Page 19 of 27 FirstFirst ... 91415161718192021222324 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 536
  1. #361  
    Quote Originally Posted by hatchettjack View Post
    i have no insurance now because i dont use it enough to warrant the expense.. and im not going to buy it to help fund the hypochondriacs.. my wife and i pay as we go to our doctor, its amazing how much healthier my wife is since we have no insurance.
    And then when you reach Medicare age and the inevitable infirmities of age start to set in you're going to end up hopping on that system and we're going to have to pay for you after you hadn't made any contributions to the system.

    Health isn't like driving a car. You can avoid owning/driving a car for an entire life time but you can't avoid the infirmities of age. Unless you're planning to just die rather than go on Medicare, in which case more power to you and your chosen lifestyle.
  2. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #362  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    And then when you reach Medicare age and the inevitable infirmities of age start to set in you're going to end up hopping on that system and we're going to have to pay for you after you hadn't made any contributions to the system.

    Health isn't like driving a car. You can avoid owning/driving a car for an entire life time but you can't avoid the infirmities of age. Unless you're planning to just die rather than go on Medicare, in which case more power to you and your chosen lifestyle.
    Everyone pays into Medicare, assuming of course they have earnings. It is funded by a tax on the earnings of employees that is matched by the employer and by premiums paid by enrollees. So not carrying insurance before gaining access to Medicare isn't really too much of a problem - if someone wants to pay as they go until then then that's their choice.
  3. #363  
    The left right paradigm is over! It's you vs corporations.

    The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations | The Big Picture
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #364  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    And then when you reach Medicare age and the inevitable infirmities of age start to set in you're going to end up hopping on that system and we're going to have to pay for you after you hadn't made any contributions to the system.
    We already have that system. It needs some fixing, but hardly required Obamacare to be shoved down our throats - which is going to end up costing us more.
    Health isn't like driving a car. You can avoid owning/driving a car for an entire life time but you can't avoid the infirmities of age. Unless you're planning to just die rather than go on Medicare, in which case more power to you and your chosen lifestyle.
    Last I checked, there isn't a pay-in system for Medicare. Paying insurance during your life prior to Medicare is not a qualifier.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #365  
    Quote Originally Posted by lazslo11 View Post
    The left right paradigm is over! It's you vs corporations.

    The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations | The Big Picture
    So do a find/replace of the word "Corporations" with the words "Big Government", in that article, and you'll have a good article.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #366  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    We already have that system. It needs some fixing, but hardly required Obamacare to be shoved down our throats - which is going to end up costing us more.
    Last I checked, there isn't a pay-in system for Medicare. Paying insurance during your life prior to Medicare is not a qualifier.
    Technically, those paying into Medicare now through taxes are paying for those on Medicare right now, not for their future coverage. Social Security is the one that is supposed to pay forward. On top of that Medicare isn't a catch-all and someone needs to cover what Medicare doesn't which ends up being insurance companies or the costs find their way to the tax payers in some form while insurance companies keep their profits because they found a way to legally drop the person that paid into their pool all their life.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #367  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    On top of that Medicare isn't a catch-all and someone needs to cover what Medicare doesn't which ends up being insurance companies or the costs find their way to the tax payers in some form while insurance companies keep their profits because they found a way to legally drop the person that paid into their pool all their life.
    What kind of profits are we talking about, Orion? What's the average profit margin for health insurance companies?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #368  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    What kind of profits are we talking about, Orion? What's the average profit margin for health insurance companies?
    Since you are arguing against cutting into insurance company profit margins maybe you'd be willing to give us an example of how their Net profits are currently working out for them? Also a break-down of what those companies need to do to increase their Net profits so they remain solvent and remain in the black. I don't really recall you providing any sources for anything so now might be a good time to source some of your beliefs. After all you did say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I can repeat some things that I've heard that seem to make sense to me.
    So let's see some of the things from the sources and see if the numbers make sense to the people opposing the insurance company profits?
  9. #369  
    The answer is neither. The reason we have these parties (or so I am led to think anyways) is to balance each other out. But all they seem to do is alienate one another instead of working together to find a happy medium more often...


    My Themes:CLICK HERE
  10. #370  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So do a find/replace of the word "Corporations" with the words "Big Government", in that article, and you'll have a good article.
    Did you actually read the article?

    two points from it:

    " Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

    The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;"


    Big government has it's own issues, but that's not the main problem plaguing America. The problem is that theres Big government controlled by corporations.

    What we debate over is: Either a Few huge corporations have power, or the government has power. In each system the public either chooses which corporations to support, or which party to vote in power. Under the current system however, a huge portion of the power is left to the government, but the two parties who's supposed to get picked by the public, are both bought out by private companies.

    While, I'm a left wing person, who disagree's with a full free market theory and you disagree with the amount of Regulation I want, I think we can both agree that having government and Corporations tied so closely together to the point we never know where an idea came from, isn't the proper system. I'd be for holding off on some debates, until we put a serious cap on the donations made from private companies, and really limit their influence over the government. Then, and only then can we decide how much power to give to who.

    We still don't know if the auto, or bank bailout was needed. We all have our theories, but one thing I'm certain about, is that the bill would of most likely looked significantly different if the government was depended on them to get elected. Sure, give them ,and the banks a bailout if you feel like it's needed to save the economy, but make it in a way where they pay back 3 times the money in the future. So tax payers aren't held responsible!

    I'm not to fond of bailouts in general, but have it a way where if it where to succeed, the government, and tax payers would benefit from it. Make it so Corporations think long, and hard before asking for cash.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #371  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Since you are arguing against cutting into insurance company profit margins maybe you'd be willing to give us an example of how their Net profits are currently working out for them? Also a break-down of what those companies need to do to increase their Net profits so they remain solvent and remain in the black. I don't really recall you providing any sources for anything so now might be a good time to source some of your beliefs. After all you did say:
    Actually, I have several times posted these margins in these threads. This is like the 10th health care thread, I think. You've recently arrived. Search is your friend. Google works too. Go ahead, don't be shy!
    So let's see some of the things from the sources and see if the numbers make sense to the people opposing the insurance company profits?
    We're waiting
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #372  
    Quote Originally Posted by nimer55 View Post
    Did you actually read the article?

    two points from it:

    "• Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

    • The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;"


    Big government has it's own issues, but that's not the main problem plaguing America. The problem is that theres Big government controlled by corporations.

    What we debate over is: Either a Few huge corporations have power, or the government has power. In each system the public either chooses which corporations to support, or which party to vote in power. Under the current system however, a huge portion of the power is left to the government, but the two parties who's supposed to get picked by the public, are both bought out by private companies.

    While, I'm a left wing person, who disagree's with a full free market theory and you disagree with the amount of Regulation I want, I think we can both agree that having government and Corporations tied so closely together to the point we never know where an idea came from, isn't the proper system. I'd be for holding off on some debates, until we put a serious cap on the donations made from private companies, and really limit their influence over the government. Then, and only then can we decide how much power to give to who.

    We still don't know if the auto, or bank bailout was needed. We all have our theories, but one thing I'm certain about, is that the bill would of most likely looked significantly different if the government was depended on them to get elected. Sure, give them ,and the banks a bailout if you feel like it's needed to save the economy, but make it in a way where they pay back 3 times the money in the future. So tax payers aren't held responsible!

    I'm not to fond of bailouts in general, but have it a way where if it where to succeed, the government, and tax payers would benefit from it. Make it so Corporations think long, and hard before asking for cash.
    It all still boils down to left-side thinking versus right-side. You article tries to recast the debate as if there's a new boogieman, but it still all boils down to the same fundamental arguments.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #373  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Actually, I have several times posted these margins in these threads. This is like the 10th health care thread, I think. You've recently arrived. Search is your friend. Google works too. Go ahead, don't be shy!

    We're waiting
    Well if you've posted them many times you should have those links handy right away. Google only gives you a list of whatever search terms you enter so unless you wanted to tell me what your search terms are and what rank in the results the links YOU looked at are, I can only guess at best and very possibly miss the links to the info that convinced you. So to be on the same page you should provide that information here. Otherwise it's just an assumption that I might find the same info and you know what assuming leads too.
  14. #374  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Well if you've posted them many times you should have those links handy right away. Google only gives you a list of whatever search terms you enter so unless you wanted to tell me what your search terms are and what rank in the results the links YOU looked at are, I can only guess at best and very possibly miss the links to the info that convinced you. So to be on the same page you should provide that information here. Otherwise it's just an assumption that I might find the same info and you know what assuming leads too.

    From the other thread, if you haven't seen it by now:

    The top five earning insurance companies averaged profits of $12.2 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008. And in 2008 (the last year for which data was available), CEO compensation for these companies ranged from $3 million to $24 million.
  15. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #375  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Well if you've posted them many times you should have those links handy right away. Google only gives you a list of whatever search terms you enter so unless you wanted to tell me what your search terms are and what rank in the results the links YOU looked at are, I can only guess at best and very possibly miss the links to the info that convinced you. So to be on the same page you should provide that information here. Otherwise it's just an assumption that I might find the same info and you know what assuming leads too.
    Just as a statement of fact according to the last quarterly figures, Health & Accident Insurance providers ranked 72nd out of 215 industries profit margin wise with net income margins of 7.5%. Hospitals were worse - ranked 136th with 3.4% margins. What's really ironic is that Cigarettes are # 14 with 17.2% margins, Beverages-Brewers are #20 with 14.5% margins, and Beverages - Wine & Distilleries are #21 at 13.9% margins. These are all Public Companies, so private company data could skew the figures.

    Industry Browser - Yahoo! Finance - Full Industry List

    One thing to keep in mind is a bad year can ruin any company if they don't have enough cash to cover losses. Regardless of the cause - take a look at the banks for evidence of that. A major disease outbreak for example could severely cripple an insurance company that has huge number of payments to make for coverage.

    From the other thread, if you haven't seen it by now:

    Quote:
    The top five earning insurance companies averaged profits of $12.2 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008. And in 2008 (the last year for which data was available), CEO compensation for these companies ranged from $3 million to $24 million.
    You can't really use just the "Top 5" There are leaders and then there are laggards as Yahoo Finance puts it. If you think 72nd out of 215 is too high then that's a discussion worth having, but no-one in 2008 was saying the auto industry was doing well just because Toyota's profit margins were significantly higher than the rest of the industry so why take just the top 5 in the healthcare industry.
    Last edited by solarus; 09/27/2010 at 03:50 PM.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #376  
    Here's another interesting comparison, Orion. I googled "health insurance companies profit margin" and took the first link: Just How Profitable are Healthcare Insurers?

    The meridian from that article is 3.7%. Not huge compared to most other industries. It really doesn't take much to put a health insurance company into the red.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #377  
    Speaking of polls, I think this article is relevant to this thread:

    McClatchy Washington Bureau

    Congress prepares to punt, spend the fall campaigning
    David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
    last updated: September 27, 2010 06:24:13 AM

    WASHINGTON Congress is deadlocked over virtually every major issue still pending this year, including key economic matters such as a detailed federal spending plan and extending Bush-era tax cuts, yet lawmakers still hope to leave Washington by Friday and not return until mid-November.

    Chances are they'll approve a stopgap budget to keep the government running, maybe vote on extending the Bush administration tax cuts and call it a day. This desire to punt on the day's biggest issue could be one more reason for voters to turn against incumbents of both parties in November.

    "The public is not concerned about the specifics of the process breakdown. They just know things aren't working, either in Congress or the economy, and they want things fixed," said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

    Analysts think Republicans have a decent chance to gain the 39 seats the party needs to take control of the House of Representatives, and an outside chance of a net gain of the 10 Senate seats needed to control that chamber. Members of Congress, who returned to Washington on Sept. 13 after taking off most of August and early September, clearly want to return home to fight for their political lives. Last week, Congress produced one major piece of legislation as the House voted, largely along party lines, to send President Barack Obama a small business relief bill. The Senate, however, failed to end debate _ and thus delayed indefinitely _ efforts to revamp some immigration laws and consider the "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays in the military. It also postponed consideration of defense policy legislation until after the election.

    What the public sees, polls and experts say, is a Congress that's unable to get vital work done at a time when most surveys find that about 60 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

    The McClatchy-Marist poll, taken Sept. 14 to 16, found that 52 percent of Americans think the worst is yet to come economically, while 44 percent said the worst is behind us. More than half _ 56 percent _ said they disapprove of how Obama is handling the economy. The survey of 1,005 people had a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

    Other surveys this month put Congress' disapproval ratings at 70 percent or higher. People don't understand why the institution is so awash in finger-pointing rhetoric, particularly on economic matters.

    "Everybody else has to have some kind of household budget. Everybody understands that," said Merle Black, a professor of politics and government at Emory University in Atlanta.

    Nevertheless, there's little sense of urgency on Capitol Hill. This week, no Senate votes are scheduled until Tuesday, and the House isn't slated to begin voting again until Wednesday. Sometime before Friday, lawmakers are expected to approve the stopgap measure to keep the government running, and then probably leave until mid-November.

    Congress is supposed to pass a budget in several stages each year. In the spring, it usually comes up with a general outline of how much the government can spend. Then appropriations panels write separate bills, each covering a distinct area such as defense, transportation or education, that spell out the upcoming year's spending. Legislation can also deal with tax cuts or increases.

    While the goal of finishing all the spending bills by Oct. 1, the start of the federal government's fiscal year, rarely has been met since the budget-writing laws were changed in the 1970s, lawmakers usually made some progress.

    Not this year, and the fate of an extension of Bush-era tax cuts, most of which expire at the end of 2010, also remains uncertain. Senate Democrats met Thursday privately, and afterward they all but abandoned making a pre-election effort because they appear unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.

    Democratic leaders want to extend only the Bush rates that apply to individuals who earn less than $200,000 a year and joint filers making less than $250,000. They want the top rates, now 33 percent and 35 percent, to revert to 36 percent and 39.6 percent.

    Many moderate Democrats, however, are balking at reinstating the higher rates, at least for a while. Thirty-one House moderates signed a Sept. 15 letter urging all the cuts be extended, and in the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, warned that raising any rates is "the surest way for Congress to help bring about a double-dip recession."

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is weighing the possibility of a middle class tax cut vote before the election, a vote some think would have political benefits for Democrats. Republicans would have to go along with the Democrats' plan, or risk being labeled opponents of a middle-class tax cut. However, such a vote also could hurt moderate Democrats who don't want to be accused of favoring higher income taxes.

    The election, however, may turn on a more important question: Is the public tired of all the political games? Does it think Congress is doing its job?

    After all, people don't follow the legislative process, said moderate Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. "People care about jobs and the economy," he said. "They're not following on a daily basis what we do."

    They care about perceptions and results. "They don't get the budget process at all," said Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "But what they may understand is that these guys have an enormous majority, and they can't even get a budget passed." ON THE WEB
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #378  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Here's another interesting comparison, Orion. I googled "health insurance companies profit margin" and took the first link: Just How Profitable are Healthcare Insurers?

    The meridian from that article is 3.7%. Not huge compared to most other industries. It really doesn't take much to put a health insurance company into the red.
    You are right that the net profits aren't coming out all the impressively and in the comments they actually point out to an article giving a better analysis and suggest looking at the ROCI/ROE instead. That actually makes a single-payer sound even more like a good idea, I mean after all, all the industry does is "take money and pay bills" right.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #379  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    You are right that the net profits aren't coming out all the impressively and in the comments they actually point out to an article giving a better analysis and suggest looking at the ROCI/ROE instead. That actually makes a single-payer sound even more like a good idea, I mean after all, all the industry does is "take money and pay bills" right.
    In fact, insurance companies have gone a long long way towards reducing fraud in the system. They're not simply taking money and paying bills.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #380  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    In fact, insurance companies have gone a long long way towards reducing fraud in the system. They're not simply taking money and paying bills.
    Reducing fraud is a part of overhead costs of doing business. And I'd say that other non-health related industries have done more to combat fraud than the insurance industry itself has done. They've just implemented what was developed by other industries to reduce costs and catch more fraud attempts. Unless you know of specific examples of fraud reduction that originated from the insurance industry? I'm not aware of any that couldn't trace to previous advancements in other industries.

Posting Permissions