Here is the problem with the healthcare debate at the moment

[Quantum Windbag]

and which facts do you feel they left out? Your opinion doesn't mean beans if it's just an unsupported vague reference to something you have yet to state.

I already said that is irrelevant.

I want you to show me where I said there was a correlation. That was your claim, and I am still waiting for you to back it up. After you do that, or admit you cannot, you can call me on anything you want.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

and which facts do you feel they left out? Your opinion doesn't mean beans if it's just an unsupported vague reference to something you have yet to state.

I already said that is irrelevant.

I want you to show me where I said there was a correlation. That was your claim, and I am still waiting for you to back it up. After you do that, or admit you cannot, you can call me on anything you want.

ah. your vague reference to some "facts" that make it bad reporting are irrelevant, and yet you made the vague reference anyway. why bring it up in the first place then?

Here's another interesting question: where did I say that you claimed there was a correlation? You're right in that it IS my claim that a correlation exists between an insurance company's income in the form of premiums and their profit, which I HAVE supported.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and which facts do you feel they left out? Your opinion doesn't mean beans if it's just an unsupported vague reference to something you have yet to state.

I already said that is irrelevant.

I want you to show me where I said there was a correlation. That was your claim, and I am still waiting for you to back it up. After you do that, or admit you cannot, you can call me on anything you want.

ah. your vague reference to some "facts" that make it bad reporting are irrelevant, and yet you made the vague reference anyway. why bring it up in the first place then?

Here's another interesting question: where did I say that you claimed there was a correlation? You're right in that it IS my claim that a correlation exists between an insurance company's income in the form of premiums and their profit, which I HAVE supported.

It is irrelevant to the question I am asking. Since you do not remember saying it, even though you actually attempted to defend the claim that I agreed with you, here is where you said it.

We've already established that the increase in health insurance costs are correlated to health insurance profits. Why do you continue to make this point as if it's due to the policy reform and not a result of corporate greed? Did you not catch it the first time or are you just willfully ignorant?

We did not establish anything, I not only did not say that a correlation exists, I do not even see it.

Are you actually going to answer the question this time, or are you simply going to insist that you do not have to and insist on talking about irrelevant actions on my part?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Sorry, I should rephrase "we've established" with "I've already proven and you won't acknowledge for some unknown reason."

What question are you continuing to not ask that I should be answering?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, I should rephrase "we've established" with "I've already proven and you won't acknowledge for some unknown reason."

What question are you continuing to not ask that I should be answering?

Where did you prove it?

Correlation is a statistical term, and the only way to prove one is to provide some evidence. All you have done is pointed at tow events thinking, probably because you do not understand statistics, that you have proved something. If you read a drug study that showed that some people took aspirin and were cured of cancer would you believe that there is a correlation between taking aspirin and the cure or would you want more evidence?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You need more evidence that increased income without significantly increased spending, along with increased profit margins, across major health insurance providers in the country, is not correlating? And yes, if a large scale study showed that people who took aspirin were more likely to be cured to a statistically significant degree, it would be a correlation. And that's ignoring the non-linear variable you just used of taking vs not taking aspirin. The actual topic is discussing two continuous variables.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the actual topic is that you first claimed that we had established a correlation, which I finally got you to admit is not true. Now you are claiming you proved it even though you have not provided a shred of evidence. There are two facts that exist. The first is that you posted a single news report that claims that insurers are posting record profits, the second is that insurance premiums are going up. You somehow take these two separate things and conclude that premium increases are going directly to profits. You neglect to mention that the article you posted is two years old, and was used as part of the justification for passing the PPACA in the first place, and expect me to assume that profits from 2 years ago are the direct result of increased premiums today. Then you get all upset when I do not follow your brilliant logic and jump to the same conclusion.

So, again, I am asking you for some evidence of correlation between the insurance premiums that are increasing today and the profits from two years ago. Now that I have spelled out the problem I see with your evidence you can actually post a rational reason I should accept it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Oh sorry. I had thought it was common sense that increased income translates to increased profits for the large majority of companies. Seeing as some of their profits increased 91% and healthcare has not, where do you think that money is going?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh sorry. I had thought it was common sense that increased income translates to increased profits for the large majority of companies. Seeing as some of their profits increased 91% and healthcare has not, where do you think that money is going?

Now I will demonstrate why you have a major problem by posting a single link.

Kaiser Permanente to raise coverage rates | Pacific Business News

Since
Kaiser Permanente is a non profit insurance company there is no possibility that there is a correlation between them raising their rates and profit. There fore, your argument falls apart again, even if you want to believe that somehow the rate increases went back in time and caused profits 2 years ago.

You are the one making the assertion of a correlation here, and trying to make me look stupid because I neither believe in paradoxes, or that rate increases of non profit insurance agencies cause profits.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

First off, non-profit does not mean they cannot earn profit. Secondly, the very article you just cited states they are raising their premiums by 8.7%. The total cost of health care has increased from 4 to 9.5% per year in the last decade. Note how none of these numbers are NINETY ONE PERCENT.

Again I ask: what is it you think health insurance companies do exactly?

Let's run the numbers once more. Money spent on health care increases between 4-9.5% per year. Premiums have increased 50-90%. Where do you see the difference going?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First off, non-profit does not mean they cannot earn profit. Secondly, the very article you just cited states they are raising their premiums by 8.7%. The total cost of health care has increased from 4 to 9.5% per year in the last decade. Note how none of these numbers are NINETY ONE PERCENT.

Again I ask: what is it you think health insurance companies do exactly?

Let's run the numbers once more. Money spent on health care increases between 4-9.5% per year. Premiums have increased 50-90%. Where do you see the difference going?

Again.

Explain to me how premium increases today are responsible, or linked, or even vaguely correlate, to profits from two years ago. Is there a time warp? Did causality and entropy suddenly reverse? Are you claiming that this proves the existence of FTL travel?

Where is your evidence? Why don't you simply admit that you were wrong, which has to be obvious even to you, and cut your losses? Is proving me wrong so important to you that you are incapable of dealing with reality?