Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

Why is "innovation" needed to sell insurance? They are not the producers of products or services considered innovation. The insurance business is an old one that started outside the boundaries of the US. Do you understand what insurance is?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why is "innovation" needed to sell insurance? They are not the producers of products or services considered innovation. The insurance business is an old one that started outside the boundaries of the US. Do you understand what insurance is?

Of course I do. But the main thrust of the 'keep insurance private instead of public' line of argument is that private companies provide innovation and efficiency, which keeps costs down. I'm asking for examples of when this has actually happened, which to date nobody has really provided.

See, insurance isn't like a car or a table for your house. It isn't valid to make comparisons to the way businesses who produce physical goods are ran. But that's the model that people seem to use to think of it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You ought to speak of the actual health-care systems in other countries around the world and the results that they have experienced if you want to make comparisons between our system and a centrally-planned one; off-topic discussions of the Russian auto industry are not especially convincing for your case (though I know you love to throw them in whenever possible). How do you account for the fact that other countries get a better product, with lower prices and less hassle (by far)?

Cycloptichorn

A lot depends on what you mean by "a bettter product". If your only measures are (say) average life expectancy and total cost, then they can be optimized by ending generally expensive medical services for anyone more than five or so years past the target life expectancy and severely limiting services to folks with either non-life threatening conditions or those already with costly degenerative diseases. Indeed these things are subtly accomplished with the resource allocation, rationing and queuing systems in the public health services of the UK and Canada.

I value the many conveniences that accompany service by a medical practicioner who knows I can and will quickly seek another provider if his service is unsatisfactory to me for any reason. My experience in life tells me that my treatment at the hands of anyone who believes I have no alternative will usually be poor. I also observe that these issues, together with aspects of the resource allocation and rationing systems for public health care are matters of fairly continuous political debate in the UK and Canada.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I have already explained what has happened to government sponsored health insurance; more people use it indiscriminately, because it's almost free to very little out of pocket cost. When things are free, more people have a tendency to use it. When people have to pay out of pocket for any service, they think twice before using the service.

The health care cost escalations have been explained in an earlier post of mine; it's not the insurance premiums alone that are responsible for the higher cost of health care. You seem to miss or ignore these important issues that escalate costs.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I have already explained what has happened to government sponsored health insurance; more people use it indiscriminately, because it's almost free to very little out of pocket cost. When things are free, more people have a tendency to use it. When people have to pay out of pocket for any service, they think twice before using the service.

Who said that there would be no deductible in a government-sponsored system? Solves that problem right there.

Quote:

The health care cost escalations have been explained in an earlier post of mine; it's not the insurance premiums alone that are responsible for the higher cost of health care. You seem to miss or ignore these important issues that escalate costs.

I submit that these issues have not been fully explained, but instead merely mentioned, as if simply naming them is sufficient to prove that they are drivers of increased costs. Higher insurance premiums are both a cause AND a result of higher health-care costs; but I don't think there's an ounce of proof that the insurers are all raising their rates simply in response to forces outside of their control. Nah. They are doing it for the age-old reason that people charge higher rates: because they can.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I have already explained what has happened to government sponsored health insurance; more people use it indiscriminately, because it's almost free to very little out of pocket cost. When things are free, more people have a tendency to use it. When people have to pay out of pocket for any service, they think twice before using the service.

I agree that when people have to pay out of pocket they may think twice before using the service. But many people have private insurance, through an employer, that costs them very little out of pocket for each doctor visit they make, and some of these people (and I know several) may go running to a doctor every time they sneeze. And many people on Medicare also pay for additional Medi-gap coverage with a private insurer, and despite this additional out of pocket outlay, many of those people may only visit doctors once or twice a year for a routine checkup, without trying to get their money's worth from their policies. So, I can't see where government sponsored insurance may be used more indiscriminately simply because it's almost free, because some private insurance is also mostly free to those using it.

Some people simply choose to use medical services more often, or have conditions that require more frequent monitoring or treatment, or go to doctors who may frequently order expensive tests--and that's true whether the insurance carrier is private or government sponsored.

And government sponsored plans, like Medicare, already have deductibles and limits on things like hospital coverage. People on Medicare who want more extensive coverage can pick up additional private plans. The same could be the case with any universal government sponsored plan--it can offer basic coverage, and, if you want more coverage, you can obtain it from a private carrier.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly, Their doctor visits may be "out-of-pocket" that may be affordable for many, but the same employees are also picking up more of their monthly premiums. Some companies have all-together stopped these benefits, because of their high cost. I guess there are many sides to this issue of insurance that has many complex variables that are difficult to tie down in general terms.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Which means, decoded, that ci. can't make head or tail of the subject.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

One of my sons wrote a paper on the life insurance industry when he was in high school. He told me casually after he completed the work that only 10% of the moneys taken in are paid out as benefits.

When Representative John Conyers was the guest at a for-single-payer rally and education session, I asked the panel what the profit rate was for health insurance. The panelist admitted that there is no data available and that while it is slightly less profitable than life insurance, the estimate is around 75%.

Quote:

Would you prefer that we abolish profits altogether and create some alternate incentives for people to work and create businesses?

That is the sort of snide question that makes conservatives so unwelcome at fora and at public gatherings. Disgusting.

Considering what the top 1% of the earning population pockets -- and, yes, I know that their salaries are part of the cost of doing business -- those unholy folks who create businesses (often just to sell the start-ups at enormous person profit) and the large chains that bring about the closing of small, creative businesses deserve nothing but disdain.

4 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Our choices have narrowed in the past 30 years. Most consumers "chose" because they listen to advertising.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

That is the sort of snide question that makes conservatives so unwelcome at fora and at public gatherings. Disgusting.

What makes you think that the question is a snide one and disgusting. Is it because you have no answer for it? That's an invalid reason.

Can you not make any profit. I'll bet you would if you could.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I once worked for an engineering magazine published by an association. A secretary there told me no real man works for a non-profit.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Our choices have narrowed in the past 30 years. Most consumers "chose" because they listen to advertising.

Same old story. The consumers are stupid. It explains everything.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Re: infrastructure.

The weak link is maintenance. Our infrastructure is never maintained.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree that the market is manipulated.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Is it because you have no answer for it? That's an invalid reason.

There is no point in answering you if you chose to make up your own answers, is there?

And, there is no point in answering anyone, like you, for whom I have no respect.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Your son doesn't know what he is talking about; no insurance company that pays out 10% of premiums collected will not stay in business.

Also, your experience in retail from the floor-sales position makes you a poor judge of the retail business.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Hey, he was in high school at the time.

Why would you say that it makes me a poor judge of the retail business? What is better than knowing the business from the ground up? I see all the mistakes managers make, from how they deal with employees to what they fail to stock to the manner in which they display goods.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Small picture stuff; your experience is not the way retail businesses work. You ever work in a high-end retail shop? You resented the fact that somebody who didn't have a college degree was your super.

That your son was in high school at the time has no bearing on what you accepted as fact.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

One of my sons wrote a paper on the life insurance industry when he was in high school. He told me casually after he completed the work that only 10% of the moneys taken in are paid out as benefits.

When Representative John Conyers was the guest at a for-single-payer rally and education session, I asked the panel what the profit rate was for health insurance. The panelist admitted that there is no data available and that while it is slightly less profitable than life insurance, the estimate is around 75%.

Do you really expect anyone to take this crap seriously?
A high school boy asserts that health insurers pay out only 10% of their premium income !!!!! Laughing

An unnamed "panelist" asserts there is no data available on the profitability of health insurers but it is estimated at 75% (of what?) Laughing

You display both remarkable ignorance and credulity in these ridiculous assertions. In Cyclo's words would you care to back them up with some facts?

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:

Would you prefer that we abolish profits altogether and create some alternate incentives for people to work and create businesses?

That is the sort of snide question that makes conservatives so unwelcome at fora and at public gatherings. Disgusting.

It was a bit snide, but the unqualified bit of hyperbole to which it responded fully merited it. It is not at all "disguisting" to rational, reasonable people. I am usually quite welcome at the gatherings I attend, but then I don't frequent you and your friends.

plainoldme wrote:

Considering what the top 1% of the earning population pockets -- and, yes, I know that their salaries are part of the cost of doing business -- those unholy folks who create businesses (often just to sell the start-ups at enormous person profit) and the large chains that bring about the closing of small, creative businesses deserve nothing but disdain.

How do you tell the difference (before the fact) between a "small creative business" and one started by some would be one percenter who just wants to sell it?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know