LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

From the article I linked....even during the relatively boom periods, health insurance profits rose at very mediocre levels. That 2% number is hardly irrelevant, considering the ridiculous claims that the Democrats are making about the industry.

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.

[shafnutz05]

I just don't understand why more people aren't outraged at what is going on right now. We have billion dollar payoffs being passed around behind closed doors, a Senate Majority Leader that refuses to allow anyone but his inner circle from viewing the "new and improved" bill he drafted, all kinds of blatant graft and corruption associated with this thing, and a completely arrogant and power-deranged Democratic leadership arguing that the 60%+ of the population that is totally against this stinking garbage heap will come to their senses once they see the sheer awesomeness of the bill.

It also bothers me how, instead of blatantly eliminating private insurance and openly displaying their economically totalitarian tendencies, they are choosing to use subtle measures to slowly squeeze the life out of this part of the private sector, so they can eventually get their way. The problem is, too many people in this country either don't care or are indifferent.

[Troy Loney]

From the article I linked....even during the relatively boom periods, health insurance profits rose at very mediocre levels. That 2% number is hardly irrelevant, considering the ridiculous claims that the Democrats are making about the industry.

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.

I don't know the indusrty too well...but i'm not going to buy any of these numbers...i could be wrong...but i've never even heard of any of these companies that your referencing...as far as i know this would be the same as saying Coca Cola doesnt extract a ton of profit based on the profit margins of their bottlers...

[shafnutz05]

Ha Troy I am just the messenger here. I work in healthcare staffing, and we work with these companies all the time. I work with UHG and Healthspring very frequently. These numbers are legitimate, and they are from the Associated Press (hardly a conservatively biased news source). All I am saying is that it should be concerning that the federal government is covertly bankrupting private industries through legislation in order to swoop in and, by all practical means, take control of the system. "Private" industry that is operated by the government....that is fascism.

[shafnutz05]

but i've never even heard of any of these companies that your referencing...as far as i know this would be the same as saying Coca Cola doesnt extract a ton of profit based on the profit margins of their bottlers...

I know these numbers are hard to believe, with everything we have been spoonfed for the last several years about the evil health insurance industry. To be honest with you, before I read this and did my own research, I was thinking their profit margin was like 50%. Once you are indoctrinated to believe that these companies are evil, corporate entities making obscene profits, it becomes accepted doctrine. Unfortunately, it simply is not the case. The Democrats have never met a private industry they haven't trashed.

These are some of the biggest hitters in the health insurance industry, trust me. UHG is MASSIVE.

[Troy Loney]

Ha Troy I am just the messenger here. I work in healthcare staffing, and we work with these companies all the time. I work with UHG and Healthspring very frequently. These numbers are legitimate, and they are from the Associated Press (hardly a conservatively biased news source). All I am saying is that it should be concerning that the federal government is covertly bankrupting private industries through legislation in order to swoop in and, by all practical means, take control of the system. "Private" industry that is operated by the government....that is fascism.

Ok...i'm just questioning the relevance of the figures and the role of these companies in the whole spectrum of healthcare insurance, i'm wondering if these actual companies being cited in the article are even structured to generate high profits....i mean its not like this is citing places like liberty mutual, aetna, or aflac.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financia ... NYSE%3AAFL

Aflac Net Profit Margin (last 5 yrs) - 9.69%

I had a hard time finding info on Liberty Mutual, but the several links I checked out for Aetna place it in the 6-8% range. Slightly higher than the 2% figure I mentioned earlier, but still, hardly "obscene" (or even impressive).

[slappybrown]

but i've never even heard of any of these companies that your referencing...as far as i know this would be the same as saying Coca Cola doesnt extract a ton of profit based on the profit margins of their bottlers...

I know these numbers are hard to believe, with everything we have been spoonfed for the last several years about the evil health insurance industry. To be honest with you, before I read this and did my own research, I was thinking their profit margin was like 50%. Once you are indoctrinated to believe that these companies are evil, corporate entities making obscene profits, it becomes accepted doctrine. Unfortunately, it simply is not the case. The Democrats have never met a private industry they haven't trashed.

These are some of the biggest hitters in the health insurance industry, trust me. UHG is MASSIVE.

Except the numbers are probably cooked. Does the 2 % margin include the money health insurers put into their "reserve funds"? Because I would guess not. Highmark, for example, has a $4-$5 billion dollar reserve fund. I think their revenues were around $12 billion last year. Also keep in mind that your two percent profit margin is, using Highmark's numbers, a net profit of $240 million. This isn't to say they shouldn' make money, or they should be taxed at 90%, or that we need a public option (to be honest, I have no idea how to "fix" healthcare, and wont even pretend to know what the current proposal is really going to do/change). I am just posting these numbers because the notion that insurers aren't making money hand over fist is clearly wrong.

[shafnutz05]

Are insurers making money? Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with that. That is how the market works. Is two percent probably a lowball figure? Sure. I think the 6-9% numbers that I found are much closer to the actual figure. But again, despite the political grandstanding by the Dems, these numbers are hardly "obscene".

Like I pointed out yesterday....everyone can agree that competition would drive down costs considerably, correct? And this, in turn, would drive down these margins and force the companies to have competitive rates? Yet, I think it's intriguing that the Democrats have outright refused to accept any legislation from the Republicans that allows for more competition within the market, thus resulting in better costs and coverage for us. Of course, if they would let the problem solve itself within the market, that would put a kink in their plan to execute their hostile takeover of the entire industry.

And the Democrats keep on saying that the Republicans are "The Party of No", and they refuse to offer any solutions to the crisis. And sadly, the "investigative" media lets them get away with it time and time again.

[Troy Loney]

Except the numbers are probably cooked. Does the 2 % margin include the money health insurers put into their "reserve funds"? Because I would guess not. Highmark, for example, has a $4-$5 billion dollar reserve fund. I think their revenues were around $12 billion last year. Also keep in mind that your two percent profit margin is, using Highmark's numbers, a net profit of $240 million. This isn't to say they shouldn' make money, or they should be taxed at 90%, or that we need a public option (to be honest, I have no idea how to "fix" healthcare, and wont even pretend to know what the current proposal is really going to do/change). I am just posting these numbers because the notion that insurers aren't making money hand over fist is clearly wrong.

Shaft...you really do need to be skeptical when a profit margin figure is being cited to make a point....as slappy is pointing out. But financial companies will search for all kinds of ways to depress that figure in order to defer taxes, the last thing they want to do is pay income tax on all their profit.

[shafnutz05]

Shaft...you really do need to be skeptical when a profit margin figure is being cited to make a point....as slappy is pointing out. But financial companies will search for all kinds of ways to depress that figure in order to defer taxes, the last thing they want to do is pay income tax on all their profit.

Like I stated in the last post, 6-9% is probably the much more accurate figure. Which again, is nothing to write home about.

Again, there is absolutely no excuse for a political party to force a company into bankruptcy through punitive legislation, and take control of the industry after it inevitably fails. To say this is unconstitutional is the biggest understatement of the century.

[slappybrown]

Are insurers making money? Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with that. That is how the market works. Is two percent probably a lowball figure? Sure. I think the 6-9% numbers that I found are much closer to the actual figure. But again, despite the political grandstanding by the Dems, these numbers are hardly "obscene".

Like I pointed out yesterday....everyone can agree that competition would drive down costs considerably, correct? And this, in turn, would drive down these margins and force the companies to have competitive rates? Yet, I think it's intriguing that the Democrats have outright refused to accept any legislation from the Republicans that allows for more competition within the market, thus resulting in better costs and coverage for us. Of course, if they would let the problem solve itself within the market, that would put a kink in their plan to execute their hostile takeover of the entire industry.

And the Democrats keep on saying that the Republicans are "The Party of No", and they refuse to offer any solutions to the crisis. And sadly, the "investigative" media lets them get away with it time and time again.

Why is everything a conspiracy? We just had 8 years of a Republican president, with a Republican controlled Congress for 6 of those 8 years. And yet its now all and everyone is out to get the poor little Republicans because of the evil media. When the Republicans make significant gains in Nov. 2010, I guess it will be despite the conspiracies and efforts to keep the little guy down.

[slappybrown]

Shaft...you really do need to be skeptical when a profit margin figure is being cited to make a point....as slappy is pointing out. But financial companies will search for all kinds of ways to depress that figure in order to defer taxes, the last thing they want to do is pay income tax on all their profit.

Like I stated in the last post, 6-9% is probably the much more accurate figure. Which again, is nothing to write home about.

Again, there is absolutely no excuse for a political party to force a company into bankruptcy through punitive legislation, and take control of the industry after it inevitably fails. To say this is unconstitutional is the biggest understatement of the century.

Shaf, deep end. Deep end, shaf.

[PensFanInDC]

If someone can't afford healthcare it should be provided for them by the government, right? Because it's a necessity, correct? Ok.

What about if someone is homeless? The government should provide a home because it is a necessity, correct? Ok.

And people need jobs right? They should be given jobs by the government because it is a necessity.

Food and clothing is a necessity, so the government should give everyone food and clothes.

You're going to need transportation to and from work. The govt should pay for that too.

And let's not forget about daycare while you're at work, the govt should pay for that too because that is a necessity.

I'm not saying universal healthcare is bad (m'kay). I just want to know where the line will be drawn.

It is the same way I felt about the patriot act. Sure, I have nothing to fear since I'm not a terrorist but where does the line get drawn?

[shafnutz05]

Why is everything a conspiracy? We just had 8 years of a Republican president, with a Republican controlled Congress for 6 of those 8 years. And yet its now all and everyone is out to get the poor little Republicans because of the evil media. When the Republicans make significant gains in Nov. 2010, I guess it will be despite the conspiracies and efforts to keep the little guy down.

Sigh....................I am not talking about "conspiracies" or anything else. I am simply stating the facts as I see them, based on what is in the bill, and what the Democrats have been talking about for years. They have been railing against "Big" everything for as long as I can remember. I am not talking about the poor little Republicans, because their incompetence is the reason we are here in the first place. And I never said the "media" is evil, I merely said that they let the Dems get away with some pretty ridiculous statements sometimes. Thanks for trying to make me sound like Mel Gibson convincing Julia Roberts though,

If the Republicans continue to oppose this healthcare bill (along with just about anything else the Dems try to shove down our throats) for the next year or so, they will make massive gains in Congress. This will be for several reasons....I will admit, Obama has been flubbing up so badly lately, even some media sources that have traditionally been rather praiseful of the president have been forced to report his incompetence. I think the alternative media (i.e. FOX News, talk radio, internet blogs, Drudge, etc) is another reason why this could happen.

Really slappy....I am not the unreasonable kook living in a militia compound that you think I am. I am merely just making observations about what I see. If over 60% of the population is wrong on this bill, i don't want to be right.

[shafnutz05]

Shaf, deep end. Deep end, shaf.

Hey, fair enough. For all I know, the R's will take control of Congress in 2010 and the presidency in 2012 and this bill will never come to fruition. You are just a little more trusting of Congress than I am, and that's fine. If this bill is passed and stays passed, we will discover this topic again in ten years.

Why do you keep trying to marginalize my comments and make me out to be this hysterical wingnut? I am not screaming, ranting, shouting out names, trashing Obama on a personal level, etc etc. I think we are having a healthy discussion...am I wrong? I have a B.S. in poli sci from a relatively liberal institution in Huntingdon (Juniata College), and was government-emphasis in high school. I have been paying attention for a long time....it's not like I just turned on Rush Limbaugh six months ago and started getting outraged.

[slappybrown]

Why is everything a conspiracy? We just had 8 years of a Republican president, with a Republican controlled Congress for 6 of those 8 years. And yet its now all and everyone is out to get the poor little Republicans because of the evil media. When the Republicans make significant gains in Nov. 2010, I guess it will be despite the conspiracies and efforts to keep the little guy down.

Sigh....................I am not talking about "conspiracies" or anything else. I am simply stating the facts as I see them, based on what is in the bill, and what the Democrats have been talking about for years. They have been railing against "Big" everything for as long as I can remember. I am not talking about the poor little Republicans, because their incompetence is the reason we are here in the first place. And I never said the "media" is evil, I merely said that they let the Dems get away with some pretty ridiculous statements sometimes. Thanks for trying to make me sound like Mel Gibson convincing Julia Roberts though,

If the Republicans continue to oppose this healthcare bill (along with just about anything else the Dems try to shove down our throats) for the next year or so, they will make massive gains in Congress. This will be for several reasons....I will admit, Obama has been flubbing up so badly lately, even some media sources that have traditionally been rather praiseful of the president have been forced to report his incompetence. I think the alternative media (i.e. FOX News, talk radio, internet blogs, Drudge, etc) is another reason why this could happen.

Really slappy....I am not the unreasonable kook living in a militia compound that you think I am. I am merely just making observations about what I see. If over 60% of the population is wrong on this bill, i don't want to be right.

This is what you wrote:

"And sadly, the "investigative" media lets them get away with it time and time again."

This statement indicates that you think that the amorphous "media" is out there intentionally acting or not acting in an effort to aid "the liberals." This, despite the fact that if you want it, you can get your news and political discussion from Fox, Rush, Hannity, Beck, the WSJ, The Washington Times, Newsmax, The Free Republic, The National Review...and those are off the top of my head. Those are not "alternative media." The idea that FoxNews is "alternative media" is just...... The idea that Rush, the biggest political voice on talk radio is "alternative" is just......

[slappybrown]

Shaf, deep end. Deep end, shaf.

Hey, fair enough. For all I know, the R's will take control of Congress in 2010 and the presidency in 2012 and this bill will never come to fruition. You are just a little more trusting of Congress than I am, and that's fine. If this bill is passed and stays passed, we will discover this topic again in ten years.

Why do you keep trying to marginalize my comments and make me out to be this hysterical wingnut? I am not screaming, ranting, shouting out names, trashing Obama on a personal level, etc etc. I think we are having a healthy discussion...am I wrong? I have a B.S. in poli sci from a relatively liberal institution in Huntingdon (Juniata College), and was government-emphasis in high school. I have been paying attention for a long time....it's not like I just turned on Rush Limbaugh six months ago and started getting outraged.

Im not trying to marginalize you, but your posts are filled with hyperbole and exageration. I know you are informed but I think Rush is "informed" too; how one presents or uses the knowledge in the discourse is important.

[shafnutz05]

By alternative, I mean an "alternative" to the bastions of news that have been around since long before you and I were born (with the exception of the WSJ and some of the other media you mentioned).

Listen.................if you don't think the mainstream media (CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, MSNBC, CNN, HLN, WaPo, etc etc) lean heavily left, you are refusing to accept reality. I forget what the exact figure was, but a poll of journalists indicated that around 90-95% of them intended to vote for Obama. Do you remember all of the shameless puff pieces about the president and his family leading up to the 2008 election? What would they name their new dog? What was Malia and Sasha's favorite cartoon character? My goodness, Michelle Obama has an AMAZING fashion sense! Barack Obama, the family man. I could keep going on, but would rather not. The president was never truly vetted in any sense of the word, as most other presidential candidates are (including Dems).

When you have such a vast majority of people in a field that are so intensely supportive of Obama and his policies (and liberal policies in general), it is extremely hard, if not impossible, to remain impartial when reporting the news. How is this unreasonable?

[shafnutz05]

Im not trying to marginalize you, but your posts are filled with hyperbole and exageration. I know you are informed but I think Rush is "informed" too; how one presents or uses the knowledge in the discourse is important.

I agree. And yes, I tend to extrapolate several years down the road, rather than focus on the here and now sometimes. Because these predictions are akin to predicting the weather a month from now, I understand the skepticism. So, for the interest of a good discussion, I will stick with CURRENT events, and keep the hyperbolic foreshadowing to myself.

[Troy Loney]

Im not trying to marginalize you, but your posts are filled with hyperbole and exageration. I know you are informed but I think Rush is "informed" too; how one presents or uses the knowledge in the discourse is important.

I agree. And yes, I tend to extrapolate several years down the road, rather than focus on the here and now sometimes. Because these predictions are akin to predicting the weather a month from now, I understand the skepticism. So, for the interest of a good discussion, I will stick with CURRENT events, and keep the hyperbolic foreshadowing to myself.

You take things out of context and draw self serving conclusions from just about every article you sight....like the one two weeks ago that was about the US central bank purposefully depressing interest rates...just a typical liberal economist rant about the central bank controlling the money supply, and you turned that into an Obama rant because "it's so much worse with Obama in charge"...it's difficult to try and disect your arguments because once we start going at facts you turn it into some vague complaint about the government....like today, you used profit margins to claim that the media and government are unfairly attacking insurance companies...but when you didn't really have anything beyond your 6% number, or any real defense of the argument you just went back to the some outrageous conspiracy about the goverment trying to bankrupt the insurance industry so they can take it over...

[shafnutz05]

like today, you used profit margins to claim that the media and government are unfairly attacking insurance companies...but when you didn't really have anything beyond your 6% number, or any real defense of the argument you just went back to the some outrageous conspiracy about the goverment trying to bankrupt the insurance industry so they can take it over...

What? Do I really need anything beyond that number? Half of their reasoning behind going after "Big Insurance" is the "obscene profit margins" as Nancy Pelosi herself has mentioned multiple times. I think it takes a degree of gullibility and naivete to believe that, after fighting for it for so long, the Democrats will gladly just come to a compromise and abandon their end goal of a single payer system. How is that an "outrageous conspiracy"? The left-wing of the party is howling mad right now that there is even a sign that they might bend on this promise.

Again, this is not "outrageous"...........they have been advocating single-payor/government-run insurance for years. Did I miss something? It's not a conspiracy....I haven't used that word once. It's simply something that they have wanted for a long time, and it's no secret.

[shafnutz05]

You can dismiss my posts as "outrageous conspiracy theories" or "self serving conclusions" all you want. I am just having a discussion. The Democrats have been fighting for a single-payor system for a long time (remember HillaryCare)? I am suggesting that they are far from giving up the fight. I think calling that an "outrageous conspiracy theory" is a little ridiculous and hyperbolic in itself.

[shafnutz05]

One thing I didn't even think about....insurance stocks skyrocketed after the Senate voted for cloture on the healthcare bill, for obvious reasons...it forces people to buy (at least for the next several years) insurance from the insurers. Not one Republican votes for this bill, yet the Dems and the rest of the left are accusing the R's of siding with "Big Insurance". Quite the interesting paradox....

[HomerPenguin]

The Democrats have been fighting for a single-payor system for a long time (remember HillaryCare)?

"HillaryCare" was basically an individual and employer mandate to buy private insurance and tighter regulation of the insurance industry. What was single-payer about it?