Re: Profits Are Underrated

by dblboggie Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:17 pm

TexasBlue wrote:

Yes... it was a shameless bump. As is this reply. I anxiously await Bubble's response.

Profits Are Underrated - Page 2 Bump10

by BubbleBliss Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:02 am

dblboggie wrote:
BubbleBliss wrote:The law does not adress health insurance providers but large companies in general. It means that when an employee pays a premium, 85% of that premium most go towards funding HC for that employee and not go to corporate bonuses or factor into the profit of the company in any other way.

Companies are not providing adequate Insurance to their employers, it's time for the government to step in and make sure that the employees get what they paid for. Of course, Conservatives put the Constitution over the well being of the people with this issue.

Your opening line is BLATANTLY untrue! Either you are avoiding the question by obfuscation, or you just did not read the linked article which is HEADLINED "Obama Administration Issues Rules on Insurance Company Spending." The article itself VERY CLEARLY states:

The regulation unveiled by the Health and Human Services Department calls for insurance companies to spend at least 80 cents of the premium dollar on medical care and quality. For employer plans covering more than 50 people, the requirement is 85 cents. Insurers that fall short of the mark will have to issue their customers a rebate.

This is about INSURANCE companies, NOT "companies in general" as you say.

Furthermore, your post reveals a complete ignorance of how employer provided health care works. The VAST majority of employers who provide health care for employees, do so by buying policies from third party insurance companies. Employees ALSO contribute some of their pay for insurance plans being partially paid for by their employers. Employer provided insurance is a BENEFIT provided to employees! In most cases it is a partnership between the employer and the employee, with BOTH contributing to the cost of the insurance. These employers do NOT take the employee contribution and use it to pay for ANYTHING related to the employer - that would be ILLEGAL!!! 100 PERCENT of the employee's contribution, as well as 100 percent of the employers contribution goes to paying the premiums on these plans!!!

So, what you are saying above is completely and utterly FALSE! Do you understand this better now?

This law is tantamount to a government takeover of the health insurance industry for all intents. It is the imperial federal government DICTATING to all private-sector health insurance companies how they will spend their earnings. It is an affront to our constitution and an affront to freedom. It will do NOTHING to benefit health insurance consumers, and will, rather, hurt them in the end.

Yet where do premium dollars come from? The way I understand this law is that when insurance companies receive money from customers, they have to spend a certain amount of that money on medical coverage, which is only fair because an insurance company is there to provide it's customers with medical coverage, not to make enormous profits and bonuses. It's a much needed service industry which is why it is so important that the government has a close watch on them to make sure people get what they pay for.

by **TexasBlue** Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:13 pm

Where this is a problem is allowing a govt to dictate to a private industry as to how they can conduct business. That's the crux. The govt might as well outlaw insurance companies and just fund it all themselves. Oooops. No money. We're up to our eyebrows in debt.

by BubbleBliss Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:41 pm

No, but the government's job is to make sure that people get what they pay for in a much needed industry such as insurance. Just like Gasoline (especially in the US), insurance is something everybody needs so competition doesn't actually drive down prices as much as in other industries.

by **TexasBlue** Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:59 pm

I understand... but it's also not the govt's job to tell a private industry how they deal with their profits. Price gouging is another story.

by dblboggie Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:04 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:
No, but the government's job is to make sure that people get what they pay for in a much needed industry such as insurance. Just like Gasoline (especially in the US), insurance is something everybody needs so competition doesn't actually drive down prices as much as in other industries.

There are already laws against ripping people off (to put it simplistically). Sadly, we now have yet another law that allows the government to rip off insurers by dictating how they run their businesses. This one is going just too far. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to interfere in private-sector businesses in this manner. That is the bottom line on this one.

by BubbleBliss Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:03 am

That's not the point I tried to make. The fact is that whenever people do purchase insurance and they don't get what they pay for, they will still continue to purchase that insurance because a little coverage is better than no coverage.

by dblboggie Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:39 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:
That's not the point I tried to make. The fact is that whenever people do purchase insurance and they don't get what they pay for, they will still continue to purchase that insurance because a little coverage is better than no coverage.

People DO get what they pay for. If they don't, there is legal recourse. We don't need the federal government to step in and take the unconstitutional power to dictate to private sector companies how they will direct their legally earned income. And that is the point I am trying to make.

by BubbleBliss Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:48 am

No, they don't. Comparing the US health care prices to other countries and the amount of coverage they receive, people do NOT get what they pay for.
How can there be a legal course if there's no standard as to how much an insurance agency has to spend on its patients?

by dblboggie Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:42 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:
No, they don't. Comparing the US health care prices to other countries and the amount of coverage they receive, people do NOT get what they pay for.
How can there be a legal course if there's no standard as to how much an insurance agency has to spend on its patients?

They do get what they pay for. There is a policy they sign up for. That policy dictates what is covered and what is not and under what conditions and so forth. It's all laid out in the policy. The insurer and the insured are bound to the language of that policy. That policy has nothing to do with how the insurer spends their net income. The only thing the insured need be concerned with is the conditions set in the policy; if there is a valid claim, under the language of the policy, the insurer is obligated to cover that claim. If the insurer fails to meet the specified obligations, then the claimant has recourse to the legal system. It has nothing to do with "how much an insurance agency spends on it's customers." It has everything to do with has the insurer failed to cover a valid and legal claim.

by BubbleBliss Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:22 am

Well, when you have every insurance company outlining about the same thing in their policies then it's easy to not give the customers what they pay for. That's what I've been saying. Insurance companies know that people will always become customers because people need insurance.

by dblboggie Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:15 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well, when you have every insurance company outlining about the same thing in their policies then it's easy to not give the customers what they pay for. That's what I've been saying. Insurance companies know that people will always become customers because people need insurance.

I don't understand this. There are all kinds of policies, a wide variety covering all sorts of things - everything from the so-called "Cadillac" plans to bare-bones high-deductible health plans to cover only catastrophic illness or accidents. And with everyone of these plans, insurers are legally bound to provide the promised services and if they don't they can be taken to court.

And of course insurance companies know that people will become customers - if they didn't, there would be no need for insurance companies. Would you start a business to deliver something that was not in demand?

Perhaps you could clarify what point you are trying to make here.

by BubbleBliss Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:12 pm

Compared to other countries, those policies do not cover nearly as much as in the US as in other parts of the Western World. Not only is insurance more expensive in the US, it also covers less, I've seen that with my own eyes when I lived in the US compared to the German insurance I have now. And yes, I am also privately insured here. That's my whole point. Insurance companies can keep their prices up while not giving you a whole lot of coverage because, like you said Dbl, big insurance companies have a near monopoly in states because there isn't much competition.

by dblboggie Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:10 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:
Compared to other countries, those policies do not cover nearly as much as in the US as in other parts of the Western World. Not only is insurance more expensive in the US, it also covers less, I've seen that with my own eyes when I lived in the US compared to the German insurance I have now. And yes, I am also privately insured here. That's my whole point. Insurance companies can keep their prices up while not giving you a whole lot of coverage because, like you said Dbl, big insurance companies have a near monopoly in states because there isn't much competition.

That could well be the case. I'm not familiar with how private-sector insurance works in Germany or what regulations the German government has in place for private-sector insurers. But in this country, the regulations are insane. Big insurers in each state do have a near monopoly, and this is enforced by state and federal laws. If we would but eliminate this single barrier, we could see insurance prices fall dramatically while seeing coverage expand. But Obamacare does not address this in the slightest. Obamacare does not address any of the government regulatory sources of our health insurance woes - it only increases them. We need to unleash competition, not strangle it by introducing the government as yet another monopoly insurer.

by Sponsored content