toldailytopic: US House of Representatives pass Obama-care.

[Alate_One]

:think: Loophole.

Let's start a religion that has beliefs that go against having insurance. :idea:

You don't need to start one, its called Christian Science. :chuckle:

Personally I think if you use a religion loophole you should have to sign a form that says you must die on the streets rather than show up at the last minute to get treatment. Since technically health care of any sort should be against your religion . . . .

 

[drbrumley]

What effect do you think this bill will have on the people providing the actual care? Doctors, nurses, hospitals. If there are going to be a lot more insured people getting care, will the health care industry be able to handle it? And what will this increased demand do to prices?

It is not going to be pretty KMO. Many will leave the profession meaning shortages. As to yor question about can the system handle the new insured, this is a misnomer. Just because your not insured doesn't mean you don't get health care. And prices will continue to go up cause the government will not address the real reason for all the increases...our current financial system. In my view, these two topics are intertwined.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hey Townie, you do know the profit margin for almost all insurance companies is like 2.5%? I mean seriously, your whining about insurance profits at 2.5%.

Whining? :squint: Barbarian already beat me to the punch here, but seriously...ah, well. In point of fact I don't have to worry about health care any more than I have to fret over retirement. So I'm in a different position from most of the people talking about the issue. I don't have a real axe to grind. The system as is wouldn't stop me from getting whatever I needed.

As to the misleading bit about profit (excluding the more obvious difference between 2 and 6 percent) most consumers with means obtain insurance. Despite the fact that millions are without it, the vast majority of us have it and pay for it. If you have an essentially captive audience then a margin per customer can be lower and percentages won't give you the dollar picture. You make your money on volume. That other corporations make even more money is no real counter.

 

[Ktoyou]

It is not going to be pretty KMO. Many will leave the profession meaning shortages. As to yor question about can the system handle the new insured, this is a misnomer. Just because your not insured doesn't mean you don't get health care. And prices will continue to go up cause the government will not address the real reason for all the increases...our current financial system. In my view, these two topics are intertwined.

I seriously doubt any physicians will leave their profession, unless they are able to be movie stars and professional sports players.

 

[nicholsmom]

Whining? :squint: Barbarian already beat me to the punch here, but seriously...ah, well. In point of fact I don't have to worry about health care any more than I have to fret over retirement. So I'm in a different position from most of the people talking about the issue. I don't have a real axe to grind. The system as is wouldn't stop me from getting whatever I needed.

As to the misleading bit about profit (excluding the more obvious difference between 2 and 6 percent) most consumers with means obtain insurance. Despite the fact that millions are without it, the vast majority of us have it and pay for it. If you have an essentially captive audience then a margin per customer can be lower and percentages won't give you the dollar picture. You make your money on volume. That other corporations make even more money is no real counter.

So what do you think would be a reasonable margin?

 

[Ktoyou]

Whining? :squint: Barbarian already beat me to the punch here, but seriously...ah, well. In point of fact I don't have to worry about health care any more than I have to fret over retirement. So I'm in a different position from most of the people talking about the issue. I don't have a real axe to grind. The system as is wouldn't stop me from getting whatever I needed.

As to the misleading bit about profit (excluding the more obvious difference between 2 and 6 percent) most consumers with means obtain insurance. Despite the fact that millions are without it, the vast majority of us have it and pay for it. If you have an essentially captive audience then a margin per customer can be lower and percentages won't give you the dollar picture. You make your money on volume. That other corporations make even more money is no real counter.

I could say this:


Amgen (biotechnology): Profit margin, 30.6 percent
Gilead Sciences (biotechnology): 37.6 percent
Johnson & Johnson (drug manufacturer): 20.8 percent

Insurance companies need to cover this plus medical costs on that claim.

Insurance company industries 3% profit is also after they pay executive compensation; this is a cost (liability) on the balance sheet

True, they do make little on claims, but there real money is the healthy ones with no claims. yes, large pooled cost/benefit profit on sample claims, but they do not use full population revenue to show profits, just claims, then adjusted for that year, across the board. Keep in mind they are very smart.

Ok now the big one, Medicare, how game they manage it when they usually take assignment and Medicare pays far less than private insurance companies?

Reason? This has nothing at all to do with Medicaid going broke, that is paid from taxes. The issue here is the physicians and hospitals take a much lower payment.

But I will say that I have been in hospital, and services are about seven grand and so, far, I own about 200 bucks.
2014:dead:

 

[nicholsmom]

United Health
Revenue: $75,431,000,000
Profit: $4,654,000,000 (about 6%)

Other forms of insurance are far less lucrative. And it turns out that the stockholders are also getting taken:

California's Anthem Blue Cross justified its whopping 39 percent insurance premium hike by citing rising medical costs. But, it turns out, its parent company Wellpoint, Inc. has been spending tens of millions on large executive bonuses and fancy retreats.

According to congressional investigators, Wellpoint dished out over $1 million in bonuses to each of 39 executives, and spent at least $27 million on 103 lavish company trips, McClatchy reports.

The revelation throws something of a wrench into the claim by WellPoint's president and chief executive officer Angela Braly that the rake hikes were an effort to remain financially solvent, which she said before the House committee.

"Raising our premiums was not something we wanted to do," Braly said. "But we believe this was the most prudent choice given the rising cost of care and the problems caused by many younger and healthier policyholders dropping or reducing their coverage during tough economic times."

She claimed the company's decision was "actuarially sound and in full compliance with all requirements in the law."
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/ratehiking-blue-cross-spending-millions-bonuses-retreats/

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being siphoned off for executive playtime. Both the policyholders and shareholders are paying for this orgy of self-indulgence.

I hate being in the position of defending the health insurance industry - I hate the thing, and would much prefer it be outlawed altogether (by the states, of course). Still, what's wrong with executives making bonuses? What is wrong with the ones responsible for the health of a company getting the occasional boondoggle?

Do you deny the rising costs of health care? When the price tag increases, then the one paying the bills raises our portion of the payment. Why does that surprise us? The whole trouble is that when we pay our own bills, we can say "no, I'm not paying that much," and make a choice to go elsewhere, try a different route (cheaper test or procedure, or lifestyle change), or negotiate a more reasonable rate. When someone else foots the bill, we just sign on the dotted line and don't look back. So prices rise to meet what the third-party-payer market will bear - way, way too much.

Don't like the insurance industry? Neither do I, but as long as they are allowed to exist at all, we must treat them like any other business - executive bonuses and all.

 

[Alate_One]

I could say this:


Amgen (biotechnology): Profit margin, 30.6 percent
Gilead Sciences (biotechnology): 37.6 percent
Johnson & Johnson (drug manufacturer): 20.8 percent

I'm willing to bet biotech companies don't make all or even MOST of their money from health care. Those are the companies that milk public universities for research dollars.

 

[Ktoyou]

I'm willing to bet biotech companies don't make all or even MOST of their money from health care. Those are the companies that milk public universities for research dollars.

No they don't. Public universities get money to do research as grants, they do not have it to give.

Those companies sell what is researched within or without to the medical field in general. Yes they also make chemicals for other purposes, but that is besides the point.

Johnson & Johnson make mainly drugs and health care supplies.

 

[The Barbarian]

I hate being in the position of defending the health insurance industry

It's the republican thing to do.

I hate the thing, and would much prefer it be outlawed altogether (by the states, of course). Still, what's wrong with executives making bonuses?

What's wrong with handing executives tens of millions of dollars for doing so well, and then telling the public that they did so poorly that they need to raise rates by 39%? You really don't know?

What is wrong with the ones responsible for the health of a company getting the occasional boondoggle?

When it's stolen from the policyholders and shareholders, it's wrong. If they can improve the product and offer it at a better price, or make a higher profit, that's one thing. But when they squander millions on bonuses and parties, and then tell everyone how poor they are, that's another.

Do you deny the rising costs of health care?

Do I think all those millions siphoned off from the policyholders and shareholders had an effect? Yes, they did.

 

[Alate_One]

No they don't. Public universities get money to do research as grants, they do not have it to give.

What do you think grant money is used for? Most of it is used for equipment and supplies. Many Biotech companies charge ridiculous sums for their kits, enzymes and supplies. And those are the bread and butter of biotech research.

However biopharm drugs (which, apparently, is mostly what the companies you listed do) are some of the most insanely expensive on the market at current. Which is somewhat reasonable considering the far more complex manufacturing process but still probably overkill in terms of price. Its very hard to make "generic" versions of biopharm, which means a virtual permanent monopoly on them, which means big $$$ for the company.

Johnson & Johnson make mainly drugs and health care supplies.

Perhaps you haven't been to the store lately . . . :chuckle:

 

[Ktoyou]

What do you think grant money is used for? Most of it is used for equipment and supplies. Many Biotech companies charge ridiculous sums for their kits, enzymes and supplies. And those are the bread and butter of biotech research.

However biopharm drugs (which, apparently, is mostly what the companies you listed do) are some of the most insanely expensive on the market at current. Which is somewhat reasonable considering the far more complex manufacturing process but still probably overkill in terms of price. Its very hard to make "generic" versions of biopharm, which means a virtual permanent monopoly on them, which means big $$$ for the company.

Perhaps you haven't been to the store lately . . . :chuckle:

You can think what you want, I worked in a university, did research; grants come mainly from state funds.

Anyway, think what you want, I really do not care.

 

[Alate_One]

You can think what you want, I worked in a university, did research; grants come mainly from state funds.

Ours were mostly federal and occasionally corporate . . .it depends on the area of research you're talking about though. But in modern biotech basic research, you're talking federal dollars - which get channeled to those that supply equipment.

The point I'm making is the profit margins of those companies aren't all from healthcare spending.

Indeed the companies you mention are extremely specialized in their drug offerings. One is dedicated almost purely to anti-virals. Its not as if the vast majority of health care recipients are indirect customers of these companies.

I do still think it is simply wrong and overly problematic for insurance companies to make a profit, at all. That's what a lot of other industrialized nations decided, yet they still have competition.

 

[kmoney]

It is not going to be pretty KMO. Many will leave the profession meaning shortages. As to yor question about can the system handle the new insured, this is a misnomer. Just because your not insured doesn't mean you don't get health care. And prices will continue to go up cause the government will not address the real reason for all the increases...our current financial system. In my view, these two topics are intertwined.

Why do you think many will leave?

And I know that some of those without insurance still get care. However, I would think that those without insurance don't get a lot of the little stuff that insured people do and have insurance pay for. Now, with a lot more people insured, they will probably start using those benefits just like everybody else.

 

[drbrumley]

Why do you think many will leave?

Because the cost of doing business will go up.

And I know that some of those without insurance still get care. However, I would think that those without insurance don't get a lot of the little stuff that insured people do and have insurance pay for. Now, with a lot more people insured, they will probably start using those benefits just like everybody else.

We shall see I guess.

 

[TulipBee]

I'm embarrassed to say even the Buddhas treat people better than Christians. Grandmaster Fu Wei Zhong was the 13th lineage holder of the largest Buddhist sect in China. He came to America to train students. I'm one of the students.
I like the part in Micheal Moore's "SICKO" movie where he did an interview with a British (or was it Paris[?]) doctor. The doctor told him that the government pays him more if he convinces his patient to take tai chi or a healthy alternative art.
Well, that's the catch!
Instead of profit and money, they teach people to take care of themselves. I teach tai chi a free alternative to healthcare. I was told not to charge or accept donations. I wish Christians can be more like the Godless Buddhas when it comes to healthcare. We all should invest the ~time~ or 30%-75% of our income to treating people with love.
I'm sure theres evil in both plans of healthcare but I ~favor~ moving towards healing patients for FREE.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm gonna let this topic go one extra day since it seems to be at the top of everyone's mind.

 

[BabyChristian]

WOO HOO!!!
In your FACE conservatives.

Yeah in our face.

The people that work are getting screwed.

You are probably one of those life-time welfare recipients and this will benefit you that suck off of the workers.

 

[gsweet]

Yeah in our face.

The people that work are getting screwed.

You are probably one of those life-time welfare recipients and this will benefit you that suck off of the workers.

A couple of uncalled for remarks, BC. RRRwhatever's comment was useless, and yours is a sweeping, accusatory generalization.

Case in point: me. I'm a hard working graduate student who is about to enter the work force. I am by no means a welfare recipient, but I really will benefit from certain provisions within this bill. I've been draining my bank account for the last year living in the states by purchasing only catastrophic health insurance (which is a necessity in my field), and I'm pretty much down to nothing. Among other things, this bill will allow me to remain on my parents insurance policy for another 2 years! That's going to save me a lot of money. Once I have income, however, I will have no problem allocating some of it to providing benefits to people who are in my current position.

Not to be overly confrontational, BC, but what do you do for a living? Do you personally pay for your health insurance? Have you ever been in a situation where you couldn't afford health insurance?

 

[drbrumley]

A couple of uncalled for remarks, BC. RRRwhatever's comment was useless, and yours is a sweeping, accusatory generalization.

Case in point: me. I'm a hard working graduate student who is about to enter the work force. I am by no means a welfare recipient, but I really will benefit from certain provisions within this bill. I've been draining my bank account for the last year living in the states by purchasing only catastrophic health insurance (which is a necessity in my field), and I'm pretty much down to nothing. Among other things, this bill will allow me to remain on my parents insurance policy for another 2 years! That's going to save me a lot of money. Once I have income, however, I will have no problem allocating some of it to providing benefits to people who are in my current position.

Not to be overly confrontational, BC, but what do you do for a living? Do you personally pay for your health insurance? Have you ever been in a situation where you couldn't afford health insurance?

Another story of how the monetary system in country is a failure......

If you want to allocate some of your money to others in your situation, by all means. But don't force it thru theft of others.