• 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!

Sen. Rand Paul going to Canada for hernia surgery

Xelor said:
Red:

7mPP.gif

​

Do you take mind altering substances prior to posting in this thread? That insurance companies invest premium receipts to make money isn't and hasn't ever been something "they don't want you to know." Moreover, one'd have to be an idiot think that's not what they do. Everyone invests "excess" cash to so it can make money for them until they have a reason to spend their cash. That anyone'd think that insurers don't or might not is incredibly naive.

The fact that you don't look for information doesn't mean it wasn't disclosed or that the information owners "don't want you to know" it. Indeed, in the case of insurance companies' returns on invested premiums, keeping that behavior secret is the last things they'd want to do. They want to attract investors and showing that they prudently and profitably use and invest their cash receipts strikes current and potential investors as a good thing, for the company's raison d'etre is to make profits/money, as much as is possible given the resources at their disposal.
Click to expand...

Please reconsider what "do not WANT you to know" actually means.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
That was my understanding of Canadian doctors as well, that is why I was curious in this instance since it was private.
Click to expand...

Shouldice is a privately owned facility that derives most of its income from the publicly owned insurance program (that operates on a not for profit basis) and controls its costs so that it meets expenses and provides an acceptable ROI for its owners.

Vancouver General Hospital (as just one example) is a publicly owned facility that derives most of its income from the publicly owned insurance program (that operates on a not for profit basis) and controls its costs so that it meets expenses and provides an acceptable ROI for its owners.

Since VGH is owned by "everyone" it would be rather silly to charge "everyone" more just so that the excess could be returned to "everyone".

The difference between Shouldice and VGH is that Shouldice probably has a much better idea of what any procedure that it provides actually costs than VGH does.

There is an incentive for Shouldice to be efficient, there is no such need for VGH to be efficient.

That is why I prefer "Single Payer - Multiple Provider" systems over "Single Payer - Single Provider" systems.

I can see the advantages of "The State" putting out the capital investment required to provide the facilities needed to supply the level of service that ought to be provided, but I think that those facilities ought to be "bundled" and then operated under contract by people who actually have an incentive to operate them efficiently and at the best possible cost. (Of course, I would reserve the right to determine service standards to "The State" and if "Company A" can meet the same service standards at a cost of "100X" while charging "120X" while "Company B" can meet the same service standards at a cost of "80X" while charging "110X", I'd award the contract to "Company B" regardless of the fact that "Company B" was making a greater profit.)
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Another interesting thing that the insurance companies like to sort of overlook telling you when they are telling you how public spirited they are, is what profit they are making through the investments they make of your premium dollars.

They don't mind telling you that the premiums that they collect are just barely more than the payments that they make (which is frequently [practically] true). But they don't want you to know that they are making money on your money while waiting to make those payments. Another thing that the insurance companies like to do is to define "contingencies for future claims" as money that has actually been paid out - which it isn't.
Xelor said:
Red:

7mPP.gif

​

Do you take mind altering substances prior to posting in this thread? That insurance companies invest premium receipts to make money isn't and hasn't ever been something "they don't want you to know." Moreover, one'd have to be an idiot think that's not what they do. Everyone invests "excess" cash to so it can make money for them until they have a reason to spend their cash. That anyone'd think that insurers don't or might not is incredibly naive.

The fact that you don't look for information doesn't mean it wasn't disclosed or that the information owners "don't want you to know" it. Indeed, in the case of insurance companies' returns on invested premiums, keeping that behavior secret is the last things they'd want to do. They want to attract investors and showing that they prudently and profitably use and invest their cash receipts strikes current and potential investors as a good thing, for the company's raison d'etre is to make profits/money, as much as is possible given the resources at their disposal.

TU Curmudgeon said:
Please reconsider what "do not WANT you to know" actually means.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Blue:
When a firm openly discloses in its public reporting the nature of its uses and sources of cash, of all the things that firm might not "want" others to know, the stuff published in those documents isn't among them. If they didn't want one to know, they damn sure wouldn't share the information in their, of all things, 10-K.
 
Xelor said:
Blue:
When a firm openly discloses in its public reporting the nature of its uses and sources of cash, of all the things that firm might not "want" others to know, the stuff published in those documents isn't among them. If they didn't want one to know, they damn sure wouldn't share the information in their, of all things, 10-K.
Click to expand...

Of course, they "openly disclose" (everything that they are statutorily required to disclose). They put all that information in their annual financial reports (knowing full well that the average, non-stockholder, isn't very likely to read all of the footnotes and appendixes).

If they REALLY wanted you to know then it would feature prominently in all of their literature.

Is it?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Of course, they "openly disclose" (everything that they are statutorily required to disclose). They put all that information in their annual financial reports (knowing full well that the average, non-stockholder, isn't very likely to read all of the footnotes and appendixes).

If they REALLY wanted you to know then it would feature prominently in all of their literature.

Is it?
Click to expand...

Red:
  • Whose "fault" is it that one doesn't read/seek the information? It's not the information disseminator's?
  • Surely you don't think firms/industry associations are going to just drop stuff in one's lap? If one shows an interest in what they have to say, they'll drop info in one's lap, but if one doesn't, they won't.
  • If the "average, non-stockholder" wants to know what's what with firms in a given industry, or even a specific firm, s/he will read the notes to the financial statements, along with the rest of the 10-K.
  • Nobody can make one want to know "this or that" about a firm/industry, but if one is of a mind to form a conclusion or talk about that firm/industry, one's well advised to seek information in one of the most obvious places from which to obtain it, and a firm's 10-K is among those places.
  • If you clicked on the any but the last of the reference links in post 74, you'd have found that information about insurance companies' investing of premium revenue is discussed in sources other than a firm's 10-K.

The biggest problem with the "average" person is that s/he is average, yet s/he would also form a worldview based on a dearth of information that indicates what "the world" is actually "up to." Were "average" persons to disabuse themselves of their mediocrity, they would be far better informed; however, the only persons who can effect that divestiture are the average persons themselves. "The rest of us," so to speak, can only share information and hope that "average" persons bother to seek and consume it.
 
trixare4kids said:
Why then is it called a private hospital?
Click to expand...

Because it's privately owned and was grandfathered in when the law changed.


Of course you can go to it but what is your out of pocket expense for going out of network?
Click to expand...

What network? We don't have networks here.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
  • Whose "fault" is it that one doesn't read/seek the information? It's not the information disseminator's?
  • Surely you don't think firms/industry associations are going to just drop stuff in one's lap? If one shows an interest in what they have to say, they'll drop info in one's lap, but if one doesn't, they won't.
  • If the "average, non-stockholder" wants to know what's what with firms in a given industry, or even a specific firm, s/he will read the notes to the financial statements, along with the rest of the 10-K.
  • Nobody can make one want to know "this or that" about a firm/industry, but if one is of a mind to form a conclusion or talk about that firm/industry, one's well advised to seek information in one of the most obvious places from which to obtain it, and a firm's 10-K is among those places.
  • If you clicked on the any but the last of the reference links in post 74, you'd have found that information about insurance companies' investing of premium revenue is discussed in sources other than a firm's 10-K.

The biggest problem with the "average" person is that s/he is average, yet s/he would also form a worldview based on a dearth of information that indicates what "the world" is actually "up to." Were "average" persons to disabuse themselves of their mediocrity, they would be far better informed; however, the only persons who can effect that divestiture are the average persons themselves. "The rest of us," so to speak, can only share information and hope that "average" persons bother to seek and consume it.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that the "average person" simply doesn't bother to actually read all the fine print, footnotes, endnotes, annexes, and appendixes.

The point being that if the insurance companies WANTED the average person to know something then they would make as big a play out of that information as "You're in good hands with Allstate." (with the "of course, we have an absolutely crappy record for paying claims promptly or in full" bit being relegated to footnote 24 of endnote B of annex VI to appendix 92).

Do you think that the insurance companies actually release any information that they are not statutorily compelled to in their public documents?
 
Scrabaholic said:
Because it's privately owned and was grandfathered in when the law changed.
Click to expand...

As of five years ago, St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto (10,000 plus employees and physicians) was a "private hospital" in that it was owned and administered by the RCC.




What network? We don't have networks here.[/QUOTE]
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
As of five years ago, St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto (10,000 plus employees and physicians) was a "private hospital" in that it was owned and administered by the RCC.
Click to expand...

There is a Catholic hospital in my area. I'm not sure if the RCC still owns it, but there's a crucifix in every room, so they have an influence. It's a public hospital though, funded through OHIP (my province's health system).
 
Scrabaholic said:
There is a Catholic hospital in my area. I'm not sure if the RCC still owns it, but there's a crucifix in every room, so they have an influence. It's a public hospital though, funded through OHIP (my province's health system).
Click to expand...

It is a "public" hospital only in that it is open to the general public. If the RCC still owns it, it is a "privately owned and administered" hospital regardless of where the money to pay its bills comes from.
 
OlNate said:
My Man! I used to work for the company. Had you said Molson's, we'd be preparing for fisticuffs right now... :lol:
Click to expand...

So you liked the "Hockey Game breaks out in the Financial District" commercial better than "My name is Joe"?

Both damn good efforts...but neither touches the Molson's advert with the girl wearing suspenders. :) You're old enough, do you remember they had two versions...one shirt on, one shirt off?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The American insurance companies base their premiums on what it would cost to provide the service IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If the services actually cost less (let's say by putting a patient in a Canadian Hospital where all hospital services are included in the per diem rate rather than by putting them in an American hospital where every service and product is billed separately) than that then the "profit base" for the insurance company is "enhanced". The people who pay the premiums to the American insurance companies are the American medical insurance premium payers.
Click to expand...

Per diems (or even flat fees for an admission, regardless of the number of inpatient days) are not uncommon in the U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom