IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

BTW, the US health insurance industry has been steadily profiting more then 3 billion a quarter for the last several years; the real question, George, is why the European companies aren't keeping up Laughing

Must be the three-week spas for new mothers which are dragging the profits down.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

BTW, the US health insurance industry has been steadily profiting more then 3 billion a quarter for the last several years; the real question, George, is why the European companies aren't keeping up

Must be the three-week spas for new mothers which are dragging the profits down.

Cycloptichorn

$3 billion works out to about $13/American. That is a vastly smaller number than the $5 million/German Walter cited. Double it to make the time periods equal, and you get $26 versus $5,000,000 -- big difference.

There is nothing wrong with profits - they are what attracts the capital and the investments in new techniques and therapies in a free society. The alternative methods of slavery and socialism (merely a variation on the slavery theme) don't do nearly as well in terms of productivity and achievement.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
BTW, the US health insurance industry has been steadily profiting more then 3 billion a quarter for the last several years; the real question, George, is why the European companies aren't keeping up

Must be the three-week spas for new mothers which are dragging the profits down.

Cycloptichorn

$3 billion works out to about $13/American. That is a vastly smaller number than the $5 million/German Walter cited. Double it to make the time periods equal, and you get $26 versus $5,000,000 -- big difference.

There is nothing wrong with profits - they are what attracts the capital and the investments in new techniques and therapies in a free society. The alternative methods of slavery and socialism (merely a variation on the slavery theme) don't do nearly as well in terms of productivity and achievement.

Um, Walter didn't cite a number of 5 million per German. Haven't you been reading the last few posts?

I disagree completely that socialism = slavery, and think it's a little bit funny that you would make such a comparison.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Just to explicitly clear this up,

WH quoted $435,000,000 in profits; You stated that:

Quote:

The CIA World Factbook gives the 2007 estimate for the population of Germany as 82.4 millions

$435 million divided by 82.4 million equals.... $5.27 per person. Your calculations are off by a factor of roughly one million.

Are you pulling our legs?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well old europe did indeed expose my gaffe - I misread Walter's figure to add a factor of millions to the German profits. (probably a result of my chronic anti European bias.) The correct result is that in both countries the Insurers - based on this reported data - make only a few dollars per capita. Hardly enough to make it worth the effort were it not for the government provided monopoly.

You should not be surprised about my entirely accurate view of socialism.

0 Replies

georgeob, This discussion is not a choice between capitalism and socialism. It's never about our country reverting entirely into socialism. Most of the developed countries with universal health care still produces medical advancements.

What exactly are you afraid of?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

BTW, the US health insurance industry has been steadily profiting more then 3 billion a quarter for the last several years; the real question, George, is why the European companies aren't keeping up

Actually a good question.

Health insurance companies in Germany manage their budget independently, like any other company. However, in order to maintain the status as statutory or public health insurance company, they have to follow certain regulations.
Circulating capital funds, for example, shall not exceed 1.5 times their monthly expenses. If an insurance company makes higher profits, it has to adjust its premiums.

0 Replies

OK Cicerone. Easy does it. I was just throwing a few light-hearted barbs at our earnest and affable friend from Beserkeley. I think he saw the humor in it. (However, sometimes it is hard to tell with you always serious guys.)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

OK Cicerone. Easy does it. I was just throwing a few light-hearted barbs at our earnest and affable friend from Beserkeley. I think he saw the humor in it. (However, sometimes it is hard to tell with you always serious guys.)

The funny thing is, it's hard to tell with you always-serious guys when you're joking and when you're not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This from the "compassionate conservative."

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 34 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

0 Replies

Besides that what old europe wrote above: all the health insurers in the mandatory system have to tell their members the amount/percentage of what was actually spend for health, administrational things etc. This inludes the salaries of the CEOs.
Additionally, all companies have a (kind of) member parliament = there are elections any ... couple of years for it.
(All regulated in Title Five of the Social Code [SGB V])

Law and the German Universal Healthcare System: A Contemporary Overview gives a quite good (legal) overview, though it's not really state-of-the-art (published 2005)

0 Replies

Yeah, this is really bad - the bill would help 10 million uninsured kids get coverage. I actually work with FamiliesUSA and we have a 30 second ad to help pressure Congress to override - its pretty good: Edit [Moderator]: Link removed. This bill has bipartisan support and will really help a lot of working families get healthc care for their kids. Bush really needs to see that he go this one wrong.

0 Replies

fortogether, Welcome to a2k. FYI, this isn't the first issue Bush screwed up on. Can you identify for us what he did do right during the past six years? I'm really curious.

0 Replies

When Clinton gives each child a $5000 bond, the kid can then use the money to buy health insurance. Surprised

0 Replies

This morning, President Bush stood for bad government, insurance companies and cheaper tobacco and vetoed expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover 10 million kids.

In the words of the White House, the plan was to "veto it quietly," so not to draw attention to such an unpopular act.

The latest poll from ABC and the Washington Post says 72% of Americans support expanding kids' health insurance by increasing tobacco taxes. Republican voters support expansion nearly as much as Democratic voters. The House members whom Bush is counting on to sustain his veto do not want to do it under a white hot spotlight.

Too bad. This veto will not be quiet.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/veto_will_not_be_quiet?tx=3

0 Replies

It's a shame Bush gave up the photo-op to VETO children's health. He also didn't take advantage of media coverage when he cut veteran's benefits.

What's wrong with him? I know he isn't shy.

0 Replies

Maybe it's part of his "compassion."

0 Replies

I saw an interesting article in the local paper this past weekend that dealt with this. The author pointed out that medical insurance is more expensive for many reasons - one of which he said was the abuse of it. We don't use medical insurance like any other type of insurance. Car insurance is for accidents and serious damage, not filling up with gas or getting new tires. Home insurance is for damage from storms or earthquake, not replacing a burned out light bulb. People use medical insurance for *everything*, not just serious illness. If people used their own funds for routine health maintenance and only relied on insurance for serious illness or procedures, the cost would likely go down sharply.

0 Replies

Another prime example of Democrats using children to do their demagoguery and lies. Turns out this Graeme Frost's parents are not so poor, and it is them that failed their child, not Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know