• 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!

Pelosi slams insurers as "immoral" villains

Actually I agree with the part about politicians not talking about morality or immorality. It is pathetic when they do this with both parties.
Not to mention that the federal government's job is not to dictate morality, that is best left to local governments, and only to a very limited scope at that, i.e. crimes of victimization, traffic laws, basic public safety, etc. etc.
 
Its not about making a profit. Its about making obscene profits by denying coverage, finding any loophole to deny coverage and cancelling coverage when people become ill.
Health insurance companies have a lower profit margin than other industry averages, you lose.

Thats why the whole "for profit" healthcare system makes absolutely ZERO sense.
Health care is a consumer service, that is why doctors are paid by consumers, as well as staff, and hospitals, yeah, how dare a service try to make a profit! Who do they think they are AMERICANS!:roll:
 
Health insurance companies have a lower profit margin than other industry averages, you lose.

You might want to re-check your facts there. I will give you a hint: UnitedHealth. You may also want to know why UnitedHealth is reaping such enormous profits. This would be important to know as it may give you insight into just how made Medicare Reform 2003 really was.
 
You might want to re-check your facts there. I will give you a hint: UnitedHealth. You may also want to know why UnitedHealth is reaping such enormous profits. This would be important to know as it may give you insight into just how made Medicare Reform 2003 really was.
No they aren't when adjusted for profit margin, no health care company makes over 7% profit margin, United being at just above 6%. The typical average of companies has been between 8-10%, the percentage is what is important for business matters, so if they are the big guys, then you may want to go ahead and concede the argument. My source is MarketWatch.
 
No they aren't when adjusted for profit margin, no health care company makes over 7% profit margin, United being at just above 6%. The typical average of companies has been between 8-10%, the percentage is what is important for business matters, so if they are the big guys, then you may want to go ahead and concede the argument. My source is MarketWatch.

If I can make 20% on a $1000 or make 7% on a billion ill take the 7%
 
That's like Bill Clinton teaching a course on sexual ethics, or Ted Kennedy teaching Drivers' Ed.

Or George W. Bush or Sarah Palin teaching basic civics
or economics
...geography...
...business management...
...U.S. History and Government...

You far-righters need to focus more on people's actions and less on their political speeches... maybe then you'd see the flaws in some of your own 'leaders' and have a better chance of reinventing your party in an intelligent and meaningful way.
 
If I can make 20% on a $1000 or make 7% on a billion ill take the 7%
Sure, we all would, but this also denotes that the profits aren't going straight to the insurance company, the 7% is the very bottom line, this is after liabilities are paid, including loans, regulatory, salaries, and other expenses, it's similar yet different for any viable business. Plus, the major health insurers are publicly traded companies, so the 7% left of the billion net profit will now be divided by the shareholders and else reinvested, so if you could get all of the 20% if 1000$ personally, or
.0065% of the 7% of the billion dollars which then looks nicer?
 
Sure, we all would, but this also denotes that the profits aren't going straight to the insurance company, the 7% is the very bottom line, this is after liabilities are paid, including loans, regulatory, salaries, and other expenses, it's similar yet different for any viable business. Plus, the major health insurers are publicly traded companies, so the 7% left of the billion net profit will now be divided by the shareholders and else reinvested, so if you could get all of the 20% if 1000$ personally, or
.0065% of the 7% of the billion dollars which then looks nicer?

Id take the 7% on a billion like anybody would and bulid a golden parachute.
 
Id take the 7% on a billion like anybody would and bulid a golden parachute.
Sure, but this assumes the 7% is going to a single person/entity, it's never that simple.
 
They honor the terms of the contract, and no more than the terms of the contract. Just like any sane business.

There is no villainy in honoring the terms of the contract. Only folks who whine about that are those who expect what they haven't paid for.

... I can think of at least three reasons why that is a meaningless objection.
 
So why play the percentage game?
Because the percentages are how business guages where it stands. If a business makes a net profit of, to keep it simple 1K a month, if it is only taking in 6% of that, it means that the operating expenses or other factors, both regulatory and non-regulatory are causing a strain on bottom line dollars, if a percentage drops too low, people start to be downsized, stocks start to devalue, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom