Non-profit health insurance concept

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Spear, Oct 3, 2009.

  1. Spear

    Spear
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    An interesting thing came from the locked post about health insurances.

    I'd like to know, with the condition you have the CHOICE to subscribe or not (i understood that you want to be free to do what you want with your money, and that the only " social " thing some seem to accept, is based on the concept of " charity ").

    So, based on the fact you have the right to subscribe or not, don't you agree with the fact social insurance companies should be non-profit organization ?
     
  2. alatide

    alatide
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    974
    Likes Received:
    0
    Basically a good idea but flawed in the sense that if people have the choice then all the young healthy people will opt out (although I knew a 30 year old who died of cancer). The people left would be the people who need more coverage. This would drive the cost way up for the people in the pool.

    If we say we all have a need for the military why can't we admit that we all have a need for health care?
     
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    It would depend on how the law is written ... if there is a law.

    Basically I think it is a good idea in that executives would not be under pressure from shareholders to make a profit. They would need to break even and if at the end of the year there was a "positive variance" that could be applied to defraying costs the next year and not given as executive bonuses.
     
  4. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,255
    Likes Received:
    4
    And what if they operated at a loss ?

    What would be the incentive to provide insurance to people in a non-profit company ? It seems to me every company would have to offer the exact same plan, and there would be no competition, no reason to drive cost down.

    It won't work. I am glad my insurance company is able to offer me a better deal for what I require than others.

    If you lifted inter-state restrictions, you would increase competition, and drive costs down even more. There are already too many restrictions on insurance companies. Taking profit incentive will only make it worse.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    History has shown that the profit motive has served mankind quite well as seen in the ascendancy of the United States.
     
  6. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    "non-profit" is a tax scam

    All it means to the bottom line is that there are no stock holders. Instead of profits going to stock holders the money is paid to the people who run the non-profits which is why they are paid salaries of $millions.
     
  7. Spear

    Spear
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    To be honest, what i fear from " private insurances ", is the selection, and i truly believe it is possible (maybe it already exists). And i think profit increases the will to aim at some specifical populations, who will pay, but not cost much.

    What selection ?

    - Age : if you're older, you cost more, so after 60, wether you pay much much more, or we won't insure you (that's the way things go here).

    But they might select on criterias that " might be controlled " by the people they insure, so that " we can't agree to your subscription on those criterias, but it's up to you to change that, and then we'll accept you ".

    - Smoking : You're a smoker, the company might not take the risk, it's proven that the risk of major cancer or breath problems are more important. Stop smoking, then we'll insure you.

    - Job : you're a packer, the company might not take the risk, it's proven that the risk of major back wounds is important in your job.
    Change your job, then we'll insure you.

    - Weight : You're too big, the company might not take the risk, it's proven that the risk of colon cancer, diabet, cholesterol, and many diseases are more important.
    Loose weight, then we'll insure you.

    Many more criterias would be possible .... after all, they're a private company, which aim is to make money, no matter if it's about health, we're there to make money.

    I truly think we're not far to have some of these criterias in our insurances (smoking, weight), on the basis " it's up to you to get rid of that ".

    That's what i fear, that they add more criterias, and look like " the lowest priced insurance " but have only a selected population.

    I remember my pastor telling me " Smoking is dangerous, people are responsible of their body, and when they get sick from that, they ask for the system, even if they know it was up to them to start/not stop ". I think it's easy to point the finger on the smokers. If tomorrow someone comes with his kid, sick, at the hospital, and the clerk replies " Ok, you kid needs surgery, but he's too big, your insurance won't take that in charge because the illness might be linked to that criteria ", i'm not sure it'll be the same reaction ....
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    Looks like the government option the libbies want
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    It is better than the no insurance option you want for the poor and elderly.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's wrong with private charity? Sure beats government handouts.
     
  11. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    SPEAR describes how insurance is supposed to work. Stupid Americans don't know the difference between insurance and a pre-paid service.
     
  12. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are already non-profit insurance companies. When you see "mutual" as Mutual of Omaha, these are non-profit insurance companies. Here is a very brief and general definition

    The first insurance companies in America were started by farmers, thus names like State Farm and Farmer's Insurance.

    Back in the mid 1800's farmers knew that a severe weather condition could wipe out a year's crop. Drought, frost, hailstorm, or severe rain could wipe out a year's crop and bring financial ruin. So farmers got together and invested in a common fund. If someone's crop was ruined the fund paid what their crop was worth. This was the start of insurance companies.

    The very first insurance company was Lloyd's of London. Shipowners could also be ruined if a ship full of valuable cargo sank. So they would also contribute to a common fund, if a ship sank the fund would pay for the loss.

    People hate insurance, but insurance is vital to our way of life. Without insurance, you could not buy a home on credit for example. No one would sell you a home, because if it burned down, you could simply walk away. But with insurance the seller or lender is guaranteed to get their money. Insurance is vital like this in all of business.
     
    #12 Winman, Oct 3, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2009
  13. Spear

    Spear
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Winman got it with the mutual company : that should be the unique status available for health insurances, so that people would be sure they wouldn't care more about profit of their stock owners than about those who subscribe to an insurance.
     
  14. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    220
    Two points -
    First, (at most times in our history) there was no draft - a person served as a volunteer.

    Second,in the beginning, most of the military was State or Commonwealth militias - not Federal troops.
     
  15. Spear

    Spear
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know much about charity organization and how they work, so please be quiet, because i might not know much about what i'm talking about, these are just the ways i understand things, and might not be the way they are. If you can correct me because i'm wrong, i'll be glad :)

    I think charity doesn't mean neutrality, or at least not systematically. Charity organizations choose the people they help, and the concept of preference annoys me because it can lead to some real differences, and EVEN lie.

    Let's say a charity organization only finances food for " the poor of the area, but only those who attend at church ". Wouldn't you get some people who would attend, juste to get the food, even lying ?
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference is that it is constitutionally permissible for the federal government to be involved in the military.
     
  17. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree, lifting interstate restrictions would only serve to boost profits for insurance companies. There is no way it will lower cost in NY so the most will happen is cost will go up in IA. The GOP is selling a straw man with this very bad idea. I can't believe they're still selling it and that anyone has bought it.

    There is a reason insurance cost more in IL, NY, CA than it does in more rural states. The cost of office space, cost of living to employee's etc... It cost more to run a practice in those areas. The reimbursement rates from a rural area or low cost state would not be accepted by Doctors in high cost areas. So in effect, if you're in a big city and buy a plan from a rural area, you would have a plan that no sane doctor could accept if he wants to pay the rent. The reimbursement rates won't cover expenses.

    Secondly, this would later justify the insurance companies to raise all rates in all places saying it is the only way to sell a plan that is accepted in all to include high cost area's. If they are forced to sell the same plan at the same premium to a person in NY as they do in a rural area it will eventually lead to high rates everywhere and big profits for insurance companies.

    Insurance companies don't need an excuse to raise rates, they are raising them enough without an excuse.
     
  18. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken, is that you? Did someone sign on as Ken since I've been gone?
     
  19. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    We don't need no stinkin co-ops, we need a robust public option so that all God's children can get good basic medical care. There is no reason the richest country in the world should have people dying in front of hospitals from lack of medical care.
     
  20. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,255
    Likes Received:
    4
    Wrong. You exhibit a lack of economics understanding. Increasing competition will drive down price. When the government gets into the busines of insurance, they won't have to turn a profit, so it will be impossible to compete with them. Nice try, though.

    So it sure makes sense for a guy in N.Y. to be able to save $$ with a company from, say, Montana...you prove my point.

    This is paranoid supposition, with no basis in reality, at all.

    Dubious, but TORT reform woud also give them incentive to drop rates.
    Is that how auto insurance works ? Why don't we hear the same complaints ?
     

Share This Page

Loading...