Political Discussion about Healthcare Reform Law

[finehoe]

My failure to have insurance doesn't have the potential to directly impact the rights and property of others.

Oh, but it does.  If you're involved in a car wreck and are taken to the emergency room, they must treat you.  And if you don't have insurance, who do you think pays?  The people who DO have insurance, so it does direct impact others.

[JagFan07]

These guys never get tired of defending the right of the predatorily wealthy to take our  money from us, as long as they can keep the fat poor people from getting of theirs

Actually I am very much for helping the poor. I think we would be better suited to decrease their tax burden (yes the poor pay taxes embedded in goods and payroll) and allowing them to make free market choices. But sorry that is the evil Capitalist in me. Now back to health care.

[Tripoli1711]

My failure to have insurance doesn't have the potential to directly impact the rights and property of others.

Oh, but it does.  If you're involved in a car wreck and are taken to the emergency room, they must treat you.  And if you don't have insurance, who do you think pays?  The people who DO have insurance, so it does direct impact others.

I do.  The bill goes to me.  The bill doesn't go to the government for everyone else to pay with their tax dollars.

[finehoe]

What nonsense.  Bankers do not confiscate your wealth at the point of a gun.  Only government does this. 

You need to be better informed:  http://www.prisonplanet.com/paulson-was-behind-bailout-martial-law-threat.html

[Tripoli1711]

Perhaps I should read what NotNow put out.  I missed it because I was late to this discussion and breezed through a lot of the beginning of it.  My understanding is that all of us may pay more in increased premiums based on uninsured ER visits.  I don't understand why the government is paying this.

[JagFan07]

Jagfan.  Thanks for asking.

I wouldnt run a health insurance system at all.

It seems pretty simple.  The United States spends a certain amount of money every year on health care.  Find out the per capita cost and work out a way to pay into a common fund, pay it out as necessary, and take our health and ability to stay alive out of the arena of corporate profits.

Private insurance works the same way presently, except that they take a huge profit, steal a huge amount of money from their customers, and use the monies collected to fund the risky kinds of investments that caused the economy to collapse.

Is 2.2% an obscene profit? Steal money? Come on Stephen, I've known you a long time. Even at 16 you debated better than that.

[Tripoli1711]

Finehoe.. what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Last I checked, Hank Paulson was working for the government.  Sun Trust doesn't confiscate money from me.  The Government does.  If the government used some of my tax money in an imprudent fashion or a fashion directed toward the benefit of an influential official's cronies... what else is new?  That has been a problem identified and bemoaned about government for quite some time.

Of course, if we let the government start running health care in this country, it would drastically reduce the frequency of such things happening, I am sure.  

[JagFan07]

lol.  Especially if it was going to piss off Furches.

Im pretty cynical about the health insurance industry, Jag.  I got to see it up close and personal at the Practice.

Oh I can understand, they are not choir boys. I probably could sum up most people's fears as "Better the monster I now, than the one I don't" (accept in this case we know both monsters). "lesser of two evils" maybe?

[whitey]

Jagfan.  Thanks for asking.

I wouldnt run a health insurance system at all.

It seems pretty simple.  The United States spends a certain amount of money every year on health care.  Find out the per capita cost and work out a way to pay into a common fund, pay it out as necessary, and take our health and ability to stay alive out of the arena of corporate profits.

Private insurance works the same way presently, except that they take a huge profit, steal a huge amount of money from their customers, and use the monies collected to fund the risky kinds of investments that caused the economy to collapse.

The insurance companies have profit margins far lower than most businesses.

What money are they stealing from their customers?

And your last point of insurance companies having to use their capital to invest in risky funds.  Are you implying that they are undercharging customers and thus need to gain more capital to pay for services rendered?  That seems counter intuitive to points one and two.

[JagFan07]

But there is the opt out option provided, and I don't see the real difference legally between mandatory car insurance and mandatory buy in.

The difference to me is one is State mandated and the other is federally mandated. If I disagree with the Auto Insurance requirement I could move to New Hampshire.

[finehoe]

Finehoe.. what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Last I checked, Hank Paulson was working for the government.  Sun Trust doesn't confiscate money from me.  The Government does.  If the government used some of my tax money in an imprudent fashion or a fashion directed toward the benefit of an influential official's cronies... what else is new?  That has been a problem identified and bemoaned about government for quite some time.

What does the former head of Goldman Sach threatening the Congress with blood in the streets if they don't hand over almost a trillion taxpayer dollars to the banksters have to do with it?  Are you kidding me?

And I can only suppose that you must not pay taxes since you say Sun Trust hasn't taken any of your money:  http://www3.gsionline.com/legalcurrents/Article_20090108_E1.asp?contactid=LearnWLCB

[JagFan07]

Political payback:

Thursday, January 15, 2009
Citibank Top Donor to Obama Inauguration:
Citibank employees were big campaign contributors to Barack Obama's Presidential campaign.Not a bad rent-seeking "investment".Obama voted for TARP.Now Newsmax reports:

    Employees of Citibank, which received $45 billion in rescue funds in the federal bailout, have contributed the most to Barack Obama's inauguration fund, at least $113,000 as of Wednesday.

    And the bank is lobbying behind the scenes for more money from the second $350 billion installment of federal bailout funds, according to The New York Times.

    Among the contributions from Citibank executives is $50,000 from Ray McGuire, the bank's co-head of global investment banking, and $50,000 from Louis Susman, the recently retired vice chairman of Citigroup, the Huffington Post reports.

    Susman also bundled $300,000 in donations for the inaugural committee, according to Politico.com.

    Bundlers are fundraisers who collect checks from friends and associates and deliver them to a campaign or committee.

    Citigroup employees also gave $586,000 to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

This is the flow of how the socialist redistribution of wealth works.TARP money for Obama's inauguration,which only insures more TARP money! We have a feeling Chris Dodd and Barney Frank don't mind Citibank making campaign contributions to politicians with TARP money.Citibank may be on the verge of insolvency( because of their inability to run a prudent bank) but they have the money to be the biggest donors at Obama's inauguration! Is Barack Obama(Democrat-Citibank)?

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2009/01/citibank-top-donor-to-obama.html

[BridgeTroll]

Here is a less partisan view of how insurance works...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance

Insurers' business model
[edit] Underwriting and investing
The business model can be reduced to a simple equation: Profit = earned premium + investment income - incurred loss - underwriting expenses.

Insurers make money in two ways:

Through underwriting, the process by which insurers select the risks to insure and decide how much in premiums to charge for accepting those risks;
By investing the premiums they collect from insured parties.
The most complicated aspect of the insurance business is the underwriting of policies. Using a wide assortment of data, insurers predict the likelihood that a claim will be made against their policies and price products accordingly. To this end, insurers use actuarial science to quantify the risks they are willing to assume and the premium they will charge to assume them. Data is analyzed to fairly accurately project the rate of future claims based on a given risk. Actuarial science uses statistics and probability to analyze the risks associated with the range of perils covered, and these scientific principles are used to determine an insurer's overall exposure. Upon termination of a given policy, the amount of premium collected and the investment gains thereon minus the amount paid out in claims is the insurer's underwriting profit on that policy. Of course, from the insurer's perspective, some policies are "winners" (i.e., the insurer pays out less in claims and expenses than it receives in premiums and investment income) and some are "losers" (i.e., the insurer pays out more in claims and expenses than it receives in premiums and investment income); insurance companies essentially use actuarial science to attempt to underwrite enough "winning" policies to pay out on the "losers" while still maintaining profitability.

An insurer's underwriting performance is measured in its combined ratio[5] which is the ratio of losses and expenses to premiums. A combined ratio of less than 100 percent indicates underwriting profitability, while anything over 100 indicates an underwriting loss. A company with a combined ratio over 100% may nevertheless remain profitable due to investment earnings.

Insurance companies earn investment profits on “float”. “Float” or available reserve is the amount of money, at hand at any given moment, that an insurer has collected in insurance premiums but has not paid out in claims. Insurers start investing insurance premiums as soon as they are collected and continue to earn interest or other income on them until claims are paid out. The Association of British Insurers (gathering 400 insurance companies and 94% of UK insurance services) has almost 20% of the investments in the London Stock Exchange.[6]

In the United States, the underwriting loss of property and casualty insurance companies was $142.3 billion in the five years ending 2003. But overall profit for the same period was $68.4 billion, as the result of float. Some insurance industry insiders, most notably Hank Greenberg, do not believe that it is forever possible to sustain a profit from float without an underwriting profit as well, but this opinion is not universally held.

Naturally, the “float” method is difficult to carry out in an economically depressed period. Bear markets do cause insurers to shift away from investments and to toughen up their underwriting standards. So a poor economy generally means high insurance premiums. This tendency to swing between profitable and unprofitable periods over time is commonly known as the "underwriting" or insurance cycle.[7]

Property and casualty insurers currently make the most money from their auto insurance line of business. Generally better statistics are available on auto losses and underwriting on this line of business has benefited greatly from advances in computing. Additionally, property losses in the United States, due to unpredictable natural catastrophes, have exacerbated this trend.

[finehoe]

Is 2.2% an obscene profit?

Where does 2.2% come from?  The numbers for 2009 are
Aetna: 3.7%
Wellpoint: 7.3%
Cigna: 7.1%
United Health: 3.7%
Humana: 3.4%
Healthspring: 5.0%
Coventry Health Care: 2.3%
United American Corp: 2.7%
Unum Group: 8.4%

[JagFan07]

Nice Find BT. Are insurers in Florida also required to keep a reserve fund to cover loses?