Evil health insurance profiteers.

[hordak]

Foot

"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

Meet mouth

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th of 53 industries on the Fortune 500 list.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53 - Yahoo! News

[prisonchaplain]

And the feds make a 15 - 36% profit margin on OUR incomes.

[bytor2112]

Seriously though....can you imagine if a for profit company operated like the federal government? Bankrupt and out of business!!

[jadams_4040]

And the feds make a 15 - 36% profit margin on OUR incomes.

one big differance between the feds and the insurance companies; our tax dollars dont go into the individual pockets of the government by the millions per politician. they do get paid better than most of us but it isnt anything really immoral or unjust as compared to the insures.:)

[bytor2112]

one big differance between the feds and the insurance companies; our tax dollars dont go into the individual pockets of the government by the millions per politician. they do get paid better than most of us but it isnt anything really immoral or unjust as compared to the insures.:)

Immoral and unjust? Who? Why? Evidence of said immorality and injustice?

Edited October 27, 2009 by bytor2112

[Dravin]

How immoral, a company using an agreed upon contract to reimburse expenses incurred (through no fault of their own) in exchange for a monthly fee as agreed upon in the contract. Oh! I know, maybe it is the fact that they compel you through threat of seizure of property or liberty to agree to said contract... oh wait...

Let's at least be fair and include car, homeowner and flood insurance while we are at it.

[DigitalShadow]

How immoral, a company using an agreed upon contract to reimburse expenses incurred (through no fault of their own) in exchange for a monthly fee as agreed upon in the contract.

I think the evil part comes in when they take the monthly fee, then look for any reason (or even make one up) to keep from having to fulfill their end of the contract and reimburse the expenses.

Obviously I know not all of them are like that, but I can understand some frustration with the industry.

[Dravin]

If they aren't fulfilling their end of the contract that is for the courts to decide. If they aren't though, I agree, hit'em, hit'em hard.

[FunkyTown]

There's actually another reason to look at Insurance companies with a wary eye that's unsympathetic.

Insurance is essentially gambling. The insurance companies are betting they'll be able to receive more money from you than they put out to you. This is simple business economics. If this doesn't happen in a majority of cases, the insurance company goes bankrupt.

They are a company that provides no tangible benefit to the majority, but earn billions. I also have a bit of a personal stake in this.

My mother has an illness which prevents her from working. Doctors have signed off on this. Her insurance company, every once in a while, simply stop paying her long term disability for months on end. The reasons are always that they have changed rules for what is needed in her case and always these changes are not conveyed to her before her benefits are simply stopped, which requires her to then spend months jumping through hoops with little to no money until they are satisfied. This usually happens once every year and a half to two years.

In a joint interview with her doctor and the insurance agents, she said she didn't want to be in this interview and the agents asked why. She responded, 'Because I don't like being in rooms with people that want me dead. Your company has shown they want to strip me of long term benefits, which they can only do if I'm dead or back to work. As my doctor has proven six times prior to this disconnect of my benefits, I can not work, so the only option you have left is that you want me dead."

I couldn't even argue that fact. They don't see her as a person, but a liability, and they want that liability off their books.

[hordak]

There's actually another reason to look at Insurance companies with a wary eye that's unsympathetic.

Insurance is essentially gambling. The insurance companies are betting they'll be able to receive more money from you than they put out to you. This is simple business economics. If this doesn't happen in a majority of cases, the insurance company goes bankrupt.

I agree with the gambling analogy. I don't see how making everyone buy a lotto ticket will fix it. Or how a large government run casino will help.

[bytor2112]

There are non profit insurers....Blue Cross and Kaiser come to mind.

[Just_A_Guy]

There's actually another reason to look at Insurance companies with a wary eye that's unsympathetic.

Insurance is essentially gambling. The insurance companies are betting they'll be able to receive more money from you than they put out to you.

But every capitalist endeavor is a gamble in this sense--from a kid's lemonade stand, to my law practice, to Wal-Mart. Smart business owners of every stripe will seek to limit their risk; and that's where pre-existing condition bars, limitations on coverage, ad nauseum come in to the health care industry.

They are a company that provides no tangible benefit to the majority, but earn billions.

But, would the majority pay the premiums they do if they weren't receiving a tangible benefit?

Doctors have signed off on this. Her insurance company, every once in a while, simply stop paying her long term disability for months on end. The reasons are always that they have changed rules for what is needed in her case and always these changes are not conveyed to her before her benefits are simply stopped, which requires her to then spend months jumping through hoops with little to no money until they are satisfied. This usually happens once every year and a half to two years.

I've talked to people on CHIP who have to do the exact same thing. You should see the way it plays out in Utah: "Dear sir: We've changed our rules. You have to submit paperwork to our office demonstrating your income (complete with employment histories signed by your past employers, pay stubs for the past few months, last year's tax return . . .), and if we don't receive it by [this is not an exaggeration] one week from the date we mailed you this letter, your coverage will be canceled."

In a joint interview with her doctor and the insurance agents, she said she didn't want to be in this interview and the agents asked why. She responded, 'Because I don't like being in rooms with people that want me dead. Your company has shown they want to strip me of long term benefits, which they can only do if I'm dead or back to work. As my doctor has proven six times prior to this disconnect of my benefits, I can not work, so the only option you have left is that you want me dead."

I couldn't even argue that fact. They don't see her as a person, but a liability, and they want that liability off their books.

True. But merciless cost-cutting is a phenomenon associated with bean counters. And you find bean counters in government as well as in the private sector.

I'd rather it be a business than a government that was eagerly anticipating my death.

[FunkyTown]

But, would the majority pay the premiums they do if they weren't receiving a tangible benefit?

They do, obviously. Insurance doesn't provide a tangible benefit to anyone who doesn't collect. Your house doesn't become more sturdy with homeowners insurance, nor does it come with an alarm that will alert police if someone breaks in. Your car doesn't drive straighter, nor does your insurance provide handy all-season tires.

The only time insurance provides tangible benefits is if a major accident occurs. Anything less than that, you receive less funds than you pay in. Long and short: The majority of Americans are giving money to insurance companies and then handed back their own funds piecemeal. True health reform demands not that someone else pay your insurance, but that someone else destroy your insurance companies and render them obsolete. Simply paying for insurance is ridiculous - It's a gamble and, frankly, if my government spent tax dollars on buying lottery tickets, I would be offended. Health care must be covered, if real savings are to be found, rather than insurance premiums being covered.

[Just_A_Guy]

They do, obviously. Insurance doesn't provide a tangible benefit to anyone who doesn't collect. Your house doesn't become more sturdy with homeowners insurance, nor does it come with an alarm that will alert police if someone breaks in. Your car doesn't drive straighter, nor does your insurance provide handy all-season tires.

The only time insurance provides tangible benefits is if a major accident occurs. Anything less than that, you receive less funds than you pay in. Long and short: The majority of Americans are giving money to insurance companies and then handed back their own funds piecemeal. True health reform demands not that someone else pay your insurance, but that someone else destroy your insurance companies and render them obsolete. Simply paying for insurance is ridiculous - It's a gamble and, frankly, if my government spent tax dollars on buying lottery tickets, I would be offended. Health care must be covered, if real savings are to be found, rather than insurance premiums being covered.

I see where you're going, but it just doesn't resonate with me. In a single-payer system, health care is health insurance. Everyone (theoretically) pays into the system; some will get their money's worth and some won't. (Or everyone will get their money's worth, but the system goes bankrupt in a couple of generations.) As a healthy taxpayer in a single-payer system I'm still taking a gamble; the fact that government is forcing me to do it doesn't make it less of a gamble.

Moreover, you seem to hint that the insurance companies just take those overpayments and use all of them for their own purposes--without considering the numerous insurance customers who (bureaucratic headaches aside) receive far, far more than they ever paid into the system. When calculating the social utility of the health insurers, should we not balance the minor intangible benefits provided to some customers (pursuant to a contract that those customers knowingly and willingly entered) with the very substantial and tangible benefits provided to others?

[beefche]

There's actually another reason to look at Insurance companies with a wary eye that's unsympathetic.

Insurance is essentially gambling. The insurance companies are betting they'll be able to receive more money from you than they put out to you. This is simple business economics. If this doesn't happen in a majority of cases, the insurance company goes bankrupt.

They are a company that provides no tangible benefit to the majority, but earn billions. I also have a bit of a personal stake in this.

My mother has an illness which prevents her from working. Doctors have signed off on this. Her insurance company, every once in a while, simply stop paying her long term disability for months on end. The reasons are always that they have changed rules for what is needed in her case and always these changes are not conveyed to her before her benefits are simply stopped, which requires her to then spend months jumping through hoops with little to no money until they are satisfied. This usually happens once every year and a half to two years.

In a joint interview with her doctor and the insurance agents, she said she didn't want to be in this interview and the agents asked why. She responded, 'Because I don't like being in rooms with people that want me dead. Your company has shown they want to strip me of long term benefits, which they can only do if I'm dead or back to work. As my doctor has proven six times prior to this disconnect of my benefits, I can not work, so the only option you have left is that you want me dead."

I couldn't even argue that fact. They don't see her as a person, but a liability, and they want that liability off their books.

I happen to work in long term disability. Funky, is your mom in the States? If so, I'd be most interested in knowing the company with which she is dealing (you can pm me).

[FunkyTown]

If universal health care can be effectively implemented, here is the difference between the two:

1) Private Insurance: In this system, which is a profit-based system, the insurance companies have people implementing strategies, with marketing and overhead costs. The excess is shared out among the wealthy stockholders and CEO/CFO/Board of Directors/Upper Management.

2) Universal Health Care - In a sane and logical system, 0 funds go towards buying off-shore islands. 0 funds go towards marketing. The only funds that pay in are for administrative costs and actual health care costs. With the poorest and sickest being cared for by the majority, the costs are easily borne by the majority.

Now, I am going to admit there is a problem with that: That is the logical response that should happen instead of what will happen. Government is usually wasteful. In Britain, where I currently live and where everyone I've spoken to is justly proud and happy of their health care system(And of which I, also, am a fan - On Monday, I was sick. I walked in to a Doctor's office, got a prescription for £7.20 and walked out with no fuss or muss), there are more middle managers than there are Doctors and nurses. This is silly and also what must be considered.

What needs to happen is that both sides of the isle must put aside partisan hackery and establish a logical, easily implemented universal health care system.

Honestly, I respect those who keep logical arguments in. The best arguments against health care I've seen have been:

1) It will be inefficient. No world government has efficiently been able to implement universal health care.

2) Constitutionally, it should be a state issue rather than a federal issue. Implementing a universal health care system in a country focused on the decentralization of power is frightening and should not be implemented.

3) It will limit scientific development. I have seen some great developments by the NHS in Britain, but this seems to make sense. Private development usually only gets spurred during desperate times, such as war times. I could agree this could be difficult.

Those arguments generally are not being used, however.

I see where you're going, but it just doesn't resonate with me. In a single-payer system, health care is health insurance. Everyone (theoretically) pays into the system; some will get their money's worth and some won't. (Or everyone will get their money's worth, but the system goes bankrupt in a couple of generations.) As a healthy taxpayer in a single-payer system I'm still taking a gamble; the fact that government is forcing me to do it doesn't make it less of a gamble.

Moreover, you seem to hint that the insurance companies just take those overpayments and use all of them for their own purposes--without considering the numerous insurance customers who (bureaucratic headaches aside) receive far, far more than they ever paid into the system. When calculating the social utility of the health insurers, should we not balance the minor intangible benefits provided to some customers (pursuant to a contract that those customers knowingly and willingly entered) with the very substantial and tangible benefits provided to others?

[Just_A_Guy]

If universal health care can be effectively implemented, here is the difference between the two:

1) Private Insurance: In this system, which is a profit-based system, the insurance companies have people implementing strategies, with marketing and overhead costs. The excess is shared out among the wealthy stockholders and CEO/CFO/Board of Directors/Upper Management.

Except for the non-profits Bytor mentioned above (and to which you can add Intermountain Health Care here in Utah). Plus the fact that the insurance company just isn't that profitable here, relatively speaking. IF the overall system works better than a government-run system would, then the evils of someone earning a (very) good living from the system can be overlooked, IMHO. (Not saying the current US system does; but it could, I think, if the right reforms were put into place. An insurance exchange (as I understand Obama's use of the term) is a good idea, as would be encouraging interstate competition and forcing hospitals to disclose their billing processes up front.)

2) Universal Health Care - In a sane and logical system--

When have Americans ever acted sanely and logically, Funky?