Yes, I know. I was using some poetic license with your phrasing to make a point.
Money spent on lobbyists, advertising, astroturf organizations, ect. is not counted as “profit”, it is removed from the bottom line as expenses.
This is why the whole “health insurance companies make very little profit” meme is garbage. It does not take into account the amount of money they piss away on non-medical stuff. Bonuses for employees that deny claims don’t count toward profit. Corporate retreats don’t count toward profit. Executive perks don’t count toward profit.
The number of employees in your G.P.'s office that have to deal with insurance claims is not accounted for by this “profit”.
But you’re paying for all of this waste and more.
What will government mandated health care insurance do to eliminate any of this?
Halfway measures, or “fixes” that simply funnel more money to private companies would not do much.
In a full system where the government handles health insurance?
-GP offices only have to deal with one entity - and that entity pays then on-time with a minimum of red tape. (yes, sometimes government can be efficient, despite the beliefs of some)
-
the government agency that handles insurance does not have multi-million dollar execs. The salaries of govt officials are published and the public will not stand for that. Likewise there are no perks like country club memberships or private jets.
-
there are no bonuses paid for those who maximize profit by denying coverage
-
there is no return to shareholders to come out of the insurance premiums.
ETA There is no advertising costs or marketing budget for competing insurance companies or competing hospitals
There is no “look at the fancy equipment that hospital “A” has” (equipment that is mostly for show, or useless, or sits idle most of the time)
There is no duplication of services across many different insurance companies
I take it that you were opposed to both House and Senate bills since neither of them proposed government run health care.
If this is indeed what they propose (or don’t propose) I would not be in favour of them. This is why I laugh when people make a lot about how many people oppose these bills, so that must mean that everyone is in favour of the status quo.
Of course, I don’t have any say in what goes on in your country anyway. I mainly post in these debates to argue against the many straw man arguments I see about UHC.
What part of this bill would cost you money? If you’re covered through your employer, you’ll be in the same position you are now. If you’re buying insurance on the private market, ditto, at least for now. This bill is conservative in the nonpolitical sense of the word, in that it leaves as many people as possible unaffected.
What will cost you money is the status quo. As health care costs continue to climb by 8% annually, eventually all of us will be pretty well screwed. The Senate bill contains a number of cost control mechanisms, some of which may work, and some of which may not, but at least it’s an attempt at bending the cost curve.
When you say “pretty solid lock,” I’m assuming you’re talking about pretty long odds against. After all, even something with, say, an 80% chance of happening is far from a solid lock; that’s a 20% chance that it could fall through, and 20% is hardly insubstantial.
So do you think the odds of a bill passing are under 5%? Under 10%?
A bill that includes the element Richard Parker spoke of in post #177 has less than a two percent chance of passing before the mid-term elections.
Those elements would be:
- coverage for pre-existing conditions
- individual mandate to purchase insurance
- subsidies to lower-income individuals
- cost controls of unspecified nature (not necessarily what’s in the Senate bill, but containing at least a decent bit of that)
Yup.
Interested in a bet? While I think it’s unlikely that such a health care reform bill will pass this year, I’d cheerfully bet on it at 50-1 against. 
If I gave you 50:1 on an event where I thought the odds were in fact 50:1, then I’d be betting on the flip of a coin, so to speak. To put it another way: I think we can both agree that there’s a 2% chance that the Dow will end today with its last two digits at .01 or .02, yes?
But I wouldn’t offer you 50:1 on those ending digits, because over the long haul I’d win as much as I lost, and as a one-time bet the win would be inconsequential but the loss would be devastating.
OK, how about 20-1? We can keep it small.
OK, what the hell. Nothing like a little excitement.
I’ll cover $100 against your $5.
I admire a man with the courage of his convictions. You’re on. 
I wonder how much I could sell my end of this bet for, right now.
Well… not $100.
Definitely not! But I sure wouldn’t sell it for $5, or even $25.