"Uninsured" What uninsured??

[The Rabbi]

Still don't see how anyone can complain about a company making 3% Profit. And that is what it boils down to.

The only complain I would have is it's too small, especially if I were a stockholder.
The whole profit thing is irrelevant. So what if they were making 30% profit? Apple does but I don't see people passing laws to punish Apple for outrageous profits. The market is self correcting. If profits are very high other people will get into the business and push them down through competition. If profit is high at insurers more government regulation will not solve that "problem", it will make it worse. ColonScent just doesn't seem to understand this.

 

[Common Sense]

Still don't see how anyone can complain about a company making 3% Profit. And that is what it boils down to.

The only complain I would have is it's too small, especially if I were a stockholder.
The whole profit thing is irrelevant. So what if they were making 30% profit? Apple does but I don't see people passing laws to punish Apple for outrageous profits. The market is self correcting. If profits are very high other people will get into the business and push them down through competition. If profit is high at insurers more government regulation will not solve that "problem", it will make it worse. ColonScent just doesn't seem to understand this.

insults insults insults, that about all you are good for. i think i will just deem you the Retarded Rabbi... done.

you compare health care to apple? this is a stupid comparison. apple does not provide a service that is potentially life saving.

give me one valid reason why health care companies should be able to profit from health care serivces? (as opposed to being a non profit?) who benefits from this business structure other than investors and administrators? not the patients.

(because they can isnt a valid answer)

name another industry that can determine if you live or die that is private? ............ waiting............. still waiting............. and still waiting.......... because there isnt one. (fire department and police department are run by the government, should be privitize them as well and let companies profit off proving these services as well?) health care companies profit by taking in more money than they pay out. accounting 101. money in less money out = PROFITS. they take in money from premiums and pay out money in the way of salaries, overhead, insurances, rent, taxes etc etc. they less they have to pay out, the more the profit. once again this is counterproductive to serving the people.

the reason more people do not get into the business is because the barriers for doing business are extremely high. the cost to set up and run a health care facility is astronomical. a single hospital can cost upwards of $100 million. (although they can be as ow as $25 depending on the size) then you need to stock it with capable doctors. 12 years of school and an average minimum salary of $100,000. that takes time a money as well. this is why more people do not get involved in the management of health care. once again high barriers. you make it sound like if someone wanted to get into the health care business, you could do it over night.

everyone makes this argument for more competition, more competition. well the government said the same exact thing, and wanted to create a single payer plan to compete with the traditional insurers. but the insurers lobbied and this was eliminated from the final bill. the bill also created exchanges. these exchanges are mean to do exactly what you want and create more competition. law makers also realized if you were to put more people into the system, this would drive down costs as well. more people = more competition right?

when gas hit $3 per gallon, there was public outcry about the record profits that oil companies were making. how is this any different. gas still sits around $3 per but the public outrage has gone away. we have just accepted the fact of these high costs and realized there is nothing we can do about them. another private company reaping in billions, and charging astronomical prices. their product is truly market driven as well. people can buy and sell oil on the open market and make as much profit as they want. many economists actually point to this as one of the reasons that oil and gas prices are this high. so in a sense the free market has actually inflated prices for everyone, instead of lowering them as your argument suggests.


(apple had a 14% profit last year btw, not 30% like you claim)

Global 500 2009: Companies - A - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

 

[hortysir]

fantastic argument. are you just not wanting to be mandated to purchase insurance, or are you upset with the idea of being denied care should you choose to sign the waiver?

(and i can provide proof for every dollar amount and statistic stated in all my posts, can you?)

Add this statistic, What is the profit percentage that the insurance companies make, compared to the local Taco Bell's?

are you asking what their profit margins are? or what their profit dollars are? there is a difference. as i posted before, even some of the most profitable companies less than a 10% return on revenue. these are profits, not profit margins. what that simply means is the for every dollar that passes through the company, after all expenses are paid they return 10 cents in pure profit. profit margins are the percentage you mark up a product (typically 25%-40%) in order to cover your costs. (rents, insurance, utilities, taxes, salaries etc etc)

and a comparison of these two companies is not an accurate comparison. you are talking about a company that takes in billions of dollars a year, vs. a company who takes in a few hundred thousand.

you need to compare two companies of similar size and similar structure. but i can provide you with something closer (taco bell is a private company, so their revenues and profits are not public knowledge)

although McDonalds is publicly traded and here are their stats:

Global 500 2010: Companies - M - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

with approx 31,000 McDonalds world wide, if you take their profits of $4,551,000,000 on revenues $22,745,000,000 if you simply divide these profts by the 31,000 locations (not a completely accurate analysis, but for argument sake it gives us an average) each McDonald profits $145,806.45.

now on the other hand, United Health Care (the largest provider) had profits of $3,800,000,000 on revenues of $52,920,000,000.

Global 500 2010: Companies - U - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

now since UHS has to pay doctors, not burger flippers one can only expect them have a much higher overhead costs. hence why they have twice the revenues but only 85% of the of the profits of McDonalds.

i do not know what the profit margins of either of these two companies is, because companies do not release this information, all i have to go on is what is publicly available.

Classic class warfare.
In business it is always all about the margin.
It doesn't do any good to see 140 trillion dollar return if it costs you $139,999,999,999,983 to operate your business.

 

[daveman]

Still don't see how anyone can complain about a company making 3% Profit. And that is what it boils down to.

Insurance companies are the boogieman for this particular Two Minutes Hate.

 

[The Rabbi]

Still don't see how anyone can complain about a company making 3% Profit. And that is what it boils down to.

The only complain I would have is it's too small, especially if I were a stockholder.
The whole profit thing is irrelevant. So what if they were making 30% profit? Apple does but I don't see people passing laws to punish Apple for outrageous profits. The market is self correcting. If profits are very high other people will get into the business and push them down through competition. If profit is high at insurers more government regulation will not solve that "problem", it will make it worse. ColonScent just doesn't seem to understand this.

insults insults insults, that about all you are good for. i think i will just deem you the Retarded Rabbi... done.

you compare health care to apple? this is a stupid comparison. apple does not provide a service that is potentially life saving.

give me one valid reason why health care companies should be able to profit from health care serivces? (as opposed to being a non profit?) who benefits from this business structure other than investors and administrators? not the patients.

(because they can isnt a valid answer)

name another industry that can determine if you live or die that is private? ............ waiting............. still waiting............. and still waiting.......... because there isnt one. (fire department and police department are run by the government, should be privitize them as well and let companies profit off proving these services as well?) health care companies profit by taking in more money than they pay out. accounting 101. money in less money out = PROFITS. they take in money from premiums and pay out money in the way of salaries, overhead, insurances, rent, taxes etc etc. they less they have to pay out, the more the profit. once again this is counterproductive to serving the people.

the reason more people do not get into the business is because the barriers for doing business are extremely high. the cost to set up and run a health care facility is astronomical. a single hospital can cost upwards of $100 million. (although they can be as ow as $25 depending on the size) then you need to stock it with capable doctors. 12 years of school and an average minimum salary of $100,000. that takes time a money as well. this is why more people do not get involved in the management of health care. once again high barriers. you make it sound like if someone wanted to get into the health care business, you could do it over night.

everyone makes this argument for more competition, more competition. well the government said the same exact thing, and wanted to create a single payer plan to compete with the traditional insurers. but the insurers lobbied and this was eliminated from the final bill. the bill also created exchanges. these exchanges are mean to do exactly what you want and create more competition. law makers also realized if you were to put more people into the system, this would drive down costs as well. more people = more competition right?

when gas hit $3 per gallon, there was public outcry about the record profits that oil companies were making. how is this any different. gas still sits around $3 per but the public outrage has gone away. we have just accepted the fact of these high costs and realized there is nothing we can do about them. another private company reaping in billions, and charging astronomical prices. their product is truly market driven as well. people can buy and sell oil on the open market and make as much profit as they want. many economists actually point to this as one of the reasons that oil and gas prices are this high. so in a sense the free market has actually inflated prices for everyone, instead of lowering them as your argument suggests.


(apple had a 14% profit last year btw, not 30% like you claim)

Global 500 2009: Companies - A - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

Wow, what a moron.
Why should companies be able to make money? The bigger question is why shouldn't they? We live in a capitalist society. The profit motive produces the means for further growth. This society has done very well for 200 years doing that. Why would anyone want to change it?
Other business that have life and death over you? Firearms. Cars. Food. Alcohol. Pharmaceuticals. Chemicals. Utilitieis. You name it. There are hundreds of areas that are potentially life and death. So what?
What business are you blabbering about? You start with insurance and then talk about building hospitals. You realize those are not identical, right?
Gas prices vary. The only public outrage comes from morons like you who don't understand what a market system means.
And Apple's margin? You're wrong about that too.

CUPERTINO, California—October 18, 2010—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2010 fourth quarter ended September 25, 2010. The Company posted record revenue of $20.34 billion and net quarterly profit of $4.31 billion, or $4.64 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $12.21 billion and net quarterly profit of $2.53 billion, or $2.77 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 36.9 percent compared to 41.8 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 57 percent of the quarter’s revenue.

Apple Reports Fourth Quarter Results

Is there anything you can get right? It doesn't look like it.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm looking at something more like a Profit Margin for Health insurance companies of 3.3%

REIT Health care facilities of 24.6%

CARPE DIEM: Profit Margin: Health Insurance Industry Ranks #86

Seems to me the insurance industry makes pennies while others make dollars. They simply do a lot more pennies.

But I could be wrong, just seems 3% ain't so much.

Again, it is not the profit margins that are the problem. The problem is that insurance companies have no incentive to make providers more competitive. In fact, it is just the opposite. The insurers want providers to charge more because that allows them to charge higher premiums, which in turn increase their profits. It does nothing to their small margins, but this continues to force healthcare costs higher. The only way to force providers to become more competitive is to make individuals purchase their own insurance policies rather than having them supplied through employers who sign on for every thing on the menu. This is where the whole problem began. Health insurance is not insurance at all; it is just a way of managing money for healthcare. It would be as if someone purchased auto insurance to cover everything from oil changes to having an engine rebuilt. Can you imagine what the cost would be for auto insurance if insurance companies had their hands in the maintenance of every vehicle in the US?

Insurance is supposed to cover us in case of catastrophic illness or injury, where the costs are beyond the normal person's ability to pay off the cost within a reasonable amount of time. It should not be there to cover every doctor's visit and every minor cold that we may choose to see the doctor for. The system is so screwed up that some doctors won't even see you if you tell them you are paying cash, because they don't know how much to charge you. Honest to God, I had this happen to me. I had the money to pay, but they told me if I didn't have insurance, they couldn't see me.

 

[Bern80]

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?

And you don't think government is going to be telling you what to do as your health care provider? Pretty naive.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm looking at something more like a Profit Margin for Health insurance companies of 3.3%

REIT Health care facilities of 24.6%

CARPE DIEM: Profit Margin: Health Insurance Industry Ranks #86

Seems to me the insurance industry makes pennies while others make dollars. They simply do a lot more pennies.

But I could be wrong, just seems 3% ain't so much.

Again, it is not the profit margins that are the problem. The problem is that insurance companies have no incentive to make providers more competitive. In fact, it is just the opposite. The insurers want providers to charge more because that allows them to charge higher premiums, which in turn increase their profits. It does nothing to their small margins, but this continues to force healthcare costs higher. The only way to force providers to become more competitive is to make individuals purchase their own insurance policies rather than having them supplied through employers who sign on for every thing on the menu. This is where the whole problem began. Health insurance is not insurance at all; it is just a way of managing money for healthcare. It would be as if someone purchased auto insurance to cover everything from oil changes to having an engine rebuilt. Can you imagine what the cost would be for auto insurance if insurance companies had their hands in the maintenance of every vehicle in the US?

Insurance is supposed to cover us in case of catastrophic illness or injury, where the costs are beyond the normal person's ability to pay off the cost within a reasonable amount of time. It should not be there to cover every doctor's visit and every minor cold that we may choose to see the doctor for. The system is so screwed up that some doctors won't even see you if you tell them you are paying cash, because they don't know how much to charge you. Honest to God, I had this happen to me. I had the money to pay, but they told me if I didn't have insurance, they couldn't see me.

I dont think insurers intentionally want to jack up health care costs. Indeed, they constantly have controls over how much they will pay for procedures.
Rather the system itself naturally provides for this. When people do not shop on price because someone else is paying the bill then providers tend not to be price conscious either.
Yes, pushing more responsibility back on the individual via HSAs and the like is the way to go.

 

[Common Sense]

I dont think insurers intentionally want to jack up health care costs. Indeed, they constantly have controls over how much they will pay for procedures.
Rather the system itself naturally provides for this. When people do not shop on price because someone else is paying the bill then providers tend not to be price conscious either.
Yes, pushing more responsibility back on the individual via HSAs and the like is the way to go.

there is your problem. in a capitalist society as a business you will charge as much as the public is willing to pay to maximize your profits. hence insurers will charge the most possible to get the maximum return on their investment. this leads to artificially high premiums, to maximize profits. you keep preaching about competition. if its that easy, why havent you started your own health care company? they are extremely profitable and it would seem from your argument that simply having more service providers will drive down costs?

what cost controls do they have in place? if it costs a hospitals $100 for a procedure, then they bill $100. if that cost increases, they increase their billing prices? post some proof of these so called cost control? HC providers are still using pen and paper to track and record patient information. they havent even made the full time switch to computers, and a central computer database for patient information.

you still fail to see why insurance companies should not be able to have such high profits. what if we privatized both the fire department and police? and then in order to receiver their services you had to purchase insurance, if you did not have insurance then they would not service you need? this would then allow private companies to profit from police and fire services. this is the same idea as private health insurance. so why is ok for the fire and police to be public services, but not health care?

you think insurance and hospitals are not related? wow, you must the dumbest person on the planet for that statement.


and you idiot had you actually read the article about Apple, you would have seen that in those numbers for the fiscal year of 2009, they just finished fiscal 2010, and posted those numbers. or are you calling CNN a liar? (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/companies/). they increased their market share again. your reading comprehension is extremely lacking. do you even have a high school education?


"Other business that have life and death over you? Firearms. Cars. Food. Alcohol. Pharmaceuticals. Chemicals. Utilitieis. You name it. There are hundreds of areas that are potentially life and death. So what?" your exact words. ok, tell me how this is the same as health care? tell me how one of these companies not providing you will a "service" not a product will lead to you death.

Firearms - a product, nope cant kill me if it is not available
cars - a product, nope cant kill me if its not available
food - a product again, can only kill me if i choose not to eat or i eat something tainted.
alcohol - a product, can only kill me if i choose to drink to too much
(are you seeing a pattern here?)
pharmaceutical - a product, can kill your or save or, depending on your access. but you have to have access, and once again, its a product not a service.
chemicals - a product, this is the stupidest one of all. do i even need to explain how not buying chemicals wont kill you?
utilities - a product, you actually do not need utilities to survive. people have lived for thousands of years with out electricity, running water and natural gas, and im pretty sure by not receiving these products you wont die.

there is not one single "service" similar to health care that if not received could potentially lead to your death.

 

[hortysir]

Umm....
Because we don't live in a Nanny-State? (quite yet)

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont think insurers intentionally want to jack up health care costs. Indeed, they constantly have controls over how much they will pay for procedures.
Rather the system itself naturally provides for this. When people do not shop on price because someone else is paying the bill then providers tend not to be price conscious either.
Yes, pushing more responsibility back on the individual via HSAs and the like is the way to go.

there is your problem. in a capitalist society as a business you will charge as much as the public is willing to pay to maximize your profits. hence insurers will charge the most possible to get the maximum return on their investment. this leads to artificially high premiums, to maximize profits. you keep preaching about competition. if its that easy, why havent you started your own health care company? they are extremely profitable and it would seem from your argument that simply having more service providers will drive down costs?

what cost controls do they have in place? if it costs a hospitals $100 for a procedure, then they bill $100. if that cost increases, they increase their billing prices? post some proof of these so called cost control? HC providers are still using pen and paper to track and record patient information. they havent even made the full time switch to computers, and a central computer database for patient information.

you still fail to see why insurance companies should not be able to have such high profits. what if we privatized both the fire department and police? and then in order to receiver their services you had to purchase insurance, if you did not have insurance then they would not service you need? this would then allow private companies to profit from police and fire services. this is the same idea as private health insurance. so why is ok for the fire and police to be public services, but not health care?

you think insurance and hospitals are not related? wow, you must the dumbest person on the planet for that statement.


and you idiot had you actually read the article about Apple, you would have seen that in those numbers for the fiscal year of 2009, they just finished fiscal 2010, and posted those numbers. or are you calling CNN a liar? (Fortune 500 2010: Companies: A - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com). they increased their market share again. your reading comprehension is extremely lacking. do you even have a high school education?


"Other business that have life and death over you? Firearms. Cars. Food. Alcohol. Pharmaceuticals. Chemicals. Utilitieis. You name it. There are hundreds of areas that are potentially life and death. So what?" your exact words. ok, tell me how this is the same as health care? tell me how one of these companies not providing you will a "service" not a product will lead to you death.

Firearms - a product, nope cant kill me if it is not available
cars - a product, nope cant kill me if its not available
food - a product again, can only kill me if i choose not to eat or i eat something tainted.
alcohol - a product, can only kill me if i choose to drink to too much
(are you seeing a pattern here?)
pharmaceutical - a product, can kill your or save or, depending on your access. but you have to have access, and once again, its a product not a service.
chemicals - a product, this is the stupidest one of all. do i even need to explain how not buying chemicals wont kill you?
utilities - a product, you actually do not need utilities to survive. people have lived for thousands of years with out electricity, running water and natural gas, and im pretty sure by not receiving these products you wont die.

there is not one single "service" similar to health care that if not received could potentially lead to your death.

Wow are you clueless and a glutton for punishment.
If returns were artificially high then companies would be jumping in to the market. As it is we don't see companies jumping in because...ta da...it is not a particularly lucrative business. This is unlike, say, electronic book readers like Kindle where we see new offerings monthly.

If it costs hospitals $100 for a procedure they will not charge $100. They will charge $110. Or $120. Or whatever they can charge. Their only limit is the reimbursement by 3rd party providers since we have removed any sense of competition. This is what Auditor and I have been saying.

You seem unsure whether insurance companies operate hospitals or not and cannot seem to distinguish they are two distinct businesses. To dispel any doubt let me say categorically they are not the same business.
You don't need healthcare if you don't get sick. You don't need utilities if you live in the woods. You don't need firearms unless your life depends on them. You don't need food if you're fed intravenously.
But need has little to do with it. Healthcare is a good/service just like any other. There is no real difference. Nor should there be.
And I am sorry that a press release from Apple on their earnings just wont convince you what their margin is, even though they highlight that, both gross and net, in the report. I attribute it to stubborn stupidity on your part.

 

[Common Sense]

Wow are you clueless and a glutton for punishment.
If returns were artificially high then companies would be jumping in to the market. As it is we don't see companies jumping in because...ta da...it is not a particularly lucrative business. This is unlike, say, electronic book readers like Kindle where we see new offerings monthly.

If it costs hospitals $100 for a procedure they will not charge $100. They will charge $110. Or $120. Or whatever they can charge. Their only limit is the reimbursement by 3rd party providers since we have removed any sense of competition. This is what Auditor and I have been saying.

You seem unsure whether insurance companies operate hospitals or not and cannot seem to distinguish they are two distinct businesses. To dispel any doubt let me say categorically they are not the same business.
You don't need healthcare if you don't get sick. You don't need utilities if you live in the woods. You don't need firearms unless your life depends on them. You don't need food if you're fed intravenously.
But need has little to do with it. Healthcare is a good/service just like any other. There is no real difference. Nor should there be.
And I am sorry that a press release from Apple on their earnings just wont convince you what their margin is, even though they highlight that, both gross and net, in the report. I attribute it to stubborn stupidity on your part.

you really are a retarded rabbi you know that? do you know the difference between a product and a service or is that too complicated to comprehend?

"you don't need healthcare if you don't get sick. You don't need utilities if you live in the woods. You don't need firearms unless your life depends on them. You don't need food if you're fed intravenously."

it is actually proven the preventative care is key to a longer and healthier life. should i post a medical study here or are you that thick headed to think this is a lie too? (heres one from the american heart association just to prove my point: Preventive Health Care) and another just for good measure: Preventive Health Care Helps Everyone : World Research Foundation. hence there are check ups and vaccinations. if you truly believe you only need health care when you get sick, maybe you should just get a catastrophic plans and pay all your other expenses out of pocket and see how much you save in the long run. im pretty sure no one will stop you there.

and you make my point exactly with utilities, firearms and food. once again, all products that are a choice. you even make more of point for health care when you said you can be fed intravenously. how do you suppose to be fed intravenously if you cant get health care services? (youre technically not sick, you just need nutrition)

"You seem unsure whether insurance companies operate hospitals or not and cannot seem to distinguish they are two distinct businesses."


Kaiser is an insurer and operates hospitals..... once again youve been shown to provide false information

ON Apple:

Definition of Margin :gross profit: (finance) the net sales minus the cost of goods and services sold

hence the word gross profit. not net profit. net profit is the amount earned after paying all expenses (rent, insurance, debt, interest, salaries, utilities) since these numbers are not available during quarterly statement, you cant simply divide the profits by the gross revenues to get the margins. take an accounting class and educate yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are too clueless to bother with.
Blue Cross does not operate hospitals. HCA does not sell insurance. Health care is a good when we're discussing medical devices and pharmaceuticals. It is a service when we're discussing treatment and hospitalization. Both are covered under "healthcare."
When you dont get sick you dont need healthcare. This is the case for most people in their teens and twenties. But you have yet to show why health care should be treated by the government as any different from any other good or service.
You still cannot admit that Apple's press release ought to be the ultimate word ont he subject. Sad, really.

 

[Common Sense]

You are too clueless to bother with.
Blue Cross does not operate hospitals. HCA does not sell insurance. Health care is a good when we're discussing medical devices and pharmaceuticals. It is a service when we're discussing treatment and hospitalization. Both are covered under "healthcare."
When you dont get sick you dont need healthcare. This is the case for most people in their teens and twenties. But you have yet to show why health care should be treated by the government as any different from any other good or service.
You still cannot admit that Apple's press release ought to be the ultimate word ont he subject. Sad, really.

if apple had released their over net numbers i could agree that it showed thier net profits. not their gross profits. understand the difference between them. i am not disputing the fact that their revenue was that number or their gross profit was that number. show me the net profit after expenses and then we will have a more accurate number of their performance.

you are actually correct that Blue Cross does not operate hospitals and HCA does not sell insurance. do you think this actually leads to one of the reasons that their cost management doesnt line up? Kaiser as i stated actually does operate both hospitals and sell its own insurance. since they control both (and are coincidentally a non profit) they are more capable of managing their costs. this also allows them to sell the their plans at a cheaper rate then most of their competitors. (you can argue the semantics of how the administer their care later, but since this is a cost argument thats a separate issue)

if youre so opposed to health care, then why carry insurance at all. you simply stated that when you are not sick you dont need health care. so apply the same argument to all types of insurance. car, home, life. you technically do not need any of those either unless something happens. so by buying insurance you are transferring the risk from yourself to a 3rd party. so you have a choice then, if you disagree with insurance all together, then just dont purchase it. when you need something, just pay all the costs out of pocket. your not gonna be mandated for until after 2014, so you have at least 3 years to save all that money.

i have shown why government regulation of health care is necessary. are you that stubborn to realize that every other industrialized nation on the planet has universal health beside us? they do it cheaper and more effectively than we are able to for the masses. can you tell me why your right to a potentially life saving treatment or procedure should be afforded to you solely based on your ability to pay? apply that thinking to all services. what if your house was burning down and the fire department showed up, but would only put the fire out if you could prove that you could pay the bill. would you think that is fair and just? a house is just material possession. it can be replaced. life can not be replaced. i thought that life was precious for everyone. how would you like to be the guy in a hospital bed who needs surgery, but since you can not pay for the surgery you get to die? is that fair or right? we have the technology and resources to save you, but because you cant pay for it, you get to die. with that argument in place, you have not put a dollar amount on your life. so how much is your life worth? $10,000, $20,000, $100,000, $1,000,000?

 

[Greenbeard]

If returns were artificially high then companies would be jumping in to the market.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of barriers to entry? By all means, start a company and enter the health insurance market. Build a provider network. Try to negotiate reasonable reimbursement rates with those providers without having any patients to offer them (particularly compared to whichever health insurer dominates the market in your state). Couldn't be any tougher than marketing an e-reader, right?

If it costs hospitals $100 for a procedure they will not charge $100. They will charge $110. Or $120. Or whatever they can charge.

On average they'll charge $282 for that procedure. Although I suppose that's 2007 data.

Their only limit is the reimbursement by 3rd party providers since we have removed any sense of competition.

I, too, worry about provider consolidation. But I have no idea why you would think that fragmenting the payer market is a solution to that problem. More insurers won't make hospitals bring their prices down, particularly when insurers can't threaten network exclusion for providers who won't play ball (and after the managed care meltdown in the 90s, that's going to be tough). Rather it empowers providers by allowing them to threaten payer exclusion. Which, of course, is happening in various markets (e.g. California and Massachusetts). There was a study out just yesterday reaffirming that provider clout often translates into higher reimbursements.

But jump back to July of last year. Who did people trust most when it came to reforming the health care system?

Doctors and hospitals. The other day over at the Incidental Economist, Frakt pulled a great quote out of The Social Transformation of American Medicine:

In other words, pitting individuals, instead of insurance companies, against providers isn't some guarantee of better prices. I don't subscribe to the notion that indiscriminately cutting care is the best way to contain costs.

The market for health care (or its related financial products) is not like the market for e-readers or some Apple product.

 

[Common Sense]

If returns were artificially high then companies would be jumping in to the market.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of barriers to entry? By all means, start a company and enter the health insurance market. Build a provider network. Try to negotiate reasonable reimbursement rates with those providers without having any patients to offer them (particularly compared to whichever health insurer dominates the market in your state). Couldn't be any tougher than marketing an e-reader, right?

If it costs hospitals $100 for a procedure they will not charge $100. They will charge $110. Or $120. Or whatever they can charge.

On average they'll charge $282 for that procedure. Although I suppose that's 2007 data.

Their only limit is the reimbursement by 3rd party providers since we have removed any sense of competition.

I, too, worry about provider consolidation. But I have no idea why you would think that fragmenting the payer market is a solution to that problem. More insurers won't make hospitals bring their prices down, particularly when insurers can't threaten network exclusion for providers who won't play ball (and after the managed care meltdown in the 90s, that's going to be tough). Rather it empowers providers by allowing them to threaten payer exclusion. Which, of course, is happening in various markets (e.g. California and Massachusetts). There was a study out just yesterday reaffirming that provider clout often translates into higher reimbursements.

But jump back to July of last year. Who did people trust most when it came to reforming the health care system?

Doctors and hospitals. The other day over at the Incidental Economist, Frakt pulled a great quote out of The Social Transformation of American Medicine:

In other words, pitting individuals, instead of insurance companies, against providers isn't some guarantee of better prices. I don't subscribe to the notion that indiscriminately cutting care is the best way to contain costs.

The market for health care (or its related financial products) is not like the market for e-readers or some Apple product.

thank you for the 1st reasonable argument on here.

 

[The Rabbi]

You wouldn't know reasonable if it hit you upside the head.
In fact teh post is wrong. There are barriers to entry all over but that doesn't stop big companies in related areas from getting into them if they are profitable. Thus Buffet set up to insure municipal bonds because he perceived excess returns in that market. I don't see BUffet moving towards opening a health insurance branch of GEICO. So Snotbeard's argument doesn't really invalidate what I wrote.
Health insurance is a lousy business with low returns and high regulation.

More insurers will not bring down hospital costs. But it wil bring down insurance premiums and spur moves into niche products. People paying their own bills will lower hospital costs.

 

[Common Sense]

good things youre not a stock market investor. your speculation skills would have cost you all of you client and money. you think that there are not barrier to entry? try again moron.

http://www.columbia.edu/~kh2214/papers/paper_VertInt_080708.pdf

 

[The Rabbi]

good things youre not a stock market investor. your speculation skills would have cost you all of you client and money. you think that there are not barrier to entry? try again moron.

http://www.columbia.edu/~kh2214/papers/paper_VertInt_080708.pdf

Actually I am a stock market investor. And I do pretty well. I do well by actually understanding what I am talking about. Unlike you who waves around some sound bite he heard somewhere.

 

[Common Sense]

good things youre not a stock market investor. your speculation skills would have cost you all of you client and money. you think that there are not barrier to entry? try again moron.

http://www.columbia.edu/~kh2214/papers/paper_VertInt_080708.pdf

Actually I am a stock market investor. And I do pretty well. I do well by actually understanding what I am talking about. Unlike you who waves around some sound bite he heard somewhere.

so where is your proof of the lack of barriers of entry? you have none. you simply are claiming that getting into the HC business is simple, but offer no example of this. you have also yet to show that by simply having more providers out there costs will decrease. i assume you have made a good return on investing in HC companies then as well and would hate to see those returns dimished should much of the new law go into affect.