• 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

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.

I blieve that the public plan was required to be self financing. It wouldn't run at a profit, but it wouldn't lose money either. It would have charged premiums just like a private plan.
 
I blieve that the public plan was required to be self financing. It wouldn't run at a profit, but it wouldn't lose money either. It would have charged premiums just like a private plan.

I believe there were several different ideas in the works for a public option.
Like everything else though, I highly doubt that it wouldn't have gotten a bail out, at some point, if the benefits were outstripping the premiums.

What we should focus on is, what causes medical cost inflation.
That isn't addressed at all.
The public option idea, is a "sounds nice but doesn't deal with the problems at hand" idea.
 
Last edited:
They are creating their own trust fund to mitigate their loses in the future.

On a serious note, their profit margin went from 6.8% to 8.2%. Not a big jump.

that's over a 20% increase
 
I believe there were several different ideas in the works for a public option.
Like everything else though, I highly doubt that it wouldn't have gotten a bail out, at some point, if the benefits were outstripping the premiums.

What we should focus on is, what causes medical cost inflation.
That isn't addressed at all.
The public option idea, is a sounds nice but doesn't deal with the problems at hand idea.

You mean an AIG-style bailout? A Citi-style bailout? A Bank of America-style bailout? Anything is possible by it's not very illuminating to engage in dueling hypotheticals.

I totally agree that HCR did not focus enough on cost containment, though it does include many pilot programs that could be expanded to contain costs going forward.

IMO single payer is the only way to really contain costs and it's somethig we will have to go to in the end.
 
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.

Supply and demand is irrelevant, as long as you don't understand what profit margin is; certainly so, as long as you think corporations can operate, without making a profit.
 
Just because you didn't say it, doesn't mean it isn't one of the problems.

You might be misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that as long as those problems I listed exist, the market alone won't correct the prices. The market dynamic is busted.

Profit is really marginal here and people getting stuck on it, is foolishly short sighted in my opinion.

That's a myth the insurance companies are perpetuating. Insurance companies need to keep a huge amount of money in the stock market so they can cover any potential spike in claims from a new deadly virus or a WMD attack or whatever. They took a beating on their investments both when the dot com bubble burst and when the Bush2 collapse happened. When they report their profits and claim they're only making 1% or 2% or whatever, that is AFTER covering all their losses in the stock market. And they've been spreading those losses out across many years so that on the books it always looks like they aren't very profitable and don't owe hardly any taxes. But in reality, if you take out the investment losses they've had, they are massively profitable.

the assumption that a public option will "cure the ills" of it, is very very short sighted.

Certainly it won't cure every problem out there in the health care industry, but we don't need to speculate about what effect it would have on costs. Dozens of countries have already done it and in every one of them it has radically reduced the price of health care without reducing quality.
 
Care to show me a link to the numbers on a working healthcare program that costs more than the US's private option only program?

Care to show me where a Public Health Insurance system is more efficient, more flexible and better then the US one? My wife has a bum heel, we called, made an appointment with a specialist, that was on Friday, saw them on Wednesday, got X-rays, Cortazone shot, and full treatment with prescription in one 2 hour visit.

Total out of pocket to me was $20. I pay $280 a month to cover a family of three for full medical dental and vision. I know, anecdotal evidence, but it's just a simple example of getting the job done. My experience with "free" healthcare, ala the US Navy wasn't ever so well done. First we had to go to the Clinic, get referred to specialist, then have an appointment for treatment. Total time for a similar situation was 3 weeks. Call me gun shy here, but real life never seems to match the rosey claims of those wanting free **** at the expense of everyone else.
 
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.

The cost is irrelevant if there is not a significant amount of freedom, choice, and competition in the market.
The cost is also irrelevant if government calls all the shots.
Example. Prisoners pay zero for their health care. I do not therefore consider it better. Sad but true.

That said, how will it force costs down? Give us the top 5 ways, is the point. The point will be, that it's not simply "costs", that will be reduced. And when it comes to my health, I'm not interested in the Wal-Mart of ****ing health care, you can choose that for yourself, and I'll choose mine.

I also don't want to subsidize obese people who stuff their face and sit on their ass all day. I'd prefer to be in a lower risk pool, with lower premiums, because I sacrifice to stay healthy, and them subsidizing their poor lifestyle choices with my sacrifice is bad in every conceiveable way. Single pool my (ideal weight) ass.
 
And who exactly did the insurance companies "buy off"? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the Republicans. There was no public option because there was not enough Democrat support for one.
 
Supply and demand is irrelevant, as long as you don't understand what profit margin is; certainly so, as long as you think corporations can operate, without making a profit.

Of course they can operate without making a profit... Do you not understand what profit means? It is money they get AFTER covering all the costs to continue to operate...

But, in reality, capitalist markets don't result in zero profits. When they are functioning correctly, they result in very small profits. One company figures out a more efficient way to produce something than its competitors, so for a little while until they catch up, he makes a good profit, that sort of thing.

Anyways, dude, this isn't like some political debate. Again, I am just sitting here explaining super basic, non-controversial stuff to you. This is the most basic concept in economics we're discussing here. Go take a class, go read something, stop bothering the adults.
 
The cost is irrelevant if there is not a significant amount of freedom, choice, and competition in the market.

The public option means MORE competition and MORE choices... It is the addition of one more option.
 
You mean an AIG-style bailout? A Citi-style bailout? A Bank of America-style bailout? Anything is possible by it's not very illuminating to engage in dueling hypotheticals.

I totally agree that HCR did not focus enough on cost containment, though it does include many pilot programs that could be expanded to contain costs going forward.

These private business bailouts are an explicit result of regulating a market to the point of idiocy.
We've essentially regulated them to the point were they're quasi public-private entities.


IMO single payer is the only way to really contain costs and it's somethig we will have to go to in the end.

To me, single payer is a cop out.
It's saying, "I don't want to fool with it any longer, so lets do this, because it's easier."

It doesn't, at all, address the fundamental problems with medical care.
It just outsources it, again, to the government.
 
The net increase was actually 1.4%, not 1%. Not sure where you get your numbers, but they are WAAAY off. If UnitedHealth Group alone increased it's net by 1.4% it would mean an additional $1.3 BILLION in profit.

From the article, WellPoint Inc who has the largest membership, currently posts ~2-3 billion in profit yearly. Not really sure how a 1.4% increase in profit margin equates to an additional 1 billion in profit.
 
Of course they can operate without making a profit... Do you not understand what profit means? It is money they get AFTER covering all the costs to continue to operate...

But, in reality, capitalist markets don't result in zero profits. When they are functioning correctly, they result in very small profits. One company figures out a more efficient way to produce something than its competitors, so for a little while until they catch up, he makes a good profit, that sort of thing.

Anyways, dude, this isn't like some political debate. Again, I am just sitting here explaining super basic, non-controversial stuff to you. This is the most basic concept in economics we're discussing here. Go take a class, go read something, stop bothering the adults.

You say that, then try and insult my intelligence? :lamo

I'm still waiting for you to explain to us how capitalism is designed to kill profit margins. That oughta be funny!
 
The public option means MORE competition and MORE choices... It is the addition of one more option.

How can that be, when the state and federal requirements for minimum benefits, require insurance companies not to offer a great variance of choices.
Do they get to play outside of the rule book?
 
How can that be, when the state and federal requirements for minimum benefits, require insurance companies not to offer a great variance of choices.
Do they get to play outside of the rule book?

Hm? Not sure how the public option has anything to do with that. Right now you have like 3 or 4 insurance companies to choose from. Once there is a public option that would be 4 or 5. More.
 
You say that, then try and insult my intelligence? :lamo

I'm still waiting for you to explain to us how capitalism is designed to kill profit margins. That oughta be funny!

Alright dude. I'm just going to say it and take the infraction- you are hands down the stupidest poster on this site. You don't understand any of the basics in any of the areas you debate, you act like people are idiots when they bring up universally accepted facts, you don't read the posts before you reply to them, not only do you never look anything up on your own, but you arrogantly refuse to even when everybody is tell you that you're dead wrong... Nobody- conservative or liberal- ever comes out agreeing with your asinine positions on here. You have, I think, the lowest like-to-post ratio on here. You lose every single debate you enter into by a massive margin and sometimes you don't even seem to realize it. It's just pathetic. You need to go do something that you are less terrible at with your time.

Harry, please infract me.
 
Last edited:
Hm? Not sure how the public option has anything to do with that. Right now you have like 3 or 4 insurance companies to choose from. Once there is a public option that would be 4 or 5. More.

More doesn't mean better.
If I have to choose between 3-5 things, but them all being nearly the same, do I really have a choice?

Hell my company rolled out an HSA this year for us, it's cheaper premium wise, but it's still legally required to pay for preventative medicine.
Which is dumb because it defeats the purpose of an HSA in the first place.
 
More doesn't mean better.
If I have to choose between 3-5 things, but them all being nearly the same, do I really have a choice?

I feel like you're arguing for my side! You're right, the insurance companies are all pretty much the same. So really now we only have one choice. Add in a public option, you expand that to two choices that are fundamentally different. They are run in totally different ways, they have different goals, different sorts of offerings. Real, meaningful, consumer choice.
 
I feel like you're arguing for my side! You're right, the insurance companies are all pretty much the same. So really now we only have one choice. Add in a public option, you expand that to two choices that are fundamentally different. They are run in totally different ways, they have different goals, different sorts of offerings. Real, meaningful, consumer choice.

I am but I'm not.
Adding a public option doesn't change the fundamental problem, which is a legal restriction on the offerings of insurance companies.

With my example, with my company's HSA.
I can't not choose, to not have the preventative medicine coverage options, for a cheaper premium.
It's not legally allowed, even if I don't want or need it.

Those things prevent choice and dynamism.
 
I am but I'm not.
Adding a public option doesn't change the fundamental problem, which is a legal restriction on the offerings of insurance companies.

With my example, with my company's HSA.
I can't not choose, to not have the preventative medicine coverage options, for a cheaper premium.
It's not legally allowed, even if I don't want or need it.

Those things prevent choice and dynamism.

I don't know that just cutting out whole areas of coverage is a solution. That's just a way to be half-uninsured. The goal here has to be for everybody to have insurance that covers at least the basic necessities at the lowest cost possible.

Besides, you might not need prescription meds now, but maybe you will 5 years from now. If everybody just waited until they needed it, then bought the coverage, the savings would come out in the wash. They'd need the charge the people that need it twice as much to make up for losing all the folks who don't need it. It would just mean health insurance prices would rise more the older you got, it wouldn't actually save you money in the long run. It's just another species of the pre-existing conditions problem.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that just cutting out whole areas of coverage is a solution. That's just a way to be half-uninsured. The goal here has to be for everybody to have insurance that covers at least the basic necessities at the lowest cost possible.

Besides, you might not need prescription meds now, but maybe you will 5 years from now. If everybody just waited until they needed it, then bought the coverage, the savings would come out in the wash. They'd need the charge the people that need it twice as much to make up for losing all the folks who don't need it. It would just mean health insurance prices would rise more the older you got, it wouldn't actually save you money in the long run. It's just another species of the pre-existing conditions problem.

See though, those things are not insurable events.
You can't insure against something that's guaranteed to happen, at a low price.

HSA's allow you to save your excess in an account, should you need to pay for prescriptions, etc. in the future.
I get a nifty debit card just for my health related expenses, which are currently 0.

The aggregate cost of insurance premiums would fall, if the cost sharing between the insured and the insurance company were balanced out more.
The insured should pay for, maintenance prescriptions, doctors visits for check ups and common issues, not the insurance company.
None of these things are insurable events.
 
See though, those things are not insurable events.
You can't insure against something that's guaranteed to happen, at a low price.

HSA's allow you to save your excess in an account, should you need to pay for prescriptions, etc. in the future.
I get a nifty debit card just for my health related expenses, which are currently 0.

The aggregate cost of insurance premiums would fall, if the cost sharing between the insured and the insurance company were balanced out more.
The insured should pay for, maintenance prescriptions, doctors visits for check ups and common issues, not the insurance company.
None of these things are insurable events.

It is an insurable event though. It isn't like everybody knows for a fact that medication is going to cost them between $100 and $300 a month once they reach age 70 or something. Some people have prescription medication needs that run tens of thousands of dollars a month. People can't all just save up enough for that unlikely possibility in an HSA, they need insurance for it.
 
It is an insurable event though. It isn't like everybody knows for a fact that medication is going to cost them between $100 and $300 a month once they reach age 70 or something. Some people have prescription medication needs that run tens of thousands of dollars a month. People can't all just save up enough for that unlikely possibility in an HSA, they need insurance for it.

HSA's aren't for people with disabilities, they are for the average person.
Actually HSA's offer greater coverage, because they only require people to pay for non insurable events and everything else is covered 100%.
Traditional insurance plans still require the insured to pay for a minor percentage after the deductible is met.

One area where the government should cover people is when they're disabled.
Which they do half assed now.
 
HSA's aren't for people with disabilities, they are for the average person.
Actually HSA's offer greater coverage, because they only require people to pay for non insurable events and everything else is covered 100%.
Traditional insurance plans still require the insured to pay for a minor percentage after the deductible is met.

One area where the government should cover people is when they're disabled.
Which they do half assed now.

You don't have to be disabled to have outrageously high prescription medication costs. Cancer, AIDS, MS, lots of unanticipated things come with massive prescription medication costs.

I agree with you that predictable sorts of expenses would be better handled with HSAs than insurance, but I don't agree that prescription medication costs are predictable.
 
Back
Top Bottom