Darn insurance

should health care be a profit making venture for investors?

....... tailors premiums according to claims paid in the area. Frankly, I have been surprised when my premium has gone done significantly at times. It is a mutual company.

Perhaps auto repair costs have not gone up as much as other industries.

Frankly, I know that defenders of the rise in health care costs blame it on the new technologies. Though that is bound to have an impact, I think the factor that drives it more is the one to make up the money lost on the care of the uninsured, so it falls on the insured.

Angeline

I certainly have no issue with profits in general. However, no business should be guaranteed a profit. The return on investment and care taken to promote the business, etc., should provide a profit. But, it shouldn't be an obscene profit and since this deals with health care a touchy issue.

Insurance, shouldn't have to make a profit just because losses were incurred. Remember the past hurricane damages paid out, but everyone under that insurance name paid for it. But still, they made profit or had a cushion to fall back on. What do you think happens next, they rise the cost for that same insurance. You lost some money, but now you want to increase rates not only recover losses but the profit as well. On the surface it seems to make sense, but it certainly rubs people the wrong way. Insurance cos. in general have always made money not only for the co. but stockholders as well. Can't insurance cos. have bad days too and fall on past profits to lessen the hurt. Further, using the hurricane instances, some insurers got out of it rather than face any future losses. Gee, wouldn't you think insuring an hurricane prone area, that a hurricane isn't coming sooner or later. -----Willy

Wellpoint averaged about 5 1/2 % margin for the past 4 years (discounting the recent jump to 7% because of a sale of a business)

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/WellPoint_Health_Networks_(WLP)

What an incredibly silly notion of asking if the insurance industry should be allowed to make a profit or not.
The opportunity for a profit in a business is what drives innovation and invention.

The question was should health care be a profit making venture for investors?

In other words... should the preparation for the illness of a cancer victim or a heart attack patient be an opportunity for a school board to increase their 401k? Should a car accident be a profit vehicle for stock holders?

In other words... should the care for illness be a profit making venture for investor?

It's not a silly question... it is a moral and ethical question that you obviously can't understand the subtleties of.

a profit making venture?

The answer is YES. No one works for nothing. Even "non-profit" businesses have to pay their employees and no one invests in anything expecting to break even or take a loss. Requiring anything else would be immoral.

Profit is the reason people do difficult things.

You obviously can't understand the subtleties.

extra words have meaning Ed.

Should a doctor, nurse, etc make a great living? Sure, especially if they are good at their job. Insurance companies have nothing to do with making money for doctors. Insurance companies actually negotiate to pay doctors less. Insurance companies are in the business of making money for stock holders. They simply do that by collecting money from those worried about future medical costs.

Insurance does not directly provide heath care.

Health care would cost much much more. You know that.

Words have meaning.

pay the bill with your own money, instead of asking the insurance company to "pay."

Not gonna play your idiotic game.

Bye.

Can you explain what you THINK the difference is between making a profit and making a profit for investors is? Who do you think makes INVESTMENTS into businesses that supply services ??? Who is going to create a business if they can't make a profit?

And what does a 401 k have to do with any of this???

Would the same apply to auto insurance, considering the bodily injury coverage with auto liability insurance? I suppose you could also ask that question for investing in companies like Aflac.

Auto insurance covering bodily harm is insurance against accidents. Of course and accident may... or may not actually happen. Consequently, one might want to consider this kind of insurance more of a traditional Insurance, if you will. That is that this is a business speculation where the company earns its' money by gambling that it will never have to make a pay out.

Aflac, of course, does not actually have anything to do with providing medical care, so I don't think it can even be considered in this discussion.

Medical care, or as I have phrased it... health care... is the actual medical industry. Doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. are the providers of medical care, and deserve to make a living commensurate with their skills. Their priority is to successfully treat the ills of the world.

Then there is the personal medical insurance industry. I'm not talking about government run programs like Med & Med. These businesses have one priority which is to make a profit for its' investors by collecting as much in premiums as it can while limiting payoffs as much as it can. No one sees a dichotomy there?

So the only reason medicine exists is to make money ?

The only reason architecture exists is to make money ?

The only reason agriculture exists is to make money ?

The only reason to attend to one's health, shelter and food source is to make money ?

You definitely put the cart before the horse in your ordering of the world.

You only show yourself to be ignorant and invalid.

What I really said was that people start businesses to make money. That is true. If you want you can start a non-profit business. There's no law against it. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit.

Without the profit motive mankind would still be living in trees.

Please stop distorting what others say. If you can't make your point without making things up, maybe you don't have a point.

... then you should have said it to begin with.

Do not accuse me of ignorance and distortion when you admit to a failure of saying what you really meant to say.

Be that as it may, even a first year economics student learns that an economy exists to provide services... not make money. Your obsession that everything is about making a profit is blinding you to what all this is really about.

If you read the post, you then know I had no issue with profits in general. Using your figures, if they had roughly 5%(rounded) return then what was a 39% increase going to generate? The point or rather the substance I wanted to make is no business can be guarantied a profit and making any rate increase has to be substantiated as the letter to the USSG was forwarded. Maybe the USSG couldn't really do anything about the rate increase other than moan about it but does raise the alarm as it were. They are in a better position to understand what is to be the "norm" for the medical/health industry in general. But, even to a layman a 39% rate increase seems outlandish. Its not a point of breaking even but breaking the insured backs as it were. That insurance co. in turn as some things were explained would have a lessen pool of insured to draw on, so basically they're driving away the business sooner or later. Further, as I stated, that rate increase would in all likelihood not go down or if so in any real appreciable way. Thus, when the next increase if still a increase in less of the insured, would that also provide the incentive to increase again, because they loss money not in services but rather they didn't gain more insured to draw on. -----Willy

What is the 39% increase for?
I don't know. When was the last time they had an increase? Perhaps they are trying to keep up with RISING health care costs that THEY PAY FOR.
Your point of questioning why a business should be guaranteed a profit??? No business should be guaranteed a profit but if you want them to continue being in business, they they need to !!

If health insurance was made non-profit would investors take their investments elsewhere? If investors took their investments elsewhere would the insurance companies survive? Keep in mind that they do have to endure an environment where people use health litigation as a lottery to win big payouts from those same insurance companies. How many such payouts can a non-profit survive?

Over your concern for your fellow Americans?

You do realize there are investors/insurance companies in countries with non-profit health care?