providing a way for me to insure against catastrophic risk is worth a premium, imo.

If you are concerned about profits for routine care etc., then aim your outrage at the politicians who enabled this inefficient structure in the first place.

As for other corporations, pharma, medical device, and medical equipment corporations - as well a medical practices, clinics, and hospitals all deserve the profits they earn in a free market system.

I agree about Pharma, doctors and other corporations. That's not what I asked you.

I asked about insurance companies and the innovations they come up with using their profits. Insuring you is their business, not an innovation. And part of the problem is they weren't always insuring people who paid them! Dropping customers and denying coverage when sickness hit. All in the name of profit!......errrr, innovation?

So again, what innovations have insurance companies come up with? You know, the whole reason why you claim its so important to turn a profit.

 

[martybegan]

yes, and i also understand it is merely a stepping stone to a single payer system. Please dont insult other's intellect by stating otherwise. But, in the interest of clarity, for the public option, i will change my statement to "replace the corporate burecrat with a government sanctioned corporate burecrat (and the civil servant burecrat assigned to oversee him/her)

better?

i just want to be sure that you understand that with a public option you are still free to choose whatever insurance plan you want. You have the option of private or government plans. Many on this site can't comprehend the difference even what the ppaca that has passed and a "goverment takeover", nevermind how a public option is different and still not a single payer system.

we comprehend the difference just fine. Ignoring the topic of government control and wealth redistribution and just addressing your point on there still being private insurance, there are three obvious issues:

1) the public option doesn't need to make money, private carriers do. The government can just tax more to pay for it. How can private carriers compete with that? They will go out of business because they have to make a profit, they can't just confiscate someone's money as government can.

2) the government while competing with private carriers is the one who makes the rules. You'd go ape shit if that were the case in something you opposed, government making the rules then competing with something you supported with the ability to just regulate their own competitors out of business.

3) the path of government control never ends by the left. No one could argue with credibility that even if private insurers survive eventually the government will not at some point just shut them down anyway. The government doesn't know how to compete, it only controls.

this.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes, and I also understand it is merely a stepping stone to a single payer system. Please dont insult other's intellect by stating otherwise. But, in the interest of clarity, for the public option, i will change my statement to "replace the corporate burecrat with a government sanctioned corporate burecrat (and the civil servant burecrat assigned to oversee him/her)

Better?

I just want to be sure that you understand that with a public option you are still free to choose whatever insurance plan you want. You have the option of private or government plans. Many on this site can't comprehend the difference even what the PPACA that has passed and a "goverment takeover", nevermind how a public option is different and still not a single payer system.

We comprehend the difference just fine. Ignoring the topic of government control and wealth redistribution and just addressing your point on there still being private insurance, there are three obvious issues:

1) The public option doesn't need to make money, private carriers do. The government can just tax more to pay for it. How can private carriers compete with that? They will go out of business because they have to make a profit, they can't just confiscate someone's money as government can.

If private insurance companies are so wonderful and offered a great product they wouldn't have to fear a government option. According to you guys private companies ALWAYS do things better then government programs, right? Sooo, the only people who would choose a government plan are those who wanted a low cost, no frills plan. Is FedEx or UPS in danger of being put of business by the post office?

And if hoards of people did choose the public option, what does that tell you about the quality of the offering of private insurance??

 

[boedicca]

Tell us about some of the innovations that your health insurance company has come up with.

An insurance company providing a way for me to insure against catastrophic risk is worth a premium, imo.

If you are concerned about profits for routine care etc., then aim your outrage at the politicians who enabled this inefficient structure in the first place.

As for other corporations, pharma, medical device, and medical equipment corporations - as well a medical practices, clinics, and hospitals all deserve the profits they earn in a free market system.

I agree about Pharma, doctors and other corporations. That's not what I asked you.

I asked about insurance companies and the innovations they come up with using their profits. Insuring you is their business, not an innovation. And part of the problem is they weren't always insuring people who paid them! Dropping customers and denying coverage when sickness hit. All in the name of profit!......errrr, innovation?

So again, what innovations have insurance companies come up with? You know, the whole reason why you claim its so important to turn a profit.

An INNOVATION of Insurance company: pooling risk so that we can be insured against catastrophic loss.

If you don't value it, then you can forgo coverage.

 

[Mr Natural]

Tell us about some of the innovations that your health insurance company has come up with.

An insurance company providing a way for me to insure against catastrophic risk is worth a premium, imo.

If you are concerned about profits for routine care etc., then aim your outrage at the politicians who enabled this inefficient structure in the first place.

As for other corporations, pharma, medical device, and medical equipment corporations - as well a medical practices, clinics, and hospitals all deserve the profits they earn in a free market system.

I agree about Pharma, doctors and other corporations. That's not what I asked you.

I asked about insurance companies and the innovations they come up with using their profits. Insuring you is their business, not an innovation. And part of the problem is they weren't always insuring people who paid them! Dropping customers and denying coverage when sickness hit. All in the name of profit!......errrr, innovation?

So again, what innovations have insurance companies come up with? You know, the whole reason why you claim its so important to turn a profit.

Whatever innovations insurance companies might come up with, you can be sure they're solely focused on taking in more and paying out less.

 

[Jarhead]

Yes, and I also understand it is merely a stepping stone to a single payer system. Please dont insult other's intellect by stating otherwise.

Absolutely FALSE. Whatabout a non-profit public insurance co-op? I think that could work EXTREMELY well for this nation.

If you knew business and the insurance industry in general, you would understand why that would NOT work without government subsidizing it.

When the shareholders are compensated, that 4% profit they make is down to barely nothing.

Without the shareholders, they would not exist.

Your biggest complaint are the salaries and bonuses of the executives....but when you add them up and divide it by the amount insured, it is pennies per insured.

That being said, a non profit insurance company would go bankrupt during the first flu outbreak.

 

[Jarhead]

An insurance company providing a way for me to insure against catastrophic risk is worth a premium, imo.

If you are concerned about profits for routine care etc., then aim your outrage at the politicians who enabled this inefficient structure in the first place.

As for other corporations, pharma, medical device, and medical equipment corporations - as well a medical practices, clinics, and hospitals all deserve the profits they earn in a free market system.

I agree about Pharma, doctors and other corporations. That's not what I asked you.

I asked about insurance companies and the innovations they come up with using their profits. Insuring you is their business, not an innovation. And part of the problem is they weren't always insuring people who paid them! Dropping customers and denying coverage when sickness hit. All in the name of profit!......errrr, innovation?

So again, what innovations have insurance companies come up with? You know, the whole reason why you claim its so important to turn a profit.

Whatever innovations insurance companies might come up with, you can be sure they're solely focused on taking in more and paying out less.

Really?
Can you prove this?
Is 4% too high a profit for any company? You think they are raking people over the coals to get 4% return on their money?

 

[boedicca]

Question for the Moonbats: If all corporations became Non Profits, who would you tax to fund your Big Government Spending Dreams?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Will say it again.....cause you refuse to admit it...

Based on the numbers you have thrown out there....you most certainly CAN afford it....you just simply opt to spend your money elsewhere

Insurance for single coverage can be bought for 3500 a year.....that is tax deductable.....so it is equivalent to the spending power of about 2500 a year...or 200 a month...about 50 a week....about 7 bucks a day.

That is bullshit. I can barely afford the $100 a month I share with my employer - add another $100-200 a month?... and that does NOT include vision and dental and still have a LITTLE money to stuff into savings? Get your head out of your ass. Do you want anyone in the middle class to be able to amass any wealth at all? That's right. YOU DON'T.

 

[RDD_1210]

An insurance company providing a way for me to insure against catastrophic risk is worth a premium, imo.

If you are concerned about profits for routine care etc., then aim your outrage at the politicians who enabled this inefficient structure in the first place.

As for other corporations, pharma, medical device, and medical equipment corporations - as well a medical practices, clinics, and hospitals all deserve the profits they earn in a free market system.

I agree about Pharma, doctors and other corporations. That's not what I asked you.

I asked about insurance companies and the innovations they come up with using their profits. Insuring you is their business, not an innovation. And part of the problem is they weren't always insuring people who paid them! Dropping customers and denying coverage when sickness hit. All in the name of profit!......errrr, innovation?

So again, what innovations have insurance companies come up with? You know, the whole reason why you claim its so important to turn a profit.

An INNOVATION of Insurance company: pooling risk so that we can be insured against catastrophic loss.

If you don't value it, then you can forgo coverage.

LOL, do you understand what the word innovation means? You keep describing how the concept of insurance works.

You said

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

So, what innovations have insurance companies come up with that has provided more care to more people?

 

[Jarhead]

An insurance company providing a way for me to insure against catastrophic risk is worth a premium, imo.

If you are concerned about profits for routine care etc., then aim your outrage at the politicians who enabled this inefficient structure in the first place.

As for other corporations, pharma, medical device, and medical equipment corporations - as well a medical practices, clinics, and hospitals all deserve the profits they earn in a free market system.

I agree about Pharma, doctors and other corporations. That's not what I asked you.

I asked about insurance companies and the innovations they come up with using their profits. Insuring you is their business, not an innovation. And part of the problem is they weren't always insuring people who paid them! Dropping customers and denying coverage when sickness hit. All in the name of profit!......errrr, innovation?

So again, what innovations have insurance companies come up with? You know, the whole reason why you claim its so important to turn a profit.

An INNOVATION of Insurance company: pooling risk so that we can be insured against catastrophic loss.

If you don't value it, then you can forgo coverage.

Thats the point...

Insurance USED to be just that...insurance against a catastrophic medical situation. Insurance.....nothing more.

But epople wanted more....in particular, the unions...they did not want it as insurance...they wanted it to ALSO cover annual visits...basic prescriptions...they did not weant it as insurance....they wanted their medical costs to be covered...

SO once it was no longer insurance, the risk factor was taken out....and premiums had to go up.

Why is it that people dont understand that?

 

[boedicca]

I agree about Pharma, doctors and other corporations. That's not what I asked you.

I asked about insurance companies and the innovations they come up with using their profits. Insuring you is their business, not an innovation. And part of the problem is they weren't always insuring people who paid them! Dropping customers and denying coverage when sickness hit. All in the name of profit!......errrr, innovation?

So again, what innovations have insurance companies come up with? You know, the whole reason why you claim its so important to turn a profit.

Whatever innovations insurance companies might come up with, you can be sure they're solely focused on taking in more and paying out less.

Really?
Can you prove this?
Is 4% too high a profit for any company? You think they are raking people over the coals to get 4% return on their money?

This outrage over 4% profits is very similar to the histrionics over oil company profits - which, per gallon of gasoline sold, are less than the taxes states and the federal government tack on.

 

[RDD_1210]

Question for the Moonbats: If all corporations became Non Profits, who would you tax to fund your Big Government Spending Dreams?

Link to ANY post that someone has said ALL corporations should become non-profits?

 

[boedicca]

I agree about Pharma, doctors and other corporations. That's not what I asked you.

I asked about insurance companies and the innovations they come up with using their profits. Insuring you is their business, not an innovation. And part of the problem is they weren't always insuring people who paid them! Dropping customers and denying coverage when sickness hit. All in the name of profit!......errrr, innovation?

So again, what innovations have insurance companies come up with? You know, the whole reason why you claim its so important to turn a profit.

An INNOVATION of Insurance company: pooling risk so that we can be insured against catastrophic loss.

If you don't value it, then you can forgo coverage.

Thats the point...

Insurance USED to be just that...insurance against a catastrophic medical situation. Insurance.....nothing more.

But epople wanted more....in particular, the unions...they did not want it as insurance...they wanted it to ALSO cover annual visits...basic prescriptions...they did not weant it as insurance....they wanted their medical costs to be covered...

SO once it was no longer insurance, the risk factor was taken out....and premiums had to go up.

Why is it that people dont understand that?

This insurance for routine care nonsense is a function of federal income tax policy and wage controls...and it's the root of spiraling health care costs. When the consumer is shielded from costs, much of the resource is misdirected and wasted.

 

[Jarhead]

I agree about Pharma, doctors and other corporations. That's not what I asked you.

I asked about insurance companies and the innovations they come up with using their profits. Insuring you is their business, not an innovation. And part of the problem is they weren't always insuring people who paid them! Dropping customers and denying coverage when sickness hit. All in the name of profit!......errrr, innovation?

So again, what innovations have insurance companies come up with? You know, the whole reason why you claim its so important to turn a profit.

An INNOVATION of Insurance company: pooling risk so that we can be insured against catastrophic loss.

If you don't value it, then you can forgo coverage.

LOL, do you understand what the word innovation means? You keep describing how the concept of insurance works.

You said

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

So, what innovations have insurance companies come up with that has provided more care to more people?

No offense...but do you know what the term "insurance" means?

Hasnt anyone noticed that the OIbama adminsitration and the democrats no longer refer to it as insurance?

It is now called "health care"...cost of health care.

It is NO LONGER INSURANCE......and once it is no longer insuyrance, risk is no longer used to determine premuims.....COSTS are used to determine them.

 

[boedicca]

Question for the Moonbats: If all corporations became Non Profits, who would you tax to fund your Big Government Spending Dreams?

Link to ANY post that someone has said ALL corporations should become non-profits?

Alrighty then.

Which corporations deserve profits and which don't?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

If you knew business and the insurance industry in general, you would understand why that would NOT work without government subsidizing it.

When the shareholders are compensated, that 4% profit they make is down to barely nothing.

Without the shareholders, they would not exist.

Your biggest complaint are the salaries and bonuses of the executives....but when you add them up and divide it by the amount insured, it is pennies per insured.

That being said, a non profit insurance company would go bankrupt during the first flu outbreak.

Um, do you understand the term "co-op"? Well, obviously not. It would be the same idea as private insurance minus profts and shareholers... you know, sane and logical, where healthcare for most Americans is concerned. There is still boutique insurance left for the private parasites to fight over. I have no love lost for anyone in that industry from personal experience.

 

[Jarhead]

An INNOVATION of Insurance company: pooling risk so that we can be insured against catastrophic loss.

If you don't value it, then you can forgo coverage.

Thats the point...

Insurance USED to be just that...insurance against a catastrophic medical situation. Insurance.....nothing more.

But epople wanted more....in particular, the unions...they did not want it as insurance...they wanted it to ALSO cover annual visits...basic prescriptions...they did not weant it as insurance....they wanted their medical costs to be covered...

SO once it was no longer insurance, the risk factor was taken out....and premiums had to go up.

Why is it that people dont understand that?

This insurance for routine care nonsense is a function of federal income tax policy and wage controls...and it's the root of spiraling health care costs. When the consumer is shielded from costs, much of the resource is misdirected and wasted.

Exactly...and a point that has not been addressed.

Healthcare is no longer an insurance issue...and hasnt been for years.

Thus why it is becomeing known as an entitlement...it is a cost to live...and people want it covered for free.....

But then why arent people lobbying for other "essential" costy covered....like a roof over their head, food, clothes....

Seeing your doctor twice a year is a cost to live......take that out of the "insurance" and the premiums will drop dramatically.

 

[boedicca]

If you knew business and the insurance industry in general, you would understand why that would NOT work without government subsidizing it.

When the shareholders are compensated, that 4% profit they make is down to barely nothing.

Without the shareholders, they would not exist.

Your biggest complaint are the salaries and bonuses of the executives....but when you add them up and divide it by the amount insured, it is pennies per insured.

That being said, a non profit insurance company would go bankrupt during the first flu outbreak.

Um, do you understand the term "co-op"? Well, obviously not. It would be the same idea as private insurance minus profts and shareholers... you know, sane and logical, where healthcare for most Americans is concerned. There is still boutique insurance left for the private parasites to fight over. I have no love lost for anyone in that industry from personal experience.

Are you willing to put your life savings into a co-op pool without any return on your capital?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

Insurance co's collect money from premiums, know that not everyone will use the insurance on a regular basis. They also get some buy selling stocks.

Much of the that money is then invested in the market, bring lots of money in.

so when someone has a catasrophic event, like cancer, they still have the money to cover the costs.

There's probably deals most have with hospitals that use them to help keep costs down.

But this is actually about cutting granny off and letter her die.

If the ins co does this, word gets around and people stop using them, driving them out of biz. And - or they get sued by granny or her family for dropping her.