Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[G. Keenan]

I don't really know what the best solution is for this situation, but I think that Brokaw's question last night about sacrifice touches on it. As a culture, we're going to have to make sacrifices and live more frugally, while also pushing for reform of the system.

How about the insurance companies themselves sacrifice a bit? My guess is that they're remarkably profitable.

It's similar to "the high cost of college education" when colleges have multi-billion dollar endowments that only grow every year, while tuition rates skyrocket.

Hey, I'm all for that! We absolutely need reform and the insurance companies taking home less would be just fine with me. How do you do that, though? Government regulations? You know, that's the one thing I haven't heard in the debates. Sure, tax refunds and government-sponsored entitlements are well and good, but have either of the candidates talked about regulation?

It gets really tricky though when you start tinkering with profit margins, etc. The profit margin is there as a motive for companies to take the risk of entering the insurance world (the basis of capitalism). If you take the huge profit margin away as an enticement, the government might as well take over, because nobody would enter the business.

We hear that all the time. What I don't get is if someone came to you and said, okay, you're making $100/hr now but we're gonna change some things and you're only going to get $75. It's that or you can get $0. Wouldn't you rather have $75 than $0? I really doubt any insurance companies are gonna fold up the tent and say, it's been fun, but if we can't make ungodly amounts of money, only godly amounts of money, we're out.

[Popeye_Card]

We hear that all the time. What I don't get is if someone came to you and said, okay, you're making $100/hr now but we're gonna change some things and you're only going to get $75. It's that or you can get $0. Wouldn't you rather have $75 than $0? I really doubt any insurance companies are gonna fold up the tent and say, it's been fun, but if we can't make ungodly amounts of money, only godly amounts of money, we're out.

I know what you're saying, but they aren't going to be able to attract the best talent to fill their roles (because they can make better money in other industries), and what you're left with is mediocre to poor performance from a critical (as it's currently structured) industry.

[JCShutout]

I think we need to get over this national obsession with some getting more than their fair share in life.

We're clearly not obsessed with that. On the contrary, we're obsessed with people getting as big a piece of the pie as they possibly can and then saying F U to everyone else.

I find it a disturbing notion that in our country a human being's freedom from unnecessarily dying is tied to their economic usefulness (such as it is). I'm sure all the wall street tycoons who put us in this current mess had great health insurance.

++

I think we need to get over this national obsession with some getting more than their fair share in life.

That's the problem. A lot of people in my generation don't realize that fair share doesn't mean equal share.

F equal, just get to a just and livable wage situation for most and then you rich folk can do whatever the heck you want with your money and your flat screen TVs.

[G. Keenan]

We hear that all the time. What I don't get is if someone came to you and said, okay, you're making $100/hr now but we're gonna change some things and you're only going to get $75. It's that or you can get $0. Wouldn't you rather have $75 than $0? I really doubt any insurance companies are gonna fold up the tent and say, it's been fun, but if we can't make ungodly amounts of money, only godly amounts of money, we're out.

I know what you're saying, but they aren't going to be able to attract the best talent to fill their roles (because they can make better money in other industries), and what you're left with is mediocre to poor performance from a critical (as it's currently structured) industry.

To be honest I'm skeptical of how much brain power the insurance industry really requires. Wasn't it Wall Street, supposedly, that drew the nation's best and brightest because of the high salaries? They did a great job there.

[Arthur Dent]

I know what you're saying, but they aren't going to be able to attract the best talent to fill their roles (because they can make better money in other industries), and what you're left with is mediocre to poor performance from a critical (as it's currently structured) industry.

The "best talent" at health insurance companies use their skills trying to avoid having to pay for care and attempting to avoid covering people who might need expensive services. That's why administrative costs are so high and why dealing with insurance is so often a beuracratic pain in the ass. I'd be OK with losing that kind of talent.

[planet planet]

No offense to anyone in particular, but I think there are a great deal of misinformed opinions on healthcare here, and I'm no expert.

Gateway asked a great question; how many people would actually just be sitting around on their couch jobless with free healthcare? Most of this demographic would probably be covered by Medicaid anyway under the current system, i.e. welfare.

We're completely ignoring children which the SCHIP program is supposed to cover, but the parent income levels is laughably low. What about Walmart workers, workers at smaller mom and pops? These are working, yet lower class people, who aren't covered today.

What about pre-existing conditions? If you're not on an employer or group insurance program and have to get it on your own, you're typically out of luck.

For those who want to size this up in dollars and cents, yes, people without insurance can get it in an emergency room. That's absurdly expensive and inefficient. It also takes the preventative care aspect out of play which is the most cost effective (and most humane) way of treating patients.

Those who want to buy their own insurance and keep the premiums down typically get catastrophic insurance in which case they have huge deductibles and also avoid the costly preventative and diagnostic tests, resulting in untimely deaths and higher costs by missing early diagnoses and treatment.

And this doesn't even factor in all the people who think they're fully covered, only to have some boiler plate pointed out in a contract that tells them they owe $150k. I'm pretty positive this is the no. 1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.

[Arthur Dent]

Some very good stuff

Thanks for that.

I'm pretty positive this is the no. 1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.

Correct. Remember how we needed to pass bankruptcy reform because people going bankrupt were just a bunch of lazy bums who probably didn't bother to work while spendings gobs of cash on cars and flat screen TVs? Familiar story...

[Popeye_Card]

We hear that all the time. What I don't get is if someone came to you and said, okay, you're making $100/hr now but we're gonna change some things and you're only going to get $75. It's that or you can get $0. Wouldn't you rather have $75 than $0? I really doubt any insurance companies are gonna fold up the tent and say, it's been fun, but if we can't make ungodly amounts of money, only godly amounts of money, we're out.

I know what you're saying, but they aren't going to be able to attract the best talent to fill their roles (because they can make better money in other industries), and what you're left with is mediocre to poor performance from a critical (as it's currently structured) industry.

To be honest I'm skeptical of how much brain power the insurance industry really requires. Wasn't it Wall Street, supposedly, that drew the nation's best and brightest because of the high salaries? They did a great job there.

I know what you're saying, but they aren't going to be able to attract the best talent to fill their roles (because they can make better money in other industries), and what you're left with is mediocre to poor performance from a critical (as it's currently structured) industry.

The "best talent" at health insurance companies use their skills trying to avoid having to pay for care and attempting to avoid covering people who might need expensive services. That's why administrative costs are so high and why dealing with insurance is so often a beuracratic pain in the ass. I'd be OK with losing that kind of talent.

Again, I understand what you're both saying, but when I think of controlled profit margins, I think of government-ran institutions. Such as your local DMV. Which I guess gets the job done, but the experience is always far from pleasant.

Oh yeah, and they did a great job for a long time on Wall Street for their personal goals (i.e. get rich and beef up the bottom line).

[Richie Allen]

I think we need to get over this national obsession with some getting more than their fair share in life.

Especially when it's the well off obsessed with whether or not a homeless person is truly deserving of, what many consider to be, an entitlement.

[planet planet]

Some very good stuff

Thanks for that.

I'm pretty positive this is the no. 1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.

Correct. Remeber how we needed to pass bankruptcy reform because people going bankrupt were just a bunch of lazy bums who probably didn't bother to work while spedings gobs of cash on cars and flat screen TVs? Familiar story...

We did away with debtor's prison in the Dickensian ages, can we do away with premature death and illness for poor people in a country this wealthy also? Not to mention, it takes a perfect storm to get full coverage for the insured with our health care system today.