'Bama proposing obese state emps. pay more for insurance - Page 4

Cadaverous Pallor · 09-03-2008, 07:38 AM

After all the word of people being denied health care coverage due to "preexisting conditions", such as being old or being pregnant, the more it seems that the gov't may actually be able to do this better than the greedy bastards who run the HMOs.

scaeagles · 09-03-2008, 07:49 AM

I don't know. If you don't run a business at a profit, you run a business at a deficit. The government would not try to turn a profit, per se (and very, very quick research showed profit margins of HMOs from 2.1% to 4.2% - not high by any stretch of the imagination....sometimes their profits are reported as a "profit increase of 50%", but if you are making a 2.1% profit margin and increase it by 50%, it's still only a 3.1% profit margin), and based on the profit margins I've found for HMOs (again, very quick research), that doesn't allow for a whole lot of cost reduction to the consumer to run at 0%. Consider the propensity of government to be bloated and wasteful, I would guess they would run at a HUGE deficit, constantly increasing the cost through taxation to the consumer. As I believe we are ridiculously overtaxed as it is, that to me doesn't sound appealing. To avoid running at a deficit or increasing taxes, this means care would have to be rationed, and my guess is that it would very shortly be worse than anything the private sector is doing now.

Moonliner · 09-03-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't know. If you don't run a business at a profit, you run a business at a deficit. The government would not try to turn a profit, per se (and very, very quick research showed profit margins of HMOs from 2.1% to 4.2% - not high by any stretch of the imagination....sometimes their profits are reported as a "profit increase of 50%", but if you are making a 2.1% profit margin and increase it by 50%, it's still only a 3.1% profit margin), and based on the profit margins I've found for HMOs (again, very quick research), that doesn't allow for a whole lot of cost reduction to the consumer to run at 0%. Consider the propensity of government to be bloated and wasteful, I would guess they would run at a HUGE deficit, constantly increasing the cost through taxation to the consumer. As I believe we are ridiculously overtaxed as it is, that to me doesn't sound appealing. To avoid running at a deficit or increasing taxes, this means care would have to be rationed, and my guess is that it would very shortly be worse than anything the private sector is doing now.

Are either of the candidates proposing socialized health care? I think both plans still involve the use of HMO's. It's just a question of how you can reduce the cost of them to the point where everyone (or almost everyone) can afford them.

scaeagles · 09-03-2008, 08:03 AM

A fine goal. I just have seen no evidence ever of the government containing cost or limiting buraeucracy when it gets involved in anything.

Interestingly, it is a state agency that is proposing additional costs for the obese.

scaeagles · 09-03-2008, 08:13 AM

Very interesting point, Moonliner.

My mother in law recently had a major heart attack. She is approaching 70, but eats well, exercises, and is not in the least overweight. The costs associated with it were immense (4 days ICU, 4 days non ICU in the hospital).

Ghoulish Delight · 09-03-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Very interesting point, Moonliner.

My mother in law recently had a major heart attack. She is approaching 70, but eats well, exercises, and is not in the least overweight. The costs associated with it were immense (4 days ICU, 4 days non ICU in the hospital).

Individual cases are not what matters. You will always be able to find variation from actuarial tables when you look at individuals. Just because one person beats the odds doesn't change the reality of the average.

Insurance is the only game where you hope to lose your bet.

scaeagles · 09-03-2008, 08:51 AM

Except that she her mom and grandmother both died of heart attacks. Family history and all.

Not Afraid · 09-03-2008, 09:44 AM

I'm completely uninsurable.

Alex · 09-03-2008, 10:33 AM

Yeah, that's why I oppose seatbelt laws. The money the state saves in medical bills is more than wasted paying to educate kids that should be dead or in vegetative states.

Yes, that's a non sequiter. I have no point.

Morrigoon · 09-03-2008, 10:42 AM

And an amusing one, thank you, Alex.

09-03-2008, 07:38 AM	#1
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	After all the word of people being denied health care coverage due to "preexisting conditions", such as being old or being pregnant, the more it seems that the gov't may actually be able to do this better than the greedy bastards who run the HMOs. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

09-03-2008, 07:49 AM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I don't know. If you don't run a business at a profit, you run a business at a deficit. The government would not try to turn a profit, per se (and very, very quick research showed profit margins of HMOs from 2.1% to 4.2% - not high by any stretch of the imagination....sometimes their profits are reported as a "profit increase of 50%", but if you are making a 2.1% profit margin and increase it by 50%, it's still only a 3.1% profit margin), and based on the profit margins I've found for HMOs (again, very quick research), that doesn't allow for a whole lot of cost reduction to the consumer to run at 0%. Consider the propensity of government to be bloated and wasteful, I would guess they would run at a HUGE deficit, constantly increasing the cost through taxation to the consumer. As I believe we are ridiculously overtaxed as it is, that to me doesn't sound appealing. To avoid running at a deficit or increasing taxes, this means care would have to be rationed, and my guess is that it would very shortly be worse than anything the private sector is doing now.
	Submit to Quotes

09-03-2008, 08:03 AM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	A fine goal. I just have seen no evidence ever of the government containing cost or limiting buraeucracy when it gets involved in anything. Interestingly, it is a state agency that is proposing additional costs for the obese.
	Submit to Quotes

09-03-2008, 08:13 AM	#5
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Very interesting point, Moonliner. My mother in law recently had a major heart attack. She is approaching 70, but eats well, exercises, and is not in the least overweight. The costs associated with it were immense (4 days ICU, 4 days non ICU in the hospital).
	Submit to Quotes

09-03-2008, 08:51 AM	#7
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Except that she her mom and grandmother both died of heart attacks. Family history and all.
	Submit to Quotes

09-03-2008, 09:44 AM	#8
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	I'm completely uninsurable.
	Submit to Quotes

09-03-2008, 10:33 AM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yeah, that's why I oppose seatbelt laws. The money the state saves in medical bills is more than wasted paying to educate kids that should be dead or in vegetative states. Yes, that's a non sequiter. I have no point.
	Submit to Quotes

09-03-2008, 10:42 AM	#10
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	And an amusing one, thank you, Alex. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes