Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Uh, yes.
If you purchase an insurance policy and your limits are $500,000.00 and get involved in a fender bender car accident the insurance company has 500K " exposure" and is exempted from taxation on that exposure in their investment portfolio. Same with limits on all insurance policies as exposure is the risk. Now how many unsettled claims are there and how much $$$ does that add up to each year in unsettled claims?
That is how it works. Why else does an insurance company wait until the court house steps at time of trial 3 years after major accidents? I do this for a living.
Insurance companies and major league baseball are also exempt from ALL anti trust legislation.
You do what for a living? Clean court house steps?
It is called the reserve.
On the insurance companies books the reserve is always calculated as a LIABILITY and is counted against net premiums.
Now how is a liability taxed? If you are writing MORE insurance with your profits then that liability on the books IS NOT taxed.
Theoretically, the reserve is the difference between the present value of the total insurance and the present value of the future premiums on the insurance face value, the exposure or risk.
"Clean court house steps?"
I could do that probably as well or better than I have cleaned your clock on this subject.
You do what for a living? Clean court house steps?
It is called the reserve.
On the insurance companies books the reserve is always calculated as a LIABILITY and is counted against net premiums.
Now how is a liability taxed? If you are writing MORE insurance with your profits then that liability on the books IS NOT taxed.
Theoretically, the reserve is the difference between the present value of the total insurance and the present value of the future premiums on the insurance face value, the exposure or risk.
"Clean court house steps?"
I could do that probably as well or better than I have cleaned your clock on this subject.
Fine.
And when the claim is settled and the reserve is not needed?
I would bet it is re-calculated into profit.
This is analogous to mortgage companies, which have to book all the anticipated return on a loan but keep a reserve in case it's paid off early.
Are you not aware of the role of profits in industry?
Clearly not. And no one has shown non-profit status makes costs lower.
Are you not aware of the role of profits in industry?
Clearly not. And no one has shown non-profit status makes costs lower.
well mr genius, why dont you explain it, oh thats right.... you have no comprehension as to how business profits work
Are you not aware of the role of profits in industry?
Clearly not. And no one has shown non-profit status makes costs lower.
well mr genius, why dont you explain it, oh thats right.... you have no comprehension as to how business profits work
Excuse me. You're the one arguing that costs will go down if every insurer is a non-profit. Only someone with no understanding of the role of profit in business and/or has never had a business himself could make such a statement.
Again, no one has shown that making insurers non profits will lower costs.
because it hasnt been done on a large scale. the only true Non profit HC provider is Kaiser Permanente, and they tend to have some of the lower premiums out there for an HMO. (quote for a single 30 year old male, los angeles are, $40 co pay, $3,000 deductible is $132 / month - the same plan with blue shield costs almost $350 / month) these numbers directly off their website by putting in the same exact information. (try it if youd like) now kaiser (whether you like or dislike kaiser is irrelevant for this argument as we are solely looking at costs) has to reinvest all of its profits back into the company, this is one reason they have much much lower premiums then other for profit companies.
because it hasnt been done on a large scale. the only true Non profit HC provider is Kaiser Permanente, and they tend to have some of the lower premiums out there for an HMO. (quote for a single 30 year old male, los angeles are, $40 co pay, $3,000 deductible is $132 / month - the same plan with blue shield costs almost $350 / month) these numbers directly off their website by putting in the same exact information. (try it if youd like) now kaiser (whether you like or dislike kaiser is irrelevant for this argument as we are solely looking at costs) has to reinvest all of its profits back into the company, this is one reason they have much much lower premiums then other for profit companies.
I wouldn't draw the conclusion that Kaiser Permanente's primary asset is that it's a non-profit. Kaiser is an integrated care system, meaning it's much better at coordinating care than other places and it's guided by better incentives than your average insurer or provider (even non-profits). So there's an important lesson in there about the need to start to change the way we deliver and pay for care that goes beyond insurer profits.
their business plan and make up does provide for a much more efficient system. thank you for your incite.well mr genius, why dont you explain it, oh thats right.... you have no comprehension as to how business profits work
Excuse me. You're the one arguing that costs will go down if every insurer is a non-profit. Only someone with no understanding of the role of profit in business and/or has never had a business himself could make such a statement.
Again, no one has shown that making insurers non profits will lower costs.
because it hasnt been done on a large scale. the only true Non profit HC provider is Kaiser Permanente, and they tend to have some of the lower premiums out there for an HMO. (quote for a single 30 year old male, los angeles are, $40 co pay, $3,000 deductible is $132 / month - the same plan with blue shield costs almost $350 / month) these numbers directly off their website by putting in the same exact information. (try it if youd like) now kaiser (whether you like or dislike kaiser is irrelevant for this argument as we are solely looking at costs) has to reinvest all of its profits back into the company, this is one reason they have much much lower premiums then other for profit companies.
you do realize that insurance companies profit from taking in premiums and not paying out expenses. accounting 101. money in less money out = profit. (or for a more technical answer - The positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses. opposite of loss) now, when HC providers are deemed to be for profit enterprises, they are allowed to mark up their product to create profits which benefit owners, shareholders or the value of the company.
A non-profit organization, is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals. hence, they must reinvest all profits (that are not paid out in the way of salaries, bonuses, business expenses) back into the company. hence the term "non profit". health care insurers and providers are some of the most profitable companies in america. and they are allowed to be publicly traded. (AETNA, CIGNA etc) thus they have to show a profit to investors otherwise their share price plummets and the company loses money. this one is counterintuitive to providing health care. when you have a fixed amount of dollars coming in, because you provide a contract services, there are only 3 ways to increase profits. 1) cut your costs 2) reduce your liabilities. 3)increase your contacts. lets throw out #3 for arguments sake and say you are not able to increase the number of contracts for a given period of time. that leaves you with 2 options, cut costs or reduce liabilities. well the biggest liability a HC provider has the cost of patient care. so in order to reduce your liability there you have to cut services or deny services. its basic math. this if insurance and health care providers had to pump billions of dollars back into the system for patient care and cost reduction. wow, i just single handedly lower out of pocket costs for everyone........... (not that this will ever happen tho)
because it hasnt been done on a large scale. the only true Non profit HC provider is Kaiser Permanente, and they tend to have some of the lower premiums out there for an HMO. (quote for a single 30 year old male, los angeles are, $40 co pay, $3,000 deductible is $132 / month - the same plan with blue shield costs almost $350 / month) these numbers directly off their website by putting in the same exact information. (try it if youd like) now kaiser (whether you like or dislike kaiser is irrelevant for this argument as we are solely looking at costs) has to reinvest all of its profits back into the company, this is one reason they have much much lower premiums then other for profit companies.
I wouldn't draw the conclusion that Kaiser Permanente's primary asset is that it's a non-profit. Kaiser is an integrated care system, meaning it's much better at coordinating care than other places and it's guided by better incentives than your average insurer or provider (even non-profits). So there's an important lesson in there about the need to start to change the way we deliver and pay for care that goes beyond insurer profits.
9.3 billion in profit in just a few months.... is an awful lot of money that could be spent on ACTUAL HEALTH CARE INSTEAD of going to a middle man that provides no Medical Care what so ever....
9.3B for an entire industry? Confiscate it! Give it to the children!
Are you really this stupid? Don't answer that because I already know the answer is yes.
Health insurance is not a "middle man". Health insurance is insurance, a financial product. Do you have any idea what insurance is?
Don't answer that. I already know the answer is No.
are you really this obtuse in real life?
THE $9.3 BILLION in profit, is our money....coming from our insurance premiums paid by us and our employers, over and ABOVE our money for the policy that DOES PAY for actual medical care....over and above the money we pay for our policies that goes towards all the employee salaries and benefits, over and above the amount we pay for the ceo salaries and bonuses and over and above what our premiums pay for the overhead of these insurance companies....
ALL of this money given to them by us through our premiums could be better spent if this middle man, was cut out of the picture....and we just paid the doctors, hospitals and pharma, what they are charging the insurance companies for the health care services provided us.....
9.3B for an entire industry? Confiscate it! Give it to the children!
Are you really this stupid? Don't answer that because I already know the answer is yes.
Health insurance is not a "middle man". Health insurance is insurance, a financial product. Do you have any idea what insurance is?
Don't answer that. I already know the answer is No.
are you really this obtuse in real life?
THE $9.3 BILLION in profit, is our money....coming from our insurance premiums paid by us and our employers, over and ABOVE our money for the policy that DOES PAY for actual medical care....over and above the money we pay for our policies that goes towards all the employee salaries and benefits, over and above the amount we pay for the ceo salaries and bonuses and over and above what our premiums pay for the overhead of these insurance companies....
ALL of this money given to them by us through our premiums could be better spent if this middle man, was cut out of the picture....and we just paid the doctors, hospitals and pharma, what they are charging the insurance companies for the health care services provided us.....
Are you proposing a survival of the fittest mentality? If each of us paid our own medical bills, a lot of people would be bankrupt. Insurance spreads the risk. If you get a serious medical problem (cancer), then you don't get stuck with the full cost of paying for it. The size of the pool of people insured impacts the price companies pay...the larger the pool the lower the average cost per person.
Without the middleman, how would I help pay for your medical costs? If I am healthy as an ox I lose out by having to pay for other peoples' health issues. As one gets older, health costs goes up...cancer, heart surgury, hip replacements, etc.
We have an aging population which leads to higher health care costs because the types of procedures you need as you get older just cost more.
are you really this obtuse in real life?
THE $9.3 BILLION in profit, is our money....coming from our insurance premiums paid by us and our employers, over and ABOVE our money for the policy that DOES PAY for actual medical care....over and above the money we pay for our policies that goes towards all the employee salaries and benefits, over and above the amount we pay for the ceo salaries and bonuses and over and above what our premiums pay for the overhead of these insurance companies....
ALL of this money given to them by us through our premiums could be better spent if this middle man, was cut out of the picture....and we just paid the doctors, hospitals and pharma, what they are charging the insurance companies for the health care services provided us.....
Are you proposing a survival of the fittest mentality? If each of us paid our own medical bills, a lot of people would be bankrupt. Insurance spreads the risk. If you get a serious medical problem (cancer), then you don't get stuck with the full cost of paying for it. The size of the pool of people insured impacts the price companies pay...the larger the pool the lower the average cost per person.
Without the middleman, how would I help pay for your medical costs? If I am healthy as an ox I lose out by having to pay for other peoples' health issues. As one gets older, health costs goes up...cancer, heart surgury, hip replacements, etc.
We have an aging population which leads to higher health care costs because the types of procedures you need as you get older just cost more.
the insurance companies were refusing to give the older people insurance, even after they paid for insurance their entire healthy life....they raised premiums so high on them to push them out.
THIS is why the government came to ''the rescue'' and created MEDICARE for the elderly....
THIS WAS the biggest GIFTHORSE the Health Insurance industry could ever get, on a silver platter by our gvt. It was the golden egg the insurance companies WANTED. They could sell you insurance for your ENTIRE healthy life, and then when you got old and became sick and COSTLY they DUMPED you, and put the ENTIRE BURDEN on to the tax payers.
so, we have a single payer plan of Medicare, for all seniors health expense on the gvt's shoulder, without the benefit of covering these people and getting their premiums, when they were healthy....that would help balance out covering all the elderly sick later on in life.
I do understand the insurance model and how it eases the risk of becoming sick and not being able to afford it....however, it is a faulty system, and unaffordable for most individuals if their employer was not paying at least 2/3's of the premium price....
This puts a HUGE burden on to our businesses in this country and makes it difficult for us to secure business ventures when competing with companies from the other westernized countries competing against our American corporations in the global marketplace.
So this healthcare expense is the gorilla on their back....and corporations and companies are weaseling out of paying health care premiums for their employees to the extent that they once did and are putting more and more of the cost of the health care premium on to the employee, or DROPPING the health care coverage entirely.
I believe a single payer insurance plan similar to Medicare for all of us, would actually benefit us tax payers in the long run. the $400 a month we pay for our premiums now could be paid in premiums/taxes specifically to cover health care....
I can see how this becomes the golden egg/ gifthorse for our businesses that payed 2/3's of our premiums....so maybe they should be taxed at a flat rate where the money goes in to the universal coverage plan....but the tax on them for this should be at a much lower cost to them verses the money they were spending when they were buying the health insurance plan? At least the uncertainty that businesses have with not knowing each year at renewal time how much MORE health insurance coverage for employees will cost them.
I really don't know....i am just throwing out some ideas here....please feel free to cut them up and show how this could not work or show an idea of your own that could work better....i am not dead set on anything...
the problem i see with my own proposal above is that there is no incentive for the individual to give resistance to the prices hospitals and doctors charge for services....so medical care would continue to rise in price each year....
unless the universal plan determines the price they will pay....but some say this could stifle medical advancement?
maybe the universal coverage should be for just catastrophic/ hospitalization coverage, and it is up to us to pay for our regular check ups and medical care....where us individuals have a say in the price and shop around for the best one?
Again, i just don't know? I am merely thinking out loud...
because it hasnt been done on a large scale. the only true Non profit HC provider is Kaiser Permanente, and they tend to have some of the lower premiums out there for an HMO. (quote for a single 30 year old male, los angeles are, $40 co pay, $3,000 deductible is $132 / month - the same plan with blue shield costs almost $350 / month) these numbers directly off their website by putting in the same exact information. (try it if youd like) now kaiser (whether you like or dislike kaiser is irrelevant for this argument as we are solely looking at costs) has to reinvest all of its profits back into the company, this is one reason they have much much lower premiums then other for profit companies.
I wouldn't draw the conclusion that Kaiser Permanente's primary asset is that it's a non-profit. Kaiser is an integrated care system, meaning it's much better at coordinating care than other places and it's guided by better incentives than your average insurer or provider (even non-profits). So there's an important lesson in there about the need to start to change the way we deliver and pay for care that goes beyond insurer profits.
I had kaiser a few years back...I bailed from it I was so disatisfied...I didn't like the HMO and the time it took to get an appointment. The emergency room was okay, though.
[
Are you proposing a survival of the fittest mentality? If each of us paid our own medical bills, a lot of people would be bankrupt. Insurance spreads the risk. If you get a serious medical problem (cancer), then you don't get stuck with the full cost of paying for it. The size of the pool of people insured impacts the price companies pay...the larger the pool the lower the average cost per person.
Without the middleman, how would I help pay for your medical costs? If I am healthy as an ox I lose out by having to pay for other peoples' health issues. As one gets older, health costs goes up...cancer, heart surgury, hip replacements, etc.
We have an aging population which leads to higher health care costs because the types of procedures you need as you get older just cost more.
Are you proposing a survival of the fittest mentality? If each of us paid our own medical bills, a lot of people would be bankrupt. Insurance spreads the risk. If you get a serious medical problem (cancer), then you don't get stuck with the full cost of paying for it. The size of the pool of people insured impacts the price companies pay...the larger the pool the lower the average cost per person.
Without the middleman, how would I help pay for your medical costs? If I am healthy as an ox I lose out by having to pay for other peoples' health issues. As one gets older, health costs goes up...cancer, heart surgury, hip replacements, etc.
We have an aging population which leads to higher health care costs because the types of procedures you need as you get older just cost more.
the insurance companies were refusing to give the older people insurance, even after they paid for insurance their entire healthy life....they raised premiums so high on them to push them out.
THIS is why the government came to ''the rescue'' and created MEDICARE for the elderly....
THIS WAS the biggest GIFTHORSE the Health Insurance industry could ever get, on a silver platter by our gvt. It was the golden egg the insurance companies WANTED. They could sell you insurance for your ENTIRE healthy life, and then when you got old and became sick and COSTLY they DUMPED you, and put the ENTIRE BURDEN on to the tax payers.
so, we have a single payer plan of Medicare, for all seniors health expense on the gvt's shoulder, without the benefit of covering these people and getting their premiums, when they were healthy....that would help balance out covering all the elderly sick later on in life.
I do understand the insurance model and how it eases the risk of becoming sick and not being able to afford it....however, it is a faulty system, and unaffordable for most individuals if their employer was not paying at least 2/3's of the premium price....
This puts a HUGE burden on to our businesses in this country and makes it difficult for us to secure business ventures when competing with companies from the other westernized countries competing against our American corporations in the global marketplace.
So this healthcare expense is the gorilla on their back....and corporations and companies are weaseling out of paying health care premiums for their employees to the extent that they once did and are putting more and more of the cost of the health care premium on to the employee, or DROPPING the health care coverage entirely.
I believe a single payer insurance plan similar to Medicare for all of us, would actually benefit us tax payers in the long run. the $400 a month we pay for our premiums now could be paid in premiums/taxes specifically to cover health care....
I can see how this becomes the golden egg/ gifthorse for our businesses that payed 2/3's of our premiums....so maybe they should be taxed at a flat rate where the money goes in to the universal coverage plan....but the tax on them for this should be at a much lower cost to them verses the money they were spending when they were buying the health insurance plan? At least the uncertainty that businesses have with not knowing each year at renewal time how much MORE health insurance coverage for employees will cost them.
I really don't know....i am just throwing out some ideas here....please feel free to cut them up and show how this could not work or show an idea of your own that could work better....i am not dead set on anything...
the problem i see with my own proposal above is that there is no incentive for the individual to give resistance to the prices hospitals and doctors charge for services....so medical care would continue to rise in price each year....
unless the universal plan determines the price they will pay....but some say this could stifle medical advancement?
maybe the universal coverage should be for just catastrophic/ hospitalization coverage, and it is up to us to pay for our regular check ups and medical care....where us individuals have a say in the price and shop around for the best one?
Again, i just don't know? I am merely thinking out loud...
You clearly have learned nothing about what insurance is since your last post. Pitiful, really.
the insurance companies were refusing to give the older people insurance, even after they paid for insurance their entire healthy life....they raised premiums so high on them to push them out.
THIS is why the government came to ''the rescue'' and created MEDICARE for the elderly....
THIS WAS the biggest GIFTHORSE the Health Insurance industry could ever get, on a silver platter by our gvt. It was the golden egg the insurance companies WANTED. They could sell you insurance for your ENTIRE healthy life, and then when you got old and became sick and COSTLY they DUMPED you, and put the ENTIRE BURDEN on to the tax payers.
so, we have a single payer plan of Medicare, for all seniors health expense on the gvt's shoulder, without the benefit of covering these people and getting their premiums, when they were healthy....that would help balance out covering all the elderly sick later on in life.
I do understand the insurance model and how it eases the risk of becoming sick and not being able to afford it....however, it is a faulty system, and unaffordable for most individuals if their employer was not paying at least 2/3's of the premium price....
This puts a HUGE burden on to our businesses in this country and makes it difficult for us to secure business ventures when competing with companies from the other westernized countries competing against our American corporations in the global marketplace.
So this healthcare expense is the gorilla on their back....and corporations and companies are weaseling out of paying health care premiums for their employees to the extent that they once did and are putting more and more of the cost of the health care premium on to the employee, or DROPPING the health care coverage entirely.
I believe a single payer insurance plan similar to Medicare for all of us, would actually benefit us tax payers in the long run. the $400 a month we pay for our premiums now could be paid in premiums/taxes specifically to cover health care....
I can see how this becomes the golden egg/ gifthorse for our businesses that payed 2/3's of our premiums....so maybe they should be taxed at a flat rate where the money goes in to the universal coverage plan....but the tax on them for this should be at a much lower cost to them verses the money they were spending when they were buying the health insurance plan? At least the uncertainty that businesses have with not knowing each year at renewal time how much MORE health insurance coverage for employees will cost them.
I really don't know....i am just throwing out some ideas here....please feel free to cut them up and show how this could not work or show an idea of your own that could work better....i am not dead set on anything...
the problem i see with my own proposal above is that there is no incentive for the individual to give resistance to the prices hospitals and doctors charge for services....so medical care would continue to rise in price each year....
unless the universal plan determines the price they will pay....but some say this could stifle medical advancement?
maybe the universal coverage should be for just catastrophic/ hospitalization coverage, and it is up to us to pay for our regular check ups and medical care....where us individuals have a say in the price and shop around for the best one?
Again, i just don't know? I am merely thinking out loud...
You clearly have learned nothing about what insurance is since your last post. Pitiful, really.
ummmm, read the bold part silly! can you contribute to the discussion/debate without continually insulting or putting people down?
You clearly have learned nothing about what insurance is since your last post. Pitiful, really.
ummmm, read the bold part silly! can you contribute to the discussion/debate without continually insulting or putting people down?
Can you contribute to the discussion without basing statements on misinformation and falsehoods?
