Blue Cross Blue Shield getting crushed by Obamacare

[fskimospy]

The primary difference between China & U.S. defense spending: U.S. R&D is paid out to researchers and engineers who design new technologies and build the production facilities. China R&D is paid out to computer experts who find ways to steal U.S. R&D, a much cheaper route to obtaining the same end result.

Well that and our military is vastly more powerful and capable than China's. We can project power almost anywhere in the world on very short notice and for a very long time. China has little ability to do this beyond the territory immediately surrounding their country.

People often forget the US's greatest advantage (or at least one of our greatest advantages), our unparalleled logistical capabilities. It might not be as sexy as tanks and fighters but it's what actually lets us do what we do. It's also very expensive.

 

[fskimospy]

It's dispassionate examination cost/benefit ratios only if it's government run healthcare. If it's privately run healthcare, then it's just greed.

Well yeah, kind of, as the goals of government health insurance and private health insurance are not at all the same. The purpose of government insurance is to provide services. The purpose of private insurance is to make profits. This is just the fundamental nature of government vs. private sector.

I've always personally questioned if private insurance companies should even exist at all considering the basic conflict of interest that's present. Most business sectors have a collaborative relationship with their customers: If you want a cheeseburger, McDonalds will make you one. After that transaction you both have what you wanted and are both better off. (well, until your heart explodes) Insurance doesn't work that way though, as it's close to a zero sum game. Every dollar they pay out in claims is one less dollar for them, which means they have a direct interest in not giving their customers the 'product' they paid for, or at least giving them as little of it as possible, and this is all decided after the fact of whatever event caused you to try and use your insurance.

 

[feralkid]

No. Gullible people put up a stink that "Congress was creating this law that does not apply to them," fueled by right wing propaganda. The GOP then inserted language requiring Congress and their staff to purchase their insurance from the new exchanges. Being the complete imbeciles that they are, the GOP didn't realize that this subjected them to another condition of the ACA that if you are offered health insurance by your employer and you turn it down to buy insurance on the exchanges then you get no subsidies. Then when this part of the law went into effect, the GOP started crying crocodile tears that their staff were subjected to this horrible law that made them purchase insurance on the exchanges but they didn't qualify for subsidies.

Isn't the GOP great? Keystone Cops on pretty much every issue.

Sorry, my info was outdated; thanks for clarifying.

 

[sm625]

Then I guess we should just print more money. I don't see how that could cause any harm to us. Seriously you make it sound like we don't have a care in the world.

Yep. Printing money doesnt cause any inflation. Eggs were always $3 a dozen. And simple fruit of the loom underwear was always $3 a pair.

 

[werepossum]

It's dispassionate examination cost/benefit ratios only if it's government run healthcare. If it's privately run healthcare, then it's just greed.

Exactly.

Well that and our military is vastly more powerful and capable than China's. We can project power almost anywhere in the world on very short notice and for a very long time. China has little ability to do this beyond the territory immediately surrounding their country.

People often forget the US's greatest advantage (or at least one of our greatest advantages), our unparalleled logistical capabilities. It might not be as sexy as tanks and fighters but it's what actually lets us do what we do. It's also very expensive.

That is true. Logistics and morale are what win wars, and virtually any time our allies want to use military force, they have to borrow our logistics ability. We aren't so much the world's policeman as the world's quartermaster.

 

[BoberFett]

Well yeah, kind of, as the goals of government health insurance and private health insurance are not at all the same. The purpose of government insurance is to provide services. The purpose of private insurance is to make profits. This is just the fundamental nature of government vs. private sector.

Then people should stop complaining about cops. They're just providing a service and government can't possibly have any bad intentions, only corporations have bad intentions, so... working as intended.

 

[Atreus21]

Probably because they worry that someone is going to try and pull a Delaware. By the way there's nothing in federal law that stops insurance companies from selling across state lines. State governments, that institution that conservatives love, are the only ones that have set up any restrictions.

And as I mentioned, some states have done away with those restrictions. Do you know how many insurance companies took advantage of this situation? Zero. That's right. Exactly zero.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/u...sell-health-insurance-across-state-lines.html

All that aside, same question right back at you: why are conservatives making such a pointless change one of the cornerstones of their health care reform plans? It seems like they've duped their followers into thinking this is some sort of meaningful change.

Any change in the direction of deregulation is meaningful.

 

[Atreus21]

Well yeah, kind of, as the goals of government health insurance and private health insurance are not at all the same. The purpose of government insurance is to provide services.

At the taxpayers' expense.

And with no incentive to provide good service. Or to innovate. Or to otherwise stay honest.

The purpose of private insurance is to make profits.

...which are made by providing services that people want. And the better you do that, the better your profits.

How does your comparison of government vs private do when considering schooling? Or getting one's driver's license renewed?

 

[JSt0rm]

kill all poor people/

 

[feralkid]

Yep. Printing money doesnt cause any inflation. Eggs were always $3 a dozen. And simple fruit of the loom underwear was always $3 a pair.

Eggs went up due to the laws of supply and demand.

The supply was severely reduced due to an outbreak of avian flu.

 

[fskimospy]

Then people should stop complaining about cops. They're just providing a service and government can't possibly have any bad intentions, only corporations have bad intentions, so... working as intended.

What? I didn't say anything about good or bad intentions, I just stated a simple fact. The purpose of a for profit business is to generate profits. Period. The purpose of a government program is to provide goods or services. One is not inherently better than the other.

 

[fskimospy]

At the taxpayers' expense.

And with no incentive to provide good service. Or to innovate. Or to otherwise stay honest.

That's ridiculous. You can say in some cases they have fewer incentives, but what you said is absurd.

...which are made by providing services that people want. And the better you do that, the better your profits.

In some cases this is true, but certainly not in all cases. For example, insurance. What is the medical loss ratio of your health insurance company vs overhead? I bet you don't know.

There are many ways to build up demand for your product, that product actually being good is only one of them.

How does your comparison of government vs private do when considering schooling? Or getting one's driver's license renewed?

It does perfectly well. Why wouldn't it? I mean I just stated a simple fact that's basically unarguable, I didn't say which was better. Not to mention there are no private DMVs that I'm aware of.

As for private schools, the closest comparison would be charter schools. In that area the evidence is very mixed. In some cases charters do better than public schools and in some cases worse. The differences are not particularly dramatic in most cases though and the best performing charters frequently use tactics that can't be replicated on a large scale. (You can't expel uncooperative students from everywhere)

I'm a big fan of charter schools as I think they provide an important creative role in education and I hope we keep seeing more of them. If you think the results are dramatically different than public schools on the whole though you're mistaken.

 

[Sonikku]

Then people should stop complaining about cops. They're just providing a service and government can't possibly have any bad intentions, only corporations have bad intentions, so... working as intended.

Which do you think is better (less bad?), privatizing the police or keeping them as government funded public servants? In which category do you see the least corruption?

 

[cubby1223]

Well yeah, kind of, as the goals of government health insurance and private health insurance are not at all the same. The purpose of government insurance is to provide services. The purpose of private insurance is to make profits. This is just the fundamental nature of government vs. private sector.

People like you keep repeating this line as if it is true. News Flash: not everyone agrees with your world views, and that doesn't make others wrong.

You're like one of those lifetime professors who believes he is the utmost authority on everything economics and the private sector, except have never spend a single day in the private sector.

What? I didn't say anything about good or bad intentions, I just stated a simple fact. The purpose of a for profit business is to generate profits. Period. The purpose of a government program is to provide goods or services. One is not inherently better than the other.

What exactly are you trying to say other than you enjoy arguing down to others?

The purpose of a business is to make money for providing a service (or product). And competition is the mechanism that drives people to provide better services (or products). The purpose of a government program is to take money and attempt to provide a service (or product), often in the hopes of providing economic multipliers that will in turn increase tax revenues.

Get over yourself. There is a reason why you have been relegated in life to presenting your arguments in front of a slowly-dying internet forum

 

[fskimospy]

People like you keep repeating this line as if it is true. News Flash: not everyone agrees with your world views, and that doesn't make others wrong.

You're like one of those lifetime professors who believes he is the utmost authority on everything economics and the private sector, except have never spend a single day in the private sector.


What exactly are you trying to say other than you enjoy arguing down to others?

The purpose of a business is to make money for providing a service (or product). And competition is the mechanism that drives people to provide better services (or products). The purpose of a government program is to take money and attempt to provide a service (or product), often in the hopes of providing economic multipliers that will in turn increase tax revenues.

Get over yourself. There is a reason why you have been relegated in life to presenting your arguments in front of a slowly-dying internet forum

You seem to care an awful lot about me, my elite status here, and things like that. I have no idea why. I certainly don't care about it.

If you don't have anything constructive to say why bother? The argument 'not everyone thinks that way!' Is an illogical and stupid thing to say. Who cares if they don't agree? An opinion doesn't have merit just because someone has it.

Also, I don't care if you like me or not and your attempts at insulting me are a waste of your time.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The insurance companies are an unneeded burden on costs, choice, and outcomes. Their relevance is showing.

I don't disagree. We shouldn't need an insurance company in order for the hospital to send a reasonably priced bill.

Hospitals though, are just as guilty since they contract with these insurance companies. If Hospitals just handed us a reasonably priced bill from the start we wouldn't have this issue.

 

[Darwin333]

Cutting out all the insurance company profit, for one. Allowing the government to negotiate prices, for another. Just off the top of my head.

The profits from the insurance companies are relatively insignificant but I'm sure someone can come up with the numbers and subtract that from our healthcare/gdp costs and see exactly how much we'd save. I bet you dollars to doughnuts that it will be fairly insignificant.

As far as the government negotiating drug costs, they should already be doing that and it has nothing to do with insurance companies. Both parties had the opportunity to pass legislation that would allow us to negotiate and import drugs and both parties failed to do so.

 

[Darwin333]

Theoretically if you remove the need to meet a hurdle rate for profitability that should reduce the total system costs. However it also ignores that the profit seeking motive is also a good thing because it drives efforts to reduce costs and root out fraud which government doesn't seem to be particularly good at. Given the tendency towards bureaucratic bloat I'd say that cost savings would not be nearly as much as proponents of single payer would like to believe.

If you however feel on principle that healthcare is a sector that the government should take the primary role in (like safety inspections, public transportation, etc.) that's fine but if so be honest about that belief.

The best that I can find is that health insurers have an average profit margin of 3.3% which sounds a bit low but given the volume it sounds about right. While the total dollars isn't chump change it's relatively a drop in the bucket and doesn't get us in line with what other countries pay by a long shot.

keep in mind that the .gov (state and fed) already pays almost half (45%) of the total healthcare spending in the US. So as I said, I don't see how them picking up the other 55% saves us a significant amount of money and no 3.3% is not significant at all. There will be some savings from medical billing so we have that and 3.3% profit margin that we will save. What else? Where do all of these significant savings come from? How many jobs are going to be lost in the process and how does that weigh into the savings?

PS: I am not implying that we should keep jobs just for the sake of keeping them but they do play a part in the final tally.

 

[Darwin333]

I'd probably be OK with that. Could be a good model for a lot of difference services.

I don't see any other possibility. If we go to single payer, which I think we will eventually, then everyone who has a voice (the insurers, the rich which includes the politicians, etc..) will demand something like that. It also gets around the "wait time" arguments because if you are worried about wait times then you can purchase the super duper private coverage. If you can't afford the super duper policies then you still have "free" healthcare coverage.