On Feb 23, 7:32*pm, jh wrote:


no, of course profit is not the only important aspect of business. *I
think it is pretty rare that you find a co. whos mission statement
consists of "profit"

Name one that doesn't.

I also think that profit is not the evil it is made out to be. *Profit
allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI
center, or ----.

No, that comes under the rubric of "costs."

In our case, profit may allow for the addition of new forklifts,
welders, safety gear, etc. *strictly managing to pull in overhead w/o
profit pretty much means status quo. *keep what you have going, pay
the rent, keep the lights turned on.

No, those are all "costs."

I have no prob. with insurance co.s making a profit, nor the Dr. that
yanks a messed up gall bladder.

Really? Well, surprise us!

I do wish the ins. co's were more
efficient with their (my) money.

In fact, they are preternaturally efficient with it. The trouble is
that you misunderstand their intent.

From what I've learned, they have a
pretty substantial overhead cost

Perhaps you're not done learning. Unfortunately, you probably are.

- I think they need a bit more
competition so they can run a little leaner.

Yeah, what we really need is another thirty thousand or so insurance
companies......that'll certainly make things more efficient and cost
effective.

At the same time, I
think they do their level best to get out of paying claims while
getting slaughtered by legislation that sticks them with costs that
were never intended to be covered.


Well, you're certainly right about the first part of that.....and dead
wrong about the latter parts.

I seriously dislike ins. co's -

I don't think I believe that.

but I would absolutely not want to do what they do.

Oh, I don't know.....rape can be fun.

I think that coverage for all is a great idea- but the costs have to
be addressed realistically.

Ah! Realism! Yeah, everybody here has a real firm grasp on that.

I have no idea how many unisured people
there are in the US, but I am sure how ever many there are, they all
have the same, statistically speaking, health costs I have.

Rally? Why?

So if you
dump them into the system - and they can't afford the costs of
coverage - my costs go up. *If my costs go up, my cost of doing
business goes up, if my costs of business go up, either I gotta go
find free money, or I have to increase my bill to john Q customer.

So, exactly how much has your cost for police protection gone up in
the last couple of decades as a result of equal coverage for those who
cannot or will not pay their fair share?

actually a fairly simple concept.

Yeah, there's a lot of that simple concept stuff going around.

I still think the answer is along the lines of catastrophic coverage -
say $10,000. *under that is 100% on you, over that is 100% on
insurance.

Good enough answer, but it invites the question of just what it is an
answer to.

Think of the amount of paper that gets eliminated (paper =
money, it means secretaries, reviewers, auditors, etc etc etc), *If
everyone had, and paid, for that policy there would be huge funds
available for those that needed catastrophic health care. *Say one
person in 20 needs that kind of coverage in a given year, the premiums
would be drasticaly reduced - and you could afford a health savings
account that could build up to 10k in a couple three years, so the
9000 gall bladder surgery is cash payable. *My premium runs $500/mo
for just me, cut it to 200 and let me stick 200-300 in an HSA, in 2 -
3 years assuming limited draws for little things, my one time 10 k
deal is paid for. *gotta work the numbers - but I think something like
that would work.

Good idea. Work those numbers. Work them hard. Maybe it'll result
in a substantial reduction in gibberish.

g.