airdvr 210 #1 December 9, 2009 Public option seemingly nixed as legislators work to find common ground The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns/politics-capitol_hill/ I say good. We'll see if its all smoke and mirrors.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #2 December 9, 2009 QuotePublic option seemingly nixed as legislators work to find common ground The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns/politics-capitol_hill/ I say good. We'll see if its all smoke and mirrors. The government is trying to put them out of buisness. I am an owner of a construction company. I do a lot of the work myself. I would be out of business if it was stipulated that I could not use the money that I collected on my overhead when i wanted to. It is sofa king simple - the government saw a profitable organization and said - Hmmm - i want that money - now we are going through this BS because of some greedy fucking democrats.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #3 December 9, 2009 Quote Quote Public option seemingly nixed as legislators work to find common ground The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns/politics-capitol_hill/ I say good. We'll see if its all smoke and mirrors. The government is trying to put them out of buisness. I am an owner of a construction company. I do a lot of the work myself. I would be out of business if it was stipulated that I could not use the money that I collected on my overhead when i wanted to. It is sofa king simple - the government saw a profitable organization and said - Hmmm - i want that money - now we are going through this BS because of some greedy fucking democrats. As a business owner, you're clearly rich and can afford it...so just pay up.... j/k...I've spent so much time on over-head BS that I have to refocus the line of business I'm in...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #4 December 9, 2009 QuoteSenate Dems near agreement on health care bill that's about as exciting as this headline "hikers near to falling off the edge of a cliff" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #5 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuotePublic option seemingly nixed as legislators work to find common ground The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns/politics-capitol_hill/ I say good. We'll see if its all smoke and mirrors. The government is trying to put them out of buisness. I am an owner of a construction company. I do a lot of the work myself. I would be out of business if it was stipulated that I could not use the money that I collected on my overhead when i wanted to. It is sofa king simple - the government saw a profitable organization and said - Hmmm - i want that money - now we are going through this BS because of some greedy fucking democrats. Just needed repeating! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #6 December 9, 2009 Quote I am an owner of a construction company. I do a lot of the work myself. I would be out of business if it was stipulated that I could not use the money that I collected on my overhead when i wanted to. Would you be still out of business if the government also required people to use your services or pay fine, bringing you more customers?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #7 December 9, 2009 >I am an owner of a construction company. I do a lot of the work myself. I >would be out of business if it was stipulated that I could not use the money that >I collected on my overhead when i wanted to. You'd also be out of business if the government did not provide you with roads to get your material and workers to job sites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #8 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote I am an owner of a construction company. I do a lot of the work myself. I would be out of business if it was stipulated that I could not use the money that I collected on my overhead when i wanted to. Would you be still out of business if the government also required people to use your services or pay fine, bringing you more customers? If they control the price, yes.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #9 December 9, 2009 QuoteIf they control the price, yes. Of course they do not. The price is subject of negotiation, like it is with any your other customer.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf they control the price, yes. Of course they do not. The price is subject of negotiation, like it is with any your other customer. in the other thread, you're decrying a 3.x% profit margin. In this one, you're defending a silly mandate that "overhead" only equal 10%. How can a company make sure their overhead is covered within 10%? By increasing their price (and thus their profit margin). Pick one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #11 December 10, 2009 Quote in the other thread, you're decrying a 3.x% profit margin. Maybe you can explain me how a health insurer can have profit margin? I understand how a grocery store can have it (get apple for $10, sell it for $20, your profit margin is 100%, but if you only sell one apple in a year, you do not have any profit while your margin is still 100%), but health insurer? Quote In this one, you're defending a silly mandate that "overhead" only equal 10%. Which is good. The government wants people to pay money for medical services, and if the government makes it mandatory, it would be a good idea to ensure the money actually go to pay for medical services. Quote How can a company make sure their overhead is covered within 10%? By increasing their price (and thus their profit margin). By optimizing their business. For example, by not paying CEO a 4M salary?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 December 10, 2009 Quote Quote How can a company make sure their overhead is covered within 10%? By increasing their price (and thus their profit margin). By optimizing their business. For example, by not paying CEO a 4M salary? Right - all government has to do is say "meet this standard" and suddenly the business will be more efficient. SOX regulation is a perfect example of how this fails. No- the other approach is much easier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #13 December 10, 2009 QuoteQuote Quote How can a company make sure their overhead is covered within 10%? By increasing their price (and thus their profit margin). By optimizing their business. For example, by not paying CEO a 4M salary? Right - all government has to do is say "meet this standard" and suddenly the business will be more efficient. Setting accreditation standards works pretty well for colleges and universities. Quote SOX regulation is a perfect example of how this fails. what do baseball teams have to do with it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 December 10, 2009 Quote Setting accreditation standards works pretty well for colleges and universities. I've haven't seen a standard that reads "to maintain accreditation, your graduating students must maintain a mean GRE score equal to that of Caltech" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #15 December 10, 2009 Quote Right - all government has to do is say "meet this standard" and suddenly the business will be more efficient. Well, if the business does not want to do the right thing for the consumers, the government may/should force them to do so. Pretty much the same as when phone number porting was introduced (which was a major break against vendor lock-in) - did you read all the claims by various cell phone companies how it would hurt their business? But the companies are still there, and the consumers got better choice as competition increased. If you follow recent FCC decisions on net neutrality and AT&T's reaction on it, you'll get even better example of some modern business practices - "we don't care about consumers as long as this is good for business". This is especially the case if the government is planning to force citizens to buy services from a specific business. Quote SOX regulation is a perfect example of how this fails. I have no idea what SOX is, and how it was regulated.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #16 December 10, 2009 QuoteQuotePublic option seemingly nixed as legislators work to find common ground The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns/politics-capitol_hill/ I say good. We'll see if its all smoke and mirrors. The government is trying to put them out of buisness. I am an owner of a construction company. I do a lot of the work myself. I would be out of business if it was stipulated that I could not use the money that I collected on my overhead when i wanted to. It is sofa king simple - the government saw a profitable organization and said - Hmmm - i want that money - now we are going through this BS because of some greedy fucking democrats. Come on.. what you guys are really afraid of is the provision for annual testing for anal retentive stress in the new senate bill. They will be using a new test device on all of the more conservative wing rePUBICan's to make future cranial rectal insertion easier for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 December 10, 2009 Quote Quote SOX regulation is a perfect example of how this fails. I have no idea what SOX is, and how it was regulated. Sarbanes Oxley. Like I said, your working world is not commercially oriented. And again, your examples are useless. Cell providers fought number portability because it would increase churn. Not for any real technical difficulties. But we already seem to have established that health care is a low margin business. And anyone can see that it's far more complex than providing cellular service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #18 December 10, 2009 Quote Sarbanes Oxley. Like I said, your working world is not commercially oriented. Never heard about him, but anyway. My working world is indeed commercially oriented though. I even run a business myself. Quote And again, your examples are useless. Cell providers fought number portability because it would increase churn. Not for any real technical difficulties. Nope. They fought it because it would make it easier for consumer to break the vendor lock-in, i.e. switch between providers as soon as some other provider got a better deal. Before portability the potential costs of switching were quite high for many consumers, which gave much more leeway to the cell phone operators by reducing competition between them. Quote But we already seem to have established that health care is a low margin business. Pretty much every large business is low margin business. It is the size which affects percentage, not industry. A small store can have a 100% margin and make $1000 a month. But if you look on a Safeway, I'd be surprised if they have more than 10% (mostly because of capital gain taxes).* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #19 December 10, 2009 QuoteQuote Setting accreditation standards works pretty well for colleges and universities. I've haven't seen a standard that reads "to maintain accreditation, your graduating students must maintain a mean GRE score equal to that of Caltech" Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average Did you think about what you wrote? Your statement is pretty damn stupid.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 December 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Setting accreditation standards works pretty well for colleges and universities. I've haven't seen a standard that reads "to maintain accreditation, your graduating students must maintain a mean GRE score equal to that of Caltech" Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average Did you think about what you wrote? Your statement is pretty damn stupid. Not nearly as stupid as using accreditation of colleges as proof that legislation can magically make businesses more efficient. Legislated standards only work when they are reasonable. CA's zero emissions mandates were an example of the failure. I already pointed out SOX as a huge failure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 December 10, 2009 QuoteQuote Sarbanes Oxley. Like I said, your working world is not commercially oriented. Never heard about him, but anyway. My working world is indeed commercially oriented though. I even run a business myself. And yet you have never heard of the most significant regulatory change in the past decade, passed in response to Enron. "But anyway." Quote Quote And again, your examples are useless. Cell providers fought number portability because it would increase churn. Not for any real technical difficulties. Nope. They fought it because it would make it easier for consumer to break the vendor lock-in, i.e. switch between providers as soon as some other provider got a better deal. Before portability the potential costs of switching were quite high for many consumers, which gave much more leeway to the cell phone operators by reducing competition between them. Look up "churn," genius. And drink some coffee before posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #22 December 10, 2009 Quote And yet you have never heard of the most significant regulatory change in the past decade, passed in response to Enron. "But anyway." I bet there are a lot of things I never heard about (and you probably too). So what is your point? QuoteLook up "churn," genius. And drink some coffee before posting. None of "churn" translations in my dictionary explains what I said (loss of profit for the company). I do not drink coffee.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 December 10, 2009 QuoteQuote And yet you have never heard of the most significant regulatory change in the past decade, passed in response to Enron. "But anyway." I bet there are a lot of things I never heard about (and you probably too). So what is your point? Learn more if you want to act like you know what you're talking about. Quote QuoteLook up "churn," genius. And drink some coffee before posting. None of "churn" translations in my dictionary explains what I said (loss of profit for the company). Ditto my last comment. If you can't understand how churn rate relates to profits, maybe get out a russian dictionary instead? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #24 December 10, 2009 Quote Learn more if you want to act like you know what you're talking about. Okey, I agree you're smart and knowledgeable. Now could you be so kind and would you please share your infinite wisdom and tell me what relationship this has with the discussed topic? Quote Ditto my last comment. If you can't understand how churn rate relates to profits, maybe get out a russian dictionary instead? "churn rate" is a better term. I wish you used it from the beginning, as it has much more accurate translation.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
