• 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!

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

apdst said:
Depends on the volume of sales. If that company were the only one, they might look more at profit margin and less at volume, possibly making less money, because they're selling less product. You understand the difference between profit and profit margin, right?
Click to expand...

Think about it this way: Assume there was only one OTR freight company in the US, because not only was it more competitive than its peers, it bought them out. (highly unlikely assumption)

Would they not be able to charge a price of their choice without having to compete with other companies (in an attempt to pull revenue)?

No, it doesn't. It can't, or we'll have a depression. NO company can operate with a zero profit, unless, as I stated before, that company is designed not to make a profit, to begin with.
Click to expand...

How about long distance telephone companies? Or many factions of US automobile companies? Or corn :shock:. Yes corn is a perfectly competitive market where economic profits equal zero (given current market conditions). They are subsidized entirely. As a national security matter, it would be a terrible move to end domestic farming, even though it is very much possible to obtain it in trade (cheaper too!).

This is the fate of all industries that we know of. The most recent emergence is the use of paper to read off of.

Covering the safe amount of burning houses is maximizing profit margins. Point: if all companies have a safe amount of burning houses, all companies can offer lower prices.
Click to expand...

Two things are likely to emerge from this: 1.) prices will fall very close to the level of cost. 2.) Horizontal integration. The number of firms will be greatly reduced, allowing for positive price trends.

That's why they call business a, "risk"...LOL!!!! The government can set regulations, so that every company has to insure "X" amount of burning houses, based on the number of burning houses from the previous year, so the market remains stable.
Click to expand...

You're a free market guy; government micromanagement of industry is never a good idea in my book. Imagine a government agency telling you how much tonnage you could load/haul, to keep prices "fair to the people". That would ****ing blow IMHO.

If the amount of burning houses goes up, the rates will go up, just like when prices go up as the price of gas goes up. The market is a bitch, ain't it??
Click to expand...

The number of burning houses is based on probability attained from data of previous payouts across an allotted pool. No insurance company ever makes it a business practice to ensure something equivalent to the proverbial "burning house". Although i have no doubt a policy can be drawn up if someone is willing to pay the right price, it does not seem like a good idea to me. Of course i could be wrong.

Now, in my situation, trailers are different. I can rent trailers, however, it isn't cost effective, unless I knowingly have thework coming up to justify the rentals. I've done it in the past, but I did because I had inside information of a sure thing. I still took a risk, but it turned out to be worth it in all those instances.
Click to expand...

The first real job was working for an OTR freight company refurbishing piece of **** transcrafts. I eventually lost it to a combination of leased aluminum trailers, but why did i care, i was only 18 then.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
What I'm saying, is that by expanding competition, you're spreading the risk over many companies and not just a few. With moe insurance companies operating in the industry, each company could see a higher profit margin, with lower risk.

As an example, I'll use round numbers.

Say there are ten health insurance companies operating in a state. There are 1,000 insurees that will obviously cost those companies money, because their health is so bad, or they have a pre-existing condition, etc. That means that each company would have to take on 100 new clients that are guaranteed to be a loss.

Now, if there were 100 companies operating in a state, that would mean their would be only 10 guaranteed loss claims for each company. Two things would happen: 1) the profit margins would go up, and the loss would be easier to weather and 2) The insurance companies would be more likeley to sign a client knowing that that client is going to b a guaranteed loss.

it's simple loss vs. profit business strategy. When running a business and you take a risk, you have to ask yourself, "how is the loss going to affect the company? Will it be a minor dip in profits? Will we survive the loss? I don't care what kind of business you're in, you have to ask yourself these questions, at some point.
Click to expand...

There is an obvious flaw in your analysis. You increase the amount of companies assuming the risk without increasing anything else.
If 100 companies suddenly flood the market where 10 existed before, each company is now only getting 1% of the market share previously garnered by the companies. Pretty ****ty huh.
So maybe your theory is that the number of insured will increase because of the decreased premiums. Sound concept, however it will also bring more guaranteed losses, and a more risky pool of people because they haven't had insurance in the past so are more likely to have untreated and/or unknown problems
Increasing competition across state lines is a good idea, your analysis is just incorrect.

apdst said:
I'll give a personal example. yesterday, I got a call from a customer that needed two trucks to go to Alberta, Canada. The loads paid $19,000, together. A $19,000 week is a helluva week, especially in this economy. It's snowing in that part of the country right now. None of my drivers have experience driving in the snow. I had to ask myself if it was worth the risk of losing two trucks and two trailers to gross $19,000. replacement cost for each truck is about $30,000 and each trailer is around $15,000. I'll net about $10,000 dollars after expenses. Is it worth it to put my drivers and $90,000 worth of equipment at a heightened risk to make $10,000, when I can keep them here, conduting normal operations and clear $5,000? I decided to go for the $5,000 and not put my men and equipment into undue risk, because I can't survive the loss of $90,000 worth of equipment.
Click to expand...
What the heck are you hauling that pays $9500??
Also you should take into account that the trucks are insured so you actual loss would only be the amount of the deductible not the entire $90,000.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I haul a different kind of freight, so I don't actually compete with JB Hunt. In my segment of the industry, I can offer specialized equipment and services that JB Hunt can't/won't offer. Ryder Truck Lines has branched off into my world and after 8 months, are looking for a way out.
Click to expand...

Cool and I wish you the best of luck with it, seriously.

Who knows maybe someday you might be the next JB Hunt.
 
Phoenix said:
What the heck are you hauling that pays $9500??
Also you should take into account that the trucks are insured so you actual loss would only be the amount of the deductible not the entire $90,000.
Click to expand...

I could be precious antiques. I've known people that have paid a lot more than that to have one piece hauled just a few miles.
 
That’s why I haul heavy machinery/oversize loads, I don’t have to compete with JB and the great Pumpkin (Schneider).
 
GoldenBoy said:
Therefore competition is beneficial more so for the consumer than the producer.
Click to expand...
apdst said:
It's beneficial to both.
Click to expand...
No, It's not. Competition ALWAYS benefits the consumer. It drives prices down. That decreases profits for the producer. Your concept that it decreases risk to the insurance company so it's beneficial doesn't wash because the other insurance companies would also be taking an equivalent market share of the good profitable consumers.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Think about it this way: Assume there was only one OTR freight company in the US, because not only was it more competitive than its peers, it bought them out. (highly unlikely assumption)

Would they not be able to charge a price of their choice without having to compete with other companies (in an attempt to pull revenue)?
Click to expand...

There is error in your example, because anti-trust laws wouldn't allow that to happen.



How about long distance telephone companies? Or many factions of US automobile companies? Or corn :shock:. Yes corn is a perfectly competitive market where economic profits equal zero (given current market conditions). They are subsidized entirely. As a national security matter, it would be a terrible move to end domestic farming, even though it is very much possible to obtain it in trade (cheaper too!).

This is the fate of all industries that we know of. The most recent emergence is the use of paper to read off of.
Click to expand...

It's all about supply and demand. If you control the supply, then you can set the price according to the demand.



Two things are likely to emerge from this: 1.) prices will fall very close to the level of cost. 2.) Horizontal integration. The number of firms will be greatly reduced, allowing for positive price trends.
Click to expand...

Actually, #1 will take place, then #2 will happen shortly there afterwards.



You're a free market guy; government micromanagement of industry is never a good idea in my book. Imagine a government agency telling you how much tonnage you could load/haul, to keep prices "fair to the people". That would ****ing blow IMHO.
Click to expand...

All the more reason for the government to de-regulate the health insurance industry, rather than try to take it over.



The number of burning houses is based on probability attained from data of previous payouts across an allotted pool. No insurance company ever makes it a business practice to ensure something equivalent to the proverbial "burning house". Although i have no doubt a policy can be drawn up if someone is willing to pay the right price, it does not seem like a good idea to me. Of course i could be wrong.
Click to expand...

With the new competitive market, your garden variety company will be more willing to risk covering a burning house, because of their increased survivability.



The first real job was working for an OTR freight company refurbishing piece of **** transcrafts. I eventually lost it to a combination of leased aluminum trailers, but why did i care, i was only 18 then.
Click to expand...

Transcrafts are crap. We found common ground!...:rofl. I'm a Fontaine guy. Reason being, I owned a 97 Fontaine flatbed in '01 sold it, that guy wrecked it, he sold it to another guy that rebuilt it, then it got burned, then I bought it for a song and rebuilt it and she's still going strong.

I have a Fontaine 50 ton RGN that can move some big ****ing iron. I love it!
 
donc said:
That’s why I haul heavy machinery/oversize loads, I don’t have to compete with JB and the great Pumpkin (Schneider).
Click to expand...

You ain't man enough to be a heavy hauler, so don't even try it. You're probably a radio Rambo, looking for commercial in the truck stop, out of your pick-up truck.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You're a free market guy; government micromanagement of industry is never a good idea in my book. Imagine a government agency telling you how much tonnage you could load/haul, to keep prices "fair to the people". That would ****ing blow IMHO.
Click to expand...

They do., I think it's like 80,000 with truck and trailer.
Not relevant but I couldn't resist.
 
apdst said:
You ain't man enough to be a heavy hauler, so don't even try it. You're probably a radio Rambo, looking for commercial in the truck stop, out of your pick-up truck.
Click to expand...

Hey dude, your talking the one and only “TREEDANCER” heard world wide. :2wave:
 
Phoenix said:
There is an obvious flaw in your analysis. You increase the amount of companies assuming the risk without increasing anything else.
If 100 companies suddenly flood the market where 10 existed before, each company is now only getting 1% of the market share previously garnered by the companies. Pretty ****ty huh.
So maybe your theory is that the number of insured will increase because of the decreased premiums. Sound concept, however it will also bring more guaranteed losses, and a more risky pool of people because they haven't had insurance in the past so are more likely to have untreated and/or unknown problems
Increasing competition across state lines is a good idea, your analysis is just incorrect.
Click to expand...

That would be true, if there wasn't room for more companies to open. As Goldenboy pointed out, too many companies would create a zero profit margin, thereby causing some of the companies to go under.


What the heck are you hauling that pays $9500??
Also you should take into account that the trucks are insured so you actual loss would only be the amount of the deductible not the entire $90,000.
Click to expand...


They're hauling drill pipe. We don't cut thoseoil companies any slack on the price. They want us to load it and deliver it in record time, then they're going to pay record prices. Supply and demand.
 
donc said:
Hey dude, your talking the one and only “TREEDANCER” heard world wide. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever, driver! Highway, hero!!!!! Probably don't even venture far enough from the house to rate a log book. If you do, you go to the bottom line and stay there till it's time to knock off...LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You sure as hell ain't never crossed Monarch Pass, in a snow storm.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, whatever, driver! Highway, hero!!!!! Probably don't even venture far enough from the house to rate a log book. If you do, you go to the bottom line and stay there till it's time to knock off...LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You sure as hell ain't never crossed Monarch Pass, in a snow storm.
Click to expand...

Monarch Pass!!…s*** man, that’s where I take my yougins when we want to go sledding in the middle winter.

If you want see someone putting on chains you have to go from the Flag at Donner.:mrgreen:
 
donc said:
Monarch Pass!!…s*** man, that’s where I take my yougins when we want to go sledding in the middle winter.

If you want see someone putting on chains you have to go from the Flag at Donner.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I hope that's not the toughest truckin' you've done. Please, tell me it's not.:roll:

Come back with some stories about Soldier Summit, then I'll be impressed...a little.
 
Could you two just get webcams and whip em out compare and be done with it?
 
donc, apdst, if either ya'll come through Dallas ya'll are welcome at my house.
 
apdst said:
I hope that's not the toughest truckin' you've done. Please, tell me it's not.:roll:

Come back with some stories about Soldier Summit, then I'll be impressed...a little.
Click to expand...


No, not by a long shot. Son, come and set on this ole truckers knee and let me tell you about the good old days, but before I do I have to go shoo American off the thread…OK I think I got rid of him. ;)

Now lets talk about the olden days when the WORLD FAMOUS TREEDANCER was just …well, dancer in the treetops, of mid Oregon, before he started hauling big logs out of the woods, in a 1966 B53 one stack Mack, with a undersized 673 Diesel Engine but it did have triplex transmission in it. :(


Yes, I was one of the fools that helped cut the home of the spotted owls down (my uncle had one stuffed on the desk of his office). So son, that is when the WORLD FAMOUS TREEDANCER decided it was a pretty good idea to get his a** out of the woods and get his a** into the seat of that one stack Mac.

Of course there was a little detour of four years in Se Asia. When I got out it seemed like a feather bed compared to the skinny roads, mud roads I was used too.’ So tell me all about the hard times of a concrete road…Freight hauler, he,he. :mrgreen:
 
winston53660 said:
donc, apdst, if either ya'll come through Dallas ya'll are welcome at my house.
Click to expand...

Man did you ever smell a Freighthauler:( you wouldn't want one in your house...maybe if you had a barn,providen there wasn't any goats in their. :mrgreen:
 
Hatuey said:
.....Yeah...Liberals are dumb. Awesome reply. Why haven't you been banned yet?
Click to expand...

and yet the standard attack of the left is that the Insurance companies are reaping disgusting profits on the death of the avg americans

yet when a report shows the slim margins it is dodge and spin as usual
 
donc said:
hauling big logs out of the woods, in a 1966 B53 one stack Mack, with a undersized 673 Diesel Engine but it did have triplex transmission in it. :(
Click to expand...

Ok, well then, I'll back up...a little. Only a little, because I own an '82 R-model Mack, with a 335, five-and-a-four, 70 Tulsa with a power-tower and full rolling tail board. Oh and camel back springs, too, but that was a given I reckon.

It's sweet, you would love it.
 
apdst said:
Ok, well then, I'll back up...a little. Only a little, because I own an '82 R-model Mack, with a 335, five-and-a-four, 70 Tulsa with a power-tower and full rolling tail board. Oh and camel back springs, too, but that was a given I reckon.

It's sweet, you would love it.
Click to expand...


Camel back,:( nothing like air ride eh? :shock:
 
donc said:
Camel back,:( nothing like air ride eh? :shock:
Click to expand...

It's ole' school, my man.

I latched onto 80,000 pounds a while back and picked the front end up off the ground. I had to tie off to another truck to get that unit winched up. It was awesome!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom