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

[RDD_1210]

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.

Who is being forced in to a public option? The whole "option" part implies choice.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You are an idiot.

Lawyers never ever give up.

Why?

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

How Insurance Companies Hurt Policyholders - ABC News
The Raw Story | Report: Bonuses paid for dropping sick patients

How many lawyers can go up against a gaggle of corporate lawyers that have paid off congress and win? We all know that justice is blind... if you have money.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

What I bolded....

Everyone of them.

Probelm is, they have been criticized for that as well as such innovation results in the need for less man power.

It is a no win situation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Indeed - all health care insurance should be abolished.
Forcing people to pay for their own health care will drive down prices.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

What I bolded....

Everyone of them.

Probelm is, they have been criticized for that as well as such innovation results in the need for less man power.

It is a no win situation.

Funny, I didn't see costs going down in this country.

 

[GunZawga]

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

Aetna supplies many types of insurance, health being only one branch. The ROI is payed out AFTER the big salaries and bonuses have been assigned. You are not real sharp on how the game is played in big boy world.

Outgoing Aetna chairman gets a $68.7 million goodbye - USATODAY.com

 

[boedicca]

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.

Please try informing yourself about the insurance industry. There is a widespread effort to move to electronic records management, integration of various applications (blood testing, radiology, etc.) and getting rid of paper.

If you wish to know what each one is doing, go to their websites, buy some stock, read.

I am not against the concept of insurance companies. I'm against government interference in free markets.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Who is being forced in to a public option? The whole "option" part implies choice.

The public option will force all others out of business....and then the public option will not be able sustain itself without an increase in premiums...and now we will be paying the same but WITHOUT the choice as all others will be out of business.

If the government has the right to start a cell phone company using tax dollars to get it going...and it offered cell service for 10 a month...all would go into it..and the rest would die.

WHen it is realized that at 10 month, the government is losing way too much money...what will they do?

Increase the cost of service.

And now you are paying the same as you were, but without the choice to change companies.

You need to look long term Rdd

 

[Jarhead]

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?


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

What I bolded....

Everyone of them.

Probelm is, they have been criticized for that as well as such innovation results in the need for less man power.

It is a no win situation.

Funny, I didn't see costs going down in this country.

I will use Obama's theory...the one he used to rationalize the failure of the stimulus to decrease unemployment....

"imagine how bad the costs would have been without the innovation"

 

[boedicca]

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

Aetna supplies many types of insurance, health being only one branch. The ROI is payed out AFTER the big salaries and bonuses have been assigned. You are not real sharp on how the game is played in big boy world.

Outgoing Aetna chairman gets a $68.7 million goodbye - USATODAY.com

More ignorance on display. He exercised $50M in stock options. His compensation being so heavily weighted in stock options is a result of tax policy to punish execs receiving bonuses. The unintended consequence of that was to make them even richer as stock prices increased.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Please try informing yourself about the insurance industry. There is a widespread effort to move to electronic records management, integration of various applications (blood testing, radiology, etc.) and getting rid of paper.

If you wish to know what each one is doing, go to their websites, buy some stock, read.

I am not against the concept of insurance companies. I'm against government interference in free markets.

Oh so now you're an insurance industry expert too. Just the other day you were touting yourself as a financial expert. You never did tell us about where you got your finance degree from. How about this, tell us where you got ANY degree from? Until then, I don't think you should be trying to portray yourself as some sort of authority on topics you are clearly misinformed about.

If these innovations by insurance companies are so wonderful, how come consumers haven't seen that benefit? Where is that "more care for more people?" I see less and less care for fewer people, for more money. Innovation hard at work!

 

[RDD_1210]

What I bolded....

Everyone of them.

Probelm is, they have been criticized for that as well as such innovation results in the need for less man power.

It is a no win situation.

Funny, I didn't see costs going down in this country.

I will use Obama's theory...the one he used to rationalize the failure of the stimulus to decrease unemployment....

"imagine how bad the costs would have been without the innovation"

LOL, well done. So you're admitting it's pure speculation then.

 

[boedicca]

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?



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

Please try informing yourself about the insurance industry. There is a widespread effort to move to electronic records management, integration of various applications (blood testing, radiology, etc.) and getting rid of paper.

If you wish to know what each one is doing, go to their websites, buy some stock, read.

I am not against the concept of insurance companies. I'm against government interference in free markets.

Oh so now you're an insurance industry expert too. Just the other day you were touting yourself as a financial expert. You never did tell us about where you got your finance degree from. How about this, tell us where you got ANY degree from? Until then, I don't think you should be trying to portray yourself as some sort of authority on topics you are clearly misinformed about.

If these innovations by insurance companies are so wonderful, how come consumers haven't seen that benefit? Where is that "more care for more people?" I see less and less care for fewer people, for more money. Innovation hard at work!

I worked for a few years at technology company with large amount of business in health care, and am quite familiar with the sector. When I speak on a serious topic, I only discuss what I know to be true - unlike sad sack little basement dwellers such as yourself. And I don't feel any obligation to provide Personal Information to sate your curiosity.

The reasons why consumers aren't benefiting is DC, bub.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Who is being forced in to a public option? The whole "option" part implies choice.

The public option will force all others out of business....and then the public option will not be able sustain itself without an increase in premiums...and now we will be paying the same but WITHOUT the choice as all others will be out of business.

If the government has the right to start a cell phone company using tax dollars to get it going...and it offered cell service for 10 a month...all would go into it..and the rest would die.

WHen it is realized that at 10 month, the government is losing way too much money...what will they do?

Increase the cost of service.

And now you are paying the same as you were, but without the choice to change companies.

You need to look long term Rdd

Why will the public option force private insurance out of business. If private companies offer a better/superior product they should have no problems competing. If a government run program, which everyone here is convinced will be so shitty, is able to run every insurance company out of business, what does that say for the quality of what those private companies are offering?

 

[GunZawga]

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.

If this is the case, The insurance industry has not had any innivations sinc about three thousand years ago when people first formed co-ops.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

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

Now do you see my point?

You have already been shown that it would be impossible for anyone to get any decent insurance for $3500 a year - I'd like to know where you get this number, anyway ( vs. what one can get through their work which would be 3 or 4 times that on the private market and would probably be crappy insurance not worth the expense) - what's the deductable due before it starts paying, $5K? It would not be cost-effective for ANYONE despite their income - don't you see? And again, any money saved living in Valley Stream would be taken up by extra transportaition cost, as I would be paying twice as much for the LIRR+ the $104 I pay every month for MTA - not to mention the extra hour commute. You just don't get it at all. And no, I don't have a roomate and I don't want one. I'm too old for that crap. I paid my dues in collge and whene I first moved here. I EARNED my own place.

 

[RDD_1210]

Please try informing yourself about the insurance industry. There is a widespread effort to move to electronic records management, integration of various applications (blood testing, radiology, etc.) and getting rid of paper.

If you wish to know what each one is doing, go to their websites, buy some stock, read.

I am not against the concept of insurance companies. I'm against government interference in free markets.

Oh so now you're an insurance industry expert too. Just the other day you were touting yourself as a financial expert. You never did tell us about where you got your finance degree from. How about this, tell us where you got ANY degree from? Until then, I don't think you should be trying to portray yourself as some sort of authority on topics you are clearly misinformed about.

If these innovations by insurance companies are so wonderful, how come consumers haven't seen that benefit? Where is that "more care for more people?" I see less and less care for fewer people, for more money. Innovation hard at work!

I worked for a few years at technology company with large amount of business in health care, and am quite familiar with the sector.

The reasons why consumers aren't benefiting is DC, bub.

LOL, you worked for a technology company with health care clients? I'm sorry, you are "in the know" obviously. LMAO!!

And I like your easy out answer. It's the governments fault!

 

[GunZawga]

Please try informing yourself about the insurance industry. There is a widespread effort to move to electronic records management, integration of various applications (blood testing, radiology, etc.) and getting rid of paper.

If you wish to know what each one is doing, go to their websites, buy some stock, read.

I am not against the concept of insurance companies. I'm against government interference in free markets.

Oh so now you're an insurance industry expert too. Just the other day you were touting yourself as a financial expert. You never did tell us about where you got your finance degree from. How about this, tell us where you got ANY degree from? Until then, I don't think you should be trying to portray yourself as some sort of authority on topics you are clearly misinformed about.

If these innovations by insurance companies are so wonderful, how come consumers haven't seen that benefit? Where is that "more care for more people?" I see less and less care for fewer people, for more money. Innovation hard at work!

I worked for a few years at technology company with large amount of business in health care, and am quite familiar with the sector. When I speak on a serious topic, I only discuss what I know to be true - unlike sad sack little basement dwellers such as yourself.

The reasons why consumers aren't benefiting is DC, bub.

Please explain your last comment or cease and desist with rash talking points and generalizations.

 

[Jarhead]

Who is being forced in to a public option? The whole "option" part implies choice.

The public option will force all others out of business....and then the public option will not be able sustain itself without an increase in premiums...and now we will be paying the same but WITHOUT the choice as all others will be out of business.

If the government has the right to start a cell phone company using tax dollars to get it going...and it offered cell service for 10 a month...all would go into it..and the rest would die.

WHen it is realized that at 10 month, the government is losing way too much money...what will they do?

Increase the cost of service.

And now you are paying the same as you were, but without the choice to change companies.

You need to look long term Rdd

Why will the public option force private insurance out of business. If private companies offer a better/superior product they should have no problems competing. If a government run program, which everyone here is convinced will be so shitty, is able to run every insurance company out of business, what does that say for the quality of what those private companies are offering?

Becuase they will offer lower premiums...and by the time the people realize that lower premiums means less serrvie...they are stuck....why do you think that little clause about..."once you switch, you are can not switch back" was orginally put into it before the whole thing was scrapped? They knew they can win people into it...but not be able to sustain it....

Like I said...you need to think out of the box..think long term.

 

[boedicca]

Oh so now you're an insurance industry expert too. Just the other day you were touting yourself as a financial expert. You never did tell us about where you got your finance degree from. How about this, tell us where you got ANY degree from? Until then, I don't think you should be trying to portray yourself as some sort of authority on topics you are clearly misinformed about.

If these innovations by insurance companies are so wonderful, how come consumers haven't seen that benefit? Where is that "more care for more people?" I see less and less care for fewer people, for more money. Innovation hard at work!

I worked for a few years at technology company with large amount of business in health care, and am quite familiar with the sector. When I speak on a serious topic, I only discuss what I know to be true - unlike sad sack little basement dwellers such as yourself.

The reasons why consumers aren't benefiting is DC, bub.

Please explain your last comment or cease and desist with rash talking points and generalizations.

Obamacare for one, have you heard of it?

Lack of real interstate competition, have you heard of it?

Lack of malpractice reform, have you heard of it?

The coupling of employment with health insurance so that the consumers of health care are not the purchasers of it, have you heard of it?