Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Obamacare Shoes Begin To Drop . . . « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#60 : August 27, 2013, 03:44:09 PM

CBW  -- I know you are going to refuse to acknowledge this as truth -- but just because there is a lot of information peddled about a subject does not make it true.  You have to actually think for yourself. 

I am aware that many people in the health care industry and people that share your views publish a lot of pieces claiming that "for-profit insurers" are to blame, but that does not make the claim TRUE . . . because (this is the part you always miss) everyone is writing to serve an agenda. As you often do, in this discussion you are simply spitting out talking points from one of your progressive site without actually thinking the subject through. That is why you have made so many absurd statmenets in this thread.  Now spin all you like, but it doesnt take anything more than a Google search to see where you get your stuff.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#61 : August 27, 2013, 03:45:55 PM

BCBS steals all the money they go to prison. Politicians do it they get reelected. But the real difference between the two is in the quality of the shareholders.

I'm not talking about politicians. I'm talking about Medicare. In theory and practice, BCBS doesn't do anything that Medicare is not capable of doing, and Medicare does it at a much lower cost, I might add.

I challenged Vince with a question earlier, as to why private insurers have no clout in negotiating prices with healthcare providers and why Medicare does. He didn't take the bait. You interested in knowing why this is the case?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#62 : August 27, 2013, 03:54:29 PM

BCBS steals all the money they go to prison. Politicians do it they get reelected. But the real difference between the two is in the quality of the shareholders.

I'm not talking about politicians. I'm talking about Medicare. In theory and practice, BCBS doesn't do anything that Medicare is not capable of doing, and Medicare does it at a much lower cost, I might add.

I challenged Vince with a question earlier, as to why private insurers have no clout in negotiating prices with healthcare providers and why Medicare does. He didn't take the bait. You interested in knowing why this is the case?

This will be interesting

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#63 : August 27, 2013, 04:08:05 PM

The reason that catastrophic or unlikely occurrences are more friendly to the for profit model than frequent care is because that's where the most money can be made. They make their profits by people NOT making claims, therefor, the best logical bets on how money can be made with this concept is to charge to cover the rare incidents so that you can most always be in a position to collect more than you are paying out.

You just make things worse everytime you type. Two things:

1. Even NOT-FOR-PROFIT entities cannot always lose money UNLESS they have some other source such as charitable contributions or taxes.  The business venture still has to make sense economincally even if there is  no profit motive (except for governments builkding massive debts or rasing taxes) Not for Profit insurers still have people to pay and mortgages to pay and benenfits and other costs that have to come from operating profit, so the busines model has to make sense contant preventative care is not compatibale with traditrional insurance BECAUSE the "claim experience" is too high.  Look no further than the federal debt and Medicare for proof of that.  THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Who says that because it is a not for profit that it will always lose money? That's you creating a scenario to justify the profit motive, as if it's impossible for an entity to not lose money unless they are seeking a profit. As for the Medicare example, Medicare operates at a loss because it's designed to. It's funded through general tax revenues. There is no mechanism in place for it to fund itself through premiums, because the current recipients are generally elderly people on fixed incomes. If Medicare were to include younger people in the workforce who were paying premiums it would look entirely different. Surely, you know this.

2. using property insurance as an example, property insurers insure against events that are not wholly infrequent (fire, hurricane, rain, wind, collapse, collisions etc.) but they are able to provide the coverage that an insured could not provide for itself because the LOSSES are infrequent when spread over a large, diverse portfolio.  There are a lot of wildfires in CA, but not in New England. There are hurricanes here, but not in Wyoming.  Property insurers do NOT simply cover events that are unlikely to happen.  A car crash is not unlikley to happen, they happen all the time, insurers are able to provide the coverage because the pool is so large, not because the event is a "rare incident."

Oh, but they are Vinny, compared to the number of people who have car insurance. Since car insurance is compulsory in every state, that's pretty much anyone who legally operates a motor vehicle. The vast majority of accident claims are minor, a few hundred dollars. Most people pay that much in a couple of months of premiums. If the business wasn't lucrative, Vinny, then no one would do it.

My question to you is, could the same thing be done without the existence of a profit motive, and if it could, would it or would it not be cheaper?


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#64 : August 27, 2013, 04:12:37 PM

CBW  -- I know you are going to refuse to acknowledge this as truth -- but just because there is a lot of information peddled about a subject does not make it true.  You have to actually think for yourself. 

I am aware that many people in the health care industry and people that share your views publish a lot of pieces claiming that "for-profit insurers" are to blame, but that does not make the claim TRUE . . . because (this is the part you always miss) everyone is writing to serve an agenda. As you often do, in this discussion you are simply spitting out talking points from one of your progressive site without actually thinking the subject through. That is why you have made so many absurd statmenets in this thread.  Now spin all you like, but it doesnt take anything more than a Google search to see where you get your stuff.

Where am I getting my stuff, you moron? I haven't used Google for anything other than to research your assertions, like that stupid Lloyd's example you gave of how "risky" it was that they lost 800 million only to rebound to make 4.2 billion the following year.

Also, you imbecile, where have I blamed for profit insurance for anything other than being less cost effective and completely unnecessary?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#65 : August 27, 2013, 04:20:16 PM

The reason that catastrophic or unlikely occurrences are more friendly to the for profit model than frequent care is because that's where the most money can be made. They make their profits by people NOT making claims, therefor, the best logical bets on how money can be made with this concept is to charge to cover the rare incidents so that you can most always be in a position to collect more than you are paying out.

You just make things worse everytime you type. Two things:

1. Even NOT-FOR-PROFIT entities cannot always lose money UNLESS they have some other source such as charitable contributions or taxes.  The business venture still has to make sense economincally even if there is  no profit motive (except for governments builkding massive debts or rasing taxes) Not for Profit insurers still have people to pay and mortgages to pay and benenfits and other costs that have to come from operating profit, so the busines model has to make sense contant preventative care is not compatibale with traditrional insurance BECAUSE the "claim experience" is too high.  Look no further than the federal debt and Medicare for proof of that.  THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Who says that because it is a not for profit that it will always lose money? .

lol . .  there is not a font size big enough for this "HUH?"  Classic CBW.  I didnt say that (in bold), that's your fiction.

I said that even a  not for profit cannot always lose money and that is why the preventative care model struggles with insurance .  Here are two simple examples:

CBW, I am going to sell apple slices, but not to make a profit, I just think the world would be a better palce with apple slices. Apples cost me $1 and I sell the 10 slice I can get from the apple for $.01 a slice.  At some point I am going to stop selling slices right? because I cannot buy anymore apples. right?

No different than this with insurance:  I am going to sell health insurance to one person (for simplicity)  for a $10 monthly premium. I dont care about making a profit. My person goes to 4 doctors monthly, who I have to pay, at a cost of $40 per visit. I am a "not-for-profit insurer but I am going out of business quick right?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#66 : August 27, 2013, 04:23:27 PM

CBW  -- I know you are going to refuse to acknowledge this as truth -- but just because there is a lot of information peddled about a subject does not make it true.  You have to actually think for yourself. 

I am aware that many people in the health care industry and people that share your views publish a lot of pieces claiming that "for-profit insurers" are to blame, but that does not make the claim TRUE . . . because (this is the part you always miss) everyone is writing to serve an agenda. As you often do, in this discussion you are simply spitting out talking points from one of your progressive site without actually thinking the subject through. That is why you have made so many absurd statmenets in this thread.  Now spin all you like, but it doesnt take anything more than a Google search to see where you get your stuff.

Where am I getting my stuff, you moron? I haven't used Google for anything other than to research your assertions, like that stupid Lloyd's example you gave of how "risky" it was that they lost 800 million only to rebound to make 4.2 billion the following year.

Also, you imbecile, where have I blamed for profit insurance for anything other than being less cost effective and completely unnecessary?

one of about a billion examples of your talking points:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/22/1761011/health-insurers-threaten-to-increase-premiums-even-as-profits-soar/

By the way, the Lloyds insurers are some of the most sokvent in the world and they make pennies on the dollar for profits . . . oooh those evil for profit insurers

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#67 : August 27, 2013, 04:32:55 PM

The reason that catastrophic or unlikely occurrences are more friendly to the for profit model than frequent care is because that's where the most money can be made. They make their profits by people NOT making claims, therefor, the best logical bets on how money can be made with this concept is to charge to cover the rare incidents so that you can most always be in a position to collect more than you are paying out.

You just make things worse everytime you type. Two things:

1. Even NOT-FOR-PROFIT entities cannot always lose money UNLESS they have some other source such as charitable contributions or taxes.  The business venture still has to make sense economincally even if there is  no profit motive (except for governments builkding massive debts or rasing taxes) Not for Profit insurers still have people to pay and mortgages to pay and benenfits and other costs that have to come from operating profit, so the busines model has to make sense contant preventative care is not compatibale with traditrional insurance BECAUSE the "claim experience" is too high.  Look no further than the federal debt and Medicare for proof of that.  THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Who says that because it is a not for profit that it will always lose money? .

lol . .  there is not a font size big enough for this "HUH?"  Classic CBW.  I didnt say that (in bold), that's your fiction.

I said that even a  not for profit cannot always lose money and that is why the preventative care model struggles with insurance .  Here are two simple examples:

CBW, I am going to sell apple slices, but not to make a profit, I just think the world would be a better palce with apple slices. Apples cost me $1 and I sell the 10 slice I can get from the apple for $.01 a slice.  At some point I am going to stop selling slices right? because I cannot buy anymore apples. right?

No different than this with insurance:  I am going to sell health insurance to one person (for simplicity)  for a $10 monthly premium. I dont care about making a profit. My person goes to 4 doctors monthly, who I have to pay, at a cost of $40 per visit. I am a "not-for-profit insurer but I am going out of business quick right?

I am selling apple slices, but not to make a profit, I just think the world would be a better place with apple slices. Apples cost me $1 and I sell the 10 slices I can get from the apple for $.10 a slice. At no point am I going to lose money on the venture, right?

But you decide that you want to sell apple slices too, but you want to make a profit from it. So you buy the apple for a dollar, and decide to sell it for .15 a slice. Who gives the consumer a better deal, you or me?

Here's what you seem to not get, Vinny. When you introduce a profit motive, it inherently raises the cost, because not only are you looking to simply recoup costs, but you are looking to have extra AFTER you recoup costs. You are not selling apple slices, or insurance policies at cost, you are selling them at cost, + whatever you need to maintain or increase your margin, and whatever additional costs you incur in having to compete with other for-profit apple sellers.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#68 : August 27, 2013, 04:35:01 PM

CBW  -- I know you are going to refuse to acknowledge this as truth -- but just because there is a lot of information peddled about a subject does not make it true.  You have to actually think for yourself. 

I am aware that many people in the health care industry and people that share your views publish a lot of pieces claiming that "for-profit insurers" are to blame, but that does not make the claim TRUE . . . because (this is the part you always miss) everyone is writing to serve an agenda. As you often do, in this discussion you are simply spitting out talking points from one of your progressive site without actually thinking the subject through. That is why you have made so many absurd statmenets in this thread.  Now spin all you like, but it doesnt take anything more than a Google search to see where you get your stuff.

Where am I getting my stuff, you moron? I haven't used Google for anything other than to research your assertions, like that stupid Lloyd's example you gave of how "risky" it was that they lost 800 million only to rebound to make 4.2 billion the following year.

Also, you imbecile, where have I blamed for profit insurance for anything other than being less cost effective and completely unnecessary?

one of about a billion examples of your talking points:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/22/1761011/health-insurers-threaten-to-increase-premiums-even-as-profits-soar/

By the way, the Lloyds insurers are some of the most sokvent in the world and they make pennies on the dollar for profits . . . oooh those evil for profit insurers

I want you to point out specifically what I quoted from that article. This should be good, given that I've never read it.

And Lloyd's saw a profit margin of 11% in 2012. How much of a margin do they need to make before it's significant to you?
: August 27, 2013, 04:45:23 PM CBWx2


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#69 : August 27, 2013, 10:27:15 PM

Here's what you seem to not get, Vinny. When you introduce a profit motive, it inherently raises the cost, because not only are you looking to simply recoup costs, but you are looking to have extra AFTER you recoup costs.

they shoot hunt down and kill your economics teachers


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#70 : August 27, 2013, 10:29:50 PM

CBW  -- I know you are going to refuse to acknowledge this as truth -- but just because there is a lot of information peddled about a subject does not make it true.  You have to actually think for yourself. 

I am aware that many people in the health care industry and people that share your views publish a lot of pieces claiming that "for-profit insurers" are to blame, but that does not make the claim TRUE . . . because (this is the part you always miss) everyone is writing to serve an agenda. As you often do, in this discussion you are simply spitting out talking points from one of your progressive site without actually thinking the subject through. That is why you have made so many absurd statmenets in this thread.  Now spin all you like, but it doesnt take anything more than a Google search to see where you get your stuff.

Where am I getting my stuff, you moron? I haven't used Google for anything other than to research your assertions, like that stupid Lloyd's example you gave of how "risky" it was that they lost 800 million only to rebound to make 4.2 billion the following year.

Also, you imbecile, where have I blamed for profit insurance for anything other than being less cost effective and completely unnecessary?

one of about a billion examples of your talking points:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/22/1761011/health-insurers-threaten-to-increase-premiums-even-as-profits-soar/

By the way, the Lloyds insurers are some of the most sokvent in the world and they make pennies on the dollar for profits . . . oooh those evil for profit insurers

I want you to point out specifically what I quoted from that article. This should be good, given that I've never read it.

I am happy to point that out for you . . .  . . after you quote where I said you "quoted" something from an article . . . .  wtf? You're in a race with Runole for the Don Quixote Award

Mr. Milich

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2497
Offline
#71 : August 27, 2013, 10:32:22 PM

Here's what you seem to not get, Vinny. When you introduce a profit motive, it inherently raises the cost, because not only are you looking to simply recoup costs, but you are looking to have extra AFTER you recoup costs.

they shoot hunt down and kill your economics teachers

Spoken by our champion of gun control.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#72 : August 27, 2013, 10:35:24 PM

Here's what you seem to not get, Vinny. When you introduce a profit motive, it inherently raises the cost, because not only are you looking to simply recoup costs, but you are looking to have extra AFTER you recoup costs.

they shoot hunt down and kill your economics teachers

Spoken by our champion of gun control.

oops, sorry . . . . they should hunt down and imprison your economics teachers in the new WTC so they can die when the government bombs the WTC . . . again

How's that Durango, better?

keep the faith brother!!

: August 27, 2013, 10:36:55 PM VinBucFan

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#73 : August 27, 2013, 11:32:02 PM

Here's what you seem to not get, Vinny. When you introduce a profit motive, it inherently raises the cost, because not only are you looking to simply recoup costs, but you are looking to have extra AFTER you recoup costs.

they shoot hunt down and kill your economics teachers

Maybe I should attend the Vince school of economics. The one where for profit businesses don't actually make profits, and competition between insurance companies magically forces hospitals to lower their fees for service.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Online
#74 : August 27, 2013, 11:44:05 PM

Here's what you seem to not get, Vinny. When you introduce a profit motive, it inherently raises the cost, because not only are you looking to simply recoup costs, but you are looking to have extra AFTER you recoup costs.

they shoot hunt down and kill your economics teachers

Maybe I should attend a school of economics.
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Obamacare Shoes Begin To Drop . . . « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools