"Uninsured" What uninsured??

[Common Sense]

I actually think that government sponsored health care is a good thing, and that Obama's plan didnt go far enough. I dont like gevernment being involved in everything in my life either, but I think that health caqre IS one of the things they should concern themselves with. Where I get aggravated is when the government tells me that I have to do certain things like say...wearing a frickin seatbelt.

Those are the places government needs to be brought down a peg or two. Why dont the tea party people seem to have problems with those kinds of things?

Where do they have the authority?

we as the voters gave them authority, and because the insurance industry forced their hand into this. if they (the insurance companies) would have made many of these changes by themselves, were able to keep their costs low, not take in record profits while limiting access and raising premiums, then they government would not have had to get involved. Let me put it a different way, health care insurers are the 2nd most profitable industry behind the big oil companies. when gas started to skyrocket there was public outrage and some people demanded that the government get involved and look to see if the oil companies were artificially inflating the market as well as artificially keeping prices high, because they were and still are taking in record profits. but yet we dont have near the public outcry for the health care industry, which in my mind is much more important than a gallon of gas.

so its ok for HC insurers to make record profits and limit access, but its not ok for big oil to make record profits? it seems to me that we as a country tend to have out priorities out of order.

 

[MajinLink]

The funny thing is that when Tommy Douglas tried this up on Canada initially in Saskatchewan first, he and the CCF/NDP met with great protest among the health care industry. Many doctors threatened to leave the province, and when Douglas imported doctors from other parts of the world, many of those people were making very racist jokes about it.

The Saskatchewan Health care program was however very successful not only with the quality but with all the money it saved, so it didn't take too long for the rest of Canada to follow suit.

The only Canadian party I know of that wants to abolish Medicare is the Libertarian Party of Canada, and they get about as much votes as the Socialist Party USA over here. The leading Conservatives, runner-up Liberals, New Democratic Party, and the bloc quebecois do not have abolishing Medicare on their agenda because doing so would be political suicide.

In Britain, Margaret Thatcher was like Ronald Reagan with a vagina, and after 11 years of cut backs and Reganomics even she couldn't get rid of or fully privatize the NHS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you want to take the stance that NO government program has EVER been temporary?

If I show you one that was, will you leave this board forever?

I wouldn't give you the satisfaction.

If I show some government programs billed as temporary would you STFU and GTFO?

No I want you to be a man and put something on the table to risk to back up your claim that no government program has EVER been temporary.

"...silence is golden, golden..." lol.

 

[hortysir]

I actually think that government sponsored health care is a good thing, and that Obama's plan didnt go far enough. I dont like gevernment being involved in everything in my life either, but I think that health caqre IS one of the things they should concern themselves with. Where I get aggravated is when the government tells me that I have to do certain things like say...wearing a frickin seatbelt.

Those are the places government needs to be brought down a peg or two. Why dont the tea party people seem to have problems with those kinds of things?

Where do they have the authority?

we as the voters gave them authority, and because the insurance industry forced their hand into this. if they (the insurance companies) would have made many of these changes by themselves, were able to keep their costs low, not take in record profits while limiting access and raising premiums, then they government would not have had to get involved. Let me put it a different way, health care insurers are the 2nd most profitable industry behind the big oil companies. when gas started to skyrocket there was public outrage and some people demanded that the government get involved and look to see if the oil companies were artificially inflating the market as well as artificially keeping prices high, because they were and still are taking in record profits. but yet we dont have near the public outcry for the health care industry, which in my mind is much more important than a gallon of gas.

so its ok for HC insurers to make record profits and limit access, but its not ok for big oil to make record profits? it seems to me that we as a country tend to have out priorities out of order.

Everything in blue is flat-out wrong and bold faced lies.
We the voters elected them to support and defend the Constitution. When they over-reached and stopped doing that we voted them out.
Let me guess....When you talk about profits you're of the group that's going to throw out incredibly high numbers of dollars while ignoring the actual profit margin of 3%.
My restaurant operates at a larger profit margin than that.

So, again, I ask:
What gives congress the authority to mandate me to buy a good/service from a private entity with the only qualifier being my birth?

 

[manu1959]

I wouldn't give you the satisfaction.

If I show some government programs billed as temporary would you STFU and GTFO?

No I want you to be a man and put something on the table to risk to back up your claim that no government program has EVER been temporary.

"...silence is golden, golden..." lol.

so name your temporary program that is no longer....

 

[The Rabbi]

No I want you to be a man and put something on the table to risk to back up your claim that no government program has EVER been temporary.

"...silence is golden, golden..." lol.

so name your temporary program that is no longer....

He won't. He won't spend the 5 hours searching Google needed to examine every government program passed in the last 150 years to find the one, the only one, that actually sunsetted.

 

[Common Sense]

here are the profits that were recorded in 2009 for health care providers:

Fortune 500 2009: Industry: Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care

you will notice that most of their profit levels have been falling since 2007, as they are being required to spends more $ on patient care, but that level is only a percentage. United Health Group still profited $2.9 billion dollars in 2009. Well Point posted a $2.49 billion profit and Aetna profited $1.38 billion. All top Fortune 1000 companies. If thats not a record, i dont know what is. 3% on $81 billion dollars is a ton of money considering that this is after paying out all expenses. You man think that 3% profit levels are low, but they are actually not when it comes to big business. And you forget that we are not talking about profit margins. Those are completely different than profit dollars. Typical businesses mark up their product 25-40% depending the industry. They then take the money that is brought in and it is applied towards overhead, salaries and everything else that it costs to do business (ie rent, insurance, taxes.....) what is left over is the profits. if you look at the link below about health care providers being #14, you will see that even the highest profit level is only 19.8%, and that is for mining and crude oil production. Pharmaceuticals are a close 2nd at 19.1 and then Tobacco at 12.3. No one pulls down a profit of 25% like people assume. just think about if Health care providers has to reinvest all that money back into the system (say like being required to become a non profit), that would be $6.77 billion dollars put towards patient care and not into the pocket books of investors and executive. (for the 2009 year alone) do you think this would drive down costs? reduce premiums? it absolutely would, but there is not public outrage about this. only about the health care bill.

for your edification:

2007 United Health Group profited $4.65 billion, Well Point - $3.35 billion and Aetna - $1.83 billion

current 2010 numbers just released:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/industries/223/index.html

United Health care was #21 over all in 2010.
United Health Group Revenues - $87,138,000,000 Profits $3,822,000,000. (an increase of 28% over 2008, Well Point was #31 at revenues of $65,028,1000,000 and profits of $4,745,900,000 they increased their profits 90.5% since 2008)

here more information about them #2 in terms of dollars per employee (thats $3 million per employee of profit btw)

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Industries Most Bang For The Buck: Revenues Per Employee - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com



they are #14 overall

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com


(and dont tell me CNN is biased)

All federal taxes are mandated just because you are alive as well. you also pay into medicare and medicaid as a mandated program even if you never use them.

are you really telling me that you are going to drop your health insurance coverage because the government mandated you purchase a product you already buy?

and yes we gave them the authority to create laws and regulate industry as the people see fit. its a well know fact that country is split right down the middle when it comes to the health care debate. there is no majority either way. but when you break out the individual sections of the bill an overwhelming majority agree with them. this includes:

- children staying on their parents insurance til age 26
- no denial for pre-exsiting conditions
- no lifetime caps
- not being able to be dropped due to a material error on an application form
- not being able to raise rate on a specifically target group without raising them on the whole
- making provider and insurers document and prove that a minimum of 80% of all premium dollars goes towards patient care as opposed to administrative costs.

 

[Common Sense]

"...silence is golden, golden..." lol.

so name your temporary program that is no longer....

He won't. He won't spend the 5 hours searching Google needed to examine every government program passed in the last 150 years to find the one, the only one, that actually sunsetted.

btw TARP has ended.

 

[The Rabbi]

so name your temporary program that is no longer....

He won't. He won't spend the 5 hours searching Google needed to examine every government program passed in the last 150 years to find the one, the only one, that actually sunsetted.

btw TARP has ended.

No, it has not. TARP established a new bureaucracy to oversee it. That bureau is still going strong.
Office of Financial Stability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But an excellent example of "temporary" government programs that morph into permanent ones.

 

[hortysir]

here are the profits that were recorded in 2009 for health care providers:

Fortune 500 2009: Industry: Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care

you will notice that most of their profit levels have been falling since 2007, as they are being required to spends more $ on patient care, but that level is only a percentage. United Health Group still profited $2.9 billion dollars in 2009. Well Point posted a $2.49 billion profit and Aetna profited $1.38 billion. All top Fortune 1000 companies. If thats not a record, i dont know what is. 3% on $81 billion dollars is a ton of money considering that this is after paying out all expenses. You man think that 3% profit levels are low, but they are actually not when it comes to big business. And you forget that we are not talking about profit margins. Those are completely different than profit dollars. Typical businesses mark up their product 25-40% depending the industry. They then take the money that is brought in and it is applied towards overhead, salaries and everything else that it costs to do business (ie rent, insurance, taxes.....) what is left over is the profits. if you look at the link below about health care providers being #14, you will see that even the highest profit level is only 19.8%, and that is for mining and crude oil production. Pharmaceuticals are a close 2nd at 19.1 and then Tobacco at 12.3. No one pulls down a profit of 25% like people assume. just think about if Health care providers has to reinvest all that money back into the system (say like being required to become a non profit), that would be $6.77 billion dollars put towards patient care and not into the pocket books of investors and executive. (for the 2009 year alone) do you think this would drive down costs? reduce premiums? it absolutely would, but there is not public outrage about this. only about the health care bill.

for your edification:

2007 United Health Group profited $4.65 billion, Well Point - $3.35 billion and Aetna - $1.83 billion

current 2010 numbers just released:
Fortune 500 2010: Industry: Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care

United Health care was #21 over all in 2010.
United Health Group Revenues - $87,138,000,000 Profits $3,822,000,000. (an increase of 28% over 2008, Well Point was #31 at revenues of $65,028,1000,000 and profits of $4,745,900,000 they increased their profits 90.5% since 2008)

here more information about them #2 in terms of dollars per employee (thats $3 million per employee of profit btw)

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Industries Most Bang For The Buck: Revenues Per Employee - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com



they are #14 overall

Global 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com


(and dont tell me CNN is biased)

All federal taxes are mandated just because you are alive as well. you also pay into medicare and medicaid as a mandated program even if you never use them.

are you really telling me that you are going to drop your health insurance coverage because the government mandated you purchase a product you already buy?

and yes we gave them the authority to create laws and regulate industry as the people see fit. its a well know fact that country is split right down the middle when it comes to the health care debate. there is no majority either way. but when you break out the individual sections of the bill an overwhelming majority agree with them. this includes:

- children staying on their parents insurance til age 26
- no denial for pre-exsiting conditions
- no lifetime caps
- not being able to be dropped due to a material error on an application form
- not being able to raise rate on a specifically target group without raising them on the whole
- making provider and insurers document and prove that a minimum of 80% of all premium dollars goes towards patient care as opposed to administrative costs.

So, by your reasoning, Wal-Mart, Ford, HP, CVS, and IBM should all be regulated by big gov't since they all rank higher than UHC.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No I want you to be a man and put something on the table to risk to back up your claim that no government program has EVER been temporary.

"...silence is golden, golden..." lol.

so name your temporary program that is no longer....

will you leave the board forever if I do? Rabbi doesn't have the balls to put up a week.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...silence is golden, golden..." lol.

so name your temporary program that is no longer....

He won't. He won't spend the 5 hours searching Google needed to examine every government program passed in the last 150 years to find the one, the only one, that actually sunsetted.

I'm waiting for you to stop being a fat ***** and back your retarded claim up with a wager.

 

[Common Sense]

[/QUOTE]So, by your reasoning, Wal-Mart, Ford, HP, CVS, and IBM should all be regulated by big gov't since they all rank higher than UHC.[/QUOTE]

since none of these companies provide a product that is potentially life saving, no. it is a detrimental system to let health care providers earn these ridiculous profits. As i stated earlier, think about how much your premium would be reduced if they were required to reinvest their profits back into the company, say in the same way Kaiser does. (This is one of a few reasons Kaiser can keep its costs lower thank most, as they are a non profit - you can argue about the way they implement their care, but they are great at controlling costs) as long as they dont have any regulations on them, they will continue to raise their premiums in order to keep the profits levels up. Even without health care reform, our costs will still rise.

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. (United Health Care 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. what 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)



and btw, Ford is regulated the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They have minimum crash test rules and guidelines that they must follow.

CVS makes most of its money out of prescription drugs, also regulated by the FDA

Wal-Mart actually refuses to offer health care to part time workers and makes it difficult for employees to unionize. (fortunately with the new health care bill, they will be forced to take some of their profits and help their employee obtain health care)

there are also plenty of banks (chase, wells fargo, bank of america) on the list above UHS, they are also regulated by the government as well due to the risks they took that led to the market collapse. yet just a few years ago they begged the government to bail them out so they wouldnt have had to file bankruptcy

the oil industry is heavily regulated as well (remember the BP oil spill that the tax payers are on the hook for because of the deregulation of lack of liability that BP has against oil spills?)

i fail to see your point in picking and choosing a few companies who you say make huge profits and asking if we should regulate them, because most of them we actually do for consumer safety.

 

[Common Sense]

He won't. He won't spend the 5 hours searching Google needed to examine every government program passed in the last 150 years to find the one, the only one, that actually sunsetted.

btw TARP has ended.

No, it has not. TARP established a new bureaucracy to oversee it. That bureau is still going strong.
Office of Financial Stability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But an excellent example of "temporary" government programs that morph into permanent ones.

good job quoting wikipedia on here, an extremely reliable news source.

With end of TARP, investigations into fraud take center stage | Analysis & Opinion |

the lending program has ended (or is reuters not a reliable news source?) was has not ended is the investigation into whether the companies that took tarp money used it properly.

here is another reliable article stating tarp has ended as well

Banks Feeling TARP Trapped | Los Angeles Business Journal

try not to quote wikipedia, since anyone can create a wikipedia page and put anything they want on there.

 

[The Rabbi]

btw TARP has ended.

No, it has not. TARP established a new bureaucracy to oversee it. That bureau is still going strong.
Office of Financial Stability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But an excellent example of "temporary" government programs that morph into permanent ones.

good job quoting wikipedia on here, an extremely reliable news source.

With end of TARP, investigations into fraud take center stage | Analysis & Opinion |

the lending program has ended (or is reuters not a reliable news source?) was has not ended is the investigation into whether the companies that took tarp money used it properly.

here is another reliable article stating tarp has ended as well

Banks Feeling TARP Trapped | Los Angeles Business Journal

try not to quote wikipedia, since anyone can create a wikipedia page and put anything they want on there.

Rational analysis not your strong point, I see. Let me spell it out for you:
TARP, in the sense of a gov't program giving money to bail out banks, is ended. But the bureaucratic machinery, like the office of financial stability, is stil going strong. So this proves government programs live on even after their original mission is finished.

 

[Common Sense]

ahhhh so you yourself just said the program has ended. well well well, thanks for making my point.

FinancialStability.gov | U.S. Department of the Treasury

even the office of financial stability, they one you are quoting, has even agreed the program has ended.

i see that reading comprehension is not your strong point.

 

[The Rabbi]

ahhhh so you yourself just said the program has ended. well well well, thanks for making my point.

FinancialStability.gov | U.S. Department of the Treasury

even the office of financial stability, they one you are quoting, has even agreed the program has ended.

i see that reading comprehension is not your strong point.

Let me restate: TARP, in the sense of a program to hand out money to needy banks, has ended. TARP, in the sense of a government regulatory body like OFS, has not ended.

Glad I could clear up your misinformation and misconceptions. I hope I have educated you properly so you can understand that government programs are like potholes:unless you uproot them totally they will simply morph and grow.
This supposed health care program for the uninsured is an excellent example. Since its original mandate fell flat the program has had to expand to "serve" more people. Of course the only people it serves are the bureaucrats drawing a paycheck.
Kill Obamacare now.

 

[Common Sense]

ahhhh so you yourself just said the program has ended. well well well, thanks for making my point.

FinancialStability.gov | U.S. Department of the Treasury

even the office of financial stability, they one you are quoting, has even agreed the program has ended.

i see that reading comprehension is not your strong point.

Let me restate: TARP, in the sense of a program to hand out money to needy banks, has ended. TARP, in the sense of a government regulatory body like OFS, has not ended.

Glad I could clear up your misinformation and misconceptions. I hope I have educated you properly so you can understand that government programs are like potholes:unless you uproot them totally they will simply morph and grow.
This supposed health care program for the uninsured is an excellent example. Since its original mandate fell flat the program has had to expand to "serve" more people. Of course the only people it serves are the bureaucrats drawing a paycheck.
Kill Obamacare now.

arguing with you is like trying to convince a retarded chimpanzee that they are wrong.

"The TARP is over. And as we put it behind us, it is worth noting that the financial security of all Americans is much stronger today than it would have been without the rescue strategy that the program made possible. It worked.

Timothy F. Geithner is secretary of the Treasury. "

The secretary of the Treasury has stated that the program is OVER!. How much more simple can I make this. The Office of Financial Stability was the oversight agency for the program. hence the word oversight. and this was a program actually created by George W Bush! a conservative republican. OMG!!!! oh no he didnt! so what your saying is that now that all the money has been distributed, no one need to track that money or make sure it is used properly? oh wait, that might be a good idea..... we should have someone do that..... oh wait, thats what the office of financial stability does..... wow. man that makes sense. You can not call the Office of Financial Stability TARP. Thats like trying to call the FDA a drug manufacturer. Get your facts straight. your simply trying to twist the intent of the program to fit your argument instead of realizing the facts. OFS was actually created not solely to oversee TARP, but several other recovery programs as well.

"The Financial Stability Oversight Board (FSOB) was established by section 104 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to help oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) and other emergency authorities and facilities granted to the Secretary of the Treasury under the EESA to help restore liquidity and stability to the U.S. financial system." (FinancialStability.gov | U.S. Department of the Treasury)

You imply that the only reason OFS exists is to oversee TARP. once again you are wrong.

If you actually looked at the website instead of forming baseless opinions you might educate yourself on something finally.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, the SecTreasury, a notorious tax cheat says it's over. then it must be true.

I thought I had explained the issue in a way a retarded six year old could easily understand it. Obviously your intelligence level doesn't rise that high. TARP's regulatory and legal underpinnings are not over. The gov't has not gone back to what it was before the financial crisis began. The office of financial responsibility has not been disbanded.
Please show where the TARP legislation was repealed or where the legislation contained a sunset provision. If you cannot then you have failed. Your argument is wrong. Now go soak your head.

 

[Common Sense]

Oh, the SecTreasury, a notorious tax cheat says it's over. then it must be true.

I thought I had explained the issue in a way a retarded six year old could easily understand it. Obviously your intelligence level doesn't rise that high. TARP's regulatory and legal underpinnings are not over. The gov't has not gone back to what it was before the financial crisis began. The office of financial responsibility has not been disbanded.
Please show where the TARP legislation was repealed or where the legislation contained a sunset provision. If you cannot then you have failed. Your argument is wrong. Now go soak your head.

TARP did not create the OFS, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 created both TARP and OFS, hence you would need to have another Law to disband OFS since it does more then just oversee TARP. So OFS will not be disbanded simply because TARP is over.

"The Financial Stability Oversight Board (FSOB) was established by section 104 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to "help" oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) and other emergency authorities and facilities granted to the Secretary of the Treasury under the EESA to help restore liquidity and stability to the U.S.
financial system."

EESA also created the follewing:

The Financial Stability Oversight Board
The Government Accountability Office
The Special Inspector General for TARP
The Congressional Oversight Panel

this was created by congress (under George W Bush)

now your argument is that since the Secretary of the Treasury says its over, its simply a lie. nice sidestep from the facts. i can make an argument for anything by simply saying everyone lies about everything. once again you fail. use that high paying job you have and buy a clue.