We cannot treat people like cars

[ElmerMudd]

Insurance companies purpose is to maximize profits.

Auto insurance is the perfect model. You increase premiums or eliminate individuals who are the highest risk; those with many tickets, many accidents, DUI's etc.
We do not have to pay higher premiums because of the irresponsible behavior of others.
You reduce the risk of the insurance pool and increase the profits of the insurance companies.

Those that add risk and reduce profits in health insurance are not irresponsible drivers. They are older people, people with cancer, heart disease and other chronic conditions. How do health insurance companies reduce risk and increase profits? In many cases by eliminating the high risk users? It is the same business model as automobile insurance.

The government is already helping the priivate health insurance company by insuring many of those with the highest risk through Medicare and Medicaid.

Anyone who says the private insurance companies can best serve our needs on health care are incorrect. The private insurance companies already rely on the government to take many of the high risk individuals off their rolls.

Without Medicare and Medicaid many individuals would not have coverage and the insurance companies would have lower profits.

The private insurance companies cannot meet our needs without the governments help. The only question is how much will the government be involved?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are a complete ignoramus.
Let's start with what insurance is: it is the pricing of risk. A person who has 5 DUIs, is under 25, drives a Corvette, and lives in LA is going to pay a much higher premium (where he can get auto insurance at all) than someone who is 50 with a perfect record driving a 2004 Chevrolet in Idaho. Everyone understands this.

Similarly, a 50 year old man who is grossly overweight and smokes is far more likely to incur medical expense than someone who is 19 and healthy. In an insurance pool the healthy people will subsidize the unhealthy ones. This is spreading the risk of adverse events around and what makes insurance work. The risks are well known through historical data, and therefore can be priced.

The government has forbidden health insurance companies from dropping people because of claims. So the rhetoric about this is simply wrong. They do drop people because of fraudulant applications. And they cannot raise premiums on a single person because of claims either. Premiums go up as claims within that group go up.

But insurance companies do something government cannot: they can subsidize their operating losses (claims paid versus premiums received) with returns on their invested capital. And indeed many insurers do this, especially when markets are good and they want more "float" on their money. Look at something called the "combined ratio".

But risk is risk. It does not matter who is calculating it, government or private companies. And that risk costs something. So the companies that can be most competitive are those that have lower overhead and good underwriting on policies, as well as controls on claims.
The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.
This is why we will end up with 3rd world substandard care under Obamacare, rather than the dynamic innovative system we have now.

 

[ElmerMudd]

You are a complete ignoramus.
Let's start with what insurance is: it is the pricing of risk. A person who has 5 DUIs, is under 25, drives a Corvette, and lives in LA is going to pay a much higher premium (where he can get auto insurance at all) than someone who is 50 with a perfect record driving a 2004 Chevrolet in Idaho. Everyone understands this.

Similarly, a 50 year old man who is grossly overweight and smokes is far more likely to incur medical expense than someone who is 19 and healthy. In an insurance pool the healthy people will subsidize the unhealthy ones. This is spreading the risk of adverse events around and what makes insurance work. The risks are well known through historical data, and therefore can be priced.

The government has forbidden health insurance companies from dropping people because of claims. So the rhetoric about this is simply wrong. They do drop people because of fraudulant applications. And they cannot raise premiums on a single person because of claims either. Premiums go up as claims within that group go up.

But insurance companies do something government cannot: they can subsidize their operating losses (claims paid versus premiums received) with returns on their invested capital. And indeed many insurers do this, especially when markets are good and they want more "float" on their money. Look at something called the "combined ratio".

But risk is risk. It does not matter who is calculating it, government or private companies. And that risk costs something. So the companies that can be most competitive are those that have lower overhead and good underwriting on policies, as well as controls on claims.
The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.
This is why we will end up with 3rd world substandard care under Obamacare, rather than the dynamic innovative system we have now.

Rabbi, Rabbi, Rabbi you are ignorant

RISK is the biggest variable in insurance. Overhead is a small part. Health Insurance companies look to lower risk any way they can. Insurance companies cannot cancel individuals but they can cancel group policies and they do. TRY BEING A SMALL COMPANY AND GET HEALTH INSURANCE. SMALL POOL HIGH RISK MEANS NO COVERAGE OR VERY HIGH RATES. I know because I own a small business.

The government is already subsidizing private insurance company through Medicare and Medicaid. Private companies do not want the high risk individuals.

AMERICAN HEALTH PLAN IS CURRENTLY A PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE COMPANIES AND WILL BE IN THE FUTURE.
PRIVATE COMPANIES CANNOT DO IT THEMSELVES NOR DO THEY WANT TO.

 

[rightwinger]

The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

 

[Oddball]

The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

Not that stupid old chestnut again.

How much advertising do Medicare/Medicaid do?

 

[Ame®icano]

The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

Not that stupid old chestnut again.

How much advertising do Medicare/Medicaid do?

How many private insurance companies are bankrupt?

 

[Mr. H.]

We cannot treat people like cars

Can't say I've walked into a deer lately.

 

[rightwinger]

The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

Not that stupid old chestnut again.

How much advertising do Medicare/Medicaid do?

Exactly..

Also the government pays its executives one percent of what insurance companies pay, no advertising, no lobbyists, no buying congressmen

Government is a much more efficient option

 

[Oddball]

You can't be serious.

Y'ever stop and think about how many more people ad campaigns employ?

Also, administrative costs aren't the only items on the expense side of the ledger. Like 99% of the arguments for Medical Marxism, the administrative costs angle is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Ame®icano]

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

Not that stupid old chestnut again.

How much advertising do Medicare/Medicaid do?

Exactly..

Also the government pays its executives one percent of what insurance companies pay, no advertising, no lobbyists, no buying congressmen

Government is a much more efficient option

So, if there is no overhead, lobbyists, advertising, how come they are on the edge of bankrupt all the time?

 

[rightwinger]

You can't be serious.

Y'ever stop and think about how many more people ad campaigns employ?

Also, administrative costs aren't the only items on the expense side of the ledger. Like 99% of the arguments for Medical Marxism, the administrative costs angle is intellectually dishonest.

Add to that administrative costs. How many people in the insurance industry are employed in processing paperwork between hospitals and patients denying claims?

Medicare is an extremely efficient operation. Too bad so many republicans are trying to prevent us from enjoying the same benefits

 

[Oddball]

Compulsion is always inefficient.

Your talking point is DOA.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can't be serious.

Y'ever stop and think about how many more people ad campaigns employ?

Also, administrative costs aren't the only items on the expense side of the ledger. Like 99% of the arguments for Medical Marxism, the administrative costs angle is intellectually dishonest.

Add to that administrative costs. How many people in the insurance industry are employed in processing paperwork between hospitals and patients denying claims?

Medicare is an extremely efficient operation. Too bad so many republicans are trying to prevent us from enjoying the same benefits

BWahaahah!!!!! You really believe that???? Have you ever seen a gov't operation that was "extremely efficient"??? There is no such animal. None.
From the WSJ:

4) Low administrative costs are a mirage. The claim that Medicare's administrative costs are only 3% is fantasy. If all Medicare costs—such as revenue collection, personnel and enforcement—were accounted for, its administrative expenses would be at least twice as high. And it still wouldn't be providing services private insurers do, such as nurse hotlines, decision-support tools and fraud detection, or paying the income, property and provider taxes that private plans must pay.

5) Medicare is rife with fraud. According to the FBI, between 3% and 10% of all health spending is lost to health-care fraud. Despite the president's promise this money could be recaptured to pay for his reform agenda, Congress has shown itself to be remarkably incapable of curtailing fraud and abuse in government health programs.

Fraud in Medicare is probably much more than in private insurance. That is part of the chimera of efficiency. Private insurers hire investigators to get rid of fraud. The government does not.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are a complete ignoramus.
Let's start with what insurance is: it is the pricing of risk. A person who has 5 DUIs, is under 25, drives a Corvette, and lives in LA is going to pay a much higher premium (where he can get auto insurance at all) than someone who is 50 with a perfect record driving a 2004 Chevrolet in Idaho. Everyone understands this.

Similarly, a 50 year old man who is grossly overweight and smokes is far more likely to incur medical expense than someone who is 19 and healthy. In an insurance pool the healthy people will subsidize the unhealthy ones. This is spreading the risk of adverse events around and what makes insurance work. The risks are well known through historical data, and therefore can be priced.

The government has forbidden health insurance companies from dropping people because of claims. So the rhetoric about this is simply wrong. They do drop people because of fraudulant applications. And they cannot raise premiums on a single person because of claims either. Premiums go up as claims within that group go up.

But insurance companies do something government cannot: they can subsidize their operating losses (claims paid versus premiums received) with returns on their invested capital. And indeed many insurers do this, especially when markets are good and they want more "float" on their money. Look at something called the "combined ratio".

But risk is risk. It does not matter who is calculating it, government or private companies. And that risk costs something. So the companies that can be most competitive are those that have lower overhead and good underwriting on policies, as well as controls on claims.
The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.
This is why we will end up with 3rd world substandard care under Obamacare, rather than the dynamic innovative system we have now.

Rabbi, Rabbi, Rabbi you are ignorant

RISK is the biggest variable in insurance. Overhead is a small part. Health Insurance companies look to lower risk any way they can. Insurance companies cannot cancel individuals but they can cancel group policies and they do. TRY BEING A SMALL COMPANY AND GET HEALTH INSURANCE. SMALL POOL HIGH RISK MEANS NO COVERAGE OR VERY HIGH RATES. I know because I own a small business.

T.

This paragraph does not answer any argument I made. Risk is not a variable. Risk is what insurance is. Small pools will tend to have excessive claims because risk is not spread wide enough. And since insurers must insure everyone in the pool, and that includes spouses where they have no control over criteria, yes the pool could underperform their risk assumptions to the point that insuring them is no longer profitable.
But the government will have exactly the same problem. Private business deals with it by dropping coverage or increasing rates. How will government deal with it, being unable to drop coverage?

 

[Big Black Dog]

This whole government forced health care reform scheme is nothing more than "political fraud". First of all, the government is lying it's hind end off telling you about how much it's going to cost. They don't have a clue how much it is going to cost. Never in their history have they ever priced anything correctly and no government program has ever come in "under budget". Another slice of the fraud pie is that they can't even tell you just who it is, and the number of people they intend to protect under this plan. They say they are going to make the program work because of the vast amount of money they will save by taking the fraud out of Medicare. Well, nobody's done that ever before and Obama and crew will not either. I don't even think this whole mess is even Constitutional. Tell me when in the past has the federal government ever mandated you to buy any particular product? Government Option health care is a product. The government will in reality be selling health care insurance. Our Constitution doesn't allow for the government to sell anything it's citizens. This whole business is not really about health care either. It is simply the government trying to take complete control over your life. The government is turning socialist in nature. Time to stop it all from happening, folks. Open your eyes to what's happening around you. I've never seen so many lies come out of Congress in my entire life. I've also never seen such a group of noloads in Congress like there is today either. We need to get back to what the Constitution stands for now before it's too late.

 

[Old Rocks]

The government has a miserable record on keeping costs low on any program they have ever undertaken. They will have a miserable record on underwriting because they already have one on applications for other entitlement programs. And instead of investigating claims and denying inflated and fraudulent claims, they will simply use their power to cap reimibursements below market.

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

Not that stupid old chestnut again.

How much advertising do Medicare/Medicaid do?

Cannot stand the truth, can you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then why does Medicare have lower management overhead than any private insurance company?

Not that stupid old chestnut again.

How much advertising do Medicare/Medicaid do?

How many private insurance companies are bankrupt?

Medicare, Social Security, are not bankrupt. And they will not be. Simple solution. The taxes paid by the working man go right up the scale, no exceptions.

 

[Old Rocks]

You can't be serious.

Y'ever stop and think about how many more people ad campaigns employ?

Also, administrative costs aren't the only items on the expense side of the ledger. Like 99% of the arguments for Medical Marxism, the administrative costs angle is intellectually dishonest.

God, you are a fucking idiot. We have the most expensive health care system in the world with third nation results. And you defend it to the hilt.

Japan pays half as much per citizen, less than half as much as a percentage of the GDP, and covers all of their citizens. And no Japanese citizen, no German, Britain, French, Dutch, or, in fact, any of the other industrial nations citizens go bankrupt because of medical bills.

Dishonesty is your stock in trade, Doooodeee......

 

[Oddball]

It's you who are the fucking idiot.

I'm not defending the current system in any way, shape or manner.

The problem with the costs of medical care is too much gubmint interference in the marketplace, not that they haven't taken the whole industry over.

You may now cease misrepresenting my position on the subject......Pinhead.

 

[xotoxi]

Fraud in Medicare is probably much more than in private insurance. That is part of the chimera of efficiency. Private insurers hire investigators to get rid of fraud. The government does not.

Ever hear of the Office of the Inspector General?

If they want to investigate you, they can chose to shut you down completely PRIOR to investigating. No courts, no trials.