 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Yet another way "public option" hurts the economy... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| AZDuffman... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business, here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! It is good for shareholeders
(increased profit) and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and instead
these people are forced into the public "option" like many will be.
That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock, buy
commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per month and there are way
more than 100 policyholders. We are talking hundreds of billions of
capital removed from the market.
In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A BAD,
SOCIALIST IDEA. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
[/quote]
True but that doesn't mean rightards will try to deny the polls show
over 2/3rds support a public option.
[quote]Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business,
[/quote]
How would that happen? It's just an option.
If you prefer private health care you can pay all you want for it.
[quote]here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
[/quote]
How does a financial scam help the economy?
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rourkie... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 3:08 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business, here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! It is good for shareholeders
(increased profit) and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and instead
these people are forced into the public "option" like many will be.
That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock, buy
commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per month and there are way
more than 100 policyholders. We are talking hundreds of billions of
capital removed from the market.
In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A BAD,
SOCIALIST IDEA.
[/quote]
This creates an unstable economy, and is not good in the slighest for
the company or shareholders. Of course companies do this, American
Express were renouned for doing this a couple of years ago, they would
take two payments by mistake, wait for the consumer to call up and
then refund it. The interest gained from the extra spare cash was then
re-invested in the stock market, which is a bad idea for this kind of
cash gain, this extra money should be used for cash flow to ensure
that when the policy holder claims, the company has enough cash to
cover the cost. By re-investing this money made from the interest into
the market makes it unstable, and will go up or down with the market.
Again, back to the Amex example, when they needed to pay a large
payout due to a court case they had little cash flow and had to pull
the invested money out of the market, causing instanility and lowering
the value of the whole market by .8%, the total cash recieved was less
that it had put in, so had to borrow money to pay the fine, thus
ending up paying inrest out on a load due to this. As one can predict,
the share price lowered and it took around 6 months for Amex to become
stable and have a solid cash flow again, so a bad idea! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 11:13 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah... at (no spam) peoplepc.com> wrote:
[quote]It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
True but that doesn't mean rightards will try to deny the polls show
over 2/3rds support a public option.
[/quote]
If 2/3 was remotely correct the so-called "public option" would not be
facing the problem sit is right now. Realistically it is more like
1/3.
[quote]Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being immoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business,
How would that happen? It's just an option.
[/quote]
It is immoral for a government to try to run private companies out of
business by competing against them. Obama wants single payer and this
is just the first immoral step.
[quote]If you prefer private health care you can pay all you want for it.
[/quote]
This is what I have been saying all along. But the government is not
supposed to be a health care provider and certainly not to try to
bankrupt companies just becaus some liberals have a bee up their asses
about them making "profit."
[quote]here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
How does a financial scam help the economy?
[/quote]
Re-read it. It isn't a scam, it is a proper and accepted business
model. though I can understand how with your lack of economics
education you not understanding how removing liquid capital hurts an
economy. So here is a simple example:
You want to buy a car, but without the capital the health insurance
companies provided to the loan company you can't get the loan. Now
the car doesn't get built. And the multiplier effect goes from there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Cohen... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I'm discussing the "compromise" proposal about individual States
being
allowed to opt out of the "ALL AGES MEDICARE" <Olbermann>
It's interesting, and whether it is workable is my first thought
Because I perceive the particularly Republican-dominated States will
be seriously deciding if not agonizing of what to do
What are predictable consequences if a State opts out?
People would seemingly migrate across State lines--both ways I suppose
Here in my Georgia, "the Republicans" in control have seemingly to me
deliberately severed the
non-profit HMO Kaiser from State employee insurance choices, a
considerable percentage
of the non profit HMO's membership including many teachers
"Non-profit HMO" IS not panacea/perfect, though it's likely the
regular insurance
industry would rather their non profit competition to please cease
and
go away, and I suspect Kaiser may have to sellout to a for-profit
insurance
company and/or shutdown, and leave Georgia
I'd call a whole mess the thing |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 1:38 pm, hal wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:08:37 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
That's a lie, all the polls show distinct majorities approve of it.
[/quote]
If that was the case congress would be rushing to pass it. In
reality, most "polls" that say people favor it are skewed to democrats
and people who do not know what it really is.
Hopefully the filibuster lasts long enough to kill the whole thing.
80%+ are happy with their current plan. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 3:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]He wont get another opportunity like this when the fuckwit repugs have
just completely imploded the entire world financial system AGAIN,
[/quote]
We eagerly await you to back this up for once. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 3:56 pm, hal wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:38=A0pm, hal wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:08:37 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
That's a lie, all the polls show distinct majorities approve of it.
If that was the case congress would be rushing to pass it. In
reality, most "polls" that say people favor it are skewed to democrats
and people who do not know what it really is.
Another lie, clearly the people who do not know what it is are those
who are against it based on the number of lies they are throwing
around, you know, just like you.
[/quote]
Not really. When people hear the truth--that it is a government run
money-pit that will raise their taxes, reduce choice, and start the
path to "single payer" they realize what a bad idea it is. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
AZDuffman wrote
[quote]It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the
public option Obama is cramming down our throat.
[/quote]
Completely trivial to do that in fact.
[quote]But besides it being iommoral for government
to try to run private companies out of business,
[/quote]
Another lie, Obummer isnt even attempting to do that.
If he was trying to do that, he wouldnt be just increasing the
reach of the insurance system and allowing you to stay with
whatever insurance etc you currently have if you prefer that.
[quote]here is another unintended consequence I heard on the
radio just today. Hard to believe no one mentioned it yet.
[/quote]
Because its just another lie.
[quote]Insurance companies make a substantial part of their
profits on "float" of money collected but not yet paid out.
[/quote]
Yes. And that is no news to anyone with even half a clue.
[quote]In very simple terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month
for coverage. That is $10,000 of premium collected. To
keep numbers round, say they get a rate of return of 12%
or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they are getting.
[/quote]
That is no news to anyone with even half a clue.
In fact some have even admitted that they make a lot more
money that way than the insurance side of the operation does.
Corse that depends on the circumstances, they
can lose money on those investments as well.
[quote]THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS!
[/quote]
NO ONE SAID THERE WAS.
[quote]It is good for shareholeders (increased profit)
and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
[/quote]
AND THAT SYSTEM SEES TWICE THE PERCENTAGE OF GDP SPENT
ON HEALTH CARE THAT EVERY OTHER MODERN FIRST AND SECOND
WORLD SYSTEM SPENDS. ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A
MASSIVE PAPER SHUFFLING BUREAUCRACY TO ADVERTISE, COLLECT
PREMIUMS, PROCESS CLAIMS, DENY CLAIMS, AND THE APES THAT
DO ALL THAT HAVE TO BE PAID TO DO ALL THAT.
[quote]But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and instead
these people are forced into the public "option" like many will be.
[/quote]
No one who is happy with what they have will be forced to do anything, liar.
[quote]That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock,
buy commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
[/quote]
Wrong, as always. The public operation can do precisely
the same thing with the premiums collected, liar.
And in fact that is precisely what happens with social security and medicare
and has been happening for as long as they have been in existence for.
[quote]Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per
month and there are way more than 100 policyholders.
[/quote]
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist pathological liars ?
[quote]We are talking hundreds of billions of capital removed from the market.
[/quote]
Another lie. Its very unlikely indeed that there will be anything like
enough who dont like their current arrangements that are paying
anything like hundreds of billions for them, and the public system will
have that money to do the same thing with even if there are that many.
And social security and medicare have FAR more than that collected already anyway.
[quote]In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
[/quote]
More of your lies.
[quote]This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A BAD, SOCIALIST IDEA.
[/quote]
SHOUTING THAT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS CUTS NO MUSTARD, LIAR. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:08:37 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
<srduffy1126 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
[/quote]
That's a lie, all the polls show distinct majorities approve of it.
[quote]Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business, here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! It is good for shareholeders
(increased profit) and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and instead
these people are forced into the public "option" like many will be.
That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock, buy
commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per month and there are way
more than 100 policyholders. We are talking hundreds of billions of
capital removed from the market.
In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A BAD,
SOCIALIST IDEA.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AZDuffman... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 5:09 pm, hal wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:56=A0pm, hal wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:38=3DA0pm, hal wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:08:37 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
That's a lie, all the polls show distinct majorities approve of it.
If that was the case congress would be rushing to pass it. =A0In
reality, most "polls" that say people favor it are skewed to democrats
and people who do not know what it really is.
Another lie, clearly the people who do not know what it is are those
who are against it based on the number of lies they are throwing
around, you know, just like you.
Not really. When people hear the truth--that it is a government run
money-pit that will raise their taxes, reduce choice, and start the
path to "single payer" they realize what a bad idea it is.
for some reason that clearly escapes you every developed
industrialized country in the world has socialized medicine and they
all rate better health care systems than we do.- Hide quoted text -
[/quote]
Really? Then why do so many Canadians and others come to the USA for
care?
They have CHEAPER systems, ours is still the best. Unless you think
waiting months for an MRI and no incentive for innovation are good
things.
Good stuff usually costs more. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
AZDuffman wrote
[quote]hal wrote
AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
That's a lie, all the polls show distinct majorities approve of it.
If that was the case congress would be rushing to pass it.
[/quote]
Wrong, as always. There will always be a massive shit fight about
the detail of something like that that affects almost everyone.
Plenty just object to Obummer's stupid approach of
extending the insurance system instead of just cutting
to the chase and extending the medicare system instead.
[quote]In reality, most "polls" that say people favor it are skewed
to democrats and people who do not know what it really is.
[/quote]
Corse the poll you prefer doesnt do anything like that, eh ?
[quote]Hopefully the filibuster lasts long enough to kill the whole thing.
[/quote]
Not a chance. He's got enough of a clue politically to not let that happen.
He wont get another opportunity like this when the fuckwit repugs have
just completely imploded the entire world financial system AGAIN, and
so is completely unelectable any time soon as a consequence of that.
[quote]80%+ are happy with their current plan.
[/quote]
And they are welcome to stay with that if they prefer to do that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| darwinist... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 2:08 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
Obama is cramming down our throat. But besides it being iommoral for
government to try to run private companies out of business, here is
another unintended consequence I heard on the radio just today. Hard
to believe no one mentioned it yet.
Insurance companies make a substantial part of their profits on
"float" of money collected but not yet paid out. In very simple
terms, say 100 people pay $100 per month for coverage. That is
$10,000 of premium collected. To keep numbers round, say they get a
rate of return of 12% or 1% per month. That is $100 per month they
are getting.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! It is good for shareholeders
(increased profit) and policyholders (allows lower rates) alike.
But suppose that $10,000 is not available for the markets and instead
these people are forced into the public "option" like many will be.
That is $10,000 that can't back a mortgage, buy a stock, buy
commercial paper to finance operations. NOTHING!
Naturally premiums are way more than $100 per month and there are way
more than 100 policyholders. We are talking hundreds of billions of
capital removed from the market.
In an era of very tight money espically, this is crazy.
This is just another in a long list of reasons PUBLIC OPTION IS A BAD,
SOCIALIST IDEA.
[/quote]
This is one of many effects you'd get if you decrease the demand for a
privately provided service. You could make this same argument if we
had all police or neighbourhood-security services provided by private
companies, and the government wanted to introduce a public option for
these things. You could make the same argument if all roads were
privately owned and maintained, and the government wanted to provide
public roads [1].
The question of whether these things should be universally, publicly
provided, does not begin an end with the question of profit. Some
things are more efficient and more humane if done by the government.
Any study of the costs and level of coverage, in public vs private
healthcare systems, would suggest that healthcare is one of the things
that can be done more efficiently and humanely when done by the
government.
Note that I didn't say it *will* be more humane and efficient, just
that it can be. You still have to work on getting the system right.
There are many examples around the world to learn from, which have
lower costs, better outcomes and broader coverage than your private
system.
(1 - It should be noted that even in places with low crime and well
funded police departments there are still private security companies
and in places with public roads there are commercial bus and trucking
companies.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
AZDuffman wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
He wont get another opportunity like this when the fuckwit repugs have
just completely imploded the entire world financial system AGAIN,
We eagerly await you to back this up for once.
[/quote]
Just how many of you are there between those ears, cretin ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
<srduffy1126 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 1:38=A0pm, hal wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:08:37 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
srduffy1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
It is hard to dispute that Americans do not want the public option
That's a lie, all the polls show distinct majorities approve of it.
If that was the case congress would be rushing to pass it. In
reality, most "polls" that say people favor it are skewed to democrats
and people who do not know what it really is.
[/quote]
Another lie, clearly the people who do not know what it is are those
who are against it based on the number of lies they are throwing
around, you know, just like you.
[quote]
Hopefully the filibuster lasts long enough to kill the whole thing.
80%+ are happy with their current plan.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:17 am
|
|