What if auto insurance were like health insurance?

[Stoney]

So often I don't know where to put threads. Maybe this works.

Many years ago I posted something like this in defense of capitalism. Feel free to add points. I'm sure I've missed some.

What if the regulation system allowed politicians and insurance companies to divvy up the country and curtail competition between insurance companies? Ooops! That's happening to both.


What if auto insurance covered gas and oil and general maintenance? Do you think that auto insurance costs would be higher?


What if your auto insurance had at least basic coverage for everyone who didn't have auto insurance? Do you think your auto insurance premiums would be higher?


What if auto insurance coverage covered light bulbs and tires, including installing the bulbs and airing the tires up.


What if a substantial portion of auto insurance were provided by government with fixed prices. Would the insurance companies compete more and find ways for lower prices, or would they just use the fixed prices even when they could lower those prices?


What if specialized oils were priced by law too low for oil companies to make a profit. Would that oil be available?

[Conley]

Don't worry about where to put threads. There is plenty of overlap between the groups and I agree it's somewhat confusing.

As for the topic, I have a question about the first point raised. Politicians and insurance companies have divided the country geographically to prevent competition? I wasn't aware of that. I know that kind of thing has gone on with cable television so it wouldn't surprise me. I just thought regional differences in health insurance were products of the market.

[spunkloaf]

Hmm. We'd have some cool nurses that's for sure.


http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://redstaplerchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/progressive-flo.jpg&sa=X&ei=k95zT9SYOaqRiALj3oG2Cw&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFUaNHau_MaeZ6JrhKAfbZo4Eerqg

[MMC]

Hmm. We'd have some cool nurses that's for sure.


http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://redstaplerchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/progressive-flo.jpg&sa=X&ei=k95zT9SYOaqRiALj3oG2Cw&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFUaNHau_MaeZ6JrhKAfbZo4Eerqg



http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4619920734159080&id=4a6cb5b956c7381a5349a255e45c7763&url=http%3a%2f%2fmartinsj2.files.wordpress.com%2f2 010%2f08%2fscared-pic.jpg :wink:

[Dagny]

So often I don't know where to put threads. Maybe this works.

Many years ago I posted something like this in defense of capitalism. Feel free to add points. I'm sure I've missed some.

What if the regulation system allowed politicians and insurance companies to divvy up the country and curtail competition between insurance companies? Ooops! That's happening to both.


What if auto insurance covered gas and oil and general maintenance? Do you think that auto insurance costs would be higher?


What if your auto insurance had at least basic coverage for everyone who didn't have auto insurance? Do you think your auto insurance premiums would be higher?


What if auto insurance coverage covered light bulbs and tires, including installing the bulbs and airing the tires up.


What if a substantial portion of auto insurance were provided by government with fixed prices. Would the insurance companies compete more and find ways for lower prices, or would they just use the fixed prices even when they could lower those prices?


What if specialized oils were priced by law too low for oil companies to make a profit. Would that oil be available?

I think the bigger question is "If you wrecked your car, and you didn't have insurance, should you be able to go to an auto body shop and get it fixed for free"?

That is, after you went to the hospital and got your injuries tended to for free.

[Mainecoons]

Carrying the analogy a bit further, what if we could wait to buy insurance until we had a fender bender, like RomneyCare? That would sure save me a bunch of money since I dent my cars about once every 20 years on average.

Question: Did the health insurers divy up the country or is it more like the state insurance agencies not allowing free competition? I believe that is one of the issues that ObamaCare addressed, probably the only useful thing in this bill. However, you will notice that the Dumbocrats made sure there was no tort reform in this legislation. Since the ambulance chasers are their #3 biggest contributor, this certainly makes practical sense. Not too good for the "common man" who has to purchase health insurance, however.

[Stoney]

Don't worry about where to put threads. There is plenty of overlap between the groups and I agree it's somewhat confusing.

As for the topic, I have a question about the first point raised. Politicians and insurance companies have divided the country geographically to prevent competition? I wasn't aware of that. I know that kind of thing has gone on with cable television so it wouldn't surprise me. I just thought regional differences in health insurance were products of the market.

Sorry I didn't clarify and glad I didn't use the term geographically. Each state has its own rules for health insurance and at least some of those rules preclude some companies from competing in those markets. I would attribute that mostly to companies lobbying politicians although some of it is probably politicians having too much time on their hands so they male believe they know better than the markets, the consumers, what is best for us. Either way it stifles competition.

[Conley]

Sorry I didn't clarify and glad I didn't use the term geographically. Each state has its own rules for health insurance and at least some of those rules preclude some companies from competing in those markets. I would attribute that mostly to companies lobbying politicians although some of it is probably politicians having too much time on their hands so they male believe they know better than the markets, the consumers, what is best for us. Either way it stifles competition.

Got it. Thank you. I agree, it is unfortunate when the politicians attempt to manipulate the markets based on their own interpretations. Even if they mean well they should understand recognize their limitations.

[Stoney]

Another thing, why not have the rich foot most of the bill for auto insurance?

[Dagny]

Another thing, why not have the rich foot most of the bill for auto insurance?

Instead of reaping most of the investment rewards?

[Stoney]

There are plenty of not rich people who make investments and reap those rewards. Most of the rich don't start that way.

[Dagny]

There are plenty of not rich people who make investments and reap those rewards. Most of the rich don't start that way.

Likewise, there are plenty of 'not rich' people who pay for insurance out of pocket. As opposed to getting it as a benefits package.

[Stoney]

I suspect health insurance would be a lot cheaper if it were not a benefit and we had to pay for it directly.

[Dagny]

I suspect health insurance would be a lot cheaper if it were not a benefit and we had to pay for it directly.

Health insurance would be a lot cheaper, if it were non profit.

[Stoney]

Medicare is non profit.

If things would be cheaper if they were non profit why not nationalize cars, furniture...?

[Dagny]

Medicare is non profit.

If things would be cheaper if they were non profit why not nationalize cars, furniture...?
Why not ask about broccoli?

The answer is simple....you don't have to go out and buy new cars/furniture. You will need healthcare.

As well, there's competition in the auto/furniture markets. Not so, in the health insurance industry.

[Peter1469]

Why not ask about broccoli?

The answer is simple....you don't have to go out and buy new cars/furniture. You will need healthcare.

As well, there's competition in the auto/furniture markets. Not so, in the health insurance industry.

You fix the lack of competition in the health insurance industry by adding competition, not removing all of it.

The problem with a single payer system is that it will end up being a one size fits all solution. To return to the car analogy that would mean that when Bush was president everyone would have to drive pickup trucks, even if you have a large family. Doesn't work well does it. And when Obama is president everyone would have to drive Volts, even if you have an 80 mile commute every day. Doesn't work well does it.

[Stoney]

Why not ask about broccoli?

The answer is simple....you don't have to go out and buy new cars/furniture. You will need healthcare.

As well, there's competition in the auto/furniture markets. Not so, in the health insurance industry.

Okay. But you do have to go out and buy food, clothing and shelter. Why not make them non profit.

I guess I did ask about broccoli, because you asked.

[tinkerbell]

In Canada its kinda like that

[Dagny]

Okay. But you do have to go out and buy food, clothing and shelter. Why not make them non profit.

I guess I did ask about broccoli, because you asked.
Yes, you do have to go out to buy necessities. But you don't have to buy prime rib in order to survive. Likewise, you don't have to buy $80.00 jeans.

There's nothing wrong with the free market system, except when monopolies created excess profiteering.

If we bought food that was subject to the same market forces as the healthcare industry, everyone would starve except for the wealthy.

[Mainecoons]

You need healthcare, yes. What healthcare do you need? Some may need only catastropic. Some may mainly need access to a family physician. Some may need a lot more.

Also, how do you encourage people to be responsible about their own health? Should all of us pay for people who smoke like stacks or are as fat as pigs and have the expensive health problems as a result? Should all of us pay big medical bills for drunks and drug users who have destroyed their health by their own hand? How about gays who continue to contract aids because of unsafe sex long after it is known that this is how most of them get the disease?

Should everyone have to settle for the kind of basic health care that government systems provide or should we have the option of having better care if we chose to spend our money that way?

Looking at how Medicare has driven up health care costs, how tuition grants and loans have driven up college costs, how do you control runaway health care costs with much greater subsidies? Rationing?

It is easy to wallow in emotion about this subject, as liberals love to do, but it is a great deal more difficult to deal with the practical reality of trying to actually provide universal health care.

[Dagny]

You need healthcare, yes. What healthcare do you need? Some may need only catastropic. Some may mainly need access to a family physician. Some may need a lot more.

Also, how do you encourage people to be responsible about their own health? Should all of us pay for people who smoke like stacks or are as fat as pigs and have the expensive health problems as a result? Should all of us pay big medical bills for drunks and drug users who have destroyed their health by their own hand? How about gays who continue to contract aids because of unsafe sex long after it is known that this is how most of them get the disease?

Should everyone have to settle for the kind of basic health care that government systems provide or should we have the option of having better care if we chose to spend our money that way?

Looking at how Medicare has driven up health care costs, how tuition grants and loans have driven up college costs, how do you control runaway health care costs with much greater subsidies? Rationing?

It is easy to wallow in emotion about this subject, as liberals love to do, but it is a great deal more difficult to deal with the practical reality of trying to actually provide universal health care.

Younger, healthier people typically need the catastrophic policies that cost less.

Smokers, and obese people should pay more, and I'm pretty sure that they do in some cases.

Can you demonstrate how Medicare drives up medical costs?

Are you saying that the private sector makes up for the shortfalls?

That's not only an argument for the public option, but a call to examine the PROFIT TAKING by the CEOs,and shareholders in the Pharma/Ins industry.

[dadakarma]

Younger, healthier people typically need the catastrophic policies that cost less.

Smokers, and obese people should pay more, and I'm pretty sure that they do in some cases.

Can you demonstrate how Medicare drives up medical costs?

Are you saying that the private sector makes up for the shortfalls?

That's not only an argument for the public option, but a call to examine the PROFIT TAKING by the CEOs,and shareholders in the Pharma/Ins industry.

Not to mention their astronomical salaries that are considered 'overhead' and thus enrich CEOs of so-called 'non profit' industries.

[keyser soze]

There are plenty of not rich people who make investments and reap those rewards. Most of the rich don't start that way.
Oh, yes they do. Not all but most.

[keyser soze]

Health insurance would be a lot cheaper, if it were non profit.
The notion of healthcare for profit is anathema. Everything is about money, profit etc. law of the jungle mind set.

[keyser soze]

You honestly believe these companies don't meet and set their rates? Really?

[Mainecoons]

Here's a good discussion of how Medicare affects health care costs. Basically it is like everything else, when you make a lot of money available to any activity, and you disconnect the pain of paying for something from the person receiving it, it becomes far too easy for the providers to jack up prices (particularly as medical care is not a very competitive business) and for the providees to over use services.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/saving-medicare-from-itself

I might add that overly generous private medical plans that basically let people use whatever medical care they think they need without any real cost feedback are equally guilty of contributing to the demand-push problem of medical inflation. Far too many consumers of medical services simply have little incentive to save or to question costs. Although they are paying for this disconnect in overall rates, they simply don't see this consequence as a direct, personal cost.

As I've noted previously, the same thing has happened with college costs. All those grants and loans have made it far too easy for colleges to just keep ramping up fees and avoiding the reality of the marketplace. I think you're about to see that come to a screeching halt as the default rate skyrockets on college loans and more and more people realize there aren't any jobs for most college graduates, particularly those who spend money on majors that have no real connection to what is available in the job market.

Our private insurance is a great deal more costly because we are subsidizing those people without insurance who go to the hospital emergency room. Now I have no problem with providing emergency health care to all, my problem is that the cost of it should not fall only on those who have private insurance. This is a big fat unfunded mandate. The cost of such care should be borne by the general tax base IMO. If people acting through government think this should be available, government should raise the money from everyone to pay for it.

Under Romney/Obamacare, the "health irresponsible" such as smokers, fat people, drunks, drug users and those who get aids from deliberately practicing unsafe sex are going to get the same medical care and pay the same for it as everyone else. That means we will all be subsidizing them.

You have an exaggerated view of how profitable insurance is. I suggest you do some homework on the profit level of private insurance companies. Hint: Apple puts them all to shame.

Another interesting fact is that Medicare loses 4 times as much to fraud as do private insurers. The difference, 6 percent, exceeds the profit levels of almost all private insurers. This is also readily looked up so I'll let you do your own homework.

Also, many of those pharma shareholders are pension plans. If you have a pension plan you probably are one of those shareholders. You might also want to look at how the FDA drives prescription costs when compared to similar regulatory bodies in Europe. The difference is pretty shocking.

Overpaid CEOs is a general problem in the U.S. It arises from the disconnect between the diffuse ownership of the larger public companies and the concentrated "old boy" relationships between management and Boards of Directors of those corporations. There is no more CEO pay abuse in the medical sector than there is anywhere else. It's a nice emotional outlet but of little substantive contribution to the overall medical cost problem.

[Dagny]

You have an exaggerated view of how profitable insurance is. I suggest you do some homework on the profit level of private insurance companies. Hint: Apple puts them all to shame.

I haven't had time to read your piece yet, and I'll get back here later. There is much we agree on w/respect to your post, but this comment above won't give us the info you desire.
When you add back in the CEO pay/bonuses above the 'norm' for CEOs across the board, lobbying costs, and excessive partying, the profits go way up. Current charts probably show something like a 3% profit margin, which is a steaming crock.


Another interesting fact is that Medicare loses 4 times as much to fraud as do private insurers. The difference, 6 percent, exceeds the profit levels of almost all private insurers. This is also readily looked up so I'll let you do your own homework.Medicare fraud is indeed a problem. As well, I don't buy your % of profit, no matter what 'my homework' might find in bogus tables.


Also, many of those pharma shareholders are pension plans. If you have a pension plan you probably are one of those shareholders. You might also want to look at how the FDA drives prescription costs when compared to similar regulatory bodies in Europe. The difference is pretty shocking.For profit, is for profit. Just because fund managers put money into the hc industry for retirement plans, doesn't make it right. When discussing 'cost', you have to research the reason for cost. Profiteering is a big part of that.


Overpaid CEOs is a general problem in the U.S. It arises from the disconnect between the diffuse ownership of the larger public companies and the concentrated "old boy" relationships between management and Boards of Directors of those corporations. There is no more CEO pay abuse in the medical sector than there is anywhere else. It's a nice emotional outlet but of little substantive contribution to the overall medical cost problem.I disagree. Free market principles don't allow for CEOs to rape the coffers, unless the demand is there for the product. Health insurance is something we require.


And the thread asks about auto insurance also. We are required by law to but that product. Same for other types of insurance. Not so, in other industries.

[Captain Obvious]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and that's what scares the shit out of me about a single payer system.

Medicare does what it wants, trust me - I see it from the small-time provider side. They bundle charges, deny payments on a regular basis, moreso recently. If this keeps up, we're going to get the Wal Mart healthcare scenario. All 800lb gorillas telling us what's good for us and what's not, at our expense.

[MMC]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and that's what scares the shit out of me about a single payer system.

Medicare does what it wants, trust me - I see it from the small-time provider side. They bundle charges, deny payments on a regular basis, moreso recently. If this keeps up, we're going to get the Wal Mart healthcare scenario. All 800lb gorillas telling us what's good for us and what's not, at our expense.


You mean Like Liberals think in their mind? You know, that they are an 800 lb gorilla until they check into that mirror.....right?

[Mainecoons]

Dagny, here's a site that allows you to compare CEO pay across a lot of industries.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/Insurance_Rank_1.html

Aside from the fact that it illustrates in a most vivid way just how over paid CEOs are, for the reason I stated primarily, I don't see that health insurer CEOs are any more overpaid than the rest. I went through a number of industries to get an overall feel.

If you can't accept the profit data on which financials are based for all corporations, I can't help you. You'll just have to wallow in your belief system that somehow this business is markedly different than any other. Which it isn't but I'm not going to convince you of that since you won't accept standard financial data. You might look at stock performance which is what the street thinks the enterprises are actually worth. PEs are pretty modest for this group. (Lower PE means market values the profit potential or growth potential less).

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/industries.html

[Captain Obvious]

I get a little launched into orbit when people start talking about CEO paychecks.

First, not all CEO's are paid a bazillion dollars. I'm a CFO and my CEO gets a few more bucks than me but not much. I'm in a small organization also, I'm not posting this from my condo in Malibu or anything like that.

Second, one one hand if you're going to get talent - the kind of talent that puts up with bullshit like this on a regular basis (bitching about his/her salary) and many other issues like that, you'll need someone with thick skin. Like the president (yea, I'm giving BO some props), you need the intestinal fortitude to deal with that kind of scrutiny and still be productive. People like this don't grow from cornfields.

Third, just like our political legislature, our corporate governance process is a product (or a failure) of our own ineptitude. Want dicks out of Congress? Vote them out. Want dicks out of corporate America? Vote them out.

What I hate is the bullshit rhetoric that we need to be kissing rich peoples asses because they have the capital, they throw us bones in the form of jobs, they're responsible for greasing the wheels of capitalism. Total fucking bullshit - me, you and anyone else that has a retirement portfolio have that power, we just choose to not get involved in corporate governance and proxy our votes - because hey, it's just my retirement plan, I don't want to get involved.

Same concept applies to our elected legislature.

Want to see who's responsible for governmental and corporate corruption? You'll spot him the next time you shave.

[Mainecoons]

Small business CEOs are not what is being discussed here when it comes to CEO pay. Unlike your small company, with usually just a few owners, large public corporations have thousands and thousands of owners. Theoretically, those owners should be able to rely on BODs to avoid executive pay abuse. In reality, far too often those BODs are the cronies and golfing buddies of the people whose pay they are setting.

Notice we are not talking about large PRIVATE corporations here where the problem of diffuse ownership doesn't generally exist and often the CEOs are major owners themselves.

You may think you have influence as one of a gadzillion shareholders of Exxon, but in reality you don't. The guys with the main clout are the big institutional shareholders and their CEOs aren't about to rock the same boat they are riding in.

Sorry, I don't think any CEO is worth many hundreds of times more than the guys on the line. For much of our history, CEO pay was far more modest and our companies did far better than many are doing now. I do not advocate the usual leftist solution of simply confiscating everyone's pay over a certain limit. I would reform the laws governing PUBLIC corporations to set ratios for total CEO compensation as a percent of the average corporate compensation. If companies don't like this, they can go private and should not be governed by any such restrictions.

One of the things that excessive CEO pay does is really undermine the support for the private enterprise system. These fat cats are really feeding the liberals IMO.

[Peter1469]

Good post Cap

[Captain Obvious]

Small business CEOs are not what is being discussed here when it comes to CEO pay. Unlike your small company, with usually just a few owners, large public corporations have thousands and thousands of owners. Theoretically, those owners should be able to rely on BODs to avoid executive pay abuse. In reality, far too often those BODs are the cronies and golfing buddies of the people whose pay they are setting.

Notice we are not talking about large PRIVATE corporations here where the problem of diffuse ownership doesn't generally exist and often the CEOs are major owners themselves.

You may think you have influence as one of a gadzillion shareholders of Exxon, but in reality you don't. The guys with the main clout are the big institutional shareholders and their CEOs aren't about to rock the same boat they are riding in.

Sorry, I don't think any CEO is worth many hundreds of times more than the guys on the line. For much of our history, CEO pay was far more modest and our companies did far better than many are doing now. I do not advocate the usual leftist solution of simply confiscating everyone's pay over a certain limit. I would reform the laws governing PUBLIC corporations to set ratios for total CEO compensation as a percent of the average corporate compensation. If companies don't like this, they can go private and should not be governed by any such restrictions.

One of the things that excessive CEO pay does is really undermine the support for the private enterprise system. These fat cats are really feeding the liberals IMO.

The whole concept of corporate governance is based on investor control. The fact that mega corps issue a virtually immeasurable amount of stock clouds the issue, I won't argue that. You get special interests or private groups gobbling up the majority of the voting rights to these stocks for that purpose while the vast majority of stock ownership is just looking for a good investment and nothing more.

The real question then is diverted to - is our corporate governance system obsolete?

The virtually EXACT thing can be said about our form of democracy.

[Peter1469]

The state should not view the corporation as a free market entity. The state should provide regulations with that in mind. Limit the scope of corporations to specific purposes and put time limits on their charter. Renew only the charters of corporations that act responsibly within their charter. Stop using the same regulations of small business enterprises that are creatures of the free market.

[Mainecoons]

It might be. It was developed when companies were far smaller and had fewer owners.

Ditto to your final point. I think it is, quite frankly. It has been taken over and perverted by a governing elite who are bought and paid for, and supported by a virtually unfirable bureaucracy and court system full of liberal lifers. I can't blame the Founders, they simply didn't have a concept of career politician, hence they provided no protections against them.

In my view, everyone in government should be term limited, including judges. I think we should give serious thought to converting to a Parliamentary system as well.

[Captain Obvious]

The state should not view the corporation as a free market entity. The state should provide regulations with that in mind. Limit the scope of corporations to specific purposes and put time limits on their charter. Renew only the charters of corporations that act responsibly within their charter. Stop using the same regulations of small business enterprises that are creatures of the free market.

My personal belief tends towards a true freemarket system however I think the relationship approach should be that of government and religion. Keep them completely separate.

Regulation is only as good as the regulators are corrupt and/or incompetent. Just ask the families of the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster.

[Captain Obvious]

It might be. It was developed when companies were far smaller and had fewer owners.

Ditto to your final point. I think it is, quite frankly. It has been taken over and perverted by a governing elite who are bought and paid for, and supported by a virtually unfirable bureaucracy and court system full of liberal lifers. I can't blame the Founders, they simply didn't have a concept of career politician, hence they provided no protections against them.

In my view, everyone in government should be term limited, including judges. I think we should give serious thought to converting to a Parliamentary system as well.

Exactly, and that's why I brought up the obsolescence suggestion.

One of the things I find... quirky about our collective position on the Constitution is that the drafters of this document did so in a completely, no an absolutely different environment than we live in now. I have no doubt that they had no idea where this would be in this day and age.

We cling on to these concepts because that's what we know. It's what's been ingrained in our psyche, it's golden.

Might need rethinking. Shit changes.

[Peter1469]

My personal belief tends towards a true freemarket system however I think the relationship approach should be that of government and religion. Keep them completely separate.

Regulation is only as good as the regulators are corrupt and/or incompetent. Just ask the families of the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster.

Right. And very large corporations do as much damage as government. If you don't want to regulate them, ban them. Use the anti-trust laws to bust them up.

[Dagny]

Dagny, here's a site that allows you to compare CEO pay across a lot of industries.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/Insurance_Rank_1.html

Aside from the fact that it illustrates in a most vivid way just how over paid CEOs are, for the reason I stated primarily, I don't see that health insurer CEOs are any more overpaid than the rest. I went through a number of industries to get an overall feel.
Aside from Oil companies, Ins./Pharma lead that chart. Notice the amount of stocks held by these CEOs as well.



If you can't accept the profit data on which financials are based for all corporations, I can't help you. You'll just have to wallow in your belief system that somehow this business is markedly different than any other.
Nobody's wallowing in anything. Facts are facts. You admit that CEO pay is obscene. If you pay them 10 million/year, instead of tens of million/yr, what does that do to change your supposed profits? Bribes to politicians? Lobbyists?

As well, while Pharma (an industry that drives up the cost of insurance) isn't allowed to directly bribe doctors anymore, they spend massive amounts of money on all expenses paid 'symposiums' in Hawaii.

And lobbyists.(there's that word again)

Factor all of this in to your equation, and tell me what the profits look like then.



Which it isn't but I'm not going to convince you of that since you won't accept standard financial data.

When so much is skimmed off the top, your data is meaningless in a discussion about the flaws in a 'for profit' system. Profits can be made to look as low as you want...don't you have an accountant?


You might look at stock performance which is what the street thinks the enterprises are actually worth. PEs are pretty modest for this group. (Lower PE means market values the profit potential or growth potential less).
You bolster my point further. With no controls over CEO pay/bonuses, as well as the other forms of waste I've mentioned, how can they possibly show true profit %?

[Mainecoons]

Your whole post is a litany of unproven allegations about the one industry. And you twist my statement about CEO pay to apply it to only one industry when I made it about most large public corporations in all categories.

It is time for you to post some credible sources that prove this industry reports financials different than any other. Good luck.

[Dagny]

Your whole post is a litany of unproven allegations about the one industry. And you twist my statement about CEO pay to apply it to only one industry when I made it about most large public corporations in all categories.

It is time for you to post some credible sources that prove this industry reports financials different than any other. Good luck.

Your early onset dimensia makes it impossible for you to stay on topic.

CEO pay for Walmart, has nothing to do with the for profit healthcare system. You made industry tainted claims about profit margins, and I pointed out that creative accounting can make numbers look any way you wish.


There are supplements that can help w/the brain function issues.

[Stoney]

"There's nothing wrong with the free market system, except when monopolies created excess profiteering.

If we bought food that was subject to the same market forces as the healthcare industry, everyone would starve except for the wealthy"

The lack of competition is created by government and the ACA limits competition more.

[Mainecoons]

Sorry Dagny, you haven't provided a shred of evidence that Healthcare companies engage in creative accounting more than anyone else. I've tried to enlighten you as to the general nature of this problem of CEO pay. You can google up "excessive CEO pay" and there you will find a host of credible references and lists which show conclusively that healthcare is no more prone to this problem than anyone else. What is demented is to constantly rant on this one industry and harbor delusions that somehow it has managed to play more accounting games than the rest.

Have a nice day. I'm done with trying to help you think rationally. Like most leftists, your brain is driven by emotion. No room there for dispassionate discussion.

[Dagny]

"There's nothing wrong with the free market system, except when monopolies created excess profiteering.

If we bought food that was subject to the same market forces as the healthcare industry, everyone would starve except for the wealthy"

The lack of competition is created by government and the ACA limits competition more.

I don't know what the ACA is?

[Mainecoons]

Try looking it up for a change.

[Peter1469]

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.

[Dagny]

Try looking it up for a change.

I did http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSNF_enUS432US432&q=ACA

[Dagny]

"There's nothing wrong with the free market system, except when monopolies created excess profiteering.

If we bought food that was subject to the same market forces as the healthcare industry, everyone would starve except for the wealthy"

The lack of competition is created by government and the ACA limits competition more.
Please explain how the ACA limits competition, if we will have pools of insurers to choose from. If anything, the status quo limits comp, because we can't purchase insurance over state lines.

[Mainecoons]

Good. Late but good. Now go look up "most overpaid CEOs) and peruse the various references there. That will help you understand the general nature of the problem and get over the notion that healthcare is any worse than the rest.


Please explain how the ACA limits competition, if we will have pools of insurers to choose from. If anything, the status quo limits comp, because we can't purchase insurance over state lines.

Now that's a good question. I look forward to seeing the answer.

[Dagny]

Good. Late but good. Now go look up "most overpaid CEOs) and peruse the various references there. That will help you understand the general nature of the problem and get over the notion that healthcare is any worse than the rest.
I find there is a rampant problem on this board...not unlike some other boards. Some of you like to stray into minutia, and avoid the topic.

So far, the discussion went like this:

Me...for profit healthcare is a problem

You...profits are fairly low in the industry

Me...depends how you define profits...CEOs take a lot of money.

You...no worse than other CEOs.

Me...I agree, but we're discussing profits. CEO pay is deducted from profits.

You...Ins. company CEOs don't take any more than other CEOs.

Me...that's nice, but we're discussing profits in the healthcare industry.



You and I agree about CEO pay, but I have no problem with a CEO of a widget company taking huge pay/bonuses. I don't buy widgets. Or, I'll buy low priced widgets from China if I need one.

Further, If I own a company, I will take as much pay as I want.

The issue is insurance, not CEO pay across the board.

For profit healthcare has plenty of money for a variety of wasteful things, but no money to cover procedures, or lower rates?

[Conley]

When you add back in the CEO pay/bonuses above the 'norm' for CEOs across the board, lobbying costs, and excessive partying, the profits go way up.

Can you provide us with some real life examples and numbers to back this up? I'm not sure what you mean by 'excessive partying' either.

[Dagny]

Can you provide us with some real life examples and numbers to back this up? I'm not sure what you mean by 'excessive partying' either.
Some real life examples of CEO pay being deducted from gross receipts? Are you guys serious?

I'll make believe neither of you demanded proof of accounting 101 issues.

I've dated people who worked for insurance companies. They spent millions/year in parties. As well, they had board meetings in Switzerland, even though the boardroom in the brand new building would suffice.

Add to that the money that lobbyists spend on lavish affairs for Congressmen/women.

If you cannot find evidence of wasteful spending by lobbyists in the healthcare industry, then you aren't even trying.

I made the statement. Go ahead and prove that the healthcare industry doesn't spend countless millions on excess.

Just as many other industries do.

At issue, is the 'for profit' system. Medicare operates at a 3%-4% administrative cost.



In 30 seconds, I found this link. Yes...a blog, with a variety of links you can follow.

Many provide profit reports that are far more accurate than the ones the industry would prefer that you reference.
http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2011/05/18/the-truth-about-health-insurance-company-profits-theyre-excessive/


If you were genuinely interested, you'd do the research into the cost of lobbying during the healthcare debates.

Likewise, you'd study how many ex Congressmen, or the family of current Congressmen sit on boards of these insurance companies as 'advisors'.

This isn't rocket science. You merely have to WANT to know.

[Captain Obvious]

Can you provide us with some real life examples and numbers to back this up? I'm not sure what you mean by 'excessive partying' either.

It's the assumption by media-fed sheep that, when one CEO lives lavishly and excessively, they all do.

[Conley]

Dagny, your position is that if we add the CEO salary back into the net profit of the insurance company that the number will skyrocket. I'm dubious. I don't believe that CEO pay is such a high percentage of overall revenue that it would be the case. Shareholders and board members would object. As you yourself have said, the emphasis is on the bottom line. If it's as widespread as you say why not just pick a couple of insurance companies, their CEO salaries, and show us? All of those numbers are easily found in quarterly reports.

[Dagny]

Dagny, your position is that if we add the CEO salary back into the net profit of the insurance company that the number will skyrocket. I'm dubious. I don't believe that CEO pay is such a high percentage of overall revenue that it would be the case. Shareholders and board members would object. As you yourself have said, the emphasis is on the bottom line. If it's as widespread as you say why not just pick a couple of insurance companies, their CEO salaries, and show us? All of those numbers are easily found in quarterly reports.
You've been provided with a chart of CEO pay across the board. Did you read it?

[Dagny]

Did I say skyrocket?

[Dagny]

Edit post function is screwed up half the time.

[Dagny]

Did you bother to click on my link? The profit info is available if you want to read it

[Conley]

In order for CEO pay to be relevant to your position it must be looked at in terms of net revenue. If a CEO is making 15M a year and the company is making 300M in revenue, adding it back in isn't going to make a big difference.

[Conley]

Did you bother to click on my link? The profit info is available if you want to read it

I did click on it.

[Mainecoons]

Edit post function is screwed up half the time.

It is, isn't it. I've noticed that as well. Thought it was a gliche on my end.

Dagny, your source has an agenda. I don't find it credible. Sorry but I have to stick to the generally used reporting data from financial sources.

Dating someone isn't a credible source. Nice anecdote but not a credible source.

I think the problem here is that you are coming from a perspective of "everyone should have health care" regardless of ability to pay and you view normal business practices and pay levels in health care as excessive because you don't think people should profit from health care. That is your right but I believe it colors your perception of the industry fatally.

There is a big, big problem with health care costs in the U.S. CEO pay of insurers is pretty piddling next to the costs of liability insurance that doctors pay and also the cost of excessive testing done to try and avoid getting sued. The Canadian model looks good until you realize it is serving a small (35 million) homogeneous population that is notably healthier than that of the U.S. Nor do the Canadians allow the lawyers to use their medical care as a feed bag. Even at that, seems like a lot of Canadians come down here to Mexico for some health care rather than wait for it up there. Even so, I believe it is the best of the socialized medicine schemes. I seriously doubt, however, it would survive scaling up 10 times and dealing with a much less healthy population, particularly the underclass in America.

Ironically, RomneyCare and ObamaCare were largely written by a bunch of medical industry lobbyists. It is a real abortion IMO and needs to be abolished. Unfortunately, I think this political system is just going to produce more of the same.

[Conley]

What's wrong with the edit function? I haven't been having a problem with it.

[Mainecoons]

Sometimes, it just locks up and won't post the changes. About one third of the time. I don't have this problem with any other board.

[Mainecoons]

Let's take that one percent figure a little further.

Medicare loses 8 percent to fraud. Private insurers lose 2 percent. Now let's project Medicare losses, which are a demonstration of the government's inability to run that program to the standard set by private insurers, over all of medical care. I would say the 1 percent paid to the private guys is a good deal if it saves even double what they cost us, let alone four times as much.

[Conley]

Sometimes, it just locks up and won't post the changes. About one third of the time. I don't have this problem with any other board.

Thanks. Hmm. I'll keep an eye out for it.

[Mainecoons]

Just locked up again when I tried to add this to my above post.

This is the problem with Dagny's source, which is mostly an editorial rant against private insurers. They claim that eliminating their profits would save 384 billion over 10 years but they neglect to tell you how much the alternative, "management" by government would lose over the same time period.

I just don't understand how anyone can look at the U.S. Federal government, which is failing at every major task given to it other than offense (and it achieves its results there only with mega-waste) and conclude that this organization could run the nation's health care effectively. You have to really be over the top to ignore the reality of the performance of the U.S. Federal government and think it could handle this task when it can't even do a decent job with Medicare.

[Captain Obvious]

Might be time to upgrade the TSR-80.

[Mainecoons]

Vista computer. I had a Trash 80 many, many years ago. Man, at that time it blew the doors off of everything else and cost 5 times what the Windows 7 desktop with the terabyte hard drive just cost me. LOL

:grin:

[Dagny]

Dagny, your source has an agenda. I don't find it credible. Sorry but I have to stick to the generally used reporting data from financial sources.I said it was a blog, with many links that you could follow.

NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=1


Dating someone isn't a credible source. Nice anecdote but not a credible source.



Anecdotal...yes. Truth? Yes.

I think the problem here is that you are coming from a perspective of "everyone should have health care" regardless of ability to pay and you view normal business practices and pay levels in health care as excessive because you don't think people should profit from health care. That is your right but I believe it colors your perception of the industry fatally.I think the problem is you ascribe beliefs to my perspective, that don't exist.

I believe everyone should have the ability to buy insurance from a system that operates on a 3%-5% admin. cost. I'm happy to have a public option. You can have the private system.

Another problem, is that most have their health insurance as a part of a benefits package at work. That drives up costs, as people tend to run to the doctor for a runny nose, or a splinter.

We have a lot of common ground on the issue, save for the fact that we disagree on whether or not the populace benefits from a healthcare system that puts profits ahead of actual care.

[Dagny]

Let's take that one percent figure a little further.

Medicare loses 8 percent to fraud. Private insurers lose 2 percent. Now let's project Medicare losses, which are a demonstration of the government's inability to run that program to the standard set by private insurers, over all of medical care. I would say the 1 percent paid to the private guys is a good deal if it saves even double what they cost us, let alone four times as much.I suppose you could compare that to the expense every doctor's office incurs, keeping full staff just for insurance billing issues.

Part of Obama's healthcare plan was to cut down on Medicare fraud, and waste. I find that a reasonable idea across the board, especially w/SSI.

[Dagny]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/19/chris-van-hollen/rep-chris-van-hollen-says-insurance-company-profit/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/04/health-insurers-post-healthy-quarterly-profits-cautious-2011-outlook/



http://www.lundreport.org/resource/flagging_economy_doesn’t_dampen_health_insurers’_e xcessive_profits