Quote: Original post by Eelco
The profit margins of private insurers are not what makes american insurance expensive.

What makes American insurance expensive?

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Stab-o-tron
With regards to taxes, you guys are spending more on health care (2-3 times as much), than people in countries with UHC pay in taxes.

50% more than where im from, from what ive seen. That can be explained in various ways.

Please, don't keep us waiting...

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Bring down cost? Maybe for those without any money, but not for taxpayers.

The taxpayers, especially wealthy tax payers, foot the bill for those who cannot afford it. Apparently the costs will be lowered through cutting administrative costs and efficiencies and blah blah blah, but it is a 1.3 trillion dollar bill.

As usual, you fail to look at the whole picture - the equivalent of "Total Cost of Ownership," so to speak. Let's assume that your total figure of $1.3 trillion is accurate. The gross domestic product of the US for the last calendar year was $13.84 trillion. Consequently, a public health option will cost us

1.3 / 13.84 * 100 = 9.39%

9.39% of GDP for a public option.

In contrast, in 2008, healthcare spending in the US was $2.4 trillion. Before I calculate what that percentage is, I'm going to propose a hypothesis that says that $1.3 trillion is a lower percentage of GDP than $2.4 trillion. Okay, let's go:

2.4 / 13.84 * 100 = 17.34%

Now, I'm no genius, but I do believe that 9.39% is less than 17.34% - that $1.3 trillion is less than $2.4 trillion, or that the public option is cheaper for the American people than what they currently spend on private healthcare.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by Eelco
The profit margins of private insurers are not what makes american insurance expensive.

What makes American insurance expensive?

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Stab-o-tron
With regards to taxes, you guys are spending more on health care (2-3 times as much), than people in countries with UHC pay in taxes.

50% more than where im from, from what ive seen. That can be explained in various ways.

Please, don't keep us waiting...

Honoring of drugs patents, relatively little price fixing in general.

Most of all, its a rich country. Healthcare is where people put their dollars once they have many.

The profit margins of insurance companies are less than 5% of invested captital per annum. You are better off putting your money in bonds. How can it then be the core of your cost problem?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
The profit margins of insurance companies are less than 5% of invested captital per annum. You are better off putting your money in bonds. How can it then be the core of your cost problem?

Here's another fun fact:

Quote: This report looks at the 2003-2007 profits for the country’s major national health insurance companies (such as UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint), which sell health insurance through their subsidiaries. Over that period, their combined profits increased by 170.2 percent, reaching $12.6 billion at the end of 2007.

Or another:

Quote: These insurance companies reported spending an average of more than 18 percent
of their revenues on marketing, administration, and profits.

And more:

Quote: Health insurance premiums in states with better-than-average competition were 12 percent lower than those in states with worse-than-average competition, according to a University of Pittsburgh Medical Center study of 31 states.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Bring down cost? Maybe for those without any money, but not for taxpayers.

The taxpayers, especially wealthy tax payers, foot the bill for those who cannot afford it. Apparently the costs will be lowered through cutting administrative costs and efficiencies and blah blah blah, but it is a 1.3 trillion dollar bill.

As usual, you fail to look at the whole picture - the equivalent of "Total Cost of Ownership," so to speak. Let's assume that your total figure of $1.3 trillion is accurate. The gross domestic product of the US for the last calendar year was $13.84 trillion. Consequently, a public health option will cost us

1.3 / 13.84 * 100 = 9.39%

9.39% of GDP for a public option.

In contrast, in 2008, healthcare spending in the US was $2.4 trillion. Before I calculate what that percentage is, I'm going to propose a hypothesis that says that $1.3 trillion is a lower percentage of GDP than $2.4 trillion. Okay, let's go:

2.4 / 13.84 * 100 = 17.34%

Now, I'm no genius, but I do believe that 9.39% is less than 17.34% - that $1.3 trillion is less than $2.4 trillion, or that the public option is cheaper for the American people than what they currently spend on private healthcare.

Umm, isn't that trillion-dollar figure for the public option spread out over 10 years or something? The 2.4 trillion is every year.

Also, that trillion dollar figure is in addition to our existing healthcare costs. Sure, the idea is that it will redirect some of the money currently going to private insurance into a government-run program, but from what I can tell the $1.whatever trillion dollar cost is the loss the government is taking on the program.

So basically, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote: Perhaps its you who should excuse yourself from the discussion, because none of that seems to relate to my comment. The profit margins of private insurers are not what makes american insurance expensive. Why dont you just admit it?

Let's assume for a second that 5% of revenue is a true figure (I couldn't find any reference to it through a quick google search, and a search of this thread, so please give your source), you still haven't properly responded to the comment you originally posted your one liner to:

Quote: In case it wasn't clear from the last post, I would love to see the health insurance companies go broke. They're incredible leeches on society. I'm disappointed that the political landscape in this country is that not only do politicians not have the balls to go single payer, but the effort will likely fail entirely. Polls show massive favorabilities for public option (60%+) and it still won't happen.

I see no mention of profit. I only see a comment that Health Insurance providers are incredible leeches on society. But you responded to that comment by stating the following:

Quote: Leeches on society? In what way exactly?

Surely you are not talking about their profit margins? Those are pretty lame as a percentage of invested capital.

When it had long been established in this thread that the HMOs are in fact leaches on Society. Their profit margins have nothing to do with their status as leaches. A higher profit would be proof that they are doing well. A higher profit would be an incentive for them to be leaches. But guess what:

So would their survival.

Therefore your argument does not properly counter Promit's argument. As it stands, the stronger argument is that HMO's are leaches on Society--Which, let me repeat, has long been established in this thread. And you have not given a strong argument in return, you have barely even given a related argument.

And let's be honest here. If anything 5% is extremely suspicious--and reeks of underhanded activity. It has long been established, and I think everyone can agree on this, that Private Health Insurers are not in it to help people.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
In order to facilitate a more informed discussion, here are a list of the points the Republicans are making along with the respective pages from the actual health care bill.

Was it Hannity, Limbaugh, or just a random teabagger that finally put up a list that could be copied-and-pasted?

FYI, I wrote that entire post. The only thing I copied and pasted from was the bill....

Oh hey.... look what I just came across.


http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html

Quite a coinky-dink that this guy's blog covers up to almost the place in the bill [page 490-ish] that your post did. And pretty much the same points, (except that you didn't list any bits related to ACORN).

But, I'm not saying that this would explain why you have such a poor understanding of the bill after claiming to have read it.... naw.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
Umm, isn't that trillion-dollar figure for the public option spread out over 10 years or something? The 2.4 trillion is every year.

That makes the public option look that much better, because it then declines to 0.939% of GDP annually, vs 17.34%.

Quote: Also, that trillion dollar figure is in addition to our existing healthcare costs. Sure, the idea is that it will redirect some of the money currently going to private insurance into a government-run program, but from what I can tell the $1.whatever trillion dollar cost is the loss the government is taking on the program.

I'm not sure about that. I have no figures either way, but my position is that I'm perfectly fine with healthcare not being revenue-neutral. We spend - lose - a lot more on defense projects, and the health of our population is something that we should be willing to invest less than 1% of our GDP in.

Quote: So basically, I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Public option cheaper than private."

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
Umm, isn't that trillion-dollar figure for the public option spread out over 10 years or something? The 2.4 trillion is every year.

That makes the public option look that much better, because it then declines to 0.939% of GDP annually, vs 17.34%.

Quote: Also, that trillion dollar figure is in addition to our existing healthcare costs. Sure, the idea is that it will redirect some of the money currently going to private insurance into a government-run program, but from what I can tell the $1.whatever trillion dollar cost is the loss the government is taking on the program.

I'm not sure about that. I have no figures either way, but my position is that I'm perfectly fine with healthcare not being revenue-neutral. We spend - lose - a lot more on defense projects, and the health of our population is something that we should be willing to invest less than 1% of our GDP in.

Quote: So basically, I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Public option cheaper than private."

I believe BeanDog was responding to Chris, not you.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
I believe BeanDog was responding to Chris, not you.

He quoted me, and he took exception with data I introduced. I'm pretty sure he was responding to me.