Insurance Companies Don't Care

[ihopehefails]

This is the main argument that I hear from so many liberals about anything that a business does or any person does and implies that anyone person must do things out of some egaltarian spirit of the community but what community are they speaking of. They can't be speaking community in the sense of private individuals interacting with each other like at a church, town meeting, dance hall, or anything like that but in a grand national scale where individuals who have never met each other must care about each other. Which is why the demand that all motives for all things be based on a genuine feeling that they are being caring for the members of the national community which happens to be all citizens within a nation instead of something that is formed by individuals interacting with each other.

This idea of building a national community was the tenant of National Socialism. Look at what Hitler wrote:

"As soon as this sense extends beyond the narrow limits of the family, the basis for the formation of a larger organisms and finally formal states is created"

What he is saying is that our sense of community extends beyond our family but through the state and the nation that it has power over. Similar things were said by Mussilini and many progressives in America so I wonder when I hear of the complaint that they are doing it for themselves or don't care do they expect our sense of familial caring extend to every citizen in the nation as many national socialist advoacated for?

 

[MaggieMae]

This is the main argument that I hear from so many liberals about anything that a business does or any person does and implies that anyone person must do things out of some egaltarian spirit of the community but what community are they speaking of. They can't be speaking community in the sense of private individuals interacting with each other like at a church, town meeting, dance hall, or anything like that but in a grand national scale where individuals who have never met each other must care about each other. Which is why the demand that all motives for all things be based on a genuine feeling that they are being caring for the members of the national community which happens to be all citizens within a nation instead of something that is formed by individuals interacting with each other.

This idea of building a national community was the tenant of National Socialism. Look at what Hitler wrote:

"As soon as this sense extends beyond the narrow limits of the family, the basis for the formation of a larger organisms and finally formal states is created"

What he is saying is that our sense of community extends beyond our family but through the state and the nation that it has power over. Similar things were said by Mussilini and many progressives in America so I wonder when I hear of the complaint that they are doing it for themselves or don't care do they expect our sense of familial caring extend to every citizen in the nation as many national socialist advoacated for?

WTF?? Psychobabble...

 

[ThePickledPunk]

This might hurt the liberal uberwusses on this board but..... companies dont care. Its not what they do.

 

[ihopehefails]

This might hurt the liberal uberwusses on this board but..... companies dont care. Its not what they do.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I wonder if they think that a nation is a national community that has as almost as much closeness as a family or tribe where everyone is expected to care about each other which is why they demand an eglatarian society.

 

[rightwinger]

Insurance Companies Don't Care

They DO care..

They care about holding down payouts
They care about ensuring that politicians are kept in their pocket
They car about their CEOs making $25 million a year
They care about restricting competition
They care about denying claims
They care about kicking people out of the plan

 

[saveliberty]

Insurance Companies Don't Care

They DO care..

They care about holding down payouts
They care about ensuring that politicians are kept in their pocket
They car about their CEOs making $25 million a year
They care about restricting competition
They care about denying claims
They care about kicking people out of the plan

Yes, clearly these are their TRUE motives, because deep down they want people to stop paying them. Then the company they work for can go out of business and provding them a living. Not a very good business plan.

 

[The Rabbi]

Insurance Companies Don't Care

They DO care..

They care about holding down payouts
They care about ensuring that politicians are kept in their pocket
They car about their CEOs making $25 million a year
They care about restricting competition
They care about denying claims
They care about kicking people out of the plan

Yes, clearly these are their TRUE motives, because deep down they want people to stop paying them. Then the company they work for can go out of business and provding them a living. Not a very good business plan.

It's because most people do not think beyond Stage One.
Insurance companies are greedy. OK, show me a company that is not greedy. Show me one that does not want to maximize revenue and minimize expense. Only ones I can think of are Amtrack and the Post office.

 

[rightwinger]

Show me one that does not want to maximize revenue and minimize expense. Only ones I can think of are Amtrack and the Post office.

They do not maximize revenue and minimize expenses because they both have a Congressional mandate to provide service to ALL Americans regardless of costs
Amtrack is forced to maintain routes in unprofitable areas to provide service to remote cities. If they were interested in profit they would run trains between Boston and Washington or Chicago New York only.
Post Office is required by law to provide rural deliveries, even though they lose money on those deliveries.

 

[The Rabbi]

Show me one that does not want to maximize revenue and minimize expense. Only ones I can think of are Amtrack and the Post office.

They do not maximize revenue and minimize expenses because they both have a Congressional mandate to provide service to ALL Americans regardless of costs
Amtrack is forced to maintain routes in unprofitable areas to provide service to remote cities. If they were interested in profit they would run trains between Boston and Washington or Chicago New York only.
Post Office is required by law to provide rural deliveries, even though they lose money on those deliveries.

No, the mandates are only a small issue. There is no incentive to control costs, so costs spiral out of control.
Why will the "government option" be any better?

 

[rightwinger]

Show me one that does not want to maximize revenue and minimize expense. Only ones I can think of are Amtrack and the Post office.

They do not maximize revenue and minimize expenses because they both have a Congressional mandate to provide service to ALL Americans regardless of costs
Amtrack is forced to maintain routes in unprofitable areas to provide service to remote cities. If they were interested in profit they would run trains between Boston and Washington or Chicago New York only.
Post Office is required by law to provide rural deliveries, even though they lose money on those deliveries.

No, the mandates are only a small issue. There is no incentive to control costs, so costs spiral out of control.
Why will the "government option" be any better?

Costs out of control?

The post office will come to my house pick up a letter and deliver it to my brothers house in California within a week for 44 cents

I would not deliver a letter to the other side of town for 44 cents

Post office is a model of efficiency

 

[saveliberty]

They do not maximize revenue and minimize expenses because they both have a Congressional mandate to provide service to ALL Americans regardless of costs
Amtrack is forced to maintain routes in unprofitable areas to provide service to remote cities. If they were interested in profit they would run trains between Boston and Washington or Chicago New York only.
Post Office is required by law to provide rural deliveries, even though they lose money on those deliveries.

No, the mandates are only a small issue. There is no incentive to control costs, so costs spiral out of control.
Why will the "government option" be any better?

Costs out of control?

The post office will come to my house pick up a letter and deliver it to my brothers house in California within a week for 44 cents

I would not deliver a letter to the other side of town for 44 cents

Post office is a model of efficiency

Postal rate for one ounce 11/1981 20 cents.
If efficiency was the goal wouldn't they develop ways to electronically send it between offices? There are more efficient ways to send packages. It is illegal to compete against the post office for mail, is that the model of efficiency you recommend?

 

[Immanuel]

Show me one that does not want to maximize revenue and minimize expense. Only ones I can think of are Amtrack and the Post office.

They do not maximize revenue and minimize expenses because they both have a Congressional mandate to provide service to ALL Americans regardless of costs
Amtrack is forced to maintain routes in unprofitable areas to provide service to remote cities. If they were interested in profit they would run trains between Boston and Washington or Chicago New York only.
Post Office is required by law to provide rural deliveries, even though they lose money on those deliveries.

That is besides the point, RW. I agree with you regarding Amtrak and the USPS, but the point is that there is not a private business out there who's sole purposes is not to maximize profit and minimize expenses. Even not-for-profit businesses do their best to at least minimizing expenses.

If you work in a private industry, your employer is doing the exact same thing and if you are management it is your goal as well.

Why do so many liberals make insurance companies out to be the bad guys, when they work for the same thing?

Immie

 

[The Rabbi]

They do not maximize revenue and minimize expenses because they both have a Congressional mandate to provide service to ALL Americans regardless of costs
Amtrack is forced to maintain routes in unprofitable areas to provide service to remote cities. If they were interested in profit they would run trains between Boston and Washington or Chicago New York only.
Post Office is required by law to provide rural deliveries, even though they lose money on those deliveries.

No, the mandates are only a small issue. There is no incentive to control costs, so costs spiral out of control.
Why will the "government option" be any better?

Costs out of control?

The post office will come to my house pick up a letter and deliver it to my brothers house in California within a week for 44 cents

I would not deliver a letter to the other side of town for 44 cents

Post office is a model of efficiency

The price of a stamp is the measure of efficiency? Do you actually believe that?
The PO is broke. They are raising rates on everything else virtually every year. The services where they do actually compete, next day/expedited, are far inferior to UPS and FedEx.
Please.

 

[Darkwind]

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Can't you see that Only Nancy cares about you?

If you don't believe it, she'll show some tough love an put you in jail!

 

[ihopehefails]

Doesn't anyone think its odd to demand that all motives for providing for others (in this case providing health care) to be a genuine feeling of caring and not of self-interest (which happens to be the profit motive of insurance companies). Its as if people expect our nation to be one giant single family where all acts of providing for others must be done without any self-interested motives as we would expect any member of our family to act with.

What I am saying it is the same thinking that created fascist states in Europe...

 

[johnrocks]

When it gets down to the "nut cuttin", about the only one who gives a shit about you is you, insurance companies level of care is about like a wheat farmer giving a rightous fuck if a city slicker in New York City has any bread to eat, no, he don't give a rat's ass, he does care that they love bread though or he'll be the one doing without.

 

[rightwinger]

When it gets down to the "nut cuttin", about the only one who gives a shit about you is you, insurance companies level of care is about like a wheat farmer giving a rightous fuck if a city slicker in New York City has any bread to eat, no, he don't give a rat's ass, he does care that they love bread though or he'll be the one doing without.

??????????

 

[johnrocks]

When it gets down to the "nut cuttin", about the only one who gives a shit about you is you, insurance companies level of care is about like a wheat farmer giving a rightous fuck if a city slicker in New York City has any bread to eat, no, he don't give a rat's ass, he does care that they love bread though or he'll be the one doing without.

??????????

, meaning, no they don't care, they do care enough about themselves though to keep their customers as satisfied as they can while making as much profit as they can.

 

[Oldandtired]

When it gets down to the "nut cuttin", about the only one who gives a shit about you is you, insurance companies level of care is about like a wheat farmer giving a rightous fuck if a city slicker in New York City has any bread to eat, no, he don't give a rat's ass, he does care that they love bread though or he'll be the one doing without.

??????????

, meaning, no they don't care, they do care enough about themselves though to keep their customers as satisfied as they can while making as much profit as they can.

And that is how capitalism works...and it works like a charm.

The demnad for good service makes the service provider give good service....unless of course, there is no competition.

Allowing 1300 insurance providers compete will force them to find ways to cut operating costs WITHOUT sacrificing service.

State line restrictions is the problem. And it will STILL be the problem when the public ioption goes into affect.

1 more plan will not do nearly as much as 1300 new competitors.

There is no reason for a public option.

 

[johnrocks]

??????????

, meaning, no they don't care, they do care enough about themselves though to keep their customers as satisfied as they can while making as much profit as they can.

And that is how capitalism works...and it works like a charm.

The demnad for good service makes the service provider give good service....unless of course, there is no competition.

Allowing 1300 insurance providers compete will force them to find ways to cut operating costs WITHOUT sacrificing service.

State line restrictions is the problem. And it will STILL be the problem when the public ioption goes into affect.

1 more plan will not do nearly as much as 1300 new competitors.

There is no reason for a public option.

Yep, I'd love to see govt. get completely out of it, there are people who live on the same street but are in different States who pay different rates and they are pretty substantial.