• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Insurers Profit From Health Law They Fought

Mr. V, first-world countries with single-payer universal healthcare spend less and have better outcomes. The higher the percentage of private option in country, the most healthcare cost and the less effective it is. Go do some real research into the numbers.
 
apdst said:
Why on earth would anyone support legislation that would kill private sector profits?
Click to expand...

Wow... Ok, lets start at the beginning... Capitalism is the theory that if you have many producers competing for customers they will each try to make the better product at the lower price to get more customers until the product is being sold at as near to cost as possible. That's why capitalism is efficient- because it is a system for eliminating profit margins. Without capitalist competition companies would just charge several times what it costs them to produce things. That massive profit taking waste is the main problem capitalism is designed to solve. But, that doesn't always work right left to it own devices. Health care, the way it is set up now, isn't a properly functioning market. It has lots of issues. For one, consumers don't negotiate directly with producers. Consumers get a job, the employer picks and insurance company, a doctor decides what goods and services the person should buy, the insurance company negotiates actual costs. So that breaks the whole supply and demand thing. The employer doesn't care about the product's quality and the doctor doesn't care about the cost. Also, it is a very hard industry to break into. It requires tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. So there are really only 3 or 4 major players. That means very little competition is actually going on. The idea with the public option is that it would force them to start competing again by establishing a lower cost alternative that they would need to compete with.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
This was 11 months before the election. If you want to blame some Democrats who reacted to the influences of Insurance companies, then have at it.

Otherwise, it is you who are trying to kid the rest of us. Try again.
Click to expand...

So you think the insurance company/tea party hysteria had no impact? Why do you think they did it?
 
teamosil said:
Wow... Ok, lets start at the beginning... Capitalism is the theory that if you have many producers competing for customers they will each try to make the better product at the lower price to get more customers until the product is being sold at as near to cost as possible. That's why capitalism is efficient- because it is a system for eliminating profit margins. Without capitalist competition companies would just charge several times what it costs them to produce things. That massive profit taking waste is the main problem capitalism is designed to solve. But, that doesn't always work right left to it own devices. Health care, the way it is set up now, isn't a properly functioning market. It has lots of issues. For one, consumers don't negotiate directly with producers. Consumers get a job, the employer picks and insurance company, a doctor decides what goods and services the person should buy, the insurance company negotiates actual costs. So that breaks the whole supply and demand thing. The employer doesn't care about the product's quality and the doctor doesn't care about the cost. Also, it is a very hard industry to break into. It requires tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. So there are really only 3 or 4 major players. That means very little competition is actually going on. The idea with the public option is that it would force them to start competing again by establishing a lower cost alternative that they would need to compete with.
Click to expand...

Serious question: where do you come up with this stuff? :rofl

Do you know what happens to a company when there is no more profit margin?
 
teamosil said:
Wow... Ok, lets start at the beginning... Capitalism is the theory that if you have many producers competing for customers they will each try to make the better product at the lower price to get more customers until the product is being sold at as near to cost as possible. That's why capitalism is efficient- because it is a system for eliminating profit margins. Without capitalist competition companies would just charge several times what it costs them to produce things. That massive profit taking waste is the main problem capitalism is designed to solve. But, that doesn't always work right left to it own devices. Health care, the way it is set up now, isn't a properly functioning market. It has lots of issues. For one, consumers don't negotiate directly with producers. Consumers get a job, the employer picks and insurance company, a doctor decides what goods and services the person should buy, the insurance company negotiates actual costs. So that breaks the whole supply and demand thing. The employer doesn't care about the product's quality and the doctor doesn't care about the cost. Also, it is a very hard industry to break into. It requires tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. So there are really only 3 or 4 major players. That means very little competition is actually going on. The idea with the public option is that it would force them to start competing again by establishing a lower cost alternative that they would need to compete with.
Click to expand...
clap2.gif Very well explained. We not only cannot afford not to have a public option because of cost, but because of healthcare outcomes.

Our life-expectancy is currently rated as similar to that in Czech Republic, Poland and Mexico - well behind all the first world countries - and it is falling instead of rising!
US Spends Most on Health Care; Results Lag - CBS News
 
apdst said:
Serious question: where do you come up with this stuff? :rofl
Click to expand...

Kiddo, it is the most basic economics there is. You know those graphs with the lines for "supply" and "demand"? What those mean is that the "demand" line is how many of the widget people would buy at various prices, and the "supply" line is the cost to produce that many widgets. Where the lines cross is what the market will, at least in theory, set the price. That means zero profit- they are pricing it at cost. That's the most basic econ 101 concept there is...
 
teamosil said:
We can't possibly afford NOT to have a public option! Medical costs in the US are doubling every 7 years. At this rate, in 20 years health care for one person will cost more than the median income. We can't possibly afford that. Countries with public options pay half or less what we do for medical care, but get higher quality care. The whole point of the public option is to force costs down.
Click to expand...

I think a public option would be great, if we could pay for it. I don't believe would could in fact keep the costs of a public option down. I don't disagree that medical costs are increasing, or that a public option wouldn't be a great thing. My problem is that we don't have the money for the program.

Check this out: 10000Pennies's Channel - YouTube

and

10000Pennies's Channel - YouTube
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Mr. V, first-world countries with single-payer universal healthcare spend less and have better outcomes. The higher the percentage of private option in country, the most healthcare cost and the less effective it is. Go do some real research into the numbers.
Click to expand...

I have.

You are the one that's not paying attention to the numbers.
 
teamosil said:
We can't possibly afford NOT to have a public option! Medical costs in the US are doubling every 7 years. At this rate, in 20 years health care for one person will cost more than the median income. We can't possibly afford that. Countries with public options pay half or less what we do for medical care, but get higher quality care. The whole point of the public option is to force costs down.
Click to expand...

You really think that's the whole point of the Public option? You're ****ing deluded then.
 
Blue_State said:
I think a public option would be great, if we could pay for it. I don't believe would could in fact keep the costs of a public option down. I don't disagree that medical costs are increasing, or that a public option wouldn't be a great thing. My problem is that we don't have the money for the program.

Check this out: 10000Pennies's Channel - YouTube

and

10000Pennies's Channel - YouTube
Click to expand...

The part that costs money is making sure everybody gets health care- the subsidy. That's already in place. The public option wouldn't cost anything. It would charge just like insurance companies do. The only difference is that it would not have to include a margin for profit and it would be focused on trying to keep costs down. The pressure on the profit companies that would create would force them to slim their profit taking and look for ways to be more efficient.
 
MrVicchio said:
You really think that's the whole point of the Public option? You're ****ing deluded then.
Click to expand...

What do you think is the point of the public option? And please don't tell me it's some whacky conspiracy theory....
 
teamosil said:
The part that costs money is making sure everybody gets health care- the subsidy. That's already in place. The public option wouldn't cost anything. It would charge just like insurance companies do. The only difference is that it would not have to include a margin for profit and it would be focused on trying to keep costs down. The pressure on the profit companies that would create would force them to slim their profit taking and look for ways to be more efficient.
Click to expand...

Like the post office?
 
Blue_State said:
Like the post office?
Click to expand...

The post office was actually formed for a different reason- because the mail delivery was the backbone of our command and control system in those days. I don't really have an opinion either way on it's role today. It probably does force the private delivery services to keep their prices lower than they would otherwise... But at the same time it's mostly just become a mechanism for snail mail spam. Might be time for it to go.
 
teamosil said:
So you think the insurance company/tea party hysteria had no impact? Why do you think they did it?
Click to expand...

To blame the Tea Party at that stage is to blame Republicans, Moderates, Liberals, or whatever else influences a politician. I think that the most obvious answer is that there were moderate Democrats who knew that this would not play well in their home districts. This is not a new phenomenon, much less a "Tea Party" one. In hindsight, it was a political process that Obama botched enormously. And OBTW, he has botched just about everything politics since elected. Nov 2010 was precise feedback on this. His current reelection campaign is more evidence of same.

teamosil said:
Wow... Ok, lets start at the beginning... Capitalism is the theory that if you have many producers competing for customers they will each try to make the better product at the lower price to get more customers until the product is being sold at as near to cost as possible. That's why capitalism is efficient- because it is a system for eliminating profit margins. Without capitalist competition companies would just charge several times what it costs them to produce things. That massive profit taking waste is the main problem capitalism is designed to solve. But, that doesn't always work right left to it own devices. Health care, the way it is set up now, isn't a properly functioning market. It has lots of issues. For one, consumers don't negotiate directly with producers. Consumers get a job, the employer picks and insurance company, a doctor decides what goods and services the person should buy, the insurance company negotiates actual costs. So that breaks the whole supply and demand thing. The employer doesn't care about the product's quality and the doctor doesn't care about the cost. Also, it is a very hard industry to break into. It requires tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. So there are really only 3 or 4 major players. That means very little competition is actually going on. The idea with the public option is that it would force them to start competing again by establishing a lower cost alternative that they would need to compete with.
Click to expand...

There are many Conservatives, including myself, who also see our entire health insurance system as one giant mess. Who also see a very deliberate role for government in it, precisely with regard to insurance. I firmly believe in insurance regulation. But it is also government that, through various efforts over the years, has made bad decisions, set up systems doomed to fail, and which has created this giant mess. Government has to be a part of the solution .......... but not as it has been.

It is also for another thread, and Administration. Obama cannot possibly get it done. Wrong guy. And it ain't close.
 
teamosil said:
Kiddo, it is the most basic economics there is. You know those graphs with the lines for "supply" and "demand"? What those mean is that the "demand" line is how many of the widget people would buy at various prices, and the "supply" line is the cost to produce that many widgets. Where the lines cross is what the market will, at least in theory, set the price. That means zero profit- they are pricing it at cost. That's the most basic econ 101 concept there is...
Click to expand...

You patronize me, accuse me of being ignorant of economics, then claim that it's ok for a business to not make a profit?


Really??? :lamo

Do you know where corporate taxes actually come from? :lamo
 
Blue_State said:
I think a public option would be great, if we could pay for it. I don't believe would could in fact keep the costs of a public option down. I don't disagree that medical costs are increasing, or that a public option wouldn't be a great thing. My problem is that we don't have the money for the program.

Check this out: 10000Pennies's Channel - YouTube

and

10000Pennies's Channel - YouTube
Click to expand...

Not to mention all the tax revenue that would be lost, when the private health insurance industry collapses.
 
apdst said:
You patronize me, accuse me of being ignorant of economics, then claim that it's ok for a business to not make a profit?
Click to expand...

Kiddo, just answer the question. Try to follow what is being discussed. Are you familiar with the law of supply and demand? It's the most basic of all concepts in economics. Can you explain how it works? I already explained it above, but maybe it would help if you googled it and read about it some other places too? Until you can at least explain that most basic idea you really aren't in a position to be telling others about your economic views.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
Wow... Ok, lets start at the beginning... Capitalism is the theory that if you have many producers competing for customers they will each try to make the better product at the lower price to get more customers until the product is being sold at as near to cost as possible. That's why capitalism is efficient- because it is a system for eliminating profit margins. Without capitalist competition companies would just charge several times what it costs them to produce things. That massive profit taking waste is the main problem capitalism is designed to solve. But, that doesn't always work right left to it own devices. Health care, the way it is set up now, isn't a properly functioning market. It has lots of issues. For one, consumers don't negotiate directly with producers. Consumers get a job, the employer picks and insurance company, a doctor decides what goods and services the person should buy, the insurance company negotiates actual costs. So that breaks the whole supply and demand thing. The employer doesn't care about the product's quality and the doctor doesn't care about the cost. Also, it is a very hard industry to break into. It requires tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. So there are really only 3 or 4 major players. That means very little competition is actually going on. The idea with the public option is that it would force them to start competing again by establishing a lower cost alternative that they would need to compete with.
Click to expand...

If your problem is with the set up of the consumer market for insurance and doctors, remove the problem that legislation created.
You don't don't legislate more garbage, to fix the old garbage.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If your problem is with the set up of the consumer market for insurance and doctors, remove the problem that legislation created.
You don't don't legislate more garbage, to fix the old garbage.
Click to expand...

How is that a problem that legislation created? Employers choose to offer health insurance to entice employees because they could get it at a lower cost by buying group plans. Doctors decide what medical care people need because they have the expertise. There are so few options and so little competition between them because it is a very expensive market to get in to. Those aren't the result of legislation, they're just the nature of that market.
 
teamosil said:
How is that a problem that legislation created? Employers choose to offer health insurance to entice employees because they could get it at a lower cost by buying group plans. Doctors decide what medical care people need because they have the expertise. There are so few options and so little competition between them because it is a very expensive market to get in to. Those aren't the result of legislation, they're just the nature of that market.
Click to expand...

Because of state and federal legislated minimum benefits, those that shouldn't be mandated in the first place, because they aren't insurable events.
Not to mention that there is a hugely gross assumption that the government would be a more efficient provider of insurance.
Do we have any proof?
Maybe a little, but not enough to say that it would be guaranteed, to be better.

For the most part here, most people who want a "public option" don't understand what insurance is and what it's supposed to do.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Because of state and federal legislated minimum benefits, those that shouldn't be mandated in the first place, because they aren't insurable events.
Not to mention that there is a hugely gross assumption that the government would be a more efficient provider of insurance.
Do we have any proof?
Maybe a little, but not enough to say that it would be guaranteed, to be better.

For the most part here, most people who want a "public option" don't understand what insurance is and what it's supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand what "option" means? No one was going to be forced to choose the public option. If they preferred they could have chosen from several private insurance plans, which is more choice than most people have now.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Because of state and federal legislated minimum benefits, those that shouldn't be mandated in the first place, because they aren't insurable events.
Click to expand...

That isn't one of the things I said was preventing market forces from working correctly, so that doesn't address my point.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Not to mention that there is a hugely gross assumption that the government would be a more efficient provider of insurance.
Click to expand...

There are many potential efficiency problems. Insurance companies drawing profits is one impediment to efficiency that a public option would not have to worry about. Most importantly it would break up the sort of tacit agreement not to compete with one another on price that you get pretty much any time a market with a high barrier to entry has only a few players. But, no doubt, in a properly working market private industry has the capability to be more efficient than government. I certainly hope that would be the case here. Hopefully the public option would force the companies to start competing on price again and they would indeed turn out to be more efficient at it, in which case nobody would use the public option. Maybe all that needs to happen is for the public option to break the logjam and get the private companies back on track. That'd be ideal. But, if they don't get back on track, it would always be there as a check.1
 
AdamT said:
Do you not understand what "option" means? No one was going to be forced to choose the public option. If they preferred they could have chosen from several private insurance plans, which is more choice than most people have now.
Click to expand...

What if the option is less efficient than all the private choices?
Would it still get to exist, at a loss to the government?

You know that once we let these cats out of the bag, they're much harder to put back, even if it doesn't work out as well as everyone says.
 
teamosil said:
That isn't one of the things I said was preventing market forces from working correctly, so that doesn't address my point.
Click to expand...

Just because you didn't say it, doesn't mean it isn't one of the problems.

teamosil said:
There are many potential efficiency problems. Insurance companies drawing profits is one impediment to efficiency that a public option would not have to worry about. Most importantly it would break up the sort of tacit agreement not to compete with one another on price that you get pretty much any time a market with a high barrier to entry has only a few players. But, no doubt, in a properly working market private industry has the capability to be more efficient than government. I certainly hope that would be the case here. Hopefully the public option would force the companies to start competing on price again and they would indeed turn out to be more efficient at it, in which case nobody would use the public option. Maybe all that needs to happen is for the public option to break the logjam and get the private companies back on track. That'd be ideal. But, if they don't get back on track, it would always be there as a check.1
Click to expand...

Profit is really marginal here and people getting stuck on it, is foolishly short sighted in my opinion.
You guys are letting social beliefs get in the way of actual function.

The fact that insurers have to create micro insurance providers in every state, is a problem, that too was not addressed.
There are many problems with insurance, but the assumption that a public option will "cure the ills" of it, is very very short sighted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom