Pre Existing Conditions Vs Sub Prime Mortgages

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: spidey07
Pre-existing conditions clauses are needed as a way to make insurance/healthcare not be so much more expensive than it already is. Without them people would only get insurance when they were sick.

I don't like it one bit, but that is the reason for them. Take them away and watch your insurance costs skyrocket.

1000% increase in profit over 5 years... and you think they need to exclude pre-existing conditions? Their bottom line is ALL that matters and it determines your price...

Honest question - What is their after tax profit? (It s/b expressed at a percentage of income etc)

If you don't know or can't be bothered to look it up, respond with the names of the insurers you think are too profitable and I'll google for it when I get a chance.

E.g., people complained loudly about the profit of Big Oil, but upon looking at the profit it was in line with other businesses (e.g., 8%).

If insurers are the same, I don't necessarily see a problem. Like the federal governemnt they have to pay for their capital. And profits are used to pay shareholders for the capital they've provided. Otherwise, you pay for capital (borrowed) with interest. Interest payments consume a huge portion of the federal government's budget - they are paying for their capital. Same thing will happen with UHC, it's just that unlike private companies, the federal government will leave that interest off 'the books' and over to the side.

Fern

He will ignore the fact that the 1000% is merely due to volume and no meaningful changes in net margins (~3% for industry). It's a nice statistic though to manipulate the ignorant.

 

[ohnoes]

Except health insurance companies don't have to worry about negative profit margins. If their cost goes up, they raise premiums, but since demand is inelastic, they don't lose customers.

 

[Vic]

The govt never forced any lenders to make subprime mortgage loans.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
I'm a pitiful little man.

:thumbsup:

Now, who can argue with that?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Fern

Honest question - What is their after tax profit? (It s/b expressed at a percentage of income etc)

If you don't know or can't be bothered to look it up, respond with the names of the insurers you think are too profitable and I'll google for it when I get a chance.

E.g., people complained loudly about the profit of Big Oil, but upon looking at the profit it was in line with other businesses (e.g., 8%).

If insurers are the same, I don't necessarily see a problem. Like the federal governemnt they have to pay for their capital. And profits are used to pay shareholders for the capital they've provided. Otherwise, you pay for capital (borrowed) with interest. Interest payments consume a huge portion of the federal government's budget - they are paying for their capital. Same thing will happen with UHC, it's just that unlike private companies, the federal government will leave that interest off 'the books' and over to the side.

Fern

<Throws penalty flag at Fern>

Big Oil spends $100 billion (lol - maybe not quite that much) a year on stock buy-backs and dividends. Add that back and watch the profit margin leap.

Last time I checked Exxon will be completely private by 2020 at their current rate of repurchase.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Emotion has no place in the rule of law.

You couldn't be more wrong! The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Providing publicly funded health care would specifically address insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare.

A healthy nation would also be far more able to provide for the common defense, and doing so would definitely be an example of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

I repeat -- You couldn't be more wrong! :thumbsdown:

Oh, wow. I couldn't believe my eyes, but there it was. Harvey actually trotted out the "promote the general Welfare" clause, the first sign that he is really reaching for support to his argument. Hey, a 7-series BMW would help "promote my general welfare" over the "clunker" I am driving now...why doesn't the government provide one for me, for "free"? :roll:

And ElFenix, you might want to fix up the quotes in your last post. It is tough to tell where it's your post or Harvey's.

If you can't see the difference between a 7 series BMW for one person and basic healthcare services for the whole population, you need to go to the eye doctor.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Provide for the common defense...

So, you're all for a huge defense budget too I gather, since it's right there next to your beloved "promote the general welfare" clause? We need to provide for the common defense, so our defense budget should be bigger, right Harv?

We have WAY, WAY more than enough military to _DEFEND_ _OUR COUNTRY_, right now.

The key words there being:
"DEFEND", as in, protect from direct assault. As opposed to the offensive role we took in Iraq.

"OUR COUNTRY", as in, the United States of America and it's territories, as well as those of our proven allies (though protecting allies is not explicitly defined, and may not be constitutional). As opposed to protecting oil / weapons manufacturer / halliburton / etc... interests.

 

[rchiu]

Bottom line is, there are plenty of countries with single payer system that covers young, old, people with and without pre-existing condition, all with a cost much lower than the 16%+ of GDP US is spending.

So all you people thinking covering pre-existing condition is expensive and risky is 1) too lazy to think 2) too narrow minded to look outside of US, and 3) too selfish to think about anyone other than yourself.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
<Throws penalty flag at Fern>

Big Oil spends $100 billion (lol - maybe not quite that much) a year on stock buy-backs and dividends. Add that back and watch the profit margin leap.

Last time I checked Exxon will be completely private by 2020 at their current rate of repurchase.

Both stock repurchases and dividend payments are financing items that show up on the Statement of Cash Flows and Statement of Stockholder's Equity. Neither shows up on the income statement and neither affects after tax profit.

edited for spelling

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Painman
See, This place is just too goddamned fucking serious, aka EMO!

SET ME FREE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQEmaj9C6ko

A very interesting reply to my half-drunken post.

Wowzers.

Thanks for sharing.