How much do insurance companies spend on actual patient care?

Social Security pays out 98.8% of premiums collected in benefits. I would say that there is your gold standard, at least for an option that does not need to feed million-dollar executives.

And how many billions is Social Security in the red?
Do you think a private company could survive with that kind of loss?
I don't think you can use any government funded program and use that as the "gold standard." It will lose everytime.

Get your facts straight - Social Security is NOT in the red. The trust fund is flush until 2035 using the most pessimistic economic assumptions and flush to 2041 using the most common assumptions. And this is if congress does nothing to shore it up.

Couple this with the fact that all federal employees, including congresscritters, hired after 1984 are subject to the same Social Security retirement plan as the rest of us, so that as we rid the system of the geezers currently running it, our fearless leaders will have a personal, vested interest in fixing it, Social Security is the best run financial service company in history, and your children's best hope for making sure their parents have a roof and something to eat without seriously cramping their style.

Boy Joe, you did sound convincing that you knew what you were talking about....but it was just spin from the left. The only way it will remain solvent is to cut benefits in the future, Joe. If not....they lose a bundle of money.

That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a fancy term for "today's dollars.")

http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
 
Last edited:
Bullshit!

The shareholders are ALWAYS first in line! The executives (who are all shareholders) make certain of that.

The laws and regulations creating the strangle-hold monopoly that the few insurance companies in this country have over us are the best that money can buy.

Somebody is making money hand over fist in the health-care biz - just follow the leash around your congresscritters neck back, past the hand of the lobbyist holding it, all the way back to the hand holding the leash of the corporation that holds the leash of the lobbyists and you will find the most effective place to meet with pitch-forks and torches.

Not true. Shareholders get what's left over in dividends, if there are any, and they have no guarantee that there will be. Employess of any public company might be shareholders, including executives, but that isn't their primary means of compensation. It's an incentive to perform well.

Insurance companies are not the most profitable businesses in the world, despite what the left likes to believe.
 
Twenty percent is not the profit margin. I think most health insurers would be thrilled to be making as much as software companies.

I wonder about this knee jerk reaction I see here. Whenever companies are making profits it is assumed to be "at the expense" of someone, like the consumer. So profit making is a negative.
In the real world profits are what allow higher salaries, better benefits, more research and development, and a better economy. All things one would imagine would be desirable.

Profits are not needed to provide insurance or banking services. Neither industry actually makes anything and should therefore not be considered 'industry'.

All you need to form an insurance pool is a lot of money, a computer and people with management skills worth between $30,000 and $200,000 per year.

There is no reason ANYONE should be making a few to tens of millions of dollars managing an insurance pool - we are paying them WAY more than they are worth.

The product insurers sell is risk transfer. Yes you need money to form an insurance company, but you also need employees who probably don't want to work as volunteers. You need sales people, claims adjusters, underwriters and, more and more, lawyers. They do more than manage a pool on a computer.

Most insurers do not make a profit on premiuim, but on investment. Funds in reserve to pay claims are not at-risk, so not every dollar can be invested.
 
Why do so many deadbeats assume that it is the duty of a corporation or another individual to pay for them?

The shareholders are ALWAYS first in line! The executives (who are all shareholders) make certain of that.

First in line for dibs on the profits maybe. But payroll and business expenses come first, including the executive's pay.
 
Why do so many deadbeats assume that it is the duty of a corporation or another individual to pay for them?

The shareholders are ALWAYS first in line! The executives (who are all shareholders) make certain of that.

First in line for dibs on the profits maybe. But payroll and business expenses come first, including the executive's pay.

This is why healthcare shouldn't be put in the hands of the FOR PROFITS.

They want to take care of all the baby boomers when they retire and loot their retirements. The kids will be left with nothing.

And they won't provide good care. They'll cut and cut as much as they can because they want to maximize profits. That means paying low wages to unskilled people who will not give a rats ass about your old ass.

And they will keep cutting costs because thats what companies do. And they will continue to raise rates too because thats what companies do. And people won't be able to afford it.

Funny how popular Medicare and Social Security were when they were finally passed. Yet they were difficult to pass because of Conservatives/Republicans.

And they remain popular.

Healthcare reform will be very popular once real single payer/public option is achieved. Allowing younger people to buy in to medicare is a smart idea.

But just like Medicare and Social Security, we have to fight the right wing tooth and nail on this one too. And like before, they are wrong on this one. Yet the rich are able to pay off Lieberman to block progress.
 
This is why healthcare shouldn't be put in the hands of the FOR PROFITS.

I've heard that before. But since Non-Profits and Not-For-Profits can easily hide their earnings as "unintended" or expand their costs to eat up profits, I don't see this as a solution either. Better to just be honest about it and let them report their profits.
 
This is why healthcare shouldn't be put in the hands of the FOR PROFITS.

I've heard that before. But since Non-Profits and Not-For-Profits can easily hide their earnings as "unintended" or expand their costs to eat up profits, I don't see this as a solution either. Better to just be honest about it and let them report their profits.

I think you know what I mean.

And if you are right, then they should be heavily regulated.

Not over regulated. Not unnecessarily regulated, but regulated. Like gas and water are government regulated.
 
Twenty percent is not the profit margin. I think most health insurers would be thrilled to be making as much as software companies.

I wonder about this knee jerk reaction I see here. Whenever companies are making profits it is assumed to be "at the expense" of someone, like the consumer. So profit making is a negative.
In the real world profits are what allow higher salaries, better benefits, more research and development, and a better economy. All things one would imagine would be desirable.

Profits are not needed to provide insurance or banking services. Neither industry actually makes anything and should therefore not be considered 'industry'.

All you need to form an insurance pool is a lot of money, a computer and people with management skills worth between $30,000 and $200,000 per year.

There is no reason ANYONE should be making a few to tens of millions of dollars managing an insurance pool - we are paying them WAY more than they are worth.

The product insurers sell is risk transfer. Yes you need money to form an insurance company, but you also need employees who probably don't want to work as volunteers. You need sales people, claims adjusters, underwriters and, more and more, lawyers. They do more than manage a pool on a computer.

Most insurers do not make a profit on premiuim, but on investment. Funds in reserve to pay claims are not at-risk, so not every dollar can be invested.

Of course you need employees! Maybe less in the way of sales people and lawyers... but nobody would be needed to run an effective bureaucracy who is unavailable at an offering of $200,000 per year.

The 'product' (risk transfer) is in the pool of people, not in the bozos who manage the pool.
 
Last edited:
Is the 20% operating cost comparable to Medicare and Medicaid? Dumb question I guess.

Many health insurers have gone "non-profit". I wonder if they all will now. And I also wonder how that will affect tax revenue. Aren't non-profits tax exempt?

If you don't make a profit in business--you never pay taxes. I know there needs to be a solution to the ever rising cost of health insurance premiums. They are absolutely ridiculous--so I think we need to attack it at that--& not dismantle the entire system.

How do we lower health insurance premiums & keep them stable for everyone is the question.
 
And insurance companies know that a certain percentage of claims made are simply fraudulent.
Is there a point you are trying to make here?
Most people are satisfied with their insurance coverage. Most people not covered either do so out of choice or could be covered under existing programs, or are illegals. So we have passed an uber-expensive entitlement program that will make things worse. Some progress.
Fortunately I expect the courts to throw out the legislation based on the unconsitutional mandate to purchase insurance.

Shame The Devil, tell the truth...

You work for Blue Cross, don't you?​

Actually I'm an independent business man. Try it sometime. It will prevent you from looking like a complete moron on these boards.

This is one of those times a button at the bottom of the post should be present for the following user to say "NO thank you."
 
Is the 20% operating cost comparable to Medicare and Medicaid? Dumb question I guess.

Many health insurers have gone "non-profit". I wonder if they all will now. And I also wonder how that will affect tax revenue. Aren't non-profits tax exempt?

If you don't make a profit in business--you never pay taxes. I know there needs to be a solution to the ever rising cost of health insurance premiums. They are absolutely ridiculous--so I think we need to attack it at that--& not dismantle the entire system.

How do we lower health insurance premiums & keep them stable for everyone is the question.

The answer to that question is perfectly obvious.

We do what other countries do to keep costs down and still provide decent healthcare.
 
Is the 20% operating cost comparable to Medicare and Medicaid? Dumb question I guess.

Many health insurers have gone "non-profit". I wonder if they all will now. And I also wonder how that will affect tax revenue. Aren't non-profits tax exempt?

If you don't make a profit in business--you never pay taxes. I know there needs to be a solution to the ever rising cost of health insurance premiums. They are absolutely ridiculous--so I think we need to attack it at that--& not dismantle the entire system.

How do we lower health insurance premiums & keep them stable for everyone is the question.

The answer to that question is perfectly obvious.

We do what other countries do to keep costs down and still provide decent healthcare.

really? What's that? Because when I look at Britain, France, and Germany I see exploding health care costs.
You cannot legislate away risk. You cannot legislate away costs. Someone has to pay for it somewhere, either through higher prices or through rationing. The Dums are pretending they can deliver a free lunch, and there ain't no such thing. Wait til people start getting their new health insurance rates, which will be sky high, as predicted by every industry research. COuple that with higher taxes and the burden will be unbearable.
 
Shame The Devil, tell the truth...

You work for Blue Cross, don't you?​

Actually I'm an independent business man. Try it sometime. It will prevent you from looking like a complete moron on these boards.

This is one of those times a button at the bottom of the post should be present for the following user to say "NO thank you."

Because you don't want to be an independent business person or because you prefer to look like a complete moron?
 
Like gas and water are government regulated.

Asking out of genuine curiosity. How is gas and water regulated?

As for regulation... I want them limited to Anti-Fraud, Pro-Competition, Consumer Protection style regulations. Not mandates, not limits on how you can purchase the product. The consumer should be free, with the medical field and the insurance companies, to design their perfect, portable, custom fit insurance that nobody can take away from them... except as they themselves violate the contract.

I hate the 'no drop' and 'must cover' regulations for all they do is make the product more expensive by making people more risky. On the other hand, I don't like the fact that insurance companies can deny people completely for pre-existing conditions. There should instead be a price for it they can charge. Now then if the customer doesn't want to pay it, then it's their choice. Don't say no, make it expensive. Then it covers the insurance company if it's bought and protects the company if it's too expensive. I'd rather see that than stamping "DENIED" over the claim just because you have a raised chance for diabetes or have seen a chiropractor.

They're in the business of pricing risk, I get that, but at the same time, a balance must be struck to a certain degree to mutual benefit.
 
Last edited:
Like gas and water are government regulated.

Asking out of genuine curiosity. How is gas and water regulated?

As for regulation... I want them limited to Anti-Fraud, Pro-Competition, Consumer Protection style regulations. Not mandates, not limits on how you can purchase the product. The consumer should be free, with the medical field and the insurance companies, to design their perfect, portable, custom fit insurance that nobody can take away from them... except as they themselves violate the contract.

I hate the 'no drop' and 'must cover' regulations for all they do is make the product more expensive by making people more risky. On the other hand, I don't like the fact that insurance companies can deny people completely for pre-existing conditions. There should instead be a price for it they can charge. Now then if the customer doesn't want to pay it, then it's their choice. Don't say no, make it expensive. Then it covers the insurance company if it's bought and protects the company if it's too expensive. I'd rather see that than stamping "DENIED" over the claim just because you have a raised chance for diabetes or have seen a chiropractor.

They're in the business of pricing risk, I get that, but at the same time, a balance must be struck to a certain degree to mutual benefit.

Who owns the water?

If I'm Nestle Corporation and I buy a 5 acre piece of land in central Florida that happens to have a VERY productive spring, why can't I bottle it all up and sell it outside the state for a reasonable rate of return on my investment?

Why should I give a flying fuck that the people of Florida have to pay higher water bills as a result of diminished supply?

This is AMERICA dammit! And it's MINE!!

Who owns the coal that most of the native Wyoming-tons walk across every day? If the natives don't like the view when I'm done with my land, fuck 'em!
 

Forum List

Back
Top