Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I lost my job, I chose not to apply for Medicaid and opted for private insurance instead. I like the freedom to CHOOSE my own doctors. Under Medicaid, I would have been forced to give up my freedom to choose where I go to seek medical treatment. I don't want the government dictating to me where I go to the doctor.
You just keep thinking that. Of course insurance companies make little money, neither do banks and pharma companies. The fact is they own us.
Believe it or not, in our society it is possible to put the shoe on the other foot: you can own insurance comanies, and banks, and pharma. I do! They trade percentage shares of ownership on the New York Stock Exchange, other exchanges, or over the counter.
I guess, if I own them and they own you, then I own you, indirectly. I didn't even know. Would you please clean up a little? Don't you have any better clothes than that?
I'm all for capitalism/private businesses, it fuels innovation like no other.
BUT, in an industry that DOES NOT INNOVATE, there's no reason for privatization. The insurance industry does not innovate, so profit overhead should be eliminated. Imagine how much more money we would have for health care if we didn't have to first fill the pockets of the insurance companies whose only contribution is having money in the first place to draw from. There's no reason to give people incentives to take our money and then deny us coverage when we call on the services we pay for.
I have a friend who was born & raised in England (several friends actually) ... last year it was discovered that her dad needed heart bypass surgery. He had to wait 6 months for it. No way, no thanks.
From your privileged perspective, private insurance is a good thing.. But the many people in our privatized system who don't have insurance don't even get to wait 6 months for heart bypass surgery. They just do without.
From your privileged perspective, private insurance is a good thing.. But the many people in our privatized system who don't have insurance don't even get to wait 6 months for heart bypass surgery. They just do without.
Please explain what you mean by my "privleged" perspective.
I know what it's about. It's the same person griping yet again about the same topic. Health insurance companies do not make massive profits like people think. The problem lies elsewhere.
Link, please.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH for the insurance companies. Let's all shed a few tears. Here:
Now, dry up and look at this post from a conservative:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
If you've ever run a business, you'd know that the publicized profit margin is NOT an indicator of how much money a company makes and spends on things like Taj Mahal office buildings, "investments," CEO and Executives direct compensation (plus paying for every bit of their luxury lifestyles), etc. How much can a company spend on maintaining the CEO's all-expense-paid lifestyle? Probably more than I can imagine, but I do know the CEO of my spouse's employer comes to work (when he "works," once every 2 or 3 weeks) in a brand-new, super luxury private helicopter. All of those expenses, while not benefitting the premium payer one bit, remove income from being labeled "profit."
In comparison to other CEOs, how greedy are Health Insurance CEOs? In direct compensation, "Executives in the health care industry led the way, with average compensation of $12.45 million, followed by technology CEOs at $8.83 million, those in consumer goods at $8.73 million, in oil and gas at $8.17 million and financial firm executives at $7.60 million." Wall Street Journal report: US executive perks “flourished†in 2008
To talk numbers, let's just look at direct compensation for a single Health Insurance CEO in 2008 (since more recent numbers have been fudged even more in response to a news story in early 2009 caused public outrage): "Aetna’s Ronald Williams received $24,300,112 last year. That’s $467,309.85 per week. That’s a house. Maybe not a house that Mr. Williams would live in, but a house nonetheless. The man makes a house a week. And interestingly enough, if Mr. Williams were to eschew the purchase of a house on any given week and instead look to deposit the money in a bank– in order to remain FDIC insured (up to $250,000)– he would actually need to open more than one account–every week." Health Insurance Company CEOs Total Compensation in 2008 : HEALTH REFORM WATCH
And though details of Health Insurance Industry CEO's perks are hard to find, here's the cost of another CEO perk to help quantify numbers: "Dana Holding Corp., the Toledo, Ohio-based auto parts maker, spent $2.3 million last year on chartered planes "to fly its chairman and chief executive, John M. Devine, and its vice chairman and former CEO, Gary L. Convis, to and from their California homes." Dana, which emerged from bankruptcy in 2008, recently announced a plan to eliminate 5,800 jobs by the end of 2009." Wall Street Journal report: US executive perks “flourished†in 2008
One of my close relatives worked in the accounting department of a mid-sized health insurance company in our area. According to her, the amount of money that was spent by the company on CEO and other top executives was "staggering, sickening, and outrageous."
Publicized profit is what the company chooses as a small number to satisfy investors and keep the tax man happy.
Jonathan Skinner, an economist at Dartmouth College, cautions that factors other than health-care systems—attitudes to teenage pregnancy, say, or smoking—may influence the numbers. Even so, he thinks the system is wasteful. In a paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives last year he and Alan Garber, of Stanford University, argued that America’s health system was “uniquely inefficientâ€, producing too little per unit of input and consuming far too much of the country’s resources.
I don't think there is a person who works in health care who would disagree with that. It's just inefficient! And all those inefficiencies are not reflected in "profit", they are reflected in expenses.
I mean seriously folks, WHAT? I have had to fight my corporate insurance that I PAY for, doctors have had to refile my corporate insurance that I PAY for. Why are there so many Republicans, Tea Partiers and Conservatives against nationalized healthcare insurance, and yet we never hear them defend their private for-profit corporate health insurance - WHY IS THAT
'...The firms take billions of dollars out of the U.S. healthcare wallet as profits, while imposing enormous administrative costs on doctors, hospitals, employers and patients. They've introduced complexity into the system at every level. Your doctor has to fight them to get approval for the treatment he or she thinks is best for you. Your hospital has to fight them for approval for every day you're laid up. Then they have to fight them to get their bills paid, and you do too....'
US heath "insurance" is not insurance. It just a scheme that force people to contribute money in it. Not forcing everyone, just those who can pay tax. If you aren't paying tax, you are not require to contribute. If you are paying tax, then you must contribute, either directly or indirectly. What do I meant by that. That meant, if you are not paying any tax, that mean you get free or very cheap insurance.
Let say total medical and dental cost is $100 a year, so if there is 100 people in the system, every contribute $1, and it will be able to cover everyone. Now the people hire a manager (health insurance company) to manage this pool of money, it cost 5% of the pool total, so total cost is $105, everyone cost go up $0.05, or a total of $1.05. Now, let say, the population grow, we now have 130, and the total cost become $130 before administration fee. With the admin fee, the total is $136.50. This 30 new comer cannot afford to pay, but law requires everyone must cover. So the 100 people that are paying, the cost will go up to $1.365. And this is the reason why the cost of medical and dental care keep going up even when technology advance, which should bring the cost down.
The new system is even worst the the current one. If they really want to improve health care. All they have to do is take out the administrator and government get out of health care. Make people pay. I can already hear if we don't give health care to poor people, they will die. Too freaking bad. Everyone die, not just poor people. If you are poor, then figure out a way to move up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have had to fight my corporate insurance that I PAY for, doctors have had to refile my corporate insurance that I PAY for. Why are there so many Republicans, Tea Partiers and Conservatives against nationalized healthcare insurance, and yet we never hear them defend their private for-profit corporate health insurance - WHY IS THAT
