Just a reminder that companies don't have consciences. They merely work in markets and perform tasks that either do or do not allow the employees to exercise their own. Some companies are NPO's, but that doesn't make them any nicer but rather just allows for more flexibility in their actions. This in turn can allow for a better consumer experience, but not always. Sadly, they also have serious struggles unique to such an operation, and as such cannot dominate the marketplace without subtantial regulatory or financial assistance.
Negative selection is what Jason is talking about, and it's a very real insurance issue although not quite simple enough to be satisfactorily summed up in a paragraph or two. An actuary has to calculate the morbidity rates with as much accuracy as possible for any given customer profile, and then assess the associated costs with just as much accuracy. This creates the strategic advantages between the companies, and is why company X costs more or less than company Y. If you find a great deal someplace, either they're underpricing or they're ahead of the curve.
The more gray areas that are allowed in claims, the higher the level of inaccuracy with which the company can write policies. That lower level of accuracy winds up in less exact premiums, and those who are paying more that they should will leave for other companies while those who are paying less will stay and potentially be unprofitiable.
That leads to a business environment that essentially requires an insurance company to stick to the absolute letter of their contracts and challenge anything that deviates in order to maintain their advantage. The only reason they wouldn't is if the potential legal fees and negative press would be more costly than if they just ponied up the cash.
If their claims/loss ratio (payouts/premiums) get too high for a for-profit insurance company, then their dividends drop and so do their stock prices. Investment in the company starts drying up, and they can go out of business. In an NPO, it would instead result in a reduction of available capital and that can potentially restrict the organization in other similar ways (if well run and fortunate, they can avoid that).
This entire cycle is a horrible thing for the consumer. It really, really is. And yes, that's a large part of the reason why this system of health care has to change.
Well one way to change it (aside from reforming the behavior of the insurers who are just exercising their right to enter into one-sided contracts with their customers) might be to educate consumers so that they can look at more than just the premium costs when purchasing insurance, and consider factors such as rates of sharp claims practices, quality of claims handling, etc.
I couldn't imagine anything outside of a mandatory high school class on economics being compelling enough to get that kind of an education drilled in people. Nobody aside from advocates or professionals would care, otherwise, until it came time for them to go up against the machine.
As an aside, I'd really like a mandatory high school class such as that: educating people on how various businesses work, and their role in it all. Hmm.
I think that is called law school.
Anyway, I didn't mean education in the classic sense. Something as simple as voluntary labeling/rating by independent consumer advocacy organizations could go a long way to educating consumers about what to look for when procuring insurance.
Where would consumers get such information? And if they did know it, how do they convince their employer that it should change insurers?Originally Posted by G-Man
Tell me are you pro-choice/pro-abortion by chance? Does the public own your body?
Bah, I don't know why I bother anymore. With or without "Obamacare", this economy in the west as a whole is toast in 2-5 years.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=208543
No more than a company owns your body if you are enrolled in a private scheme. What kind of an argument is that?
Because America is "the west". And hey, well, you'd better move to a sane healthcare delivery method then. How far are you willing to go to defend private healthcare's profits?
That is american stuff right? I'm not sure i fit exactly in the american mold on the issues, but i believe in a womens right to decide if she wants an abortion. By that i don't believe that women go around fornicating to annoy jesus just so they can get an abortion. Does that make sense?
Does the public own my body? hmm I've not thought about that before, i sure haven't asked anyone if they think they do. I didn't opt in for any donar schemes (i do give blood though) if that is what you mean? By paying for the national health system out of my taxes i'm not giving the national health system a right to take my body for state use if that is what you are angling at. We're a bit more 'modern' than that in the uk, while being healthier than you are in the usa.
Maybe if the Queen asked me for a kidney, i'd buckle and cave in and give it to her though? difficult to say. You gave me alot to think about. America is very strange sometimes.
---------------------------------
Would Give Kidney To Elderly Inbred Woman He's Never Met
*Illogical Goat*
Calls American Organ Donors "strange"
---------------------------------
I didn't have time to work up a proper macro, sorry.
You know, I admire the modern Euro health system and all, but I can sure live without the condescending fake bafflement every one of you guys display at how "strange" the American system is. There are people still alive that remember when your continent was gassing your ethnic populations and bombing your cities into burning rubble, so maybe tone down the attitude, weiner-dude.
True, and they're "healthier" in the sense that Alabama is more progressive than Mississippi. The UK is consistently the next 1st world nation in any negative category after the US.
Wrong. They totally win in soccer violence.
was that because i said 'while being healthier than you are in the usa.' and that kind of got you all up and hot around the collar? Look i'm not being anti-american. I'm simply trying to convey that outside of your gold-fish bowl, particularily in relation to this health-care issue, you(america) do come across as strange.
Your perfectly happy (seemingly) to let the government spend lots of cash on the military:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States
'The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billions of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined. The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).[36][37][38]'
And yet this is the mess of your current health-care system (that wanting to change might make you a communist or something) is in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States
'According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (15.2%), than any other nation in 2008.[3] The United States had the fourth highest level of government health care spending per capita ($3,426), behind three countries with higher levels of GDP per capita: Monaco, Luxembourg, and Norway.[3] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.[4] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.'
Compared to the euro/uk system (and i know this will rankle, but i don't aim for it to) in which the private sector makes a much lesser contribution, and in which we all enjoy longer and healthier lives.
So, yeah it's strange and bizare from outside the gold-fish bowl. You should fix it up or reduce some military spending to help balance the books etc? Why not?
We are healthier in the uk (which kind of blows my mind as i see the rise in obese kids and all those chips and curries we love!), as the table in this thread shows(uk is not great at no:18, the usa much worse at no:37):
https://lauraschneider.wordpress.com...nd-efficiency/
@Houngan, i met the Queen once as a child in a crowd (brief hand shake), so you may need to adjust the macro. Also add (probably a communist) just for completeness?
Last edited by Zak Gordon; 07-17-2012 at 02:15 PM.
Sarah. Palin.
It's not what you do so much as how you do it. Yes, we have our own crazies, but they're...well...our crazies, we don't think of them in the same way (and you don't think of yours in that way either...)
'The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billions of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined.
When the English Empire was important it may have spent a higher percentage that that. :)
Depends if you're counting absolute totals or %'s, yea, the Empire spent 30% of *British* GDP on defence, but got large returns from the colonies...
(I know wayyyy too much about that period in history. Oh well, it was for work ^^)
Wut? The Supreme Court pretty clearly answered that one with Roe v Wade last I looked. You know, that case where the government tried to control people's bodies?
Well with arguments like the above you should never have bothered in the first place. And you realize the economy is global, so you're basically saying the entire planet's economy will be destroyed in 2-5 years. Yeah thats perfectly fucking rational. If you have that sort of disconnect from reality, its no wonder you're getting frustrated that no one is listening to your position.Bah, I don't know why I bother anymore. With or without "Obamacare", this economy in the west as a whole is toast in 2-5 years.
I wonder what our healthcare system was like then? (answer, very, very bad)
Wait, wait, you throw Sarah Palin at us when Gordon Brown or Blair or any of a dozen other recently high-profile politicians in the UK would win the Upper Class Twit of the Year competition?
Whoah there Lone Ranger!
<br />
<br />
Gordon Brown is not Upper Class, neither Tony Blair.......not by british standards. They may be devious darstadly politicos, but you just caused a whole tier of british society to stop sipping tea while watching their dogs hunt and go 'The impertinence!'.
<br />
<br />
David Cameron on the other hand is right near the top of british Upper Class.
Boris Johnson. I think I'll leave it at that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote