Unprecedented

[oscardeuce]

Quote: Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3469258



Medicare and SS comes to mind.



I'm forced to purchase auto insurance if I want to drive a car. If I don't, I get fined (a form of taxation). I could rely totally on public transportation, but the owners of that transportation face the same form of insurance requirement, so they raise their fares to compensate for the cost, which I pay. You can say walk, ride a bike or horse, but anyone with a sense of reality knows that's a virtual impossibility in today's hectic world.





Social security and medicare taxes pay for a defined benefit to the payer. The mandate fine is just that, a fine. Had they crafted the bill where people would have the money taken by the IRS and provided with insurance we could be looking at a whole different can of worms.

In reality social security does not use the money i put into it to give me a defined benefit. It uses my money to pay benefits to others, then depends on others to pay my benefit when the time comes.
Is that not the definition of a Ponzy scheme?
That's why it is going broke, robbing Peter to pay Paul, then Jane pays the money from Peter and so on.
FDR had to pack the SC just to get it passed, and in a much less expensive form. It was 1% of your pay if i remember.
Remember car insurance does not protect you, rather the other driver. States's rights, 10th Amendment, not a "right".

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
ss and medicare are not a privately owned and sold product. and if you dont work...you dont pay in. that is not an option for the health insurance bill. job or no job, you must comply.
car insurance is only needed if you choose to drive. it is not required by law due to your actual ability to draw breath. you could car pool. my ex wife never got her drivers license till she was thirty, she was not taxed for not having car insurance the entire time. you public transportation argumwnt does not work as this is STATEoperated and thus does notfall under federal jurisdiction.
That's the point the opponents to Obamacare are missing. Why shouldn't someone who doesn't have health insurance be required to obtain some form of policy? When some person who has no health insurance gets sick, where do they go? The county-provided health clinics or hospitals that are funded by the local taxpayers of that county. They walk in, pay what they can, then the taxpayers pick up the rest of the tab. In San Antonio, we get taxed via property tax based on the appraised value of our homes. Approximately 1% of that tax goes to the county to help fund this "free" health care. In my case, that's $3,000 a year I dish out for these services for individuals who have no insurance. I'm essentially already paying Obamacare health insurance for one or two families as it is. My house is valued around $300K. Now add the other 100,000 or so homes that are in the $500K and up range in town, plus the other couple hundred thousands or more homes in the $30K - $500K range. If they implemented this forcing eveyone to pay for their own healthcare, and stopped charging me for those services, I'd get a $3000 pay raise right off the bat.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469343
That's the point the opponents to Obamacare are missing. Why shouldn't someone who doesn't have health insurance be required to obtain some form of policy? When some person who has no health insurance gets sick, where do they go? The county-provided health clinics or hospitals that are funded by the local taxpayers of that county. They walk in, pay what they can, then the taxpayers pick up the rest of the tab. In San Antonio, we get taxed via property tax based on the appraised value of our homes. Approximately 1% of that tax goes to the county to help fund this "free" health care. In my case, that's $3,000 a year I dish out for these services for individuals who have no insurance. I'm essentially already paying Obamacare health insurance for one or two families as it is. My house is valued around $300K. Now add the other 100,000 or so homes that are in the $500K and up range in town, plus the other couple hundred thousands or more homes in the $30K - $500K range. If they implemented this forcing eveyone to pay for their own healthcare, and stopped charging me for those services, I'd get a $3000 pay raise right off the bat.
The thing to do is make those who frequent ER rooms pay their bills, or not not be seen. Not make it a law that all people must get something. US citizens should not be forced to buy something by the government.
I just read something about limiting Medicaid ER visits to 6 a year. Really? What does that say about what the ER rooms are being used for. There are few situations that an ER visit is needed, and your kid with an ear ache or a stomach ache is not one of those reasons.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469347
The thing to do is make those who frequent ER rooms pay their bills, or not not be seen. Not make it a law that all people must get something. US citizens should not be forced to buy something by the government.
I just read something about limiting Medicaid ER visits to 6 a year. Really? What does that say about what the ER rooms are being used for. There are few situations that an ER visit is needed, and your kid with an ear ache or a stomach ache is not one of those reasons.
Beth, a little baby with a stomach ache or ear ache can't be diagnosed until you take the screaming child in to see a doctor. Most little ones begin the screaming in the middle of the night when no doctors are available. Surely you don't expect a new mother with a screaming baby acting like it's in agony to wait until the next day and make an appointment with the pediatrician for a time slot most likely the day after that, or even a week away depending on how busy the doctor is.
Also...because it was a regular thing for hospitals to turn away people if they had no insurance...folks actually died because they had none. The law was enacted to force the hospitals to treat anyone and everyone who came thru their doors for treatment. No matter how poor if they had none at all or the type of insurance. There are people who are so gravely sick that they do have emergancies in the middle of the night more than 6 times a year...children and adults.
I agree something needs to be done, but not this.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469350
Beth, a little baby with a stomach ache or ear ache can't be diagnosed until you take the screaming child in to see a doctor. Most little ones begin the screaming in the middle of the night when no doctors are available. Surely you don't expect a new mother with a screaming baby acting like it's in agony to wait until the next day and make an appointment with the pediatrician for a time slot most likely the day after that, or even a week away depending on how busy the doctor is.
Also...because it was a regular thing for hospitals to turn away people if they had no insurance...folks actually died because they had none. The law was enacted to force the hospitals to treat anyone and everyone who came thru their doors for treatment. No matter how poor if they had none at all or the type of insurance. There are people who are so gravely sick that they do have emergancies in the middle of the night more than 6 times a year...children and adults.
I agree something needs to be done, but not this.
You had to do some serious mental gymnastics to get there LOL! There's a big difference between an actual emergency whether real or perceived and a fool using the ER because they can be seen quicker when it isn't a serious illness.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469347
The thing to do is make those who frequent ER rooms pay their bills, or not not be seen. Not make it a law that all people must get something. US citizens should not be forced to buy something by the government.
I just read something about limiting Medicaid ER visits to 6 a year. Really? What does that say about what the ER rooms are being used for. There are few situations that an ER visit is needed, and your kid with an ear ache or a stomach ache is not one of those reasons.
As it stands, the only alternative for people who can't afford the outrageous insurance premiums is to get these free or reduced services when they are sick. Get appendicitis and it sucks to be you? You only provide care for the patients that have life threatening diseases? Have a bad chest cold, that can turn into pneumonia if not treated properly. Everything I read is Obamacare is providing low-cost insurance pools. It's like a corporation that has a couple million employees, and United Healthcare offers them some ridiculously low premium due to the number of employees they have signing up for services. Private insurance companies are crying foul because if this comes to fruition, they'll be priced out because they can't offer a competitive price. If these insurance companies would've lowered their costs years ago, there would've never been a need to enforce such drastic measures. Insurance companies stayed greedy, and as long as there were no viable alternatives, they just kept raising their rates.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469398
As it stands, the only alternative for people who can't afford the outrageous insurance premiums is to get these free or reduced services when they are sick. Get appendicitis and it sucks to be you? You only provide care for the patients that have life threatening diseases? Have a bad chest cold, that can turn into pneumonia if not treated properly. Everything I read is Obamacare is providing low-cost insurance pools. It's like a corporation that has a couple million employees, and United Healthcare offers them some ridiculously low premium due to the number of employees they have signing up for services. Private insurance companies are crying foul because if this comes to fruition, they'll be priced out because they can't offer a competitive price. If these insurance companies would've lowered their costs years ago, there would've never been a need to enforce such drastic measures. Insurance companies stayed greedy, and as long as there were no viable alternatives, they just kept raising their rates.
Do you have a clue what the insurance companies profit margins are? Go to yahoos finance page and punch in some ticker symbols for insurance companies then click on "Key statistics"
Aetna (aet) is 5.88 percent. Cigna (ci) is just over 6%. WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO CUT COSTS??? Five percent ain't jack. Microsoft makes over 30 percent. Pfizer was around 15% but the bad ol insurance companies need to lower the rates cause they don't deserve their 5 percent.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469433
Do you have a clue what the insurance companies profit margins are? Go to yahoos finance page and punch in some ticker symbols for insurance companies then click on "Key statistics"
Aetna (aet) is 5.88 percent. Cigna (ci) is just over 6%. WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO CUT COSTS??? Five percent ain't jack. Microsoft makes over 30 percent. Pfizer was around 15% but the bad ol insurance companies need to lower the rates cause they don't deserve their 5 percent.
Yet another uninformed Fox News lover:
United Healthcare Group's (UNH) first quarter earnings were up 21% as the health insurance provider said medical costs were lower than anticipated last year.
Based on the results, the company boosted its full-year outlook.
The company posted a first-quarter profit of $1.19 billion, or $1.03 per share, compared with $984 million, or 81 cents per share, a year earlier. Revenue was up more than 5% to $23.2 billion.
Analysts had anticipated a profit 69 cents a share on revenue of $22.7 billion.
For the year, the company increased its estimate to $3.15 to $3.35 on revenue of $92 billion, compared to its earlier forecast of $2.90 to $3.10 a share on revenue of $88.5 billion to $89.5 billion.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/04/20/united-healthcare-profits-surge-lower-costs/#ixzz1rnY86SsY
http://seekingalpha.com/article/264818-unitedhealth-group-s-ceo-discusses-q1-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/04/health-insurers-post-healthy-quarterly-profits-cautious-2011-outlook/

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469441
Yet another uninformed Fox News lover:
United Healthcare Group's (UNH) first quarter earnings were up 21% as the health insurance provider said medical costs were lower than anticipated last year.
Based on the results, the company boosted its full-year outlook.
The company posted a first-quarter profit of $1.19 billion, or $1.03 per share, compared with $984 million, or 81 cents per share, a year earlier. Revenue was up more than 5% to $23.2 billion.
Analysts had anticipated a profit 69 cents a share on revenue of $22.7 billion.
For the year, the company increased its estimate to $3.15 to $3.35 on revenue of $92 billion, compared to its earlier forecast of $2.90 to $3.10 a share on revenue of $88.5 billion to $89.5 billion.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/04/20/united-healthcare-profits-surge-lower-costs/#ixzz1rnY86SsY
http://seekingalpha.com/article/264818-unitedhealth-group-s-ceo-discusses-q1-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/04/health-insurers-post-healthy-quarterly-profits-cautious-2011-outlook/
Maybe you should watch Fox news so you wouldn't make yourself look so bad. An increase of 21% means they went from about 4.10% up to 5.05% profit margin for the most recent quarter.
I realize being a Democrat things like percentages and return on investment might be confusing to you but what that means is for every dollar paid in the company makes a nickle. Oh the horror!!!!!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=UNH+Key+Statistics
You're supposedly in business for yourself. You think a 50K profit on a million dollar investment is excessive, or even comfortable?
0bama motors did just over 6%.
GE did 9.8
Ford is 14%
Duke Energy which is regulated did over 12%
Bristol Meyers did 17%
But the E VILE insurance companies are screwing us making 5 percent LOL!

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469457
Maybe you should watch Fox news so you wouldn't make yourself look so bad. An increase of 21% means they went from about 4.10% up to 5.05% profit margin for the most recent quarter.
I realize being a Democrat things like percentages and return on investment might be confusing to you but what that means is for every dollar paid in the company makes a nickle. Oh the horror!!!!!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=UNH+Key+Statistics
You're supposedly in business for yourself. You think a 50K profit on a million dollar investment is excessive, or even comfortable?
0bama motors did just over 6%.
GE did 9.8
Ford is 14%
Duke Energy which is regulated did over 12%
Bristol Meyers did 17%
But the E VILE insurance companies are screwing us making 5 percent LOL!
Try learning basic math. 5% revenues are in the BILLIONS. We're not talking about some Mom and Pop store where a 50K profit would be a big deal. You want to keep your head in the sand trying to make it sound like these guys are about to go stand in some soup line because they only made a few BILLION in profit. It's called volume.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469465
Try learning basic math. 5% revenues are in the BILLIONS. We're not talking about some Mom and Pop store where a 50K profit would be a big deal. You want to keep your head in the sand trying to make it sound like these guys are about to go stand in some soup line because they only made a few BILLION in profit. It's called volume.
So in Bionic's world a company that invests 100 Billion dollars should only earn the same amount of profit in dollars as a company that only invests 100 Million. Like I said in the other thread, this logic explains a lot. I guess the little kid with the lemonaide stand should make the same profit as a bar LOL!

 

[mantisman51]

I think Bionic's point is being somewhat misrepresented. For businesses that have such a large impact on the economy and people's quality of life, the government has been given the authority to regulate them; such as electric and gas utilities and insurance. For companies that impact such a large portion of the economy, profit is regulated. Since health insurance companies have what is basically a captive market, their business is generally much larger and since they are regulated by the government, should expect less profit. While I rarely agree with Bionic, he is closer to what I would agree with. There is nothing free market about insurance companies and they should not expect to be as profitable as Exxon, IBM or GE, nor should they be allowed to profiteer off those who are dependent upon their services. If they want to make more profit, they can use the free market and become an investment bank, but health insurance shouldn't be subject to the same market forces since they aren't now anyway.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469483
I think Bionic's point is being somewhat misrepresented. For businesses that have such a large impact on the economy and people's quality of life, the government has been given the authority to regulate them; such as electric and gas utilities and insurance. For companies that impact such a large portion of the economy, profit is regulated. Since health insurance companies have what is basically a captive market, their business is generally much larger and since they are regulated by the government, should expect less profit. While I rarely agree with Bionic, he is closer to what I would agree with. There is nothing free market about insurance companies and they should not expect to be as profitable as Exxon, IBM or GE, nor should they be allowed to profiteer off those who are dependent upon their services. If they want to make more profit, they can use the free market and become an investment bank, but health insurance shouldn't be subject to the same market forces since they aren't now anyway.
Xcel energy is our power company here. They are regulated by the government. Their profit margin was 7.9%. 5% for insurance companies isn't jack. Yet we get people like Bionic saying they should decrease their rates. The insurance companies aren't why it's so expensive. That was the problem with 0bamacare. They ignored the biggest problem with healthcare, the cost.
I wouldn't be opposed to the government regulating insurance companies but all it's going to do is increase the Federal bureaucracy. You can't expect a corporation to remain in business if they aren't turning a profit. Bionic mentioned United Health Care made billions. Yep. In that quarter they brought in 23.2 billion and ended up with 1.19 billion in profits. Hello? A billion is a lot of money but as a reward for investing over 23 billion?

 

[jerthunter]

23 Billion dollars of revenue compared to 1 billion in profit doesn't mean they only made 1 billion on a 23 billion dollar investment. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to say, but it sounded like it.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469487
Xcel energy is our power company here. They are regulated by the government. Their profit margin was 7.9%. 5% for insurance companies isn't jack. Yet we get people like Bionic saying they should decrease their rates. The insurance companies aren't why it's so expensive. That was the problem with 0bamacare. They ignored the biggest problem with healthcare, the cost.
I wouldn't be opposed to the government regulating insurance companies but all it's going to do is increase the Federal bureaucracy. You can't expect a corporation to remain in business if they aren't turning a profit. Bionic mentioned United Health Care made billions. Yep. In that quarter they brought in 23.2 billion and ended up with 1.19 billion in profits. Hello? A billion is a lot of money but as a reward for investing over 23 billion?
I think the point from the left is that with a single payer (Uncle Sam) you eliminate the middle layer of medical cost for 90%. I'm not stating an opinion here, just putting forward the thought process. The problem with Obamacare IMO is that it actually makes this middle layer (insurance corps) BIGGER and therefore will increase costs.

 

[mantisman51]

I really have no sympathy for the large insurance companies and wouldn't mind if they all had .05% profit. They got into bed with Obama to come up with this monstrosity and they all jumped at the chance to support it. Even if there were only two choices, Obamacare or government sponsored insurance, I'd chose government universal healthcare. What we have now in Obamacare is the least efficient amalgam of the worst of both worlds. I know the dems strategy on this. They never expected it to work. It was to get people adjusted to the idea of socialized healthcare and when Obamacare was crushed under its debt, come in and say it's time for government healthcare. It is fatally flawed before the first premium is collected and its replacement will be, too. Europe's socialist experiment is unraveling in a death-spiral of debt and smothering taxes. Germany is the only system that has kept its head above water and it is a hybrid where the majority of people opt out for private insurance. I don't see the necessity for government healthcare and I am, and have been, uninsured and am living with a permanent debilitating injury. I have got behind on medical bills and never once has the government offered to pay any. Even when I was sent to collections, I had to pay and not the government. So this whole "the government has to pay when people can't" is a lie.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469490
23 Billion dollars of revenue compared to 1 billion in profit doesn't mean they only made 1 billion on a 23 billion dollar investment. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to say, but it sounded like it.
Yeah, should have put that better. What it comes down to is there isn't a lot of profit in the insurance game.

 

[ironeagle2006]

The ONLY 2 Industries that run with SMALLER Profit Margins are BOTH in Transportation. One is the Airline Industry where if your lucky you might have a 2-3% Profit Margin after all Expenses. The Other is OTR Trucking were most companies are running on a 1-2% Profit Margin however some of the Really Large Carriers like Schiender get by on a 1/2%-1% Profit think about that for a Second. 99cents out of a dollar is going right out the WINDOW to pay your expenses and the last Penny is all you are seeing as a Profit. However on 14K trucks you can make that work.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469497
I think the point from the left is that with a single payer (Uncle Sam) you eliminate the middle layer of medical cost for 90%. I'm not stating an opinion here, just putting forward the thought process. The problem with Obamacare IMO is that it actually makes this middle layer (insurance corps) BIGGER and therefore will increase costs.
Even if you bought the premise there is that much middle level fat in the system you run into the problem of trying to push the genie back in the bottle.
I am on Medicare. Instead of traditional medicare I am on a Medicare advantage account which is provided by United Health Care. I don't pay one nickle more than someone on traditional medicare. The government does kick in an addition 15 bux a month or so. By being on the advantage account I get the following services traditional medicare doesn't offer
Prescription drug coverage, (so much for the extra 15 LOL!)
Yearly wellness exam at no charge
Yearly physical at no charge
Gym Membership at no charge
More hospitalization days covered
Less out of pocket for the first days in the hospital
Cap on out of pocket expenses
Flat 15.00 office copay instead of 20%
50 ER fee which is waived if I am admitted
There are a lot more than that, those are just the one's I can think of. Seems to me that if a single payer system was so much better traditional medicare would be a better deal than the medicare advantage accounts which arte provided by the E vile insurance companies.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006 http:///t/391206/unprecedented/20#post_3469511
The ONLY 2 Industries that run with SMALLER Profit Margins are BOTH in Transportation. One is the Airline Industry where if your lucky you might have a 2-3% Profit Margin after all Expenses. The Other is OTR Trucking were most companies are running on a 1-2% Profit Margin however some of the Really Large Carriers like Schiender get by on a 1/2%-1% Profit think about that for a Second. 99cents out of a dollar is going right out the WINDOW to pay your expenses and the last Penny is all you are seeing as a Profit. However on 14K trucks you can make that work.
Yep. Both very costly and low profit at well.