Why should strength insurance companies be obligated to bring in profits?
Their obligations are to their shareholders and not their customers. Why are people so unrelenting on protecting this awful system?
Answers:
Yeah, I don't know. They're just middlemen. Truly not required.
By law publicly traded companies' first responsibility is to the nation who PAY THE BILLS.
The best way to fulfill their obligations to their shareholders is to provide a ability product at a fair price. Unfortunately, since Medicare and Medicaid don't pay adjectives of what they are billed, doctors and hospitals have to make up that loss somehow. The cost of strength care goes up and insurance companies own to pay for it. Then they have to bump up their premiums in order to live up to the obligation to their customers. So between the government run Medicare and Medicaid driving up costs and the federal regulations and taxes which make it even MORE expensive they enjoy to find other ways to stay competitive. So what SHOULD happen is, the federal government should verbs up THEIR mess(the one responsible for driving up the cost of EVERYTHING including health care and robustness insurance). Once that's done the insurance companies can get back to doing things the path they used to before the government stepped contained by to tell them how to do THEIR jobs.
Remember, CONgress is chock-a-block with politicians, not businessmen. Many of them have worked their complete life in politics and hold no clue how to run a REAL business. Their motivation is to get re-elected and they will promise to do anything even if it means forcing a business to do things that progress against what makes GOOD business sense. Even politicians with the best intentions can bring in a big mess of things if they try to FIX something they don't understand. That would be like asking a plumber to operate on your brain.
Where do people like you come from ? You perform as though profits are a bad thing. 0bama have already gotten to the dumbest of today's breed of democrats, by the mere fact that someone could ask a question this stupid.
Do you realize, you are a complete and unrepentant socialist ? This isn't a everyday American ideal, it's something out of Stalin's Russia. How pathetic is that !
They shouldn't. Always hidden from you by your rich class thieve and ignored by the ignorant is the reality that a self-sustaining, non-profit program pays (likely) thousands and thousands of employees daily - thereby "profiting" those conscientious individuals on a daily basis.
The condition care system ought to take any regular surplus for reinvestment into research and nouns.
The only difference between what I've described and what you have very soon is the void of rich class thieving.
i was wondering the same article but on the other hand i dont want to pay for some dishonest immigrant's health care and within 14 children either
Because if they don't make profits they don't have shareholders. Pretty assured business math there.
Insurance companies do not make huge profits. People hold advantage of insurance policies (fake claims, false malpractice suits, lawyers) which drive the cost (risk to the company) up. Learn how insurance companies leverage to reduce risk which within the long run reduces the ultimate cost.
Pass that to a establishment which its only revenue stream is taxes means that more relations can corrupt the system until everyone is paying HUGE taxes to support the system. Just giving it to the government won't fix anything I promise you. Look at France and UK's taxes paid by its citizens.
If you resembling high taxes (if you even pay them now) consequently by all means hand over the government control. In the end.. you acquire screwed and the world is full of examples of this.
Do some research... it will do you some good.
Well...let's see...
In charge to run any business, you have to make profit. If you are simply in it to break even--then you can forget employing anyone, a building to conduct business surrounded by, resources to provide your customers what they need, and most likely, unless you are already a billionaire and pouring your money into a bottomless pit doesn't matter--no food or shelter for yourself. That could be the root. Say...why don't you open up a store and sell everything at cost adjectives the time? See how long you stay in business.
How around a simple explanation with no political agenda?
you live in a country near a market economy. it be a choice made by earlier generations, and appropriate, bad or indifferent, it's what we got here.
insurance company is taking financial risk.
within a market economy, taking risk earn reward.
what's bad for your customers is bad for business, in consequence bad for shareholders.
It's not the profit-making that's bad....
Insurance industry is significantly regulated, which means it's not exactly "free enterprise".
I believe insurance regulation is necessary, but it's not anyone done very well at the present time.
.
.
.
Profits should never come at the cost of human lives.
Some background ...
Kaisar Permanente partnered next to Nixon's government in the 70s to create the current HMO system because he thought it be a great way to make money rotten healthcare by getting in between the patient and the service provider and he be basically right, they've made an incredible amount of money doing this.
That's all HMOs are ... is middle men profiting past its sell-by date the transactions.
There is no actual need for them to exist, but they have huge sums of money that they are fairly happy to bribe politicians with and within are quite a lot of politicians who are relieved to be bribed.
Why does nobody understand that if you completely removed robustness insurance companies, it would cost the US government billions and billions of dollars to cover the medical costs of the entire country. The reason it works within Canada for example is because there is no military expense so that money can go toward strength care without putting them into debt. In the US it would merely add a tremendous amount of money to the already existing deficit. I agree that people's lives should not be given up on because they are not profitable customers which is why Obama wants to surpass a law that insurance companies can't deny treatment to existing customers. Additionally, if malpractice suites were regulated, malpractice insurance would shift down, causing health insurance costs to dance down, making coverage wayyyyy more affordable.
That is what they are adjectives about. It is capitaism. They get rich bad pain.
That is why we need a public pick to make them accountable. They do flawless at times, but you know what, they kill do many population because of denying care.
Would it breed any sense for these companies to continue operating if they weren't showing a profit? I am not taking a side but their business like any other private business would backfire. And why doesn't anybody question the overinflated earnings of some physicians. Why not consider placing them on pay. Their 600K a year incomes are part of the problem. And ironic when they refuse to see a tolerant without proof of insurance as if to say their time is more meaningful than a life.
They've been brainwashed, not that they own much in the way of brains to inaugurate with.
Exactly whats awful about it ?
Without the form insurance industry
You would be paying 100% of your health care bills.
So your clich¨¦ having to pay $200,000 for an operation is better than only just paying $10,000 ?
Compare insurance company profits as a share of health care spending to allowed cost.
Makes ya wonder why they aren't doing anything about tort reform doesn't it ?
Related Questions:
Answers:
Yeah, I don't know. They're just middlemen. Truly not required.
By law publicly traded companies' first responsibility is to the nation who PAY THE BILLS.
The best way to fulfill their obligations to their shareholders is to provide a ability product at a fair price. Unfortunately, since Medicare and Medicaid don't pay adjectives of what they are billed, doctors and hospitals have to make up that loss somehow. The cost of strength care goes up and insurance companies own to pay for it. Then they have to bump up their premiums in order to live up to the obligation to their customers. So between the government run Medicare and Medicaid driving up costs and the federal regulations and taxes which make it even MORE expensive they enjoy to find other ways to stay competitive. So what SHOULD happen is, the federal government should verbs up THEIR mess(the one responsible for driving up the cost of EVERYTHING including health care and robustness insurance). Once that's done the insurance companies can get back to doing things the path they used to before the government stepped contained by to tell them how to do THEIR jobs.
Remember, CONgress is chock-a-block with politicians, not businessmen. Many of them have worked their complete life in politics and hold no clue how to run a REAL business. Their motivation is to get re-elected and they will promise to do anything even if it means forcing a business to do things that progress against what makes GOOD business sense. Even politicians with the best intentions can bring in a big mess of things if they try to FIX something they don't understand. That would be like asking a plumber to operate on your brain.
Where do people like you come from ? You perform as though profits are a bad thing. 0bama have already gotten to the dumbest of today's breed of democrats, by the mere fact that someone could ask a question this stupid.
Do you realize, you are a complete and unrepentant socialist ? This isn't a everyday American ideal, it's something out of Stalin's Russia. How pathetic is that !
They shouldn't. Always hidden from you by your rich class thieve and ignored by the ignorant is the reality that a self-sustaining, non-profit program pays (likely) thousands and thousands of employees daily - thereby "profiting" those conscientious individuals on a daily basis.
The condition care system ought to take any regular surplus for reinvestment into research and nouns.
The only difference between what I've described and what you have very soon is the void of rich class thieving.
i was wondering the same article but on the other hand i dont want to pay for some dishonest immigrant's health care and within 14 children either
Because if they don't make profits they don't have shareholders. Pretty assured business math there.
Insurance companies do not make huge profits. People hold advantage of insurance policies (fake claims, false malpractice suits, lawyers) which drive the cost (risk to the company) up. Learn how insurance companies leverage to reduce risk which within the long run reduces the ultimate cost.
Pass that to a establishment which its only revenue stream is taxes means that more relations can corrupt the system until everyone is paying HUGE taxes to support the system. Just giving it to the government won't fix anything I promise you. Look at France and UK's taxes paid by its citizens.
If you resembling high taxes (if you even pay them now) consequently by all means hand over the government control. In the end.. you acquire screwed and the world is full of examples of this.
Do some research... it will do you some good.
Well...let's see...
In charge to run any business, you have to make profit. If you are simply in it to break even--then you can forget employing anyone, a building to conduct business surrounded by, resources to provide your customers what they need, and most likely, unless you are already a billionaire and pouring your money into a bottomless pit doesn't matter--no food or shelter for yourself. That could be the root. Say...why don't you open up a store and sell everything at cost adjectives the time? See how long you stay in business.
How around a simple explanation with no political agenda?
you live in a country near a market economy. it be a choice made by earlier generations, and appropriate, bad or indifferent, it's what we got here.
insurance company is taking financial risk.
within a market economy, taking risk earn reward.
what's bad for your customers is bad for business, in consequence bad for shareholders.
It's not the profit-making that's bad....
Insurance industry is significantly regulated, which means it's not exactly "free enterprise".
I believe insurance regulation is necessary, but it's not anyone done very well at the present time.
.
.
.
Profits should never come at the cost of human lives.
Some background ...
Kaisar Permanente partnered next to Nixon's government in the 70s to create the current HMO system because he thought it be a great way to make money rotten healthcare by getting in between the patient and the service provider and he be basically right, they've made an incredible amount of money doing this.
That's all HMOs are ... is middle men profiting past its sell-by date the transactions.
There is no actual need for them to exist, but they have huge sums of money that they are fairly happy to bribe politicians with and within are quite a lot of politicians who are relieved to be bribed.
Why does nobody understand that if you completely removed robustness insurance companies, it would cost the US government billions and billions of dollars to cover the medical costs of the entire country. The reason it works within Canada for example is because there is no military expense so that money can go toward strength care without putting them into debt. In the US it would merely add a tremendous amount of money to the already existing deficit. I agree that people's lives should not be given up on because they are not profitable customers which is why Obama wants to surpass a law that insurance companies can't deny treatment to existing customers. Additionally, if malpractice suites were regulated, malpractice insurance would shift down, causing health insurance costs to dance down, making coverage wayyyyy more affordable.
That is what they are adjectives about. It is capitaism. They get rich bad pain.
That is why we need a public pick to make them accountable. They do flawless at times, but you know what, they kill do many population because of denying care.
Would it breed any sense for these companies to continue operating if they weren't showing a profit? I am not taking a side but their business like any other private business would backfire. And why doesn't anybody question the overinflated earnings of some physicians. Why not consider placing them on pay. Their 600K a year incomes are part of the problem. And ironic when they refuse to see a tolerant without proof of insurance as if to say their time is more meaningful than a life.
They've been brainwashed, not that they own much in the way of brains to inaugurate with.
Exactly whats awful about it ?
Without the form insurance industry
You would be paying 100% of your health care bills.
So your clich¨¦ having to pay $200,000 for an operation is better than only just paying $10,000 ?
Compare insurance company profits as a share of health care spending to allowed cost.
Makes ya wonder why they aren't doing anything about tort reform doesn't it ?
Related Questions:
- Who is liable to wages the amount? Me or my insurance company?
- Remember when Obama get the insurance companies to support what he be planning?
- How does their insurance company remuneration?
- How long after adoption of the "public option" will it appropriate for the end robustness insurance company to stir lower than?
- Can we adjectives at smallest agree something should be passed to take home insurance companies adopt population beside...?