| Author | Post |
|---|
TommyT
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 02:27 am |
|
Budget deficit hits $1.4 trillion for '09...
How about that change Just how much change do you have in your pocket?
Attachment: 560.jpg (Downloaded 28 times)
|
techpuppy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 01:15 pm |
|
When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion. It seems you forgot to mention that.
|
TommyT
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 01:20 pm |
|
Dollar Trades at Lowest Level Since August 2008 on Risk Demand
The dollar may extend its decline after trading at its lowest level in almost 14 months against the currencies of six major U.S. trading partners as signs of global economic recovery spur demand for riskier assets.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBLSJqOVpRco
Last edited on Fri Oct 9th, 2009 01:21 pm by TommyT
|
AMman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 01:56 pm |
|
Jobless claims rise 'more than expected'...
Got to love the so called experts that could not see this coming.
|
techpuppy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 04:08 pm |
|
"Got to love the so called experts that could not see this coming."
Yeah, like about 8 years ago.
|
TommyT
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:01 pm |
|
House health care bill over $1 trillion...
In addition, Pelosi said, "as of Jan. 1, 2010, our legislation will give a 50 percent discount for brand-name drugs to recipients in the donut hole and it will reduce the size of the donut hole by $500."
After months of delay, Democrats in the House and Senate are aiming for votes next month on legislation to fulfill Obama's goal of expanding coverage to millions who lack it, banning insurance industry practices such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and slowing the growth in health care spending nationally. The House bill will also lift the insurance industry's exemption from federal anti-trust laws, a provision under consideration in Senate negotiations as well.
Attachment: 679.gif (Downloaded 15 times)
|
techpuppy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:39 pm |
|
The best example of how bad private insurance companies "take care" of their customers has to be the Medicare prescription "coverage" plans. Many drugs are not covered. The "gap" in coverage is accelerated by the way the insurance companies value the drugs...for instance a $87 cash-paid drug is valued at over $200 so the coverage lapses quicker.
I was astonished at how this system works to the benefit of the insurance companies.
|
TommyT
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 01:12 pm |
|
techpuppy wrote: The best example of how bad private insurance companies "take care" of their customers has to be the Medicare prescription "coverage" plans. Many drugs are not covered. The "gap" in coverage is accelerated by the way the insurance companies value the drugs...for instance a $87 cash-paid drug is valued at over $200 so the coverage lapses quicker.
I was astonished at how this system works to the benefit of the insurance companies.
Health Insurance Companies Rank #86 By Industry Profit Margin, Earning $98 on Average Per Policy
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/10/health-insurance-companies-rank-86-by.html
During his weekly radio address last Saturday, President Obama attacked health insurers for allegedly making excessive profits and paying excessive bonuses, for spreading "bogus" misinformation about the impact of Democrats' reform agenda on the cost of health insurance, and for "figuring out how to avoid covering people." He opined that health insurers are "earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exemption from our antitrust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing."
Mr. Obama's comments followed hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. In an unusual move, Majority Leader Harry Reid testified as a witness, alleging that "exempting health insurance companies [from antitrust] has had a negative effect on the American people" and that "there is no reason why insurance companies should be allowed to form monopolies and dictate health choices."
~Scott Harrington's article "Competition and Health Insurance" in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal
MP: As I reported several months ago the industry "Health Care Plans" (includes Humana, Aetna, WellPoint, Magellan, etc.) ranks #86 by profit margin at only 3.3% (see table above, data here for the most recent quarter), not exactly strong evidence of "excessive profits" or monopoly power. Four health insurance companies (Molina, Health Net, Coventry, and Universal American) have profit margins below 1% for the most recent quarter, and another four (Humana, Magellan, WellCare and Centene) have profit margins between 1 and 2 percent (data here).
America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry's trade association representing 1,300 members (how could that be a monopoly?), recently reported that annual health insurance premiums averaged $2,985 for individual coverage and $6,328 for family plans in 2009. Using the industry average profit margin of 3.3% means that insurance companies make less than $100 per policy in profits for individual coverage, and a little more than $200 in profits for each family policy. Doesn't seem too "excessive" or an indication of monopoly power, does it?
Alternatively, even if we could strip away 100% of the health insurance profits, it would only result in about $100-200 of annual savings for consumers of health insurance. Is that what we could expect then from a government-sponsored "public option" that wasn't "profit-driven" - annual savings of only $100-200?
Facts always get in the way of you libs.
|
techpuppy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 04:11 pm |
|
If this were accurate, and it isn't: Why would these companies fight so hard to keep such low profits? Then again making almost $100 each multiplied by millions isn't so bad is it? (That considering every single conceivable "expense" has been thrown against their profit, including huge bonuses.)
Have you actually looked at the private insurers' prescription drug plans? Please take a look at them.
People on a fixed income pay about $40 a month to have the priviledge of paying $7 for a generic prescription which could be almost double the cash price for the same medicine. Meanwhile every single prescriptions "retail" price is counting against you as you head for a gap in coverage. (Even though the insurance company doesn't pay the "retail" price). When you hit that gap you basically pay full price for medicine AND pay your premium to the insurance company.
Let's take a look at private insurance Medicare supplements. The cost to the consumer? About $120 per month. What does it pay? Covered expenses around 20%. So you would need to be spending over $600 per month in "covered" care in order just to break even. There's still the factor of the "discounts" that the insurance companies get from the providers. Those savings are not passed along to the consumer. The consumer still has to pay any uncovered expenses based on the full charge, regardless of any discounts given to the insurance company. In many cases the patient has to pay more out of pocket expenses than the insurance company.
So what facts are you using? Did you do any research or are you just remouthing someone else? What is your connection to health care? Perhaps you could use some transparency as well.
|
TommyT
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 04:34 pm |
|
techpuppy wrote: If this were accurate, and it isn't: Why would these companies fight so hard to keep such low profits? Then again making almost $100 each multiplied by millions isn't so bad is it? (That considering every single conceivable "expense" has been thrown against their profit, including huge bonuses.)
Have you actually looked at the private insurers' prescription drug plans? Please take a look at them.
People on a fixed income pay about $40 a month to have the priviledge of paying $7 for a generic prescription which could be almost double the cash price for the same medicine. Meanwhile every single prescriptions "retail" price is counting against you as you head for a gap in coverage. (Even though the insurance company doesn't pay the "retail" price). When you hit that gap you basically pay full price for medicine AND pay your premium to the insurance company.
Let's take a look at private insurance Medicare supplements. The cost to the consumer? About $120 per month. What does it pay? Covered expenses around 20%. So you would need to be spending over $600 per month in "covered" care in order just to break even. There's still the factor of the "discounts" that the insurance companies get from the providers. Those savings are not passed along to the consumer. The consumer still has to pay any uncovered expenses based on the full charge, regardless of any discounts given to the insurance company. In many cases the patient has to pay more out of pocket expenses than the insurance company.
So what facts are you using? Did you do any research or are you just remouthing someone else? What is your connection to health care? Perhaps you could use some transparency as well.
You must believe in that anti-capitalist and anti-American Castor loving type crap you guys call news on your station. Get in the real world man.
|
techpuppy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 04:56 pm |
|
I would guess you've never heard our station as your remark makes no sense. My posts here are my opinions. Your remark is off-topic and offensive.
I would wager I understand the real health care problems of this country better than you. I am primary caregiver to an older person and have watched as people have died from lack of health care.
I ask again: What is your connection to the health care industry/lobby?
|
TommyT
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:04 pm |
|
| The problem with health care in this country is that the Government is in it. That thing call the United States Constitution has no mention of health care for all. You may want to read it sometime. Attachment: Liberty and Tyranny.jpg (Downloaded 10 times)
|
TommyT
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 07:49 pm |
|
FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat
By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."
Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.
Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.
Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.
The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.
They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.
But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:
THE CLAIMS
_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'"obscene profits."
_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.
_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.
THE NUMBERS:
Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.
The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.
HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.
The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.
UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.
Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.
But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?
Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.
The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.
---
Associated Press writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.
|
TommyT
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 10:59 am |
|
Figures… Congressional Raises Topped Insurance Company Profits Last Year
Democrats are quick to accuse the evil health insurance industry of massive profits. …But insurance companies ranked only 35th on the list of most profitable American industries in 2009.
In fact, the members of Congress enjoyed a better raise than the insurance companies this year.
Attachment: 708.gif (Downloaded 9 times)
|
techpuppy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 01:27 pm |
|
How about coverage? What about denied claims. You are avoiding the issue with fluff. What is the value of one life to you? Does your "right to life" end at birth?
And still: What is your connection?
I'm still waiting for an apology for your unjustified and hateful remarks. Care to step up and be responsible?
Last edited on Mon Oct 26th, 2009 01:28 pm by techpuppy
|
Current time is 10:44 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
