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

[RDD_1210]

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??

Actually I don't say private companies always do better then government options. I say...free markets...always do better then government options. Government healthcare is not choice, it is removal of choice. Private companies that are regulated by government are no better then government. It's not the private that makes them better, it's the free. Though while "private" doesn't make markets better, it does make "charity" better.

Providing a public option is actually the exact opposite of removal of choice. It's adding another choice in to the market. The very thing you seem to be advocating for with your "free market".

 

[boedicca]

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??

Actually I don't say private companies always do better then government options. I say...free markets...always do better then government options. Government healthcare is not choice, it is removal of choice. Private companies that are regulated by government are no better then government. It's not the private that makes them better, it's the free. Though while "private" doesn't make markets better, it does make "charity" better.

Providing a public option is actually the exact opposite of removal of choice. It's adding another choice in to the market. The very thing you seem to be advocating for with your "free market".

Does a public option create an infinite pool of money so that everybody can get whatever health care they desire? No.

So, under the public option, who decides how much care each individual deserves?

 

[Jarhead]

They all should be able to profit.....except for health insurance companies, not how they are currently structured. I am not for the profiting off of the denial of health care to people.

But grocery stores make money by denying food to people who don't pay for it.

Isn't that EVUL?

So the middle class can't afford food now?

The middle class spends a lot more than 7 bucks a day for food so it can survive.

But it cant spend 7 bucks a day on something that may help them avoid a financial meltdown due to some sort of serious medical condition?

 

[RDD_1210]

Most of the middle class has health coverage, bub.

And you still have not adequately explained Which Corporations Deserve Profits and Which Don't.

I'd also like to know who you think should decide which corporations belong to which category.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what innovations your health insurance company has come up with that has "provided more care to more people".

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

Ooh! I know this one!

How about: Dropping people from their policy when they get seriously ill and then forcing that person to sue them for coverage and then dragging out the trial and settlement for years and years until the person either gives up or dies. VERY innovative. Douchebag parasites... We must have a public option... government or not, we must.

You are an idiot.

Lawyers never ever give up.

Why?

When they sue an insurance company they don't get paid unless they win.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Actually I don't say private companies always do better then government options. I say...free markets...always do better then government options. Government healthcare is not choice, it is removal of choice. Private companies that are regulated by government are no better then government. It's not the private that makes them better, it's the free. Though while "private" doesn't make markets better, it does make "charity" better.

Nice opinion. Doesn't make it true, though. Free markets do not lead to competition, but to monopoly, as the big overtake the little. Corporations do NOT want competition and do everything they can to ELIMINATE competition. Look at what has happened in the meatpacking industry for example, and that is one of the most powerful lobbies in congress - and that industry kills hundreds of Americans every year with their cut-corner practices and highjacking of the regulators. Same thing has happened with the insurance industry. Same exact thing. They do not want a public option because they know no one in their right mind would stay with their abusive (and I believe criminal) practices instead of going with a simplified, streamlined national NO PROFIT co-op.

 

[GunZawga]

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.

Now...seeing as health insurance is no longer insurance....and it is not....it USED to be insurance....now it is used to pay for any medical cost....even your semi annual visit....the average 600 bucks a year that you should be paying on your own to your doctor for regular check ups should be deducted from that number (we will say 400 as that, too, was tax deductable)...the extra cost in spendable dollars to you is 2100 per year....or about 40 a week....or a little over 5 bucks a day.....

Yep....5 bucks a day so you can be assured to have any catastrophic medical situation not destroy you financially...

Bet you spend more than that for coffee each day....yet you complain about it being too expensive for your health?

LOL....talking points.....just analyze it and you will see how silly you sound.

Unfathomable lack of grasp of the tax codes and economics. Medical expenses (ie: insurance) are not deductable until you have spent 7.5% of your AGI on it. An AGI of 47K would not allow you to deduct the first 3500 in expenses, or in this case, your med. insurance.

WAKE UP TO REALITY!

Interesting....since I do not have a grasp of what an accountant does for a living I am worthy of ridicule?

Are you implying that everyone should know exactly what is and what is not a deduction...and at what point based on what income?

Or are you just showing off?

I bety I can talk cricles around you in regard to other topics I know pemty about...and I would not ridicule you.

Why must you act so childish?

HMMM! --- Someone CLEARLY STATED that at one time they could not afford to buy health coverage. Instead of accepting this obvious truth, you chose to infer they were either lieing or stupid.

You my ignorant friend are the child here. Before attempting to "school" someone it is best to have some base of knowledge. I am not a tax accountant, just an aware and self educated individual.

 

[RDD_1210]

But grocery stores make money by denying food to people who don't pay for it.

Isn't that EVUL?

So the middle class can't afford food now?

The middle class spends a lot more than 7 bucks a day for food so it can survive.

But it cant spend 7 bucks a day on something that may help them avoid a financial meltdown due to some sort of serious medical condition?

Sure, as long as they don't have a preexisting condition.

 

[boedicca]

Most of the middle class has health coverage, bub.

And you still have not adequately explained Which Corporations Deserve Profits and Which Don't.

I'd also like to know who you think should decide which corporations belong to which category.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what innovations your health insurance company has come up with that has "provided more care to more people".

Asked and answered if you actually bothered to read for comprehension.

The creation of pools of capital to insure against risk is an innovation.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

As for little old ladies with cancer who have insurance, that's what contracts are for. When you buy insurance, you have a contract with them they have to honor. The company calculates the odds and spreads the risk. As for little old ladies without insurance, that's what private charity is for.

I thanked you, solely on the basis of being honest about your preparedness and willingness to through the most vulnerable in our society to the dogs.

Keep it up Republican.

 

[RDD_1210]

Most of the middle class has health coverage, bub.

And you still have not adequately explained Which Corporations Deserve Profits and Which Don't.

I'd also like to know who you think should decide which corporations belong to which category.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what innovations your health insurance company has come up with that has "provided more care to more people".

Asked and answered if you actually bothered to read for comprehension.

The creation of pools of capital to insure risk is an innovation.

LOL, and like I already told you. That's not an innovation. That's just how the concept of insurance works.

 

[GunZawga]

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.

And you are aware that premiums will go down...at most....4%...and being non profit, you will have lower salaries for the employees...including the executives...so lower quality of service....

So is that worth it for the 4% you will save on the premium?

Where are you pulling this 4% from

Insurance can use up as muh as 35% on non medical expenditures.

What Happens to Health Insurance Premiums? - ABC News


Quit throwing around worthless opinion like it is fact.

 

[boedicca]

I'm still waiting for you to explain what innovations your health insurance company has come up with that has "provided more care to more people".

Asked and answered if you actually bothered to read for comprehension.

The creation of pools of capital to insure risk is an innovation.

LOL, and like I already told you. That's not an innovation. That's just how the concept of insurance works.

That's like saying a computer is not an innovation, it's just the way the machinery and code work.

 

[kaz]

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.

As for little old ladies with cancer who have insurance, that's what contracts are for. When you buy insurance, you have a contract with them they have to honor. The company calculates the odds and spreads the risk. As for little old ladies without insurance, that's what private charity is for.

I thanked you, solely on the basis of being honest about your preparedness and willingness to through the most vulnerable in our society to the dogs.

Keep it up Republican.

Now see, when you give her to government that's exactly what I think you're doing.

I also like how you disassociate yourself from parties and call me a Republican when I never advocate them.

 

[boedicca]

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.

And you are aware that premiums will go down...at most....4%...and being non profit, you will have lower salaries for the employees...including the executives...so lower quality of service....

So is that worth it for the 4% you will save on the premium?

Where are you pulling this 4% from

Insurance can use up as muh as 35% on non medical expenditures.

What Happens to Health Insurance Premiums? - ABC News


Quit throwing around worthless opinion like it is fact.

Here you go bub:

4.57% return on assets for Aetna.

AET Key Statistics | Aetna Inc. Common Stock Stock - Yahoo! Finance


And their net profit margin last year was 5.15%.

AET Income Statement | Aetna Inc. Common Stock Stock - Yahoo! Finance

 

[RDD_1210]

Asked and answered if you actually bothered to read for comprehension.

The creation of pools of capital to insure risk is an innovation.

LOL, and like I already told you. That's not an innovation. That's just how the concept of insurance works.

That's like saying a computer is not an innovation, it's just the way the machinery and code work.

Your argument was that without profits innovation couldn't be made to give more care to more people. So what innovations are health insurance companies coming up with, with those profits?

 

[boedicca]

LOL, and like I already told you. That's not an innovation. That's just how the concept of insurance works.

That's like saying a computer is not an innovation, it's just the way the machinery and code work.

Your argument was that without profits innovation couldn't be made to give more care to more people. So what innovations are health insurance companies coming up with, with those profits?

The smart ones are investing in technologies and processes to reduce paperwork and overhead...and costs.

You are mistaken, however, with your insinuation that I believe health insurance companies are proper capitalist corporations. Much of what they do is manufactured by the political process, hence is economically wasteful as all such artifices end up becoming.

 

[Jarhead]

Unfathomable lack of grasp of the tax codes and economics. Medical expenses (ie: insurance) are not deductable until you have spent 7.5% of your AGI on it. An AGI of 47K would not allow you to deduct the first 3500 in expenses, or in this case, your med. insurance.

WAKE UP TO REALITY!

Interesting....since I do not have a grasp of what an accountant does for a living I am worthy of ridicule?

Are you implying that everyone should know exactly what is and what is not a deduction...and at what point based on what income?

Or are you just showing off?

I bety I can talk cricles around you in regard to other topics I know pemty about...and I would not ridicule you.

Why must you act so childish?

HMMM! --- Someone CLEARLY STATED that at one time they could not afford to buy health coverage. Instead of accepting this obvious truth, you chose to infer they were either lieing or stupid.

You my ignorant friend are the child here. Before attempting to "school" someone it is best to have some base of knowledge. I am not a tax accountant, just an aware and self educated individual.

You arew quite presumptuous...

If you read my post to her, I prefaced it by saying "based on the numbers you have given us"...

You see...according to her...

She is single. She lives in Brooklyn NY. She makes 50K a year.
She pays over 14K a year for rent...and prefers to live alone and without a room mate
Living in the same area, I am aware that she can pay infinitely less in rent for an equal quality neighborhood, but with a slighly longer commute....about 9500 a year... a savings of about 4500 a year.

So you see...my comment of "she opts to spend her money elsewhere" is strictly based on the numbers she has given us...

Truth is....she can get a room mate and have a 7K a year rent...but doesn want a room mate. Thats her choice.

She can live in Valley Stream, Long Island for 9500 a year...WITHOUT a room mate....but she wants to live closer to the city. Thats he choice.

So as I said...she CAN afford the 3500...she simply opts the comfort of other desires instead.

Now do you see my point?

 

[kaz]

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??

Actually I don't say private companies always do better then government options. I say...free markets...always do better then government options. Government healthcare is not choice, it is removal of choice. Private companies that are regulated by government are no better then government. It's not the private that makes them better, it's the free. Though while "private" doesn't make markets better, it does make "charity" better.

Providing a public option is actually the exact opposite of removal of choice. It's adding another choice in to the market. The very thing you seem to be advocating for with your "free market".

No, it's not because as I already pointed out you have private companies competing with a public option who can confiscate money from people without choice, makes the rules for the private companies they are competing with and can shut them down. Choice means choice. Public option is complete lack of choice of those forced to pay for it. Name any other situation anywhere where the one who makes the rules and can change them at any time is a "competitor" in the game.

 

[RDD_1210]

That's like saying a computer is not an innovation, it's just the way the machinery and code work.

Your argument was that without profits innovation couldn't be made to give more care to more people. So what innovations are health insurance companies coming up with, with those profits?

The smart ones are investing in technologies and processes to reduce paperwork and overhead...and costs.

Oh really? So which insurance companies are doing a good job with innovating and have lowered costs over the years through their investment in technologies to reduce paperwork and overhead?

You are mistaken, however, with your insinuation that I believe health insurance companies are proper capitalist corporations. Much of what they do is manufactured by the political process, hence is economically wasteful as all such artifices end up becoming.

So you are against the concept of insurance companies? Good for you, that's a start.