4 of 4
4
McCain Takes Lead in Polls
Posted: 25 August 2008 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21

Jefe said:

We see this in the current HMO model in the US.

HMO’s are set up as “For Profit” Companies (part of the Capitalist model).
HMO Stands for Health Maintenance Organization.  One would expect that this suggests that the HMO is primarily interested in providing useful, accessible Health Maintenance for its clients (the public).  What happens, in a “For Profit” or “Capitalist” model is the company becomes responsible for maintaining and demonstrating good value to its investors (share-holders).  So in an effort to maintain this profitability (Value for Shareholders) its model includes policies that are not founded on striving to provide the best health maintenance for all clients, but rather striving to maximize profitability by limiting the pay-out to clients as much as ‘legally’ and ‘contractually’ possible as a means of retaining and/or growing profitability for the investor.

Its a role reversal, the HMO’s have become an engine of share-holder dividends, rather than an engine of effective health maintenance for clients.  The analogy works thusly:  Shareholders consume the monetary investment of clients who expect a certain type of service but may be (often for some) denied on the flimsiest of contractual loopholes.

If the need for demonstrable profitability and regular share-holder dividends were removed, and the HMO model turned into a zero-sum model (Like a Charitable Organization) then the philosophy of the service might be changed from a goal of demonstrating profitability and providing shareholder dividends, to one of providing the best health maintenance care possible to them most clients possible, while maintaining only the required operational expenses as deductions from the overall revenue generated by the client/customer.

I recently joined an HMO after years of private medical insurance through well-known and major US insurance companies. My decision was based on my dissatisfaction with the services available to me - long waits to see the doctor, poor quality personnel, high costs (including co-pays).  In the US there is, of course, no other option unless you are on the public dole. Both are on a for-profit basis. In my vicinity there are many such insurers and competition is very keen. I have been receiving very satisfactory and cost-effective medical care from my HMO.
I dragged you through my personal experience to make a point. For-profit corporations, given a competitive environment, frequently deliver the most cost effective solutions. Let’s look at the alternatives. One would be government funded health care. I know this is the Canadian system but I understand there is much dissatisfaction. In the US, I cannot believe that anything run by the government could be more cost effective than private endeavor. The reason is simple. Government programs have no competition and therefore no incentive to control costs or provide quality products. The funding sources are endless - the taxpayer. Bad government programs, unlike bad corporations, don’t go out of business, they just suck up more tax dollars.
Now from an end-user perspective, why should I care if my health care provider is on a for-profit basis? I should only care that I get adequate health care at reasonable costs. Would I be more content if part of my premiums did not go to investors as profits? Sure, but I have no more cost effective option.
I will deal with you oil company example later.

Stay Well
Wotansson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2008 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21
tavishhill2003 - 25 August 2008 11:49 AM
Wotansson - 22 August 2008 04:14 PM
tavishhill2003 - 22 August 2008 03:21 PM
Wotansson - 20 August 2008 05:50 PM

Folks should clean their own house first. Once they show wisdom and results, then they are qualified to give advice. Talk is cheap, and cheaper than ever before.

Stay Well

Wotansson

Well in that case you need to just shut up about American politics as you are pushing for the nominee who is in no small part whatsoever responsible for putting American empire on the edge of collapse.  The same guy whose lobbyist economic advisers lobbied (read: bribed) to convince ppl keeping the Enron loophole open in the energy and real estate market will lead to economic prosperity somehow.  The same guy whose foreign policy advisers are lobbyists for foreign govts who he may or may not have given false assurances to and may, or may not have promised to US military backing for, Georgia in their war of aggression against South Ossetia if/when Russia retaliated. 

John McCain is the very definition of a rock bottom candidate.  Your candidate is responsible for letting things get this bad by his ardent yet belligerently stupid advocacy for the Iraq War and “the surge”.  He has embraced everyone who has done America wrong in the last 8 yrs and systematically destroyed everything she used to stand for.  And you think YOU have a handle on getting the much fabled “positive political results” here in America?  Not by supporting John McCain ya don’t.  You are every bit as clueless when it comes to the issues as the fools who supported Bush in 2004. 

If you want the criteria for speaking on American politics to be that ppl have to first be able to show that their political views are well supported and have brought forth political prosperity, that automatically excludes supporters of John McCain’s candidacy given his policies relative to the Bush regime’s.  If you don’t have anything t combat someone else’s points with, too damn bad.  Don’t dismiss them simply because of nationality.  That is beyond stupidity and no one who is honestly interested in learning about any topic could possibly espouse such broken logic.

Quit holding back - tell us how you really feel.

Stay Well
Wotansson

That’s it?  Too cowardly to actually address my points?  What’s wrong Wot?  Cat got yer tongue?  Surely if you have an argument to be made, you’d toss it out here for me to chew on and consider, no?  So where is it?  Where are your counterpoints and corrections?

But you told me to just shut up.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2008 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21
Jefe - 25 August 2008 06:36 PM
Wotansson - 25 August 2008 06:32 PM

Jefe said:

We see this in the current HMO model in the US.

HMO’s are set up as “For Profit” Companies (part of the Capitalist model).
HMO Stands for Health Maintenance Organization.  One would expect that this suggests that the HMO is primarily interested in providing useful, accessible Health Maintenance for its clients (the public).  What happens, in a “For Profit” or “Capitalist” model is the company becomes responsible for maintaining and demonstrating good value to its investors (share-holders).  So in an effort to maintain this profitability (Value for Shareholders) its model includes policies that are not founded on striving to provide the best health maintenance for all clients, but rather striving to maximize profitability by limiting the pay-out to clients as much as ‘legally’ and ‘contractually’ possible as a means of retaining and/or growing profitability for the investor.

Its a role reversal, the HMO’s have become an engine of share-holder dividends, rather than an engine of effective health maintenance for clients.  The analogy works thusly:  Shareholders consume the monetary investment of clients who expect a certain type of service but may be (often for some) denied on the flimsiest of contractual loopholes.

If the need for demonstrable profitability and regular share-holder dividends were removed, and the HMO model turned into a zero-sum model (Like a Charitable Organization) then the philosophy of the service might be changed from a goal of demonstrating profitability and providing shareholder dividends, to one of providing the best health maintenance care possible to them most clients possible, while maintaining only the required operational expenses as deductions from the overall revenue generated by the client/customer.

I recently joined an HMO after years of private medical insurance through well-known and major US insurance companies. My decision was based on my dissatisfaction with the services available to me - long waits to see the doctor, poor quality personnel, high costs (including co-pays).  In the US there is, of course, no other option unless you are on the public dole. Both are on a for-profit basis. In my vicinity there are many such insurers and competition is very keen. I have been receiving very satisfactory and cost-effective medical care from my HMO.
I dragged you through my personal experience to make a point. For-profit corporations, given a competitive environment, frequently deliver the most cost effective solutions. Let’s look at the alternatives. One would be government funded health care. I know this is the Canadian system but I understand there is much dissatisfaction. In the US, I cannot believe that anything run by the government could be more cost effective than private endeavor. The reason is simple. Government programs have no competition and therefore no incentive to control costs or provide quality products. The funding sources are endless - the taxpayer. Bad government programs, unlike bad corporations, don’t go out of business, they just suck up more tax dollars.
Now from an end-user perspective, why should I care if my health care provider is on a for-profit basis? I should only care that I get adequate health care at reasonable costs. Would I be more content if part of my premiums did not go to investors as profits? Sure, but I have no more cost effective option.
I will deal with you oil company example later.

Stay Well
Wotansson

Your personal testimony only indicates that you have not run into problems with the HMO System.  It completely disregards the millions of US citizens that have nothing but problems with the HMO system

Also note I made no specific recommendations about government intervention or federally run programs for either the O&G;Industry or HMO industry, so when you come back to talk about the O&G;portion of my post, please refrain from using a strawman argument based on your assumption.

Note that my point is only that a Pure Capitalism model may not be the best, most humane, or most empathic model for many businesses that are currently run under that model in the US.

Why should you be unhappy that your HMO Is a “for profit” business?  Because if it weren’t you might receive the same excellent health maintenance service at a discounted rate.

Lets put it another way.  You recently changed to an HMO.  You’re obviously satisfied with this chosen HMO and consider that it, as a company, provides adequate service for the cost.  Are there HMO’s that are in business now that you wouldn’t have chosen?  Why?

Health care is a problem that millions in the US have a problem with, and billions world-wide but I was not aware that this was unique to HMO’s.

I will try not to build any strawmen if you will come to some arguable point. Agreed that the capitalist model may not be the best in all cases but what is you proposal? Just what is this zero-sum model and how does it work or is it just a philosophical notion?

Sure I would be even happier if my medical care was improved or less costly. Does a bear shit in the woods?

Sure I looked at all the options for my my health care and chose the best IMO. The others are still in business. They may be more effectively suiting the needs of people in other circumstances than myself. If not, the system will self-condemn them to capitalist hell - stagnation and extinction.

and yes…I am familiar with the Jörmungandr but I believe he is the beast of socialism.

Stay Well
Wotansson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2008 05:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21
Jefe - 25 August 2008 07:30 PM
Wotansson - 25 August 2008 07:15 PM


Health care is a problem that millions in the US have a problem with, and billions world-wide but I was not aware that this was unique to HMO’s.

When did I say it was.  I used HMO’s as an example where a purely capitalist model may not be the best model to work with. 

Wotansson - 25 August 2008 07:15 PM

I will try not to build any strawmen if you will come to some arguable point. Agreed that the capitalist model may not be the best in all cases but what is you proposal? Just what is this zero-sum model and how does it work or is it just a philosophical notion?

Do I really need to explain zero-sum?  Lets describe it as simply non-profit health care.  Not necessarily government sponsored, not necessarily privatized, but simply non-profit.  Revenue generated = operating expenses.

Wotansson - 25 August 2008 07:15 PM

and yes…I am familiar with the Jörmungandr but I believe he is the beast of socialism.

Stay Well
Wotansson

What has socialism got to do with this discussion?


Then why introduce HMOs as an example to make a point if it is not a point? Quit bobbing and weaving. Stand up straight, make a point, give examples and support it.

Yes, you do need to provide some examples of zero-sum. Is this just a philosophical notion or a workable concept. I already understand the non-profit concept but show me how some endeavor might be initiated and supported based on it.
Non-profit does not necessarily dictate revenue generated = operating expense, where operating expense is understood to mean benefit to the recipient of the enterprise. If you don’t understand this, I will explain and provide examples.

You introduced the concept of the beast. I gave you my concept of the beast. That’s what socialism has to do with the discussion.

I am not sure we are moving toward a productive discussion here.

Stay Well
Wotansson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2008 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21
Jefe - 25 August 2008 09:35 PM
Wotansson - 25 August 2008 09:12 PM
Jefe - 25 August 2008 07:30 PM
Wotansson - 25 August 2008 07:15 PM


Health care is a problem that millions in the US have a problem with, and billions world-wide but I was not aware that this was unique to HMO’s.

When did I say it was.  I used HMO’s as an example where a purely capitalist model may not be the best model to work with. 

Wotansson - 25 August 2008 07:15 PM

I will try not to build any strawmen if you will come to some arguable point. Agreed that the capitalist model may not be the best in all cases but what is you proposal? Just what is this zero-sum model and how does it work or is it just a philosophical notion?

Do I really need to explain zero-sum?  Lets describe it as simply non-profit health care.  Not necessarily government sponsored, not necessarily privatized, but simply non-profit.  Revenue generated = operating expenses.

Wotansson - 25 August 2008 07:15 PM

and yes…I am familiar with the Jörmungandr but I believe he is the beast of socialism.

Stay Well
Wotansson

What has socialism got to do with this discussion?


Then why introduce HMOs as an example to make a point if it is not a point? Quit bobbing and weaving. Stand up straight, make a point, give examples and support it.

Yes, you do need to provide some examples of zero-sum. Is this just a philosophical notion or a workable concept. I already understand the non-profit concept but show me how some endeavor might be initiated and supported based on it.
Non-profit does not necessarily dictate revenue generated = operating expense, where operating expense is understood to mean benefit to the recipient of the enterprise. If you don’t understand this, I will explain and provide examples.

You introduced the concept of the beast. I gave you my concept of the beast. That’s what socialism has to do with the discussion.

I am not sure we are moving toward a productive discussion here.

Stay Well
Wotansson

I’m pretty sure we’re not moving toward a productive discussion.  You seem unable to grasp my points.  I’m not bobbing and weaving. 
S’ok.  I understand that you’re predisposed to your ingrained opinion of the capitalist model.

Well ok but I am more than willing to get “outgrained” but you have to show me your stuff. Where’s the beef?

Stay well
Wotansson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2008 08:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

I do not have any answers for the US health system, but I experience its inadequacies and failings daily. I am the world’s worst business man and my only knowledge of economics is from reading a few books which served only to further confuse me on the subject.

I just want to say that the current system does not work well. Every day, countless people go to emergency departments and clog them up for conditions that are not emergent. This is the main reason why you wait so long in the ER. Every person who shows up must be seen and evaluated. A very large section of the population has no or inadequate insurance. They show up at the ED because they know they will be seen irregardless of ability to pay.

Obviously, preventive medicine cannot be practiced in the ER. Many people show up with conditions which could have been prevented and less costly if they had been properly treated before the person suffered a preventable condition. Many people simply cannot afford insurance or they are uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. Others can afford insurance but choose to roll the dice and not get insurance. When a 40 year old uninsured smoker shows up in the ED having a myocardial infarction, the physician will not likely get paid but must see and treat the patient. It would be morally reprehensible and legally negligent for the doctor to not treat the patient if that doctor is on call. The hospital will get the money from the county taxes and from overcharging those who do pay their medical expenses.

The current system is not working efficiently or in the best interest of individuals or society. I would like to hear suggestions.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2008 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
Jefe - 25 August 2008 04:53 PM

Capitalism, without some other mitigating factor, will favour profit over any other system, thus those companies that can demonstrate good profitability to investors may in fact not be the best solution for their clients in some service markets simply due to this philosophy of Capitalist Margin.  Essentially, a purely capitalist endeavor will not necessarily be influenced by questions of compassion, empathy or humanity, because they are more concerned with margin and profit.

My contention is that there is probably a compromise answer that allows for company growth, and innovation that is not driven solely by apathetic profitability, but could be driven by a compassionate, human-centric philosophy that seeks to provide for success in business and a humanitarian philosophy.

Very good point, Jefe. Unfortunately, the only compassionate, human-centric philosophy that capitalists understand is the biting teeth of regulation and cha-ching of penalties or tax incentives. These are the only methods yet devised that I see, aside from the rare cases of personal integrity of the individual, to steer companies and markets away from Capitalism-Run-Amok. For instance, the price of corn for food consumption has risen to the high-price based on corn for energy consumption. There is no reason that regulations can’t be devised and/or tax incentives created to differentiate the purpose or use of the commodity. Farmers’ total crop yields may be apportioned in percentages designated for both uses, each percentage of yeild obtaining a different price. Example: ten acres of corn, 60% must be sold for food at food price (lower), 40% may be sold for energy price (higher). If they want to sell overseas for the higher price, tax them so that approach won’t be as profitable as the offer here. Example: Oil companies are making billions of profit per quarter. Do away with the Bush devised tax cuts to oil companies, they don’t need it. Incentives can be given for research and production of alternative fuels. Keep in mind, Pres. Clinton had to correct Reagan’s scheme of providing the break up front without confirmation and verification that the companies were applying it for its intended purpose, as when Reagan told the country industry needed to re-tool their outdated equipment, they got the tax break and pocketed it. That’s why it’s easy to see that even if we drilled an oil well on every square foot of Alaska, the Gulf or the entire continental U.S., our gas prices won’t go down. All that new Black Gold, Texas T will be sold at the same price as Desert Oil ... unless there is regulation. The oil companies are milking it for all it’s worth now. Bush/Cheney held it off as long as they could, probably their greatest legacy, they see the line of change in the sand.

Same with insurance companies. State Farm has a request for a 47% increase in premiums for property coverage in the state of Florida which regulators hopefully will deny. They are basing this request on actual losses or anticipated losses. But these losses are for a subsidiary created in Florida under the national company which is making adequate profits. In other words, they don’t want to spread the risk. The state of Florida has had to create it’s own catastrophic insurance agency in a sense. If it could manage to commit to operating it in a reasonably sound business fashion, I would be all for the state operating it and kicking the insurance companies out altogether, or let them leave. 

At any rate, I don’t think McCain is going to address the myriad of issues that need attention from a democrat’s perspective. Why should he? He’s a republican. It’s their philosophy, Capitalism-Run-Amok and Trickle Down, which by the way, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, doesn’t work except to make an easy killing for a few, and create a greater class divide.

[ Edited: 26 August 2008 12:13 PM by goodgraydrab]
 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed