Health care opposition
Pat Roberts, U.S. Senator
Monday, December 7, 2009
Health care is about the only issue the Senate will consider this month. My phone lines, fax lines and email in-box are full of commentary - overwhelmingly in opposition - from Kansans who don’t support these so-called reforms we are debating. I could not agree more. This $2.5 trillion bill will mean higher premiums, tax increases and Medicare cuts to pay for more government.
Seniors are particularly at risk. This bill slashes half a trillion dollars from Medicare, and uses it to establish a huge new government entitlement program. These cuts will hurt Medicare beneficiaries, our Kansas seniors who have worked their entire lives with the promise that this program would support them through their older age.
Cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and other providers of health care is not what I envisioned for health care reform. Medicare already pays our doctors and hospitals well below fair market costs. More cuts to reimbursements, coupled with the massive increase to Medicaid this bill assumes, will push these limits. It will mean that fewer doctors will open their doors to new Medicare patients, and health care access and quality for our seniors will be compromised. The expansion of Medicaid element is another harmful effect of this bill, further burdening states at a time of economic uncertainty.
The $105.5 billion cuts to hospitals will greatly harm our hospitals in Kansas. In true Washington fashion, national hospital organizations agreed to these cuts during the closed-door negotiations, but when I asked the Kansas Hospital Association to run the numbers on how this reform bill would affect Kansas hospitals’ bottom lines, their outside experts found that it would result in nearly $1.5 billion in losses to Kansas hospitals by 2019. That is devastating. The national groups seem to have made the calculation that these losses would be at least partially offset by potential reductions in hospitals’ uninsured patient populations. But I am not willing to gamble with the financial health of our hospital safety net on a matter of such huge consequence.
A former Congressional Budget Office Director recently wrote, this bill is “fiscally dishonest,” and it uses “every budget gimmick and trick in the book.” In short, this isn’t reform that patients need or want.
I offered amendments in the Finance Committee’s consideration of this bill that would have struck these Medicare cuts. Unfortunately, my amendments to protect our Kansas seniors were voted down on party-line procedural votes. This week I spoke in strong support of a similar effort by Senator John McCain to remove these harmful Medicare cuts from the current bill. Unfortunately this was also voted down. I will continue to do everything I can to stop these devastating cuts.
Let me be clear: I remain committed to responsible health care reform that improves access to affordable insurance and health care for all Americans. I want to protect the benefits of millions who would like to keep the coverage they have. However, this bill is irresponsible and funded on the backs of our seniors by slashing Medicare by a half-trillion dollars, raising taxes and expanding Medicaid. This bill aims to control the government’s spending on health care by rationing your access to that care. I will oppose it at every opportunity.
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
You don't even have half your figures right, or cite your sources. It's easy to make claims, and I would eagerly look into them with an open mind if you could just point me to where you garnered them.
December 7, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
I watched C-SPAN. I looked at bills on line. I agree with Pat.
December 7, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I also looked at the bills online, and the analysis of them by many different outlets, and I am still having a hard time deciphering what is propaganda and what is fact in this article.
December 7, 2009 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
Fair enough. I don't have his e-mail address handy, but you could always call him on it.
December 7, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kansasgirl (anonymous) says...
I have worked in the medical billing profession for over 20 years. What I don't understand is why we are not going after the insurance companies just like we did the big banks. An office staff of 5 people with spouses and children paid roughly $40,000 per year in insurance premiums. All of us rarely used our insurance for more than yearly checkups. Now multiply that by many more offices that only require minimal medical care and keep multiplying it. The insurance company is making more money off of healthy people than they are paying out on sick individuals. The same thing applies to all insurance for that matter. We pay car, auto, health, life. How often do you make a claim on any of these? How much do you think the CEO of Aetna or United Healthcare get paid yearly. Do you know they make more than most cardiothoracic (heart/lung) surgeons I have worked for as well as other physicians, yet these individuals (CEO, CFO, etc) did not have to go to school for over twelve years (depending on their specialty). Why aren't we taking a harder look at what the insurance companies are paying their executives? Just what kind of profit are these companies making from all the people who pay large premiums without really using the insurance itself? These are the questions I would like to see answered. These are the questions we should be asking to really have any type of healthcare reform. Think about it. Add up the figures. Who do you think is really making the big bucks when it comes to healthcare?
December 7, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
kansasgirl, here is an answer to at least one of your questions:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc...
You'll see that healthcare insurance profit margins come in at #86 industry-wide, while healthcare facilities and drug companies are all much higher up the list.
You and your friends may claim little or nothing on your insurance, but it only takes one person with some major medical problem (surgery, transplant, etc) to blow that all out of the water. Wish I wasn't, but I've been one of those people lately. I'm sure I've more than taken up the slack....... unfortunately......
December 7, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Sunday on national TV Barry was asked if he would be subject to the same insurance. He never answered, (No it wasn't FOX)
Later Congressmen and Senators were asked the same.
Guess what?
They're all exempt and get to keep what they now have!!!!!!!!!
If it isn't good enough for them why should we settle for less?
December 7, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma,
2 questions for you, why do you always call him Barry instead of just the President. and secondly, do you really expect people that are or are about millionaires to have the same level of health care coverage that the average joe does? Everyone with the same health care plan sounds a bit like, well socialism=)
December 7, 2009 at 10:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
kansasgirl, to clarify, its not that I totally disagree with you, I'm just not sure we're targeting the right things.
Another example: 50 people can pay $600/year car insurance ($30,000 total). It only takes one $30,000 car totalled to eat all of that up. And then some since there is overhead and other expenses within the insurance industry itself.
Now, I totally agree on the CEO thing - as I've said before on these boards, 20 years ago when the multiple of CEO salary to employee average was 30-40, I would not have agreed, but now that it is 400x and rising it has gotten ridiculously out of hand for the top executives. And as you correctly point out - their worth in my estimation is not nearly that of a top cardiologist or something similar.
But from what I've investigated into things I'm not sure targeting the insurance companies themselves is the big reason for expenses (outside of CEO's & top execs, but that is a problem business-wide, not just this industry). As the figures show, it looks like drug companies are the ones making a ton of $$ off of us by comparison. There was another study I posted earlier where they figured the profit for health insurance companies averaged out per American came to..... $98 per person per year. In other words... if the insurance companies made 0 profit and just broke even, overall the average person's insurance would go down only $98/year. If those figures are in error I will recant but that is what Ifound. Now being in the medical billing field I am sure you have some insights I do not have but I can tell you that the last few years and especially recently my insurance has had to pay way, way, way more than I have ever paid in, so I'm one of those eating up the profits.
A little further breakdown on health insurance profits can be found on down below the industry rankings list here:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/10/h...
And tbluma, I also saw that segment. Interesting how the media seems to for the most part ignore it....
December 7, 2009 at 11:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, I don't mean to answer your question to tbluma for him but that is a good point. I think its a mindset these days (which I tend to agree with) that as those of us at the lower end are seeing wages and benefits steadily eroded during these tough times, we feel those on the upper end should share some reduction as well. Kindof like when the company loses alot of money & cuts wages, lays off employees, it would be nice to see the top dogs bite the bullet a little and receive a little less compensation as well (even if mostly only symbolically) at least until things turn around but instead, for every 1,000 jobs cut and $5,000/year they cut the employee wages they seem to give themselves another $5 million bonus.
I don't mind the top living high off the hog when things are good from top to bottom but it would just be nice to see the top have to cut back a little when the bottom is suffering. But nowadays there seems to be absolutely no connection between the two :(
December 7, 2009 at 11:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Besides......Obama is (by his own admission) a proponent of "wealth redistribution", right? Perhaps he should practice what he preaches?
(And NOT the way that Al Gore does it - LOL)
December 7, 2009 at 11:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Wealth redistribution has been happening for awhile now, it's all been distributed to the wealthy for awhile now, so much so that at current pace something will have to give. I'm not for taking from the rich to give to the poor, but I am not for taking form the poor and giving to the rich either. The rich are going to have shoulder a higher tax burden if they continue to choke out the middle and lower classes, which in a roundabout way is redistribution, it's unavoidable with the evaporating middle class.
In regards to what you said about benefits and wages, I see your point but it is still a moot when you consider someone on a higher pay grade will make more and have better benefits regardless of whether they scale them back or not, that is just the way it is. I mean everyone is up in arms about socialism right?
Lastly, it looks more and more like medicare and medicaid will now likely be expanded:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12602...
thus making Pat Roberts claims on that null and void, basically there are so many holes in this propaganda piece that those that care to engage and be informed on what is going on will see it for what it is.
December 8, 2009 at 2:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That may be, goodoleboy (I especially agree with your first paragraph) - but I still say its akin to the head of GM going on national TV and talking for a half hour about their latest super-duper hybrid rolling off the assembly line and urging all of America to buy it because it will be SOOOO good for us all. And then when being asked if he would drive one himself saying "HECK no, I wouldn't trust my life in that flimsy tin can deathtrap for anything".............. ;-)
December 8, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Goodole boy;
Barry is easier to type than the President.
Yes everyone having the same health care program does sound like socialism. That's one reason I'm not in favor of it.
I like the health care I have. I don't think we need a national plan there is already medicaid and medicare. Why not just use that and let the insurance alone. Yes insurance is high but that could be fixed by some tort reform and by letting insurance companies sell across state lines thereby having more competition.
Having said that I still wonder why the congressmen, senators etc etc won't be subject to the same insurance. If it's so good for us then it should be good for them also.
Which leads me back to Barry. He doesn't (IMO) respect the wishes of a great many people including mine. He is hell bent to get national health care and cap and trade. He and the rest of his crowd don't care what it's going to cost us or future generations. He doesn't respect us so why show him any better?
Of course that is just my opinion which is probably construed as negative so this may get jerked.
December 8, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Goes more to a quality issue with GM rather than the "hybrids are good" mentality. They produced some poor machines, and did not have the foresight to offer vehicles that would be in demand. Only now is Ford making headway back into the market buy offering fuel efficient cars that WORK. Tell me this thought, what CEO of a company that size actually drives himself to work=)
tbluma,
He is the President, and he did win with in a landslide thus the people of this nation do or did respect him. People voted for Bush's second term and regretted it but they still called him President. You look at the latest gazette poll on the troop deployment, take Obama's name out of that poll and I bet you a cold one that it turns to a resounding yes. It's cool to disagree with the guy, but not giving him an iota of respect is not. You could at least give him "Obama" could you not?=)
December 8, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Posted by seriouslyfolks December 8, 2007
"It's cool to disagree with the guy, but not giving him an iota of respect is not. You could at least give him "Bush" could you not?=)"
Wow, weird.
R.
December 8, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
I don't remember the vote being a landslide but if you say so.
There a many polls that show his health care is not wanted but he chooses to push anyway.
Some the czars he has appointed along with his secretaries are very questionable when it comes to right or wrong. Tax cheats to name one.
His choice of friends before and now. The preacher and the terrorist to name two.
That leaves me little to respect. If I were in the armed forces I would seriously think of retirement rather than have to salute him, but if it would make me sound less negative I'll think about the Obama part.
By the way I have voted in every election since I was 18 so I believe that gives me the right to disagree. Now if I never voted different story.
I hope I proof read this good enough to please our San Fransican. Wouldn't want him to think I lived in Kansas much less Emporia.
December 8, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Lead by Example, I like to say. I'm much more likely to have faith is someone who leads by example than someone who says "Do As I Say, Not As I Do".
Other than my occasional references to Obama as "The Chosen One" or "Messiah" I try to be respectful. He is still my president and I think the office deserves respect - much more than Bush got for most of the last 5 years or so. Whether or not I respect him personally or the job he is doing I still try to respect the office and the person in it.
SeriouslyRFolks - right on. Very wierd. I rarely ever saw anyone refer to Bush in a very respectful way in the last few years. Oh well.
December 8, 2009 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma,
Yes it was a landslide:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/resu...
Polls do not show that health care reform is not wanted, in fact it is quite the opposite. The great divide is how we go about it.
I don't know of a president that has not had a some skeletons in his closet when it comes to his cabinet and advisers. Did you forget about what happend during the Bush presidency already? Before that?
Bush's family has business ties to the Bin Laden family does that automatically make him a bad guy? Guilt by association is a slippery slope, one that you include just about every sitting president in.
You sure do have the right to disagree, I and many others did with our last sitting President, hell I don't agree with everything this one is doing either. But we live in a country where the majority rules, and just because the candidate that you backed lost does not mean you should respect the winner any less, I had a hard time respecting a lot of what the last administration did, but unlike all those idiots that claim Bush is Satan and Obama is Hitler I have a level of respect for our leader, and it's too bad currently that it has denigrated to the point it has, boiling point seems to be less and less.
December 8, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
d17 (anonymous) says...
Senator Roberts is concerned about Medicare? Really? Was he not in the Senate when the Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent the passage of Medicare in the first place? Is he not part of the party that has tried, unsuccessfully, to repeal or greatly reduce Medicare coverage several times? Is that the same Pat Roberts? Seems like he's been in the Senate for a hundred years. Time he went wherever old Senators go. And yes, Senators and Congressman should get to enjoy the exact same health care coverage the rest of us have. And pay for it themselves just like the rest of us do.
December 8, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes.......in your response to kansasgirl you talked about the loss of one thirty thousand dollar car wiping out the premiums collected from fifty policy holders for a year,
Technically that is correct as far as it goes.....But you also know, or should know, that premiums account for a very small percentage of the income derived by insurance companies. In fact if they lived on premiums alone they would almost certainly go broke, Insurance company profits come from the world wide investments made off of those premiums and money from those investments account for much more income to the companies than the premiums alone. Some of those investments are of the very shady type that AIG (an insurance umbrella company) received a little government health care for itself in the form of government bail-outs. And yes I know I'm not supposed to be here but a boycott is only as effective as many people make it.....and I did cancel my subscription so I will probably be bounced soon.
December 8, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well now that's interesting, biscuitboy - I had not heard that. So I did some digging, and what I found pretty much says...... exactly the opposite.
Here's a study breaking down the profits of Wellpoint, one of the nations largest health insurance carriers, formed from a merger of Blue Cross of California & Indiana. Very good explanation of where the money comes from and goes in this article from the NY Times:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/200...
They say 93% of their revenue comes from premiums.
"Revenues: According to WellPoint’s income statement for 2008, the company’s total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees’ health benefits and bear full risk for them).
Revenue From the “Float”: About 1 percent of WellPoint’s total revenue came from a category simply called “other revenue.” For the most part this probably comes from interest earned on the “float.” An insurer’s “float” is the money temporarily on hand when premium payments come in earlier than the outlays for insurance claims covered by these premiums.
In times when interest rates are high, an insurer’s float can be a major source of revenue, which is why sometimes health insurers stand accused of deliberately dragging out claims processing, strictly to increase the size of the float at any point in time.
As the Federal Reserve has lowered short-term interest rates to close to zero, however, the interest earned on an insurer’s float is now trivial — as it is in WellPoint’s case — meaning that more costs must be recovered through premiums."
I also followed the link for Aetna and United HealthGroup from the article - revenue from insurance premiums for them was in the same neighborhood.
But even if you were right, biscuitboy - what happens when those investments lose money?
I know someone in the insurance industry. (One of our major well-known companies, you would recognize it but I won't divulge). His company sells all kinds of insurance, but they try to stay out of health insurance (they will sell it, but they'd rather not - they don't push it - they prefer to concentrate on auto/home). Why? He says they can't make any money off of it - the profit margins are too slim. So they prefer to concentrate on other more profitable areas.
December 8, 2009 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I am not an expert in business and finance but if I am to be expected to believe that a company sat on $61,579.2 million..... (whatever that means)......and did nothing else but invest a little of it in a passbook savings account then you are expecting me to believe a lot. If that is indeed the case then what were all those investment programs that AIG were being bailed out for. In addition, 2008 was a year when the economy was tanking.....(and insurance programs were seeking said bailouts).......so maybe most of their revenue that year was from premiums because they had lost the rest of it......Hmmmmm.
Also if your friend is so correct about it being so hard to make any profit in health care then why are all of these companies fighting so hard to keep their cash cow. You would think they would be begging the government to take this loser off their backs.
December 9, 2009 at 4:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
I am still confused about this figure you used 61,579.2 million. Unless my good ole Emporia Public Schools arithmetic is failing me what that actually means is slightly over 61 billion, 579 million dollars. Now if that is what it meant why didn't they say that. If that is not what it meant then please tell me what it does mean.
If it does mean 61 and a half billion dollars then are you suggesting to me that they just set around with that money in a drawer waiting for some policyholder to make a claim...so they can then open the magic drawer and take out the money. I think not. Now I don't know what they were calling what on this thing that you provided.....but I assure you premium money is invested in a wide variety of things thereby returning additional money to the company. To not do that would be stupid. JMO
December 9, 2009 at 5:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Now even if this thing is totally accurate...and coming from the New York Times I will assume that it is accurate if not well-defined......even your source admits that revenue gained from the float can at times be substantial. So weather you call it investments of the premiums......or interest on the float.....in good times, it can be substantial. 2008 was not good times.
December 9, 2009 at 6:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I would also be interested to know just how much of the revenue figure given...(whatever it actually is) was paid out during that period as claims...and what part was paid out as other operating expenses? There appears to me to be more not said here than said.
December 9, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I am not an expert in business and finance either, and you are free to believe what you want. I merely presented the data. As the article states, the info comes from the 10-K.
"Income statements are part of the annual reports called a 10-K that every publicly traded company must submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The virtue of the 10-K is that it is fully audited by the company’s external auditors, formally approved by the board, certified to be accurate by the firm’s chief executive and chief financial officer, and strictly supervised for accuracy and honest disclosure by the S.E.C."
I'm also a little unclear as to what you are trying to say. The 61xxx figure is their total revenue for the year.
"The Health Benefit Ratio (alias Medical Loss Ratio): WellPoint’s payments for health benefits in 2008 equal the sum of what it calls “health benefits” ($47,742.4 million) and the “cost of drugs” ($468.5 million).
Together these health benefits came to $48,210.9 million. As a fraction of total premium revenue of $57,101.0 million in 2008, total health benefits amounted to 84.4 percent of premium revenue."
Now I was not aware that all insurance premiums were paid on Jan 1 of each year and the company got to "sit around on it" all year and wait for claims to come in. (Personally, I pay insurance monthly). But as the 10K stated about 1% of their revenue comes from "the float" (or money lying around).
In all of this I was just merely trying to verify your claim that "premiums account for a very small percentage of the income derived by insurance companies." - which I found to be false. And I learned some more in the process.
As for AIG, I really don't know or understand what goes on there. They appear to be what is called an "umbrella insurance company" - with operations in 130 different countries and jurisdictions. And it doesn't seem like health insurance is that big a part of their business so I'm not sure what they have to do with this discussion. This is what I found concerning AIG's business:
"The four main areas of business are General Insurance (commercial, industrial and personal lines of property and casualty insurance as well as mortgage guaranty business), Life Insurance and Retirement Services (individual and group life insurance and fixed and variable annuities), Financial Services (aircraft finance, capital markets services, consumer finance and insurance premium finance) and Asset Management (institutional, retail and private fund management). Foreign operations accounted for about 50% of total revenues in 2004. Life Insurance and Retirement Services accounted for about 51.5% of 2004 operating income, General Services about 19.7%, Financial Services 17.1% and Asset Management 11.7%."
December 9, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As for my friend being "so correct", as you put it - I have no idea. I'm just recanting what he told me. Health insurance is the least profitable part of what they sell. But they also don't specialize in it. Just because selling pizza by the slice might happen to be the least profitable part of a sports bar's business (I'm sure their real cash cow is liquor sales) doesn't mean they are begging customers to buy their pizza elsewhere and bring it into their bar to eat. Other chains specialize in pizza only and happen to do quite well I hear ;-)
Also (I know this sounds sarcastic but I honestly do not mean it to be) from tne questions you ask it is clear you did not read the article, as some of the answers were plainly stated there (such as how much was paid out in claims). Might I suggest it as a starting point.
December 9, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
This is the link explaining what AIG does and where they get their revenue (and where I got the snippet above). It appears they not only derive very little of their revenue from health insurance but, as stated above, derive at least half their income from overseas operations so again I don't see what they have to do with this discussion. As my friend states, their other areas of insurance are much more profitable than their health insurance.
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/revie...
December 9, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
But my friend I did read the article and to me much of what it said was clear as mud. As to my questions about the income figure I am curious why it is written that way. Is 61,579 million not 61 billion 579 million dollars if it isn't that then how many dollars is it? What number is 61,579 million.
Of course they do not get theie money on the first of January...but they also do not pay it all out then......that as described in the article that i didn't read is the float. The float that he and you both said can amount to significant amounts of revenue. Now I may have been off base in calling it the majority of their income.....but you are equally wrong in implying that they operate almost totally off their premiums. Now taking the figures you have provided as total revenue for the year at 61,579 million......minus total premium revenue of 57,101 million.....leaves 4,478 million in revenue from some apparently undisclosed source.
Also using figures you provided then the sixteen per cent difference between total premium revenue and health benefit cost amounts to 9, 852.6 million. Combine that with the 4,478 million in total revenue from an undisclosed source for a total revenue surplus of 14,331 million for the year....or 14 billion, 331 million dollars in my way of stating it. Now that's not chump change.....so investment of even part of that much money.....if continued on from year to year would add up to a significant asset for said company. Right?
December 9, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I never claimed to be talking about specifically health care insurance anyway. I was talking about insurance as a whole which you introduced into the equation with your 30-thousand dollar car analogy.
December 9, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
After rereading this piece again and looking at what is going on currently in the debate and the figures he mentions versus what the CBO and various fact checking sites say all I can say is where is Joe Wilson when I need him. It's no wonder American trust car salesman more than Congressmen nowadays.
Interesting debate you 2 have going above, but sorting through that mess is like finding a needle in a haystack, I would just defer to agree that how those entities function simply cannot be sorted out by just 1 or 2 people lol=)
December 9, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
After reflecting on this while thawing out my truck doors for about twenty minutes so I could venture out to the grocery store...it occurred to me that we are talking about apples and oranges......and it is mainly my fault. I started talking about yearly revenue when I was actually thinking total assets. The holdings derived from the investments made are usually carried over from year to year and would not count as annual revenue received. What I was thinking...and should have been saying.....was total assets of these companies, which is a lot different than annual premium revenue.
December 9, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree goodoleboy. Far too complicated for most mortals to comprehend.......especially after only reading a few paragraphs on the subject.
December 9, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I have no idea why they report the numbers in that fashion. My guess is that it is standard practice for these reports to report the numbers in millions. That way nobody can accidentally mistake million for billion. Sounds like a common practice since the 2 words are so alike - only 1 letter difference.
Also, it was clearly stated "and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure". Its all there in the article. Also if you follow the links to the actual 10-K you can see more detail that may answer your questions.
I don't disagree with you at all that the profit is not chump change. If I had a web site where each American only gave me $1/per year......... I'd still end up with an income of over $300 million per year. Yes, it adds up.
You are right - I brought up car insurance just as an easy example. But the thread was about health care and therefor health insurance. As my insurance friend states other insurance areas are MUCH more profitable than the health sector.
I guess to sum up what I am trying to say is thus: Yes, something needs to be done to fix health care. Even though I'm happy with my current insurance I see costs continuing to spiral out of control with no end in sight. So I want as much as anyone else to find the root causes of this runaway train and fix it. And much like most people, politicians started immediately yelling about insurance companies and I jumped on the train with most others and agreed. But the more I dig into it and uncover, the more it appears that insurance is not the primary root cause of this. I'm saying maybe it would be much more beneficial to look at WHY insurance premiums are skyrocketing, WHAT is driving them up, and HOW do we fix it. As I've said before, (and the data supports it), the profit for health insurance companies averages out to $98 per American per year. I really don't see where dropping everyones premiums $98 per year is going to help that much.
And that's all I'm saying.
As goodoleboy says, its a needle in a haystack. From what I'm finding, it appears many people are concentrating on the wrong haystack.
December 9, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I just had to get in on this one !
Guys/Gals, not to throw a monkey wrench into the mathmatical equasions discussed here, but are those large dollar figures you are bantering around, before or after the Insurance Company CEOs have been paid their wages, incentives, bonuses and stock options ?
Because as I recall some of these CEO total pay package could eat up a lot of those numbers !
December 9, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, I'm not even sure where/how total assets figure into it. I guess maybe we could force the insurance companies to operate at a loss each year until we eat up all the extra assets and they are essentially back to using their premium revenues only.
As to what a business does with their profits once they make them, I have no control over that. I guess if a company makes $1 for a given year, but buys the winning lottery ticket with their $1 profit, then they should immediately cut all their costs until the lottery winnings are gone? Not sure I understand.
I guess I come back to my original point - from what I am finding out, and getting verified by people within the industry, health care insurance is not that profitable overall when compared to industry averages. That doesn't mean it doesn't add up to huge numbers - but that the margin is very slim. You know, they could double their profits just by doubling their $98/per person/per year profit to $196/per year/per person. The companies would DOUBLE their profit margin, and that would add up to billions overall...... but I doubt raising everyone's insurance $98/year is going to really matter much. I wouldn't even probably notice the roughly $8/month increase. So just because company A manages to invest their profits and get rich, how does that affect smaller company B that doesn't? Should they operate at a loss so Company A's profits from other investments can be eaten up? I'm just not sure I really understand what we are trying to say here......
December 9, 2009 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
methusla - that's a different point alltogether that I totally agree with. AND.... stated exactly that earlier on this thread.
CEO/executive compensation in this country has gotten WAY, WAY out of hand. And needs to be "corrected". IMO.
It doesn't make sense that (for a simple example) that company A can make $50 million profit in a given year, and pay the ceo and top execs say, 10 million of that for a net profit of 40 million. The very next year they are exactly as profitable, make another 50 million, but now they're going broke because after paying the same top execs 80 million they have a net loss of 30 million. And their answer is to cut jobs and salaries of the workers to recoup the money. They are nothing but greedy criminals. IMO.
December 9, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Ah -Ha.......we have found something we agree on open_eyes......I guess miracles do happen after all....lol
December 9, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
But only the SECOND time I stated it on this thread - LOLOLOL
(December 7, 2009 at 11:07 p.m., 3rd paragraph and beginning of 4th)
jus teasin' ;-)
Some people on these boards want a "reply to" button. I need a "repeat myself" button. - LOL
December 9, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I did actually notice it the first time but then I was more interested in the other topic that you raised in that post when you based the apparent financial health of the business only on its premiums received/claims paid spread. I thought that was an overly simplistic way to look at it and still do. Their real financial strength lies in their sizable holdings and assets.....much of which is significantly harder to obtain and learn from.
December 9, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
This may be quite ironic timing, but I just listened to a segment of a radio show where callers called in to ask questions about the health care bill. One of the questions was basically exactly the point brought up here earlier, along the lines of "everyone is saying the insurance companies are just raping the people and driving up health costs". The answer was pretty much exactly the same as I found above. It was also mentioned that companies such as AIG had nothing to do with any of it, and no health insurance companies (Wellpoint & Aetna were even mentioned by name) received any TARP money.
If I ever find it online or it appears I'll post a link to the audio.
Actually I never meant to imply that the financial health of the company was based only on its premiums and claims spread. As I said, I have no idea or control over how a company invests its profits. And I have no idea if all companies invest their profits broadly or not. Do they all? To the same extent? If insurance company A owns a tidy little mutual fund company over here on the side that is making them lots of $$, can you guarantee competitor B is making the same money on the side? What if they are losing money on the side?
Again, I'm simply replying to the amount of revenue that comes from premiums, and the profit margin. For health insurance companies only. I don't know what financial dealings they do outside that with their profits nor am I sure what it has to do with the above.
If you'd care to read thru Wellpoints history and so on to see if you can gleam some holding information here is some info:
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/compan...
December 9, 2009 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Since we both seem to be talking in circles around each other with neither quite seeing the point the other is getting at let me try a simple example scenario to see if I can make it clearer:
Company A and competing Company B both manufacture and sell the same widgets. Each widget costs them approx $1 to make, and they sell them for approx $1.05 for a profit margin of 5%. It varies from year to year, the price of ingredients such as steel, trucking/distribution, etc, go up and down, and they have their occasional price wars, but year in and year out they each make about 5% profit.
Now the owner of company A takes his profits one year and goes gold prospecting. He strikes a major find and becomes a billionaire many times over.
Does Company A immediately start selling all their widgets at a huge loss? (Well, they might, just to try to drive company B out of business, but what I am saying is the business model itself has not changed).
What if the owner of company A gambled all his profits away and became deeply in debt? Does he double the price for his widgets to make up for what he lost in other areas not related to his widget business? (Yes, he might try, but since company B was not so stupid they end up will all company A's customers and company A goes out of business).
So you are probably correct, I'm sure many companies diversify and have many other holdings outside their core business, but those companies also usually shut down parts of their business that are not profitable and concentrate on those that are. And you have shown me no guarantee that every health insurance company is making tons of money on the outside which enables them to continue no matter how the health insurance business is doing. Once can speculate all day about how rich the companies are because of their holdings in a South African diamond mine or something else but I still fail to see what that has to do with the business model of health insurance companies regarding premiums, revenues, and profit margins.
December 9, 2009 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes,
I will quote you on this one:
"What if the owner of company A gambled all his profits away and became deeply in debt? Does he double the price for his widgets to make up for what he lost in other areas not related to his widget business? (Yes, he might try, but since company B was not so stupid they end up will all company A's customers and company A goes out of business)."
No No No, company A gets bailed out, uses the money to stage a hostile takeover of company B, then it charges double the price for the widgets and extends lines of credit at a %30 APR with bailout money to further screw the people that bailed them out in the first place and take those profits to payback the bailout and hire lobbyists to juice them in further so they can start the whole process over again!
Got it? LOL!!
December 9, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, I gotta hand it to you - in the real world, your scenario is probably easily the most likely!!!!
(Unfortunately)
LOL ;-)
December 9, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
LOL
"To big to fail"
The new business strategy!
Funny thing about that, last I heard a company gets that big does the words antitrust and monopoly not come to mind? Or is it just me?
December 9, 2009 at 9:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think our current mantra is to grow government as big and fast as possible. Then it will be irreversable - "too big to fail".
So I think it might be our new "government" strategy. I could also replace the words antitrust and monopoly with a certain term bandied about often these days but I think its pretty easy to guess ;-)
December 9, 2009 at 11:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
After reams of wrangling all around the issue...I am so glad to hear you finally say those magic words...."so you are probably correct". That is the point I was making from the very beginning when you were trying so hard to make me wrong. These companies take their profits (like fourteen and a half billion dollars a year and invest and diversify. They would be foolish if they didn't and would probably fold soon. And those assets must be considered in the overall health of the company.....not just some year to year comparison of receipts v. payouts. My mistake was the initial use if the wrong terminology.
It's none of my business but I would l love to know if you work for an insurance company. Maybe that's why you are so defensive of them. I don't mind telling you why I'm so antagonistic towards them......because of the times I have been screwed by them.
December 10, 2009 at 4:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
No open_eyes I have offered you no proof that health insurance companies are doing so well.....but you have also offered me no proof that they are going broke either. Common sense and logic however would tell me if the health insurance game is so marginal why are they all staying in? Why don't they just shut it down as you yourself suggested companies do with the losers in their portfolios, and welcome the government to take the loser over?
In fact that was already done with Medicare when the government got to take the elderly......(ones with high medical cost and low incomes).......and Medicaid....(ones with no incomes).......over. Leaving only the younger ones with low medical cost and higher incomes for the insurance companies to profit from. Sounds like a sweetheart deal to me.......then we can all gripe about our taxpayer dollars the government is spending to take care of those losers the insurance companies didn't want in the first place.
December 10, 2009 at 5:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
No, I don't work in the insurance industry - as I often stated, I am in IT.
Actually, in a way I did state the companies were doing ok - not a single health insurance company took or needed bailout money from TARP. Also an industry profit margin that is greater than 0 means profitable. If they were ALL going broke, the profit margin would be a negative number.
As for wanting to protect profits, who wouldn't? Regardless of whether it was large or small, do you know anyone that willingly says I'll go from being profitable to break even or losing money? Would they stay in business long if they did? Their margins may be very thin, but they add up. Common sense should tell you that. One thing about slim profit margins however - they are much more susceptible to not being able to weather downturns and problems than huge margins. I grew up on a farm - I can tell you many years profit margins are slim or nonexistent. But my family never quit just because the margins were slim. Why should they have? That argument just really doesn't make sense....
I did notice in scanning thru WellPoints history that some of the companies were deeply in debt. It stated Blue Cross ran a $55 million deficit the year they formed Wellpoint. It didn't mention that it was ok since they made $100 million that year from their South African diamond mines or anything like that. The next year they managed to avoid insolvency only by selling off their HMO unit. I don't understand why the sideline diamond mine income made that necessary. ;-)
"They would be foolish if they didn't and would probably fold soon".
Hmmm.... sounds like you recognize that solvency and profits are precarious for an industry with slim margins. And what if those other investments don't pan out? Are you willing to have your rates skyrocket just because things totally unrelated to the industry don't pan out?
That's the beauty of the free market system. Lots of companies can diversify, etc...... but no matter what they do on the side, profit or loss..... they have to stay competitive in their rates with their competition. So they don't get to run their rates up and down like a yo-yo based on how their lottery winnings on the side are panning out. Because not every company in competition with them is playing the same lottery. Or invested in the same diamond mine.
December 10, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
After more reflection and rereading the article I didn't read...:-).....I think both of us were a little shaky about the float. The float is not the difference between premiums received and claims paid over a set period like a year. The float is the cash on hand from premiums received up to the present and claims paid up to the present......and as such could change on an almost minute by minute basis. So could the size of the float...ranging from minuscule to non-existent at times......all the way up to very large amounts of money. When invested in short-term interest bearing accounts that float.....when very large is where the significant size comes from as stated by the author of your link. And that income would also be over and above the figures I used earlier.
December 10, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And when it is small....... that is the point. You admit yourself it can change on a minute-by-minute basis... and could be non-existent.
We all understand business to some extent. We all know that just because one month for instance, the float is large, we can't just all run to the casino and gamble it away when we know other months will be shaky....... and that is the 10-K. Their yearly statements - good months added in with the bad. And it shows...... the profit margin, on average, is quite a bit lower than the industry average for companies. The income from the float IS listed in the 10-K. To repeat, from the article:
"About 1 percent of WellPoint’s total revenue came from a category simply called “other revenue.” For the most part this probably comes from interest earned on the “float.” An insurer’s “float” is the money temporarily on hand when premium payments come in earlier than the outlays for insurance claims covered by these premiums."
For the total year, it added up to ONE percent of their total revenue? Averaged over when it was both large and small? Good and bad?
"In times when interest rates are high, an insurer’s float can be a major source of revenue, which is why sometimes health insurers stand accused of deliberately dragging out claims processing, strictly to increase the size of the float at any point in time."
Now THERE'S your shady dealing..... but then again.... do you do the same? Do you spread out payments at times? Do you invest money? Do you watch your investments and try to juggle them to maximize your return?
"As the Federal Reserve has lowered short-term interest rates to close to zero, however, the interest earned on an insurer’s float is now trivial — as it is in WellPoint’s case — meaning that more costs must be recovered through premiums. "
Wait a minute! When the income from the float is nearly non-existent...... can't they just pull money from their diamond mine side business to cover it????? Instead of recovering costs thru premiums?
If you read the article on the history of Wellpoint, you will see that Blue Cross of California was originally a non-profit - and did well for a long time - but then eventually went broke. NON-PROFIT.... and still went broke. Why?
December 10, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I really wish I could just blindly jump on the bandwagon, I really do. It would be so easy to listen to those yelling down the street that the health insurance companies are raping us all. Sure, I've been screwed a time or 2 by insurance companies. But I've pretty much been screwed a time or 2 by every single business I've ever dealt with. Or at least they've tried to. But to repeat myself (again) - I've delved into it - I've looked at it - and the more I look the more I'm convinced that we are often beating the wrong horse. Look near the top of the profit margin chart I posted earlier. You'll see drug companies up there with HUGE profit margins. Yet they have not been mentioned one-single-time-in-this-whole-thread. How come we're not all fired up complaining about the drug company profits.
Oh, that's right. I forgot. Obama cut a deal with the pharmaceuticals before this whole thing started.
(BTW, this link is to the Huffington Post, just so you can't accuse me of spreading propaganda from some far-right-wing site).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08...
And we all already KNOW why tort reform will not be a part of this deal. Since most doctors say it is a major cost to them....strange..... I'm beginning to wonder about all these studies claiming it is trivial. Reminds me of something else where we are finding out alot of data has been fudged by the "experts" with agendas... and of course we all know lawyers are the number 1 most trustworthy public servent there is..... and their profits and profit margins are next to nothing. Most are on welfare I think. :-)
When I go to the shooting range all fired up and bound and determined to shoot at SOMETHING....... I try to be very sure of my target first. I remain unconvinced that the health insurance companies are one of the major reasons for skyrocketing health costs. I think what is driving UP insurance premiums is what we should focus on.
December 10, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
As goodoleboy said earlier....the financial structuring of these companies is far too complex for you and I to totally understand....and most certainly to complex for your link to really explain in a few paragraphs. Now, I recognize that the problems with health care in this country are much more complex.....and can be spread around a lot further than just the insurance companies......but the insurance companies are certainly not blameless and they are certainly not all just eking out a meager existence in their on-going drive to protect you and I. Now, you can believe that if you want......while I on the other hand will need a lot more data than you have provided so far to convince me that they are.
I can't stop....nor can I change what you believe......but when you start insinuating to kansasgirl that the problem does not lie with the poor insurance companies......(with the exception of executive salaries).......you can expect me to be there to at least offer her another view. Which ever one she accepts is up to her.
As to Blue Cross going broke as a non-profit....probably because they had no profit to invest in that diamond mine you are so proud of.....:-)
December 10, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
There you go putting words in my mouth again.
I NEVER, EVER said they were blameless. Or that they eke out a MEAGER existence. Even $98/per person/per year adds up when you multiply it times millions. (Repeating myself..............yet again). Profit is profit. They aren't the first industry to be in it for profit, and I'm sure they won't be the last.
What I AM saying, is that I don't believe that THEY are the MAJOR, or even one of the top few MAJOR reasons costs are getting out of control. (Repeating myself......... yet again).
Which seems to be what alot of people claim. If ONLY we would stick it to those bad old insurance companies, everything would be fine. (Yeah right, saving $98/year - I'm going to Disneyland). (Repeating myself.......... yet again).
There are ALOT of different factors driving up our health care costs. Why don't we focus on the ones that will benefit us the most? (Repeating myself.......... yet again). Or, if there is no one more significant than the other, then lets get after them all, and maybe together they'll all add up to considerable savings. Lets also take care of tort reform and pharma companies. (Oops, can't do that. Politics.)
It seems to my some in the health care debate have targeted insurance companies as the "WMD" of the whole shebang.
Are they right?
Please answer me a question (directly, please): Do you believe insurance companies are just jacking up their rates to get filthy rich, for no good reason............ or are there underlying reasons that are more or less forcing them to raise their premiums to stay solvent?
Because this seems to be what this, and especially kansasgirls claims, are all about.
Trying to deflect it all in to some claim that they're still getting rich off of some diamond mine (I'M not the one "proud of it", YOU are the one concentrating on their other investments) isn't really the point. I'm sure they have to report to the Feds are paying taxes on their income from that mine just like every other investment they have. Just like every other company in every other industry.
I'll repeat myself again here since I have to do it so often... might as well pre-empt here.... ;-)
Health insurance companies make profit (most of them, anyway). They are in it for profit (most of them, anyway). They make alot of money (most of them, anyway). But the facts are there in plain sight - their profit margin, when compared to many, many other industries, is very slim. If it was up there at 10-15% I would totally agree with you & kansasgirl. But I have enough of a basic understanding of business to know that slim profit margins don't leave alot of wiggle room.
I think its great that you are here to offer kansasgirl another view. I'd like to know myself what is driving up costs. And fix it.
December 10, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
You know I just love the way you make snide little remarks all the time about things you don't agree with and we are always to accept it as just a fun little dig.....but let me say the diamond mine that you are so proud of because it was one of those snide little digs that you used over and over. ...and all of a sudden here comes Mr Persecuted. If you can't take it maybe you shouldn't always be dishing it out.
December 10, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I don't know why insurance companies keep jacking up their rates....and truth be known you probably don't either. You accept your view...I will accept mine. You tell kansasgirl your view and I will tell kansasgirl mine. But your wearing the hair-shirt every time somebody disagrees with your view gets a little old at times.
December 10, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I really have no clue what you mean. You have been expounding over and over on how the companies are getting rich on the side. So I've used the diamond mine example repeatedly when referring to that aspect. Its a whole lot shorter and easier than constantly saying "other outside investments which have nothing to do with the health insurance industry".
If you don't want what you consider snide remarks, then maybe you shouldn't put words in people's mouths. You attributed things to me I never said or ever implied. In fact, I had previously (repeatedly) stated exactly the opposite. Who's got a right to be a little irked?
I've stated often on these boards that I've been wrong when someone convinced me otherwise or brought up an angle I hadn't thought of. What gets a little old at times is when people either refuse to answer or don't like the answer they find they cry sour grapes. You are very welcome to keep your opinion. And if you find something that sways me in a different direction I will most certainly welcome it.
True. I'm not an inside guru on knowing why insurance companies keep jacking up their rates. But if I care to get off my duff long enough to actually at least try to find out and form an opinion, instead of just running with the crowd......... and I see the profit margins are very slim...... it's not hard to figure out. Common sense isn't all that bad a thing to use once in awhile.
December 10, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I never mentioned a diamond mine at all until after you had repeatedly relied on it as a little dig at my contention that the insurance companies had other resources than just their premiums to rely on. And whats this about having nothing to do with the health insurance industry. If those investments are helping keep that industry solvent....or even afloat.....they have a lot to do with the health insurance industry.
As to people crying sour grapes when they get an answer they don't like I might suggest you look in the mirror sometime. Now I am going to bed so you are free to write reams of copy without fear that any body might challenge you. Have a good time.
December 10, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
In point of fact....since I never mentioned one at all until just a few minutes ago......I would argue that your diamond mine was in fact putting words that I had never said in my mouth. I never identified any specifics about any investments......Words in whose mouth?
December 10, 2009 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
So when you change my words to diamond mines to bolster your argument that is fine......when I change your words to bolster my argument I have committed a mortal sin.......and don't tell me......You never said a word about mortal sin.
December 10, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As I said, biscuitboy - I was merely using a diamond mine as an easy reference to outside investments that have nothing to do with health insurance. I coined the phrase, not you. Merely a reference, nothing more. I'll appease you and not use it anymore. If you think I actually meant each company actually directly has investments in a physical diamond mine you completely missed my point. (Personally, I seriously doubt any health insurance company has direct investments in diamond mines....... and I'm sure most other people reading this doubt that also, and hopefully understood the analogy.)
And I really don't care if anyone does or doesn't read my "reams". I know others do besides the people actually having the direct discussion. And if not, no biggie. Still been a good discussion, I think. At least until recently (and I don't even know what a "hair-shirt" IS)...... people take digs at me all the time. I take digs at people all the time. I try not to be outright rude but I readily admit I dish out my share of sarcasm. Maybe you should ask Chris to freeze me out?
Well then I guess there's no point in ever discussing any industry or whether it is profitable or not, or whether is is charging people unjustly. Since it can always rely on an outside investment that has nothing to do directly with the business or industry in question. TARP, the auto industry bailouts....... seems like alot of industries go under..... guess they need more outside interests.
Of course they stay solvent. Their costs rise....... they pass it along to us. Or in the case of malpractice insurance, to the doctors.
Again.... I'm asking....... maybe we should spend more time looking at why those costs are rising/what is causing costs to rise?
December 10, 2009 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I have no problems in looking at other reasons...and never have had. I just don't want the insurance companies given a by and be taken off the table. I also think this has been a good discussion up until the last few post when feelings have gotten a little strained on both sides.
As promised, I am now going to bed. Why don't we bury the hatchet for now and live to fight another day.
Footnote....I misused hairshirt anyway. It was a very rough hewn scratchy itchy garment worn by penitents in the dark and middle ages to suffer more appropriately for their sins. I mis-applied it as a reference to a persecution complex.
December 10, 2009 at 8:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy, in all honesty, I don't want the insurance companies given a bye and taken off the table either. I'm sorry if anyone interpreted what I wrote here as meaning that. I think EVERYTHING should be looked at and costs cut when and where they can. This includes tort reform and pharma companies as well.
All I'm trying to do is understand as best I can why costs are getting out of control. That's probably the number one complaint I hear, health insurance companies. It seemed to be kansasgirls main point (no offense intended, kansasgirl, I used to think the same thing. I've changed my mind somewhat since). So I tried to educate myself as best I could. And what I find isn't convincing me that is the #1 culprit. I could be wrong, but from what I'm finding it seems that what is driving insurance costs up might be closer to the core of the problem than insurance company profits themselves. That is not to say that they shouldn't be kept in line and accountable - we both know any company for profit will screw Joe Q. Consumer anywhere and anyway possible.
But honestly. If the $98/person/year profit figure is correct, (which admittedly, because of sheer volume, makes companies a heap of change) then what would happen if the government took over all health insurance? If there is no profit, and the guv can operate every bit as efficiently as private companies, then our costs go down $98/year. If the government can run it better, then our costs go down even more. But there's where I REALLY have my doubts..... that the government can be and is as efficient as private enterprise.
I really don't know. I like to learn, I try to educate myself, I try to understand things as best I can. I appreciate different points of view that show me my error or convince me otherwise. I hadn't really considered outside investments, but obviously, those should be. But, I have a problem with that skewing the entire business model. Will the government operate health insurance at a loss? Will they need outside investments to keep it afloat? (Hmmm... can you say "Medicare"?)
Biscuitboy, you also draw my attention that what I consider to be fun little digs are not always taken as such, and I apologize that sometimes my sarcasm can be a bit much, but I truly never meant it to be. (I think when I REALLY want to be sarcastic I can let it fly! See "Negative Comments" thread - LOL). I'll try to watch it a little close in the future - especially when having a dialog with someone who I truly do enjoy hearing their points of view such as yours.
I'll put on my hairshirt now and go to bed for my penance, now that I know what it is. But don't be surprised if I'm in a crabby mood tomorrow after sleeping in that thing all night - LOL ;-)
December 10, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Thank you open_eyes.......
Though you have probably never noticed this...:-)....I too can be stubborn, sarcastic, and crabby. In reality you and I share many traits in common......just usually on the opposite sides of issues. Maybe that's why we both respect and get so irritated at each other at times.
I'm not nearly so irritated at your digs as I get about what appears to be your inability to take mine when I do the same thing. Continue your digs if you like...just try a little harder to realize some of my comments that seem to upset you the most are my attempts to do the same thing. I never took your diamond mine literally...so don't take it literally when I respond that you are so proud of it.
But like I told a poster on a different site....I started posting again on this site largely because this is where you are. Peace for now...We will fight another day. :-)
December 11, 2009 at 3:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
At the risk of sounding like reddog.
New CNN Poll is out today.
61% against gov. health care
36% for.
Don't ask me what happens to the other 3% that always seems to come up missing.
December 11, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Correct me if I'm wrong...(heaven forbid)......but aren't those figures roughly in line with the numbers for people with and without private insurance?
December 11, 2009 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
In short.......... no.
Here is a quick graph showing the number: (16%)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121820/one...
On down it breaks it down further - this figure includes those aged 65 and older, and thus eligible for Medicare, as well as high-income Americans, making $90,000 or more annually. And it doesn't even break it down to illegal immigrants so one can assume that number is included in the above as well.
December 11, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
After reading the entire article that you linked a couple of observations;
---these figures still translate to one in six Americans (a lot).
---the highest uninsured are minorities and the ones with the lowest incomes (understandable).
As you stated...(so you won't have to repeat it).....it says nothing about the inclusion or exclusion of illegal aliens in these figures. But since it was supposed to be tracking Americans (normally used in these types of situations to mean citizens of the U,S.) it is also reasonable to assume illegals were not included. The truth is (based on the information contained in this link) neither of us know for sure.
December 12, 2009 at 3:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Some other data coming out of the recent Gallup polling:
---56 percent of Americans favor major health care reform this year. Predictably 79 percent of the ones who do favor reform are Dems....55 percent are independents....and only 23 percent are Repubs.
---52 percent of Americans see controlling cost as more important in the reform than expanding coverage. Again understandably....57 percent of those feeling that way have coverage currently.....only 33 percent don't.
---But...56 percent of respondents also said they thought all Americans should be covered by medical insurance. Again predictably that broke out to 72 percent Dems....59 percent independents....and 34 percent Repubs.
I thought these figures were also important to the discussion and wanted to get them included in the dialogue.
December 12, 2009 at 4:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Bump
December 12, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The 47 million figure commonly used as uninsured "Americans" translates to roughly 1 in 6, same as the chart above. So even though THIS specific chart makes no mention of illegal immigrants........those numbers match up almost exaclty with the 47 million.......... and that number is well known and publicized to include at least 10 million illegal immigrants.......... So I think it is reasonble to assume illegals ARE included.
Yes........ its supposed to be talking about Americans (as you say, citizens of the US)........ but the politicians and Obama himself continually say 47 million, knowing full well a large chunk of that are NOT US citizens, or even non-citizens legally in this country.
So I think we DO know the truth. Lots of people just choose to ignore it. Including politicians.
December 12, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
You may think you know the truth.....but according to the rest of the stats I provided a lot of people still want health care reform now....including a majority of independents. So even if you are right about the illegal aliens.....and I'm not ready to concede that point.....it is reasonable to assume that must not be a big issue with that majority.
Now before I get blasted on this......I am not in any way pushing for free health care for illegal alien adults But I am in no way pushing for the exclusion of the innocent, young, children of those aliens from access to health care if they need it. I am not yet ready to start punishing children for the sins of their parents......any more than I would want my children punished for mine.
Now I wonder how many of those ten million illegals you cite are minor children....and that is not a loaded question...I really wonder and don't know.
Lastly.....why do illegals always come up when we start to talk about health care reform. The reform being sought is for American citizens. If illegals are also going to get access to it then fix that problem and leave the rest of reform be. Our are we to incompetent to deal with the bath water without killing the baby?
It seems reasonable to assume to me that the whole illegal issue as it applies to health care reform is just an attempt to muddy the water......but then we all know what assuming does to you and me don't we.
December 12, 2009 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I've never denied lots of people want health care reform now. I've stated often I'm one of them that do. I just don't agree with alot of what is currently trying to be pushed thru, nor the cost of it, especially at this time.
I don't know how many are children, but Obama early in his presidency signed into law expansion to SCHIP to allow states to decide if they wanted to extend coverage to illegal immigrant children.
Problem with the way things are now...... so many people come to this country with the express intention of getting herre and having an "anchor" baby. It's unfortunate that sometimes the children get caught in the crossfire for the sins of their parents but that is also just making an inviting excuse to do so.
Illegals always come up when health care is debated because despite what Obama claims, there seems to be alot of back-door language and loopholes constantly trying to be pushed thru to allow just that, or at least get in a foothold for later expansion. I believe Obama has also hinted more than once that if you make everyone that is illegal legal...... then you give them all health insurance but can stay true to your word that you won't give it to illegals.
Yes, I think there are attempts to muddy the water, as you say..... but I think see if from pretty much the polar opposite view. In the current health debates any attempt to add verification to verify legal status is routinely shot down. Why? It seems that simple act would go a long ways towards "clearing the water"........ but for some reason the Dems absolutely will not allow it to pass. Our politicians don't appear competent enought to deal with the bath water without killing the baby, IMO.
December 12, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Apparent backdoor language, loopholes and Obama "hinting at things" may be real concerns......or they may be just people that were already opposed to something seeing what they want to see.
December 12, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Can you offer any place where you believed that Obama was hinting what you claim. I would like to see it.
December 12, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.
Mr. Obama added, “If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”
Now I'm sure that can and is interpreted all different ways....... but I read interpret it my way, others in their own. I think when he talks about "resolving" the issue of undocumented people living and working in this country....... I don't think he meant to penalize them or deport them. Just my opinion.
Also...... exactly what is your take on measures to add more verification being shot down?
December 12, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm just afraid that any "comprehensive" immigration overhaul that is passed..... is going to be tantamount to amnesty.
But I hope I am wrong.
December 12, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
How do I say this. To me...in the examples you gave.....Obama stated clearly that we can not extend coverage to those who are here illegally,,,but that he wanted to insure that people who were here legally had access to health care. To me that is perfectly clear. He also said we have a problem with illegal immigration that needs to be solved. I don't think many people would disagree with that. Now I personally saw nothing in the example you gave that lead me to believe he was planning to make all illegals legal so we would not be giving any health care to illegals.
Now here is the hard part. You have every right to extrapolate what you want from what you gave me......and I have every right to view it differently. But both our views are just opinions so when you state your opinion in a way that some might interpret as fact.....I feel an obligation to state my opinion in a way that also might be interpreted as fact.....so both opinions are put forth...not just one of them.
To answer your question about measures to add more verification being shot down, I would need to know what measures and shot down by whom.
December 12, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
And I can't offer you any comfort as to your fears about comprehensive immigration reform equalling amnesty. But to me that is a problem totally separated from health care reform for legal Americans.
December 12, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
True. But, as we watched a couple of years ago.... it seems any "reform" pushed seems to be geared in a certain direction.... that most Americans were not happy with (like most else that our politicians do - LOL). So.... I have my doubts and fears....... just as you have every right to take it at face value. We both have our opinion and have valid reasons for such. But then again..... I got suckered into "going thru the budget line by line and cutting where we can", and "open and transparent government". Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefin...
From similar articles:
"The Democrats’ bill in the House, H.R. 3200, contains gaping loopholes that will allow illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded benefits. And these loopholes are no accident.
The legislation contains no verification mechanism to ensure that illegal immigrants do not apply for benefits. Republicans offered an amendment to close this loophole — it would have required verification using the existing methods that are already in place to verify eligibility for other federal benefits programs. But, when they were asked to put the language of the bill where their words were, in a party-line vote, House Democrats rejected the amendment to require verification and close this loophole.
The bill also leaves open the possibility that if one citizen family member is eligible for benefits, then the entire family — including illegal immigrants — is also eligible for the benefits."
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/new...
"Tonight, the House passed by a slim 220-215 margin a health care reform bill (H.R. 3962) that excludes the restrictions necessary to prevent illegal aliens from accessing benefits. This set up a potential conference committee battle since President Obama and the Senate support tighter restrictions.
The House bill would allow illegal aliens to use the new health care "exchange" and would not require verification to keep illegal aliens out of the other parts of the proposed federal health care system. "
But sometimes they're just flat-out open about it:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
Now none of this has yet to become law yet....... so anything can change...... but why such resistance against closing this loophole? Looks like my suspicions about the honesty of global warming proponents were correct...... and I see/smell lots of suspicious actions here, too.
Ok, Mr. Walker, don't get your knickers all in a bunch and declare this off-topic and cancel the thread. It DOES have to do with health-care reform, and is at the heart of some of the opposition to it......
December 12, 2009 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I'm not going to set here and say that none of the things that you extrapolate may not happen. If they do then once the Repubs wiggle their way back into power you can work to change them. That's the American way. But the majority of people in the above poll apparently want something done now.....so if you want back into power maybe you should "get er done" now and fix it when the polls are more in your favor.
But for the moment it is still your extrapolation and your suspicions that we are talking about here. And I can't keep from noticing that the links you provided are all places that are friendly to the right. In fact, one of them has an expressed goal of lower immigration. There is nothing wrong with that except it makes it almost certain the information contained is going to be friendly to you fears and concerns. And in that regard I then with my own set of fears and concerns consider the data very suspect.
December 13, 2009 at 4:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I was staying away from this particual discussion .
But when I saw some of the numbers being bandied about as being profits for some insurancecompanies, I just wondered how many of you really know how much money is involved ? For instance a figure such as $ 67,592.2 million dollars, when stated in this manner, doesn' t look like much and is very hard to comprehend just exactly how much money this acutally is !
Let me see if I can simplify it for you. To actually see how big this number would be, you would need to multiply $ 1,000,000 dollars X 67,592.2, or just add six zeros on behind $67,592.2, in either case you will come up with an astronimical number, like $ 67,759,290,000,000 dollars, and apparantely this is just for one company ! Which is more money than any of us common folk could ever dream of or even imagine ! In other words this amount of money would pay off the national debt, several times over .
and just think, according to some reports, there are companies that are making even more money !
Take a look at the above figure, study it, and see if you can imagine how big a pile of money this would be. Or crunch the figures your self ! And if this amount of money is derived from 93.3 % premiums, that kind of blows the idea that they do not make their profit from premium payments out of the water !
Oh yeah, I feel so sorry for those poor old companys that are not making any money !
And the reason that these companies are and have been getting away with " hoarding " money, charging such high premiums and denying some treatments is because our elected congressmen/women are reluctant to put an end to their private cash cows greedy ways, as well as their own greedy ways !
December 13, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
meth...I think you somehow got too many figures in there but it's one large chunk of change no matter how you look at it....
December 13, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy
You are right, needed to drop the last three zeros, but that still amounts to a lot of profit !
Should have been $ 67,592,200,000 dollars !
December 13, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy, I have very little faith in ANY political party these days. True, some of my fears are extrapolations - but I think that's pretty normal. (I heard alot of "extrapolating" about how the world was going to end if McCain/Palin were elected - LOL).
As for the sites being from a particular side of the fence, true - but a quote is a quote is a qoute, just as a vote is a vote is a vote. Sometimes you can't find certain info very readily from certain points of view. Both right and left-wing websites like to hone in on certain things that they deem damaging to the other, and gloss over/ignore others that aren't flattering to them. Just because left-wing sites don't seem to want to publicize the fact that the verification amendments got voted down 13-10 on party line votes in committee doens't mean it didn't happen or that someone is just extrapolating that it happened. And to be fair..... the exact same thing happens when the news goes the other direction. None of them are any more honest or fair than the other. Which is why I try to keep up at least somewhat on news from both sides (which, as the studies show, being a conservative I am more likely to do than a liberal - and yes, there is one of my sarcastic but playful "digs" ;-)
methusla, you really kindof lost me on what exactly you were saying above, I am confused. The number given (61,579.2 million) is total REVENUE, NOT PROFIT. Of which 93% comes from premiums.
Again, even though it seems everyone here is interpreting it that way, I am NOT "holding up" for the insurance companies. I've said repeatedly they make money. What I did was just present the evidence in response to the assertion that premiums were a very tiny part of their income, when in fact it appears to be major part of it. (Which, as you say, blows that idea out of the water). Yes, some companies may have outside incomes to support them, but what about those who don't? The profit margins of all the major companies seem to be pretty slim per case - but even a slim profit when multiplied times millions will add up, I've never denied that (and have stated it about 4 times now).
You say there are some companies making even more money - did you notice there are some companies making even less? That have profit margins down around 1%?
December 13, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry - hit the limit -
Again.....(I think I should change my handle from open_eyes to broken_record) - I'm just looking at the data and saying I seriously doubt that it is the insurance companies that are the major source of our skyrocketing health care costs. I think we need to focus more on WHAT things are driving the insurance premiums UP.
But, I realize, as long as any insurance company out there makes over 3 million dollars a year total (meaning roughly 1 penny for every American) profit, there is going to be a lot of screaming and yelling about their obscene profits. Meanwhile whatever things are making trillions underneath them, and causing them to raise their rates to keep their 1 penny/per person/per year profit gets completely ignored. Perhaps our elected officials are protecting their cash cows...... and trying to divert our attention from what those really are?
December 13, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Nah.....I don't like broken record.....how about oneeyeclosed.....but like 'enry once told me--with a name like biscuitboy I should be careful talking about others...lol
Yes I was wrong to talk of annual revenue when I was actually thinking about gross assets......I've admitted that error. And I know insurance companies must make a profit to stay afloat just like any other business. But insurance companies...especially health insurance...is not like a widget factory. Decisions made by that company have a very real and immediate impact on not only our pocketbooks but on our very lives. That sets up a strange dynamic then between the insurer and the insuree. The insuree wants everything done to make it alright...spare no cost......damned the torpedoes and all that rot. The insurer however is driven solely by the profit motive and nothing else. If he can't make a profit he not only can't be there...he won't be there. So the decisions he makes are driven by profit considerations.....not by what might be best for me. When push comes to shove then he will err on the side of profit.....not on the side of me. And without an outside influence to put the brakes on....usually government...I will be power less to stop it. What little compassion we have now from insurance companies exit because of fear of government take over. Remove that fear and how much compassion to you think you will find.
December 13, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
It's been said that the business of business is business...and that is true. Anytime the individual comes between the company and a profit the individual will be thrown under the grist mill. Look at companies here in town like Tyson and Detroit, Modine. When the time comes that it helps them to go they are gone no matter how it hurts the people they leave behind. Insurance companies are companies just like the above and they will drop you in a heart beat if you get between them and the bottom line. The only thing slowing them down is that government that so many of you distrust so much..
December 13, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You're absolutely right, biscuitboy - when push comes to shove it is us that is thrown under the bus. But that pretty much applies to any and all businesses...... so you sound very much like you are in favor of total government takover of everything? Yes..... I distrust the government in many areas, but it isn't so much a personal distrust as a feeling (which is often validated by what I see) that government can do it as efficient or more efficiently than private enterprise can. Sure.... company A tries to rob us blind..... but then along comes company B and realizes they can profit by not robbing us as blind as company A.... then company A has to drop rates even more to try to get business (and profits back) from company B.... and so on...... that's what competition does.
I don't believe that government always tries to err on the side of "us"..... as much as they err on the side of their own interests, or their controller's interests. Isn't the way it is supposed to be, but often is, unfortunately. And I think we're seeing a very good example these days of government spending that they pretty much do what they want with our money. No competition, no restraint,..... no answering to us.
December 13, 2009 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
This is an interesting read:
http://green.tbmin.com/?p=155
Small businesses bridle at health insurance hikes
"Bob Carroll, owner of a Billerica distributor of paint spraying equipment, recently got some really bad news from Blue Cross-Blue Shield: His company’s health insurance rates are going up 47 percent in January."......
"Insurers such as Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of Wellesley and Tufts Health Plan of Watertown offered high deductible plans before Blue Cross, which sought to pick up market share by offering a discounted plan last year. The insurer wound up badly underestimating its costs and losing money, insurance brokers said. They said many in the industry view Blue Cross’s outsized increases to some small businesses next year as an effort to recoup those losses.
Maltz acknowledged that Blue Cross lost money in 2008 on some high deductible plans for small businesses. But he strongly denied the insurer is trying to make up for it now with higher premiums. “Each year stands on its own, and we try to set the rates right,’’ he said. “We never try to set premiums to recoup losses from a prior year.’’
But that is small comfort for businesses faced with huge jumps in their insurance rates. Greenbaum’s research firm, Health Effects Institute, already pays about $14,000 per employee to cover its 25-person staff. The proposed 35 percent increase by Blue Cross has sent the firm scrambling to look for an alternative plan or carrier."
-------------------------
Like you said..... we get thrown under the bus. "The insurer wound up badly underestimating its costs and losing money".
My question is: When the government badly underestimates costs and loses money"........
who ends up paying for it?
Again....... isn't it common sense to try to find out what costs it is that is losing money and driving the rates up?
December 13, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The profit margin list I posted earlier had pharma companies near the top.... much higher profits industry-wide that dwarf nearly all other companies.
And I haven't heard one-single-tiny-complaint about them here - other than me.
If you really want to get your blood boiling, do some googling & research into pharma companies and their profits and deals.
December 13, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Since nobody seems to be concerned with pharma profits other than me....... it appears I'm not the one keeping one eye closed. Here's from the Huffington Post so I can't be accused of right-wing bias in my sources.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-...
"The drug companies have spent more than $3 billion on lobbyists and political "contributions" over the past decade in the US alone. They have paid politicians to make the system work in their interests. If you doubt how deeply this influence goes, listen to a Republican congressman, Walter Burton, who admitted of the last big health care legislation passed in the US in 2003: "The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill."
And the government cut a deal promising to keep them out of any health care reform in this bill.
It appears they are the ones still writing the bill.
Do a little research into their profits. It looks to me like they are doing a bang-up job of diverting attention. They are raking in unholy profits year after year, regardless of economic conditions etc...... and they're managing to keep so many people focused on other industries that have such slim profit margins that they lose money in some years.
Again: Are we focusing on the right things? Or the ones that will do us the most gain or good?
December 13, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I never said anything about government take over of all business...In fact....I really didn't say anything about government take over of health insurance except to the extent that government pressure keeps them honest.....(how many times do I have to say it)....lol I hear where you are coming from with your competition argument to do just that...but if it wasn't for government intervention in anti-trust and monopolies the corporate world had already found away around that. Since we are supposed to be the government how has it come to pass that the governments interest is any different than ours......and whose fault is that for letting it happen?
December 13, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
If you have never heard me complain about high pharma cost its because you weren't listening. I have had a large thorn in my butt for years over the fact that you can find the same drugs for sale right across the river from Detroit in Windsor, Ontario, Canada for a fraction of the cost. All the time the government is telling us -- oh they might not be the same thing...they might be dangerous....while the pharma houses at the same time tell us its because the government of Canada won't let us charge as much there so we have to make up our cost some where so why not here.
So much of the rest of the world buys the same thing we do for half the price or less. But the FDA...in its rush to protect the pharma companies got the cross border traffic in and out of Detroit pretty much stopped. Now people in the U.S. pay fifty dollars for something that's being sold a river away for fifteen or twenty. But lobbyist pumping money into the pockets of Congress in recent years have thwarted all efforts to gain us some relief because it would be unfair to business. Well how about what's unfair to me for a change.
December 13, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
sorry, biscuitboy - I think I "extrapolated" a bit too much from your post - LOL ;-)
And I agee with you - ultimately..... we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
I think its a constant balancing act...... we need some government pressure at times. And this appears to be one of those times.
But my question remains: Are we focusing the government pressure on the right areas?
December 13, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry, biscuitboy - I meant on this particular thread nobody has complained about pharma's, we've focused on insurance for the most part. I totally agree with your post about drug companies.
It appears they even pretty much write our lawmakers speeches for them - Twenty-two Republicans and 20 Democrats:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027630_Big...
December 13, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
That's a pretty sad state of affairs there. It's no wonder I don't believe what I hear from to much of anybody anymore. My natural tendency to trust government over business is based on the believe that government is supposed to be for me while business is supposed to be for business. But with lobbyist handing out bucks like they had there own printing presses any more it seems that government is much more in businesses pocket than its enemy. I believe the only real way to save our country is to get lobbyist totally out of the game.....but with the money they have to keep buying influence that will be a cold day in hell. Since all major business have a lobby maybe we the people should start pooling our money to buy a little influence for us once in a while.......oh wait....I guess some groups already do!
December 13, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Power corrupts.......... and absolute power corrupts absolutely......... :(
December 13, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
I did certainly did, misunderstand about profit v total revenue, in your first post ! Sorry, however even with a 1% profit of
$ 67,592,200,000 dollars would still be a pretty good profit in anyones book ! !% of the above figure would be $675,922,000 dollars, which is almost 1 billion dollars ! And you have to remember, profit is usually after all expenses have been paid, such as salaries, claims, etc..
December 13, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And another thing you have to keep in mind is that this total revenue and profit number/numbers may be for each and every year !
December 13, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I'm all for health care. That is why I have a weight set in the basement and I use it.
Reggie
December 13, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
True, methusla, that's a huge number in anybody's book. But it appears these companies make profits some years.... lose money in others. As the article stated above, "The insurer wound up badly underestimating its costs and losing money". Also BlueCross was deeply in debt before merging into Wellpoint.
I guess the answer is to make all the premiums retroactive. That way they could wait until the end of the year and then decide how much they needed to charge everyone.
Again....... I will repost part of one of the earlier articles I cited (which I found the same information in as numerous other sources) - maybe it expains it better than I have been able to.
---------------------------
"America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry's trade association representing 1,300 members (how could that be a monopoly?), recently reported that annual health insurance premiums averaged $2,985 for individual coverage and $6,328 for family plans in 2009. Using the industry average profit margin of 3.3% means that insurance companies make less than $100 per policy in profits for individual coverage, and a little more than $200 in profits for each family policy. Doesn't seem too "excessive" or an indication of monopoly power, does it?
Alternatively, even if we could strip away 100% of the health insurance profits, it would only result in about $100-200 of annual savings for consumers of health insurance. Is that what we could expect then from a government-sponsored "public option" that wasn't "profit-driven" - annual savings of only $100-200? "
----------------------------
So if the government completely takes over health insurance, and outlaws profit-driven private companies..... we'll save between $100-$200 per year.
I wonder how much our taxes will increase to save us that $100-$200?
Now I'm not opposed to those that can afford it paying a little more to make insurance more affordable for those who need it and can't get it. But.......... again........... maybe a better answer is to look at what is driving those insurance premiums up to the numbers above...... and correcting that to bring those numbers back down to where they are more affordable for more people........
What good is it to do completely away with health insurance profits completely...... if the underlying costs driving insurance up keep going up, say, 47%/year as in the earlier article?
If we just want to go after obscene profits....... let's hit those at the top first. Pharma companies being right there at the top of the list.
And those in Congress and power who are in their pocket.
December 13, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As in the article above, they claim they don't base their rates in one year because they lost money the previous.
"But he strongly denied the insurer is trying to make up for it now with higher premiums. “Each year stands on its own, and we try to set the rates right,’’ he said. “We never try to set premiums to recoup losses from a prior year.’’
Well.....right off the cuff, when first reading that, I had my doubts. But when I think about it... that kinda makes sense. Company A might have lost their a$$ one year..... but company B (for whatever reasons) didn't. So if company A tries to jack up their rates above and beyond the industry average to recoup the previous years losses..... then they can no longer compete with Company B.
So one role of our government as biscuitboy correctly pointed out above - is to insure that competition stays in place, and nobody gains a monopoly and squashes competition. Or gets "too big to fail".
Yeah, well, we've seen recently how good a job they've been doing of making sure nobody gets too big to fail. Can you say "bailout"? It also appears the pharma companies have managed to get together in their own little price-fixing club, and keep enough of the government in their pay to insure no laws get passed to alter their current status quo.
December 13, 2009 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
But open_eyes...wasn't that 47% increase just for Blue Cross policy holders.....not for all policy holders across the board, And despite what they said about not basing this years rates on last years performance didn't it follow a year of abysmal performance. So company A doesn't in the end have to jack up its rates and lose its a## to company B.......It just mergers with them>
December 13, 2009 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
How much ya bench?
Reggie
December 13, 2009 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I am certainly not saying that there are no other reasons for rapidly inflating health care cost than the insurance companies...in fact I wasn't of the opinion that the initial goal of reform was to lower private insurance rates as much as it was to provide insurance to those that were unable to get private coverage for a variety of reasons. In fact...public option was initially designed to take the "losers" if you will off the table leaving the "winners for the insurance companies to profit off of. It was the insurance companies that started screaming about if public option took the losers the winners would go also leaving them with nothing. Sounds like real competition might be what they are most afraid of.
One more point when the widget factory badly underestimates its cost and goes deeply in debt it often fails...as it should. It seems only insurance companies can't be allowed to fail...(well insurance companies and their banks).
December 13, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
seriouslfolks
I only have one bench and it's not for sale....Sorry!
December 13, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Didn't the fear of rapidly escalating insurance premiums in fact stem from the insurance companies arguing that a public option would force them to raise their rates. The talk of raising rates seems to be coming mainly from the insurance companies...not the government.
December 13, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Youi're right.... once company A loses their shirts... company B buys them out for pennies on the dollar... ;-)
Even though this turned into pretty much a discussion between us, mostly about whether premiums were a large part of their revenue or not, I understand that it wasn't you implying that insurance companies were the ones responsible for a lion's share of costs.......it was in response to kansasgirls questions why we aren't "going after" the insurance companies like we did banks. I would like to ask why we aren't "going after" the pharma companies (even though we already know the answer).
But again, your point is valid - it isn't supposed to be about lowering insurance costs as much as making it available to others. And that is where I think we mostly disagree. I think opening up some competition, such as cross-state, and fixing the problems that are MAKING insurance rates unoffordable for some is what what we should be doing.
So even if the government gives health insurance to some........ what happens as costs continue to spiral? They will have to subsidize more and more....... and we all know what that means. My position is - maybe we should work on fixing the reasons for the rising costs - and possibly that will make insurance rates affordable enough again so that those that cannot afford it now will be able to?
December 13, 2009 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I guess, for me, a broader summation of all this is as follows:
I have often stated that as much as I believe in the free market system, I also recognize that it cannot sustain itself unfettered - because humans are imperfect.
I view the role of our government as one to make sure the free-market system remains fair, curbing excesses where needed, making sure those at the bottom aren't taken advantage of (basically policing limits on both extreme ends). Keep monopolies from squashing competition and gaining too much power to where it would limit competition. Make sure the marketplace is fair and competitive, regulating where necessary to allow that to happen. (Wouldn't allowing drugs from Canada be allowing competition???).
Not taking over and running it themselves. I know.... here's where people say "but they had their chance and proved unable to do it". Well then maybe it is the government who proved unable to do a good job regulating. Because I don't have alot of faith in government restraint, efficiency, integrity, or responsiveness to we the people these days, either.
December 13, 2009 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
As is so often the case open_eyes, after volumes of debate.....(enough to apparently run everybody else off).....your last post found our positions to be very close together. Maybe that is the ultimate value of negative posts. String enough of them together and they eventually start to become positive.
December 14, 2009 at 3:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Weights aren't the only good health care. Walking. Jogging. Bicycles. Not eating 7 Bigmacs everytime you sit down to watch Columbo reruns. Not smoking crack or meth is a great way to be healthier also. That's some free advice from me to you. I won't even tax you for it and call it free.
Reggie
December 14, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
So true seriously....then an errant bacteria or virus can stop you in your tracks quicker than you can say health insurance. There is nothing wrong with healthy living but it does not guarantee good health. I have a sister in law in Detroit that does everything right.....but because of an unfortunate gene pool she is still sick all the time.
December 14, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOL biscuitboy - if only our politicians could come together in like fashion ;-)
And we all know people who do everything wrong (smoke, drink, don't exercise) - yet live to be 100. Of course.... statistically... one is more likely than the other to have health problems..... but we do what we can. Seriiouslyrfolks....... if I wouldn't post here so much..... I'd have more time to hit the weights. This is bad for my health! LOLOLOLOLOL ;-)
December 14, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
You and me both open_eyes......maybe every body else has a life except you and me.
December 14, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Argue with me if you will but I still say that smoking crack is not healthy. ;-)
Here in a couple of weeks I hope to be on here and the other better forum a lot less so I can hit the weights more.
Reggie
December 14, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks
I have to agree, taking a puff of me ( Meth ) is very hazardous to your Health ! Ha,Ha, Ha, Ha !
December 14, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Yeah, I would never smoke you methusla, but maybe if I got really hungry .........................................
lol ;-)
Reggie
December 15, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
czander (anonymous) says...
In 2007 several organizations demonstrated outside the annual shareholders meeting of United Health Group the largest HMO in the U.S. to "decry the gap between need and greed.” United Health Group CEO William McGuire, and his replacement Stephen Helmsley, as well as other Minnesota HMO executives, took billions in stock options. McGuire was the highest-paid CEO in Minnesota history, with stock options totaling $2 billion. Helmsley, who replaced McGuire, has stock options in excess of $750 million. In 2009 Helmsley’s compensation came to $57,000 an hour. McGuire and other executives who were ousted in October, 2006, are under criminal investigation due to stock option backdating fraud. According to Herbert Sacks past President of the American Psychiatric Association, when asked where does this money come from, he replied “from the denial and interruption of…patient care.”
Not only are CEO salaries excessive but so are their Senior VPs', VPs', and board members. For example, in 2007, the top 6 health plan boards paid themselves a whopping $277,998,793.
Estimates of the compensation cost for health care CEO’s and their executives total about $7 to 10 billion a year. If their pay was reduced by 80 percent it would cover health insurance for 500,000 families enrolled in a government insurance program at $10,000 per year per family. Also, if health care was nationalized the administrative savings alone would be enough to provide health care coverage for the one million uninsured in America. One third of every dollar spent on health care goes to administrative overhead and half of that goes to executives. According to the Security and Exchange Commission between 2000 and 2007 the 10 largest publicly traded health insurance corporations increased their profits 428 percent from $2.8 billion to $12.9 billion, as premiums increased 87 percent.
Health care institutions have lost the confidence of a public that once valued their altruistic mission and many maintain that executive pay is a significant part of the health care problem in America. For example, Patrick Soon-Shiong the CEO of APP Pharmaceuticals stepped down as CEO in the spring of 2008, but the former surgeon still held 83 percent of the company's shares. In July, he agreed to sell APP to a German firm. The sale finalized two months later for an initial $3.7 billion cash payment, as a result Soon-Shiong’s personal fortune gain $3 billion in 2008.
December 16, 2009 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yea czander......but if you belief some, these people and their greed are far preferable to any thing the government could possibly do.......Suuuuuure!
December 16, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
And those massive executive compensation packages have already been deducted before they release their highly vaunted low profit margins.
December 16, 2009 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And who says, Health Care related businesses don' t make any money and their profit margin is only 1% ! HA, the Health Care related businesses themselves, Thats Who !
Its no wonder their are paying congressmen/women billions of dollars to kill any Public Health Care iniative !
This news, just in, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn f Oklahoma had sought approval to require that any amendment considered by the Senate must be offered 72 hours in advance and with a full cost report.
When he was rebuffed by Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, Coburn invoked his right to require that an amendment by another lawmaker be read aloud. That sent the Senate into limbo, since the amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, is 767 pages long.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34446325/...
Wonder how much Senator Tom Cobern of Oklahoma or any congressman/woman is/was paid by the Health Care sector lobby to kill or delay any Health Care Reform Bill that will cut into their Trillion Dollar per year " PIG " !
The Health Care Industry, Insurance, etc., have been holding the people of the U.S. " HOSTAGE ' and " FOR RANSOM " for decades now ! Its time the " FAT CALF " was brought under control and taught that " GREED ' is not and will not be tolerated by the people, whether it be " GREED " in the private sector or in " GOVERNMENT " !
Richard
December 16, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Your Republican friends at work again.......Riiiight!
December 16, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Good data, czander. The greed at the top in not only health care but nearly every industry in this country has got to be stopped. And I don't care how far-left liberal I sound when I say that. I disagree that the government is so much more efficient when it comes to admistrative savings (that actually cracks me up) but execs making that kind of money under those circumstances should just be put in jail.
Methusla, in answer to your question, perhaps we'd better not start pointing all the fingers one direction just yet:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
"Industry Cash Flowed To Drafters of Reform
Key Senator Baucus Is a Leading Recipient"
Baucus's fundraising prowess underscores the enduring political strength of the health-care lobby, which led all other sectors in donations to federal candidates during the last election cycle and has shifted its giving to Democrats as the party has tightened its control of Congress.
The sector gave nearly $170 million to federal lawmakers in 2007 and 2008, with 54 percent going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. The shift in parties was even more pronounced during the first three months of this year, when Democrats collected 60 percent of the $5.4 million donated by health-care companies and their employees, the data show.
So.......... it doesn't matter which party is at the top....... money follows power....... and power follows money........
December 21, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So you asked how much Tom Coburn got from the industry...... but forgot to ask how much Max Baucus got.
"sought approval to require that any amendment considered by the Senate must be offered 72 hours in advance and with a full cost report."
I'm curious....... why do you have a problem with that? Do you prefer that our politicians vote on and pass bills before they read them or understand them? Or before anyone is allowed to know the full cost of what they are voting on?
I presume from your statement you were a big fan of the porkulus spending bill - you know, the one everyone had to vote on immediately before getting to read any of it.
Now, I'll totally agree with the outlandish executive pay being profit that should be turned back into cutting costs and lowering premiums. But to say that, for example, every $1 taken out of private executive pay and put in government-run health insurance instead is going to equal exactly an extra $1 going to we the people is living in a dream world removed from reality. It doesn't work that way. The math is omitting much.
December 21, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I know you're no fan of the heritage foundation, but here is an article comparing government (Medicaid) admin efficiency against private, titled:
"Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance"
http://www.heritage.org/research/heal...
And here are some excerpts from another study:
"Government programs incur significantly more administrative costs than private insurance in providing health benefits. For every adminisbative dollar spent by the private insurance industry, government spends $1.66.
That is the conclusion of this study by the Council for Affordable Health....
The review of Medicare and Medicaid expenses was prompted by the often repeated claim that government has lower administrative costs than does the private health insurance industry. The proponents of that view conclude that large amounts of money could be saved if government administered health benefits for the entire country.
The Council’s fiidings are to the contrary:
* Medicare and Medicaid spend 26.9 cents for every dollar of benefits versus 16.2 cents for private insurance.
* The claims of greater efficiency for government programs are based on numbers that omit many of the true costs of administration by the government.
* Government’s true costs for administering Medicare and Medicaid are spread through all three branches of the federal and state governments and their numerous departments. These “hidden” costs have not been attributed to health care until this study.
The Council reviewed federal and state government budgets and allocated costs for departments in proportion to their time and resources spent on Medicaid and Medicare.
Private industry costs are based on the SimuCare national health care data base developed in 1993 by Miltiman & Robertson, Inc.,,,,,,
A major focus of the current debate on health care reform is the cost of delivering medical services. Supporters of single-payer and managed competition systems point to the administrative costs of the insurance industry as a wasteful use of health care dollars.
Medicaid and Medicare are often cited for their administrative costs of 5 % and 2%, respectively. In comparison, private insurance reports an industry cost average of between 12% and 20%. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance undertook this study in order to make a realistic comparison of the efficiency of government health programs and private health insurance.
Contrary to the assertion that government has much lower administrative costs than the private insurance industry, in an “apples-to-apples” comparison, government spends more than half again as much (66% more) to provide a dollar of Medicare and Medicaid benefits as private insurance"
heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/32923a.pdf
December 21, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Some things to consider though
Fraud rates are about six times as high, also - medicare/medicaid pay six times as much out in fraudulent payments/scams.
Pooling of risk - Medicare/Medicaid tend to have the WORST risks pooled together - the elderly, the disabled, and the non-working poor (who eat poorly, smoke in greater numbers), the unmarried (mostly) pregnant girls/women and their babies. I just saw a study (I think it was AM Best's magazine) that indicated about 26% of people on medicaid treated in a hospital, were under the influence of illegal/recreational drugs.
It would seem to me that there is a very upside in that there is a lot of room for improvement, and if you get the analogy that many of the people on medicare and medicaid are high risk, thus there will be more costs incurred. There is useful date in the report you posted, but I think it does not go far enough in covering the "flip side" of things.
December 21, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think there is good and useful data to be found on both sides. The best answer, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. (If anyone can ever agree just where that is, LOL).
I do find it disturbing that 26% of people on medicaid treated in a hospital were under the influence of drugs. And the answer there is...... I don't know. I can certainly understand where private insurers don't want to pay for drug users health costs, and other people's unwillingness to subsidize the consequences of their choices. But with the current system we end up paying for it anyway.
As far as higher risk (mostly older) - that certainly is correct. I don't know how that translates into admin costs, though.
Interesting stat on the fraud rates, also. I'm curious as to why that is - is the government easier to cheat than private firms? Will that stat increase if/when we shift more health care responsibility to government? (tongue-in-cheek poor humor to make a point ;-)
Outrageous executive pay still makes my blood boil. I don't care how many jobs it creates building their yachts ;-) - they're still thieves, legal or not.
December 21, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
BTW - haven't followed things too closely recently - what happened to the "Salaries revealed" thread?
December 21, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
A poster was making some very disparaging remarks about disabled people, and I did ask that those posts be removed. The gazette decided to put an end to the thread, which was probably, a good idea considering what it had deteriorated into. Kudos to them.
December 21, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well then good for the Gazette. And shame on that poster. I didn't read any of those last posts so I guess I didn't miss out on anything.
December 21, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
Thanks for putting and end to that difference of opinion from you.
Perhaps if I called you a name you find objectionable you could flag it and this comment section will disappear. You must be drunk with power!
December 21, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
ON TOPIC:
The news is finally reporting on some of the earmarks,( I mean compromises), of this health bill.
The BRIBES , (I mean compromises), are outrageous examples of
how our government is working in Washington. And the Senate leader just shrugs and says, "this is how we get things done in Washington."
And I do love my country, I just can't stand to see the politicians dismantling everything it was built on.
December 21, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Steve,
It was not a difference of opinion, it was an individual making remarks that have no place here, while I admit to reporting the thread I would also wager I was not alone. There a huge difference between a power grab and doing the right thing, and frankly I am rather perplexed that you did not say anything yourself. In grade school and high school I stuck up for the kids with disabilities that were made fun of, it has always been a sore spot with me, you strike me as a guy that would do the same, guess I am wrong.
December 21, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )