Is the Obama administration waking up?

[type b pharmD]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Everyone/everything functions for a profit. No one will ever work for "free". so I don't think any system will ever work without any profits (benefits to themselves). The point of working is to gain profits.

1. Lets say you dont get insurance until age 32 (which, btw wont happen, since the govt will surely start penalizing you strongly after healthcare reform passes eventually. Let's say you get in a single car accident which causes, lets say, minor temporary paralysis or rehab requiring a few week hospital stay and some physical therapy. Are you going to be ready to pay 100k out of pocket ?? I am perfectly completely healthy, in great shape, exercise, etc .. I had a spontaneous (completely random) lung collapse, for no known reason. If i had not had insurance, i would have been on the hook for 50k of medical bills for a total of 2 weeks of hospitalization and one surgery. If i didnt have insurance i would be in bankruptcy court.

2. have you ever heard of NON PROFITs ???? Apparently not.. but, for your information, they are corporations or business entities that exist and work entirely for the good of the public.. And there are many successful ones, including some insurance providers. In order for people to work, they need to be making a rate of return that will pay for their house, lifestyle, health, recreational spending, etc. They do not *need* to be making absurd amounts of money at the expense of people's health or well being. And while we're on the topic of the necessity of corporate profits... do you consider a CEO making 500 times the salary of an average worker to be a "reasonable" rate of return? It seems a little unreasonable to me.

 

[SHC1984]

1. Lets say you dont get insurance until age 32 (which, btw wont happen, since the govt will surely start penalizing you strongly after healthcare reform passes eventually. Let's say you get in a single car accident which causes, lets say, minor temporary paralysis or rehab requiring a few week hospital stay and some physical therapy. Are you going to be ready to pay 100k out of pocket ?? I am perfectly completely healthy, in great shape, exercise, etc .. I had a spontaneous (completely random) lung collapse, for no known reason. If i had not had insurance, i would have been on the hook for 50k of medical bills for a total of 2 weeks of hospitalization and one surgery. If i didnt have insurance i would be in bankruptcy court.

2. have you ever heard of NON PROFITs ???? Apparently not.. but, for your information, they are corporations or business entities that exist and work entirely for the good of the public.. And there are many successful ones, including some insurance providers. In order for people to work, they need to be making a rate of return that will pay for their house, lifestyle, health, recreational spending, etc. They do not *need* to be making absurd amounts of money at the expense of people's health or well being. And while we're on the topic of the necessity of corporate profits... do you consider a CEO making 500 times the salary of an average worker to be a "reasonable" rate of return? It seems a little unreasonable to me.

1) how the heck did that happen?? your lungs spontaneously collapsed??? damn... 😱 I have this argument with my parents about insurances too. I am still trying to decide if its worth it or not...I guess I am lucky that I seriously haven't been sick in over 10 years...the last time I was sick it was just a minor cold that lasted for 3 days while I was in middle school...after that nothing as ever happened to me. Thank goodness.

2) If people are making money to support their lifestyle thats for profit. A pharmacist IMO works for profit. I mean no one will work for little to no money. People are motivated to work b/c of money. That was what I mean to say. The people at Harvard and Columbia make 100K+ salaries and I am sure they will not be there if they didn't make that kind of money. And yes CEO are over paid....I hear people complain about CEO making too much money and I also have rich friends that complain about paying too much taxes and having poor people leech off them from medicaid and welfare. I think both are wrong but there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[Marcus X]

1) how the heck did that happen?? your lungs spontaneously collapsed??? damn... 😱 I have this argument with my parents about insurances too. I am still trying to decide if its worth it or not...I guess I am lucky that I seriously haven't been sick in over 10 years...the last time I was sick it was just a minor cold that lasted for 3 days while I was in middle school...after that nothing as ever happened to me. Thank goodness.

2) If people are making money to support their lifestyle thats for profit. A pharmacist IMO works for profit. I mean no one will work for little to no money. People are motivated to work b/c of money. That was what I mean to say. The people at Harvard and Columbia make 100K+ salaries and I am sure they will not be there if they didn't make that kind of money. And yes CEO are over paid....I hear people complain about CEO making too much money and I also have rich friends that complain about paying too much taxes and having poor people leech off them from medicaid and welfare. I think both are wrong but there is nothing we can do about it.

Yes. The individual people make money. However, Harvard is a non-profit organization. The singular goal of the university is not to make more money for the university. You can't redefine "non-profit organization" to mean what you want it to mean and then attack your new definition. When people say that the problem with the healthcare system is that it is for-profit, they mean that the express purpose of most insurance companies is making more money for the company, not the health of their policyholders. They therefore take whatever measures they can to AVOID paying claims. The incentive for them is in making money, not in helping people.

 

[SHC1984]

Yes. The individual people make money. However, Harvard is a non-profit organization. The singular goal of the university is not to make more money for the university. You can't redefine "non-profit organization" to mean what you want it to mean and then attack your new definition. When people say that the problem with the healthcare system is that it is for-profit, they mean that the express purpose of most insurance companies is making more money for the company, not the health of their policyholders. They therefore take whatever measures they can to AVOID paying claims. The incentive for them is in making money, not in helping people.

I would not know since I do not have insurance but don't all insurance companies even non-profit ones try to avoid paying claims? Especially the really expensive claims...I am sure they will look into it before coughing up the dough. LOL...

 

[Praziquantel86]

Yes. The individual people make money. However, Harvard is a non-profit organization. The singular goal of the university is not to make more money for the university. You can't redefine "non-profit organization" to mean what you want it to mean and then attack your new definition. When people say that the problem with the healthcare system is that it is for-profit, they mean that the express purpose of most insurance companies is making more money for the company, not the health of their policyholders. They therefore take whatever measures they can to AVOID paying claims. The incentive for them is in making money, not in helping people.

You can't say that for-profit companies are the only entities guilty of trying to avoid spending money. Non-profits don't necessarily exist for the betterment of their fellow man. You mention Harvard as an example, saying that they don't exist to make a profit for the University. If that is the case, how do they have an over $1 billion endowment? They could maintain current admission rates and not charge a cent in tuition and still have money for decades to come, yet they don't. In fact, they charge some of the highest tuition of any university.


Non-profits in health insurance are the same way, but they try to avoid paying claims for different reasons. They're not responsible for paying dividends to shareholders at the end of the day, but they still have to abide by basic laws of finance. That is, they can't spend more money than they take in.

For a non-profit, money in comes from premiums and various government subsidies. Money leaves in the form of administrative costs/salaries and paid claims. Whatever is left at the end of the year goes into a general "catastrophic" pool that most are mandated by law to maintain.

Even though they're not turning a profit (in the traditional sense of the word), they certainly aren't around to lose money. There is no way for a company to remain solvent by ignoring the need for money.

Note that the government is no exception to this. They have a lot more leeway in terms of raising capital than private organizations (see: U.S. national debt expansion in the last year), but it isn't unlimited. No one, regardless of who they are, can spend a significant period of time with their balance books in the red and expect to remain a viable entity.

 

[Marcus X]

You can't say that for-profit companies are the only entities guilty of trying to avoid spending money. Non-profits don't necessarily exist for the betterment of their fellow man. You mention Harvard as an example, saying that they don't exist to make a profit for the University. If that is the case, how do they have an over $1 billion endowment? They could maintain current admission rates and not charge a cent in tuition and still have money for decades to come, yet they don't. In fact, they charge some of the highest tuition of any university.


Non-profits in health insurance are the same way, but they try to avoid paying claims for different reasons. They're not responsible for paying dividends to shareholders at the end of the day, but they still have to abide by basic laws of finance. That is, they can't spend more money than they take in.

For a non-profit, money in comes from premiums and various government subsidies. Money leaves in the form of administrative costs/salaries and paid claims. Whatever is left at the end of the year goes into a general "catastrophic" pool that most are mandated by law to maintain.

Even though they're not turning a profit (in the traditional sense of the word), they certainly aren't around to lose money. There is no way for a company to remain solvent by ignoring the need for money.

Note that the government is no exception to this. They have a lot more leeway in terms of raising capital than private organizations (see: U.S. national debt expansion in the last year), but it isn't unlimited. No one, regardless of who they are, can spend a significant period of time with their balance books in the red and expect to remain a viable entity.

Indeed. Harvard has the second-largest endowment of any non-profit organization in the world (The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is #1), some $26 billion. Harvard's total endowment is actually made of of thousands of smaller donations made to the university. These are often given by the donor specific purposes. The university is bound by the terms of the donation and can't just simply use its endowment as pool of cash with which to fund its operations. The endowments are intended for research in specific areas, scholarships for specific groups and studies, funding of specific Professorships and Chairs.

Furthermore, Harvard gives generous financial aid packages. Those from families whose income is less than $60,000 per year are not expected to contribute anything to the cost of attendance, including room and board.

Does any of this mean that Harvard gives out money for free? Or operates at a loss? Of course not. It does mean, however, that they exist for, and operate with, a purpose other than simply bringing in more money. Yes, they must find a financially viable way to do this, but heir sole reason for existence is not to maximize the amount of money they accumulate while minimizing the amount of money they spend.

Are all non-profit organizations good and pure? No. Is Harvard even the best example? Probably not. But it's much more possible for good to be done in a system where the motivating force is not maximization of income while minimizing expenses. The business of Harvard University is education and research. The business of for-profit insurance companies is, the that very definition, making a profit. Profits are made by collecting more money than is spent; their business is not ensuring the health of their policyholders.

 

[spacecowgirl]

Everyone else has pretty much addressed why your ideas make no sense SHC1984. Not every illness is a result of being fat and lazy or whatever else. Not everyone can get a job that has benefits and not everyone can afford the benefits their job offers. If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to tell you. You can say people should just get a better job, but especially in an economy like this, that is not possible and the bottom line is:
someone has to process your food
someone has to clean your school, office, etc
someone has to flip your burgers
someone has to stock the shelves of the stores in which you shop

SOMEONE has to do those jobs - shouldn't they be 1) offered insurance 2) able to afford insurance if it is offered? Aren't these people "pulling their weight" by working full-time? What about people that work 2-3 PT jobs to make enough money, but because they aren't FT they don't get benefits? Are those people lazier than you?

My husband is college-educated with 8 years of experience. After he got laid off, he was unemployed for 8 months. He now works for peanuts at a job that offers zero benefits. Would you rather he were collecting unemployment?

Your myopic world view scares me, SHC1984.

 

[MountainPharmD]

.....the bottom line is:
someone has to process your food
someone has to clean your school, office, etc
someone has to flip your burgers
someone has to stock the shelves of the stores in which you shop

SOMEONE has to do those jobs - shouldn't they be 1) offered insurance 2) able to afford insurance if it is offered?

The world does not run with out these people. If all the CEO's in the US disappeared tomorrow you wouldn't even notice. If the guy who picks up your trash, or cleans the toliets or stocks the shelves disappered tomorrow we would be in a world of hurt fast.

I say hell yes they should have health insurance or be able to afford to buy it.

 

[SHC1984]

Everyone else has pretty much addressed why your ideas make no sense SHC1984. Not every illness is a result of being fat and lazy or whatever else. Not everyone can get a job that has benefits and not everyone can afford the benefits their job offers. If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to tell you. You can say people should just get a better job, but especially in an economy like this, that is not possible and the bottom line is:
someone has to process your food
someone has to clean your school, office, etc
someone has to flip your burgers
someone has to stock the shelves of the stores in which you shop

SOMEONE has to do those jobs - shouldn't they be 1) offered insurance 2) able to afford insurance if it is offered? Aren't these people "pulling their weight" by working full-time? What about people that work 2-3 PT jobs to make enough money, but because they aren't FT they don't get benefits? Are those people lazier than you?

My husband is college-educated with 8 years of experience. After he got laid off, he was unemployed for 8 months. He now works for peanuts at a job that offers zero benefits. Would you rather he were collecting unemployment?

Your myopic world view scares me, SHC1984.

Okay, I think we can agree on something. LOL... If its possible to cut the CEO's salary so everyone can get cheaper healthcare then that is a good plan. Hopfully as pharmacists we can get cheaper healthcare as well, after all pharmacists are middle class people too. What I was opposed to earlier was having the gov. set a flat fee for everyone. Not everyone has the same health so why should everyone pay the same fee?

However, I am still 110% all for capitalism and competition, without competition life will be extremely boring. Its so fun to win and fight for things in life...if everyone was the same and everything was the same it will be so BORING! I live for a competition everyday, I think when I save up enough money as a pharmacist I will go into investing instead...too bad I don't have enough money right now or I would go into investment right now. LOL...Yeah sure everyone is jealous of a CEO's salary, myself included, but I also know that he or she worked very hard to get to that position. When I see someone thats very successful it motivates me, I don't look at a successful person and think "why don't they give me half their paycheck!" LOL... I never really cared for gov plans or any form of socialistic lifestyles. I think thats where we differ.

 

[fenderbiz]

@SHC1984

I think you'll enjoy this.

http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/socialist-agencies-destroying-america

 

[SHC1984]

@SHC1984

I think you'll enjoy this.

http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/socialist-agencies-destroying-america

I LOVE it!!! Thanks for sharing. Some of it is a bit too extreme. We need roads!!! LOL... Never had to use the fire department or police so I can't comment. LOL... I prefer Barnes and Nobles over the Library too. Armed forces?? I am aganist war actually. Thats the ONLY reason why I dislike Bush was b/c of the war he started. But yeah, funny stuff. I like it. And some of that stuff (armed forces/war) is a waste of money. You have to admit that life without competition is very boring...it will be kinda like playing chess and monopoly, but never having a winner at the end. BORING!