What is wrong with some people

[SmarterThanHick]

so what is the precentage of the profit margin that the insurence company's take in? I have heard it's 2 percent.

He was about right with the percentage, just not the absolute number. It's not as low as 2%.

In the healthcare law it says that if you do not have healthcare coverage you must go on the government plan or pay a fine.

False. It says that if you do not have health care coverage, you must get health care coverage. It does not force you to go COBRA. You can go to any private insurer normally as anyone else can.

Be honest, do you trust ANY politician to handle anything in a financially responsible way? You know that eventually this program would join the rest in the general fund and quickly be running billions id the red.

Have you not had your ass kicked on this topic enough times already? Why are you still talking, let alone with more made up garbage? The option was designed to operate in a completely independent manner, just like any private insurer, in many ways the first of its kind.

But I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

 

[ConHog]

so what is the precentage of the profit margin that the insurence company's take in? I have heard it's 2 percent.

He was about right with the percentage, just not the absolute number. It's not as low as 2%.

In the healthcare law it says that if you do not have healthcare coverage you must go on the government plan or pay a fine.

False. It says that if you do not have health care coverage, you must get health care coverage. It does not force you to go COBRA. You can go to any private insurer normally as anyone else can.

Be honest, do you trust ANY politician to handle anything in a financially responsible way? You know that eventually this program would join the rest in the general fund and quickly be running billions id the red.

Have you not had your ass kicked on this topic enough times already? Why are you still talking, let alone with more made up garbage? The option was designed to operate in a completely independent manner, just like any private insurer, in many ways the first of its kind.

But I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

So to was social security.............

 

[JBeukema]

so what is the precentage of the profit margin that the insurence company's take in? I have heard it's 2 percent.

He was about right with the percentage, just not the absolute number. It's not as low as 2%.


False. It says that if you do not have health care coverage, you must get health care coverage. It does not force you to go COBRA. You can go to any private insurer normally as anyone else can.

Be honest, do you trust ANY politician to handle anything in a financially responsible way? You know that eventually this program would join the rest in the general fund and quickly be running billions id the red.

Have you not had your ass kicked on this topic enough times already? Why are you still talking, let alone with more made up garbage? The option was designed to operate in a completely independent manner, just like any private insurer, in many ways the first of its kind.

But I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

So to was social security.............

SS is exactly what it's designed to be: an insurance policy (when they want to sell it to the public) that's not an really insurance policy (when they're in court) but is really just a tax that will never be overturned which not only enables politicians to raid the coffers (replacing the funds with IOUs that necessitate further taxation to raise the funds when they are needed to pay benefits), but but ensures that the people (who think that they are do benefits because they've worked, despite the courts ruling otherwise) will never call for its abolition, since they've paid for the previous generation's care and they now want the next generaton to pay theirs.

It's a ******* con.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]One of the issues, the brief acknowledged, was whether an alien who had begun receiving monthly benefits "has a vested or 'property' right to the continued receipt of such benefits," such that suspending them as the law provides following his deportation "deprives him of property without due process of law." The brief denied it, exploding the insurance myth promoted since 1935:[/FONT]​

​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The OASI [Old-Age and Survivors Insurance] program is in no sense a federally-administered 'insurance program' under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit, irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]While the Act uses the term 'insurance,' the true nature of the program is to be determined from its actual incidents. (italics added)[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]No comments necessary.[/FONT]​

Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian


[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Questions-About-American-History-Supposed/dp/0307346684"]Amazon.com: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (9780307346681):…[/ame] (chapter 13)

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Have you not had your ass kicked on this topic enough times already? Why are you still talking, let alone with more made up garbage? The option was designed to operate in a completely independent manner, just like any private insurer, in many ways the first of its kind.

But I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

So to was social security.............

False yet again. It was taxed based then just as it is now. "Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions". It was not an opt-in insurance policy meant to be self sustaining. It was an unbalanced taxation.

Perhaps you should try that reading thing before posting your truthiness. As I said: I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

 

[ConHog]

Have you not had your ass kicked on this topic enough times already? Why are you still talking, let alone with more made up garbage? The option was designed to operate in a completely independent manner, just like any private insurer, in many ways the first of its kind.

But I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

So to was social security.............

False yet again. It was taxed based then just as it is now. "Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions". It was not an opt-in insurance policy meant to be self sustaining. It was an unbalanced taxation.

Perhaps you should try that reading thing before posting your truthiness. As I said: I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

It certainly was intended to be self sustaining, don't try those lies.

 

[JBeukema]

So to was social security.............

False yet again. It was taxed based then just as it is now. "Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions". It was not an opt-in insurance policy meant to be self sustaining. It was an unbalanced taxation.

Perhaps you should try that reading thing before posting your truthiness. As I said: I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

It certainly was intended to be self sustaining, don't try those lies.

'Self-sustaining' in that (A) the number of suckers increases and (B) they can deny anyone benefits at any time for any reason

 

[ConHog]

False yet again. It was taxed based then just as it is now. "Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions". It was not an opt-in insurance policy meant to be self sustaining. It was an unbalanced taxation.

Perhaps you should try that reading thing before posting your truthiness. As I said: I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

It certainly was intended to be self sustaining, don't try those lies.

'Self-sustaining' in that (A) the number of suckers increases and (B) they can deny anyone benefits at any time for any reason

And yet some believe that "this time will be different"


Seriously at this point some people's blind faith in Obama is starting to resemble Charlie Brown and the football. No matter how many times that little ***** yanked the football away at the last minute that moron would show back up thinking "this time that ***** really will let me kick the football"

 

[topspin]

and yet republicans are suck bumbling fuckups they have zero clue how to beat him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and yet republicans are suck bumbling fuckups they have zero clue how to beat him.

Here's a clue on how to beat obama
Let him speak without a teleprompter.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why does a person want to live in a socialist system? Why do they want more government control of their lives? Is it because they want handout's from the government? Do they wish to surrender their individual rights for a few scraps from the governments table of taxes? Open your eyes people just look at the new Healthcare Law, there are a lot of mandates in it, requirements to buy something that you may not need or want. Could it be that people are afraid of failure is that why they crave socialism?

Simply because as long as we have a government we will have a degree of socialism. Our government provides police and fire protection, schools, roads, military....all socialist programs
The question is not whether we should be socialist or not, but to what degree

Very true and a point that many conservatives here miss. There is need of a BALANCE of socialistic and capitalistic concepts.

What did you do with rightwinger? You can't be him, to calm and collected here!

Some functions are better performed by the government than the private sector. Healthcare is one of them. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. We pay more and get less. One of the reasons is we have ducked our responsibility to care for our people and passed it off to employers to provide as a "benny" to their employees.
This benny used to be low cost and was widely available. With increasing healthcare costs, employers are dumping healtcare coverage in increasing numbers.
It is another example of a program that is best provided by the government...the rest of the world has already figured this out

Some functions are performed better by the government. Healthcare is NOT one of them. Where we are being led astray here is the fact that this is changing HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. The problem with healthcare today is the COST not the insurance. Insurance premiums are not high because of the 'evil' companies but because of the INSANE cost of healthcare and we have done NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, to address that issue. Healthcare will continue to bankrupt this nation and we sit here with this stupid 'plan' that addresses previous conditions and that's it. The rest of the bill was crap.


Why is the government not the best solution here? Simple answer is that cost is NEVER driven down by government control or involvement. There are the needed regulations but we exceeded those long ago and more government is NOT the answer. When competition is removed from the equation then you end up with higher prices. That is a proven fact. I fail to understand where there is any difference here in the health industry. I could sign on to a public OPTION if there was one that operated as the insurance companies do but I have the feeling that there will not be that option.


I work for Uncle Sam and I have seen what happens when the government is involved in paying for a service. It is not pretty. We are continually gouged for millions without cause because bureaucracies do not care how much money is spent to accomplish a goal. Remember in the 80's when it was discovered doctors were charging 50 - 100 bucks for aspirin to Medicare? That is what happens when the government is in charge of the insurance side of the equation.


I will give you an example that opened my eyes to one of the largest problems we have in medical costs. My wife had no dental coverage as we never need to go to the dentist. At some point we decided it would be a good idea to get a simple cleaning done so we did what any respectable person should do, called all the local dentists to get price comparisons to help decide where we would go. The first question that they asked was what insurance company we had. No surprise there. What surprised the hell out of me was that in over the 10 places we contacted only 3 actually knew. That's right, the rest could not even tell us BECAUSE THEY DID NOT KNOW!!! Not only that, of the 3 that did answer we received a price range from 150 -700 bucks. That's one HUGE price range. I can guarantee that the 700 dollar dentist would be flat out of business if his customers actually paid for the service that he rendered. Instead, his exuberant prices were floated NOT from demand but from IGNORANCE of what the actual pricing scheme was. If there was true competition then prices would be driven down to meet demand. Instead, we have inflated pricing on the most simplest of services because the customer is never aware of what is going on. We should actally be paying for the small stuff and insuring for the major disasters.

 

[FA_Q2]

so what is the precentage of the profit margin that the insurence company's take in? I have heard it's 2 percent.

He was about right with the percentage, just not the absolute number. It's not as low as 2%.

In the healthcare law it says that if you do not have healthcare coverage you must go on the government plan or pay a fine.

False. It says that if you do not have health care coverage, you must get health care coverage. It does not force you to go COBRA. You can go to any private insurer normally as anyone else can.

Be honest, do you trust ANY politician to handle anything in a financially responsible way? You know that eventually this program would join the rest in the general fund and quickly be running billions id the red.

Have you not had your ass kicked on this topic enough times already? Why are you still talking, let alone with more made up garbage? The option was designed to operate in a completely independent manner, just like any private insurer, in many ways the first of its kind.

But I can't actually expect you to know facts now, can I?

I keep seeing this but it does not make any sense at all. The original intent of the public option was expand coverage to a greater number of people that could not afford coverage. That is NOT possible if it operated as a standalone insurance company. There is real nonprofit possibilities as antagon pointed out. That is the direction nonprofit should go.

Also, would a federal insurance plan be just as restricted within each state as their commercial counterparts?

 

[Greenbeard]

I keep seeing this but it does not make any sense at all. The original intent of the public option was expand coverage to a greater number of people that could not afford coverage. That is NOT possible if it operated as a standalone insurance company.

The original public option (the "robust" version) was designed to reimburse providers at Medicare + 5% rates and would've been funded entirely by premiums. There are a few goals you could point to with that policy but the most important is that it changes the landscape of the insurer-provider negotiation process. A new player in the market not subject to the negotiation process but also not demographically restricted (ala Medicare) gives private insurers leverage, which would put pressure on providers to stop driving up costs.

The coverage component isn't particularly important, since you can achieve near-universal coverage without a public option (as the version of the law that actually passed will); however, the presence of the public option would've made achieving that coverage cheaper.

Also, would a federal insurance plan be just as restricted within each state as their commercial counterparts?

Restricted in what sense?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why does a person want to live in a socialist system? Why do they want more government control of their lives? Is it because they want handout's from the government? Do they wish to surrender their individual rights for a few scraps from the governments table of taxes? Open your eyes people just look at the new Healthcare Law, there are a lot of mandates in it, requirements to buy something that you may not need or want. Could it be that people are afraid of failure is that why they crave socialism?

Simply because as long as we have a government we will have a degree of socialism. Our government provides police and fire protection, schools, roads, military....all socialist programs
The question is not whether we should be socialist or not, but to what degree

Very true and a point that many conservatives here miss. There is need of a BALANCE of socialistic and capitalistic concepts.

What did you do with rightwinger? You can't be him, to calm and collected here!

Some functions are better performed by the government than the private sector. Healthcare is one of them. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. We pay more and get less. One of the reasons is we have ducked our responsibility to care for our people and passed it off to employers to provide as a "benny" to their employees.
This benny used to be low cost and was widely available. With increasing healthcare costs, employers are dumping healtcare coverage in increasing numbers.
It is another example of a program that is best provided by the government...the rest of the world has already figured this out

Some functions are performed better by the government. Healthcare is NOT one of them. Where we are being led astray here is the fact that this is changing HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. The problem with healthcare today is the COST not the insurance. Insurance premiums are not high because of the 'evil' companies but because of the INSANE cost of healthcare and we have done NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, to address that issue. Healthcare will continue to bankrupt this nation and we sit here with this stupid 'plan' that addresses previous conditions and that's it. The rest of the bill was crap.


Why is the government not the best solution here? Simple answer is that cost is NEVER driven down by government control or involvement. There are the needed regulations but we exceeded those long ago and more government is NOT the answer. When competition is removed from the equation then you end up with higher prices. That is a proven fact. I fail to understand where there is any difference here in the health industry. I could sign on to a public OPTION if there was one that operated as the insurance companies do but I have the feeling that there will not be that option.


I work for Uncle Sam and I have seen what happens when the government is involved in paying for a service. It is not pretty. We are continually gouged for millions without cause because bureaucracies do not care how much money is spent to accomplish a goal. Remember in the 80's when it was discovered doctors were charging 50 - 100 bucks for aspirin to Medicare? That is what happens when the government is in charge of the insurance side of the equation.


I will give you an example that opened my eyes to one of the largest problems we have in medical costs. My wife had no dental coverage as we never need to go to the dentist. At some point we decided it would be a good idea to get a simple cleaning done so we did what any respectable person should do, called all the local dentists to get price comparisons to help decide where we would go. The first question that they asked was what insurance company we had. No surprise there. What surprised the hell out of me was that in over the 10 places we contacted only 3 actually knew. That's right, the rest could not even tell us BECAUSE THEY DID NOT KNOW!!! Not only that, of the 3 that did answer we received a price range from 150 -700 bucks. That's one HUGE price range. I can guarantee that the 700 dollar dentist would be flat out of business if his customers actually paid for the service that he rendered. Instead, his exuberant prices were floated NOT from demand but from IGNORANCE of what the actual pricing scheme was. If there was true competition then prices would be driven down to meet demand. Instead, we have inflated pricing on the most simplest of services because the customer is never aware of what is going on. We should actally be paying for the small stuff and insuring for the major disasters.

Very true and a point that many conservatives here miss. There is need of a BALANCE of socialistic and capitalistic concepts.

We have a balnce of socialistic and capitalistic concepts, they are called Social Security, Medicade, and Medicare. Why do we need another government program for the democrats to screw up?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Are you serious? So all those people who are investing the money to start the companies shouldn't earn a profit on their investment? By the way 3.4% that is the profit margin of health insurance companies, it's not like they are raking in BILLIONS.

And I could make the argument that the oil is more of a basic service than health care insurance, maybe we should nationalize the oil industry and get rid of profit there to.....

Nope. Apples and oranges Brother. Oil companies provide a product. Lots of products, actually. Insurance is a bookkeeping service if the pool of insured is big enough. No 'investors' are required.

It's called a 'self insured' organization - once a company gets big enough to self-insure, they can make money on the health care bookkeeping for their employees.

Insurance is NOT rocket science, all you need is money and a computer. We, The Peeps has those items in inventory.

Define the word Product. The reason I ask you to do this is that the insurance coimpany's do provide a product.

I disagree and I work for one of the largest. Insurance is a bookkeeping service originally engineered to 'insure' some present dollars, along with more collected along the way in small amounts through time, are available for future boo-boo's.

Accounting and conservative investing 101 - all you need is a computer and some cash - insurance companies make nothing. Jus' like Jerry Seinfeld.....



Well... there IS one thing insurance companies make in spades - data files on you, me and every Social Security number out there.


What the **** was the name of that Moody Blues song that opened with a human stating "I think, I think I am!" and a 70's style computer voice responding "I've miles and miles of files, pretty files of your forefathers fruit! You're magnetic ink."?

If life was a musical, that'd be the song joining the voices in my head.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If you lose your job, if you are self employed, or if your employee doesn't offer health care insurance, you already had an option. What you're REALLY saying is that the government should cover those who can't afford to cover themselves, and that is welfare.

No. You still don't understand how the public option works, and yet you still keep typing. It's hilarious. It's an insurance option. People can pay into it just as they would any other private company. If they don't pay, they don't get insurance coverage. Just as they would any other private company. It is not a handout. It is not a way to subsidize people who can't cover their own insurance. It is another OPTION. Are you starting to catch on yet?

No? Just going to keep on typing things you made up in your head about a topic you obviously know NOTHING about? Great. Looking forward to your next batch of fresh baked crap.


THEY ARE RAKING IN BILLIONS YOU MORON. You clearly don't understand the difference between a percentage and an absolute number. Go learn some basic math skills before talking finance again. 3.4% on a multi-trillion dollar industry is 3.4% too much. There is no investment. Once established, there is no risk. Why are we paying more money than what's needed?


And what you don't realize is that your entire life's worth of health costs so far don't amount to beans compared to the costs you will incur in the last year of your life. When you're not working. And you don't have enough money to pay for it yourself.

No. You still don't understand how the public option works, and yet you still keep typing. It's hilarious. It's an insurance option. People can pay into it just as they would any other private company. If they don't pay, they don't get insurance coverage. Just as they would any other private company. It is not a handout. It is not a way to subsidize people who can't cover their own insurance. It is another OPTION. Are you starting to catch on yet?

Something tells me you are the one that is missing something. Take a look at this
The public health insurance option is a proposed government-run health insurance agency which competes with other health insurance companies. Now please explain something to me. How can company's that rely on a profit to keep the busniess goinglike pay their employee's office space, electric bill, POhone and computer service compete against another company that does not have to maintain a profit? How can they compete against a company that can make it's own money?

The basic question on a public option is a moral one....

Do We, The Peeps have the right to remove 'profit' from an industry if doing so would be in the best interest of the community.​

"Is it or is it not in the best interest of the public?" is one of those devilish details in the base question above, of course it's relevant - assume it both ways an ask the base question again.

 

[FA_Q2]

I keep seeing this but it does not make any sense at all. The original intent of the public option was expand coverage to a greater number of people that could not afford coverage. That is NOT possible if it operated as a standalone insurance company.

The original public option (the "robust" version) was designed to reimburse providers at Medicare + 5% rates and would've been funded entirely by premiums. There are a few goals you could point to with that policy but the most important is that it changes the landscape of the insurer-provider negotiation process. A new player in the market not subject to the negotiation process but also not demographically restricted (ala Medicare) gives private insurers leverage, which would put pressure on providers to stop driving up costs.

The coverage component isn't particularly important, since you can achieve near-universal coverage without a public option (as the version of the law that actually passed will); however, the presence of the public option would've made achieving that coverage cheaper.

I see. While that is not a bad option I have a few concerns with that. For one, I believe that Medicare is being dropped by many places because the payments are very low and the payment cycle takes too long for many providers. This somewhat limits the coverage and the process gives for some interesting competition. If I am not mistaken, Medicare will pay what it deems fit and that essentially means that the public option would be operating under a price control system where the insurance companies would be at a major disadvantage not having the same prices. I need to look into that concept a little more as it sound intriguing.

To the universal coverage achieved in this bill: That is most likely the BIGGEST beef I have with this bill. It gives the insurance companies a captive audience without increasing competition aka: enforced monopoly. That is a TERRIBLE idea and only has the potential to increase prices. If it is illegal to nopt purchase my product why sell it at a lower price?

Also, would a federal insurance plan be just as restricted within each state as their commercial counterparts?

Restricted in what sense?

As of now, insurance cannot be sold across state lines because of legal differences in coverage and insurance requirements. If this coverage is not under the same guise, that is another fairly large advantage given to the public option that the insurance companies would have a hard time competing against.


Why do I care if they cannot compete? Because if the issue is they cannot compete because of artificial legal barriers then we could end sending the companies out of business for a single payer system that is not the most efficient but rather the system that received special legal protections to do just that. As I said, I have seen what happens with government care and the inefficient methods that they use. I believe a single payer has the real chance to bankrupt and destroy our medical system. If a public option were to stand on fair ground against the insurance companies and win so completely it put them out of business then I would gladly accept it. If the ground is not even I will not.

 

[antagon]

Where do credit unions get their money?

Kaiser Permanente, a major operator in healthcare, runs a not for profit healthcare plan business. How is that possible?

My own employer self insures up to a stop loss number at which it buys a stop loss policy. How does it manage to do that without profit-hungry investors?

And, yes we should nationalize our oil on federal lands. Right now we are selling our oil to drillers for 12 to 16 cents on the dollar, where it then goes into the open market. That is a lousy deal for us.

this is a lousy idea, nationalizing oil production.

We could use private companies, but contract them to drill for OUR oil and deliver it to American refineries contracted to produce gasoline and other refined products to go directly to American needs, first to our military, then to the rest of the government, then sell the rest here in the US. I'm guessing we could get more than 16 cents on the dollar net return that way.

what you have described is not unlike the status quo. the major difference is that the distribution is marketized, lending to some exports of domestic oil, despite a vast trade deficit with respect to oil in any form. i'm not sure if we will succeed in affecting what you are talking about by being less competitive with oil rights, either. is 16 cents cheaper than mexican oil?

 

[antagon]

Office space, electric, and other bills are not part of profits, they are before profits.

Profits are what you have left over after you've paid for everything.

A non-profit has zero left over, by definition. A for profit competing against a non profit simply has to be efficient enough to do everything the non-profit does and still have money left over.

more on lousy ideas, that the government which is funded, in part, from a share of the competing agencies' gross profit via tax and tariff should endeavor to compete with these agencies is ridiculous. the government has, will and should stick to the medicare game and profits realized at the the public medical infrastructure level. they should either scrap the HMOs or support them, rather than undermining them with unfair competition.

the government is not a non-profit in the sense that the profits from their hypothetical insurer racket will be flush with cost. instead, public hospitals turn profits and pass the buck up the chain to other aspects of public funding. if real non-profits want to participate, and think they can compete, that's fine; the government is not a real non-profit in a strict enough sense, and could never constitute a fair competitor.

The government public option plan I saw only involved the government in startup money, and had to thereafter sustain itself on premiums paid by those who chose the public option.

i suspect that that's a bit disingenuous on the part of the framer. what investment will protect the solvency of the insurer failing self-sufficiency? all insurance firms would like to think that they'd be profitable or premium-sustained month-to-month, but private firms have to inject outside investment to carry them over to a profitable year. will the government option go belly-up on principle? will it compete for marketized investment, too? maybe compete for credit?

this is apart from the fact that this insurer will pit government-laid medical infrastructure against its own private medical infrastructure in some kind of fair competition. is it fair that these companies and their potential customers will fund their own demise?

 

[antagon]

Since we have a healthcare law on the books the government now has a way of getting the public option in that law. Can you say that you trust the current people who create laws in D.C.? With all the backroom deals and bribes. The public option might as well be in the law right now.

no. i haven't got your robust penchant for paranoia. i don't see anything easy or easier about creating a public option now. it will always require an act of congress, just as before, and if this bill performs so poorly that such an option would be reconsidered, i doubt that the democrats behind it would be the ones in power to 'fix' the legislation in that way. i don't think that a lobby would ever line up behind a public option, anyhow - certainly not one to overshadow those behind this bill.

Do you honestly think that the government will not do this? With what has happen in the last two years are you that easily fooled to think that the current administration would not do it no matter what it takes?
In the healthcare law it says that if you do not have healthcare coverage you must go on the government plan or pay a fine. Your current healthcare provider will drop you because they will not be able to compete with the government because the government does not have to make money it doesn't even have to break even. So that is where the public option will be hidden.

there's nothing like that in the bill. no need to worry, chicken little.

with that resolved, the way i see it, there is no money behind a government option and i don't see there ever being any. what i've learned, watching the last couple years, is that private lobbies are a prerequisite to major legislation out of this administration/congress. arguably, this has been the american way for decades.

 

[antagon]

this has become a public option debate. that horse is dead and beat to a pulp. no chance for resuscitation.