WOW: Amazon, Berkshire, JP Morgan forming health care company

[Tehon]

We appreciate you Obama (and the rest of the morons who create regulations that make it harder for us to get competition).

Insurers are among a handful of industries, including Major League Baseball, that have a special exemption from federal antitrust laws.

Health care, via corrosive health insurance, has long been a means of controlling "employees". This looks like the end-game.

It's as if the banksters have been trying to replace slavery ever since the civil war.

It has always been the end game.

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.

Wealth of Nations — Bk 1 Chpt 05

 

[Picaro]

After several years of mergers and takeovers, only four companies now have some 83%-90% of health insurance market now.

B,b,but health insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries! How did such a thing happen? :mock_surprise:

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

 

[dblack]

After several years of mergers and takeovers, only four companies now have some 83%-90% of health insurance market now.

B,b,but health insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries! How did such a thing happen? :mock_surprise:

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

I guess it's not fair to say they did "nothing" - they did pass a law forcing us to buy the overpriced insurance.

 

[dblack]

Health care, via corrosive health insurance, has long been a means of controlling "employees". This looks like the end-game.

It's as if the banksters have been trying to replace slavery ever since the civil war.

It has always been the end game.

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.

Wealth of Nations — Bk 1 Chpt 05

It's unclear to me why you posted this quote. What do you think it means?

 

[Vandalshandle]

After several years of mergers and takeovers, only four companies now have some 83%-90% of health insurance market now.

B,b,but health insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries! How did such a thing happen? :mock_surprise:

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

Every individual health insurance policy that an insurance company wishes to sell must be filed and approved , along with the rates, actuarially justified, in every state insurance commissioner. If the rates can not be actuarially justified, they will not be approved,.

 

[dblack]

After several years of mergers and takeovers, only four companies now have some 83%-90% of health insurance market now.

B,b,but health insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries! How did such a thing happen? :mock_surprise:

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

Every individual health insurance policy that an insurance company wishes to sell must be filed and approved , along with the rates, actuarially justified, in every state insurance commissioner. If the rates can not be actuarially justified, they will not be approved,.

Justified how, and to whom? The devil is in the details. The revolving door between regulators and the regulated keeps their interests "aligned".

 

[Tehon]

Health care, via corrosive health insurance, has long been a means of controlling "employees". This looks like the end-game.

It's as if the banksters have been trying to replace slavery ever since the civil war.

It has always been the end game.

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.

Wealth of Nations — Bk 1 Chpt 05

It's unclear to me why you posted this quote. What do you think it means?

It means that wealth is derived from labor. The more that labor can be exploited the richer one can get.

 

[dblack]

Health care, via corrosive health insurance, has long been a means of controlling "employees". This looks like the end-game.

It's as if the banksters have been trying to replace slavery ever since the civil war.

It has always been the end game.

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.

Wealth of Nations — Bk 1 Chpt 05

It's unclear to me why you posted this quote. What do you think it means?

It means that wealth is derived from labor. The more that labor can be exploited the richer one can get.

Exploited?? What do you mean by that?

You seem to have read something into the quote that isn't there. Smith is just laying out the concept of division of labor. And pointing out that all wealth is ultimately a measure of the value of the labor involved. Nothing controversial there. Nothing about "exploitation".

 

[Tehon]

Health care, via corrosive health insurance, has long been a means of controlling "employees". This looks like the end-game.

It's as if the banksters have been trying to replace slavery ever since the civil war.

It has always been the end game.

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.

Wealth of Nations — Bk 1 Chpt 05

It's unclear to me why you posted this quote. What do you think it means?

It means that wealth is derived from labor. The more that labor can be exploited the richer one can get.

Exploited?? What do you mean by that?

You seem to have read something into the quote that isn't there. Smith is just laying out the concept of division of labor. And pointing out that all wealth is ultimately a measure of the value of the labor involved. Nothing controversial there. Nothing about "exploitation".

Well let's see, maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Who is attempting to control the employee via healthcare and for what purpose?

 

[dblack]

Health care, via corrosive health insurance, has long been a means of controlling "employees". This looks like the end-game.

It's as if the banksters have been trying to replace slavery ever since the civil war.

It has always been the end game.

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.

Wealth of Nations — Bk 1 Chpt 05

It's unclear to me why you posted this quote. What do you think it means?

It means that wealth is derived from labor. The more that labor can be exploited the richer one can get.

Exploited?? What do you mean by that?

You seem to have read something into the quote that isn't there. Smith is just laying out the concept of division of labor. And pointing out that all wealth is ultimately a measure of the value of the labor involved. Nothing controversial there. Nothing about "exploitation".

Well let's see, maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Who is attempting to control the employee via healthcare and for what purpose?

The employers trying to establish themselves as the providers of their employees health care. Can we get back to the quote? What do you think it meant?

 

[Tehon]

It has always been the end game.

Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.

Wealth of Nations — Bk 1 Chpt 05

It's unclear to me why you posted this quote. What do you think it means?

It means that wealth is derived from labor. The more that labor can be exploited the richer one can get.

Exploited?? What do you mean by that?

You seem to have read something into the quote that isn't there. Smith is just laying out the concept of division of labor. And pointing out that all wealth is ultimately a measure of the value of the labor involved. Nothing controversial there. Nothing about "exploitation".

Well let's see, maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Who is attempting to control the employee via healthcare and for what purpose?

The employers trying to establish themselves as the providers of their employees health care. Can we get back to the quote? What do you think it meant?

It means that the quantity of labor contained in a commodity is the real value of its exchange. That one is rich or poor depending on the quantity of labor one is able to purchase because it allows him to exchange it for other commodities.

Why do the employers wish to establish themselves as the providers of their employees healthcare?

 

[dblack]

It's unclear to me why you posted this quote. What do you think it means?

It means that wealth is derived from labor. The more that labor can be exploited the richer one can get.

Exploited?? What do you mean by that?

You seem to have read something into the quote that isn't there. Smith is just laying out the concept of division of labor. And pointing out that all wealth is ultimately a measure of the value of the labor involved. Nothing controversial there. Nothing about "exploitation".

Well let's see, maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Who is attempting to control the employee via healthcare and for what purpose?

The employers trying to establish themselves as the providers of their employees health care. Can we get back to the quote? What do you think it meant?

It means that the quantity of labor contained in a commodity is the real value of its exchange. That one is rich or poor depending on the quantity of labor one is able to purchase because it allows him to exchange it for other commodities.

So what does that have to do with my post - the one you were responding to? It seems like a completely non-sequitur. Did you just see the word "labour" and get all engorged?

 

[Tehon]

It means that wealth is derived from labor. The more that labor can be exploited the richer one can get.

Exploited?? What do you mean by that?

You seem to have read something into the quote that isn't there. Smith is just laying out the concept of division of labor. And pointing out that all wealth is ultimately a measure of the value of the labor involved. Nothing controversial there. Nothing about "exploitation".

Well let's see, maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Who is attempting to control the employee via healthcare and for what purpose?

The employers trying to establish themselves as the providers of their employees health care. Can we get back to the quote? What do you think it meant?

It means that the quantity of labor contained in a commodity is the real value of its exchange. That one is rich or poor depending on the quantity of labor one is able to purchase because it allows him to exchange it for other commodities.

So what does that have to do with my post - the one you were responding to? It seems like a completely non-sequitur. Did you just see the word "labour" and get all engorged?

If you are my slave the cost of your labor is only what it costs me to keep you alive. The quantity of labor I am able to purchase is much greater than if I have to pay you a salary and benefits, therefore I am richer. You said the banksters wanted to bring back slavery. I agreed.

 

[debbiedowner]

After several years of mergers and takeovers, only four companies now have some 83%-90% of health insurance market now.

B,b,but health insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries! How did such a thing happen? :mock_surprise:

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

Every individual health insurance policy that an insurance company wishes to sell must be filed and approved , along with the rates, actuarially justified, in every state insurance commissioner. If the rates can not be actuarially justified, they will not be approved,.

Not to mention each state requires insurance companies keep so much money in reserve.

 

[Picaro]

After several years of mergers and takeovers, only four companies now have some 83%-90% of health insurance market now.

B,b,but health insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries! How did such a thing happen? :mock_surprise:

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

Every individual health insurance policy that an insurance company wishes to sell must be filed and approved , along with the rates, actuarially justified, in every state insurance commissioner. If the rates can not be actuarially justified, they will not be approved,.

LEt's keep this a serious thread, and not litter it up with the fantasies and spam of amoral sociopathic shills for Democratic Party donors.

 

[debbiedowner]

After several years of mergers and takeovers, only four companies now have some 83%-90% of health insurance market now.

B,b,but health insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries! How did such a thing happen? :mock_surprise:

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

Every individual health insurance policy that an insurance company wishes to sell must be filed and approved , along with the rates, actuarially justified, in every state insurance commissioner. If the rates can not be actuarially justified, they will not be approved,.

LEt's keep this a serious thread, and not litter it up with the fantasies and spam of amoral sociopathic shills for Democratic Party donors.

So I see you really don't know shit how an insurance premium is determined and approved by state regulator's which in the U.S. I believe 36 of state regulators are republican.

 

[Picaro]

After several years of mergers and takeovers, only four companies now have some 83%-90% of health insurance market now.

B,b,but health insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries! How did such a thing happen? :mock_surprise:

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

Every individual health insurance policy that an insurance company wishes to sell must be filed and approved , along with the rates, actuarially justified, in every state insurance commissioner. If the rates can not be actuarially justified, they will not be approved,.

LEt's keep this a serious thread, and not litter it up with the fantasies and spam of amoral sociopathic shills for Democratic Party donors.

So I see you really don't know shit how an insurance premium is determined and approved by state regulator's which in the U.S. I believe 36 of state regulators are republican.

I see you're stupid enough to think we're going to believe insurance companies don't hire lobbyists and buy themselves laws that benefit them only, that insurance companies, along with lawyers and major bankers, are the Democratic Party's major contributors, especially at the state levels, and you don't know shit about how insurance premiums are determined.

 

[Vandalshandle]

B,b,but health insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries! How did such a thing happen? :mock_surprise:

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

Every individual health insurance policy that an insurance company wishes to sell must be filed and approved , along with the rates, actuarially justified, in every state insurance commissioner. If the rates can not be actuarially justified, they will not be approved,.

LEt's keep this a serious thread, and not litter it up with the fantasies and spam of amoral sociopathic shills for Democratic Party donors.

So I see you really don't know shit how an insurance premium is determined and approved by state regulator's which in the U.S. I believe 36 of state regulators are republican.

I see you're stupid enough to think we're going to believe insurance companies don't hire lobbyists and buy themselves laws that benefit them only, that insurance companies, along with lawyers and major bankers, are the Democratic Party's major contributors, especially at the state levels, and you don't know shit about how insurance premiums are determined.

Health Insurance premiums are made up of the following factors:

Anticipated claims, trended at the medical inflation rate over the next 12 months.
Reserves for unanticipated losses. About 2%
Commissions paid, for individual policies before ACA, about 10%
Administrative expenses, for individual policies, about 4%
state premium tax, about 2 1/4%
profit, about 4%

Therefore, if anticipated claims are $100, then divide 100 by .78= $128.00 which is what they would charge in premium, in order to profit by 4%.

By self funding the risk, instead of insuring it, Berkshire stands to save the 2 1/4% premium tax, and the 4% profit.

Before ACA the few remaining companies that sold individual health insurance usually sold it as a loss leader, to give them a broader market to sell life insurance.

 

[debbiedowner]

And these 'regulators' haven't done squat about the companies raising deductible to outrageous levels and jacking up prices; no wonder Buffet is suddenly interested; it sure ain't because he wants to help anybody suffering.

Every individual health insurance policy that an insurance company wishes to sell must be filed and approved , along with the rates, actuarially justified, in every state insurance commissioner. If the rates can not be actuarially justified, they will not be approved,.

LEt's keep this a serious thread, and not litter it up with the fantasies and spam of amoral sociopathic shills for Democratic Party donors.

So I see you really don't know shit how an insurance premium is determined and approved by state regulator's which in the U.S. I believe 36 of state regulators are republican.

I see you're stupid enough to think we're going to believe insurance companies don't hire lobbyists and buy themselves laws that benefit them only, that insurance companies, along with lawyers and major bankers, are the Democratic Party's major contributors, especially at the state levels, and you don't know shit about how insurance premiums are determined.

Health Insurance premiums are made up of the following factors:

Anticipated claims, trended at the medical inflation rate over the next 12 months.
Reserves for unanticipated losses. About 2%
Commissions paid, for individual policies before ACA, about 10%
Administrative expenses, for individual policies, about 4%
state premium tax, about 2 1/4%
profit, about 4%

Therefore, if anticipated claims are $100, then divide 100 by .78= $128.00 which is what they would charge in premium, in order to profit by 4%.

Before ACA the few remaining companies that sold individual health insurance usually sold it as a loss leader, to give them a broader market to sell life insurance.

But but but Picaro says the democrats determine the rates.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Every individual health insurance policy that an insurance company wishes to sell must be filed and approved , along with the rates, actuarially justified, in every state insurance commissioner. If the rates can not be actuarially justified, they will not be approved,.

LEt's keep this a serious thread, and not litter it up with the fantasies and spam of amoral sociopathic shills for Democratic Party donors.

So I see you really don't know shit how an insurance premium is determined and approved by state regulator's which in the U.S. I believe 36 of state regulators are republican.

I see you're stupid enough to think we're going to believe insurance companies don't hire lobbyists and buy themselves laws that benefit them only, that insurance companies, along with lawyers and major bankers, are the Democratic Party's major contributors, especially at the state levels, and you don't know shit about how insurance premiums are determined.

Health Insurance premiums are made up of the following factors:

Anticipated claims, trended at the medical inflation rate over the next 12 months.
Reserves for unanticipated losses. About 2%
Commissions paid, for individual policies before ACA, about 10%
Administrative expenses, for individual policies, about 4%
state premium tax, about 2 1/4%
profit, about 4%

Therefore, if anticipated claims are $100, then divide 100 by .78= $128.00 which is what they would charge in premium, in order to profit by 4%.

Before ACA the few remaining companies that sold individual health insurance usually sold it as a loss leader, to give them a broader market to sell life insurance.

But but but Picaro says the democrats determine the rates.

Well, i guess he has a point, because I am a democrat, and i determined the rates for the companies I worked for. But, now that I think about it, he is wrong, because I used to be a republican when I was doing it for a living. I might point out, though, that I do not recall seperate actuarial texts for democrats and republicans.