The Swamp

Steve of phpBB wrote:

mister d wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:Think of it this way - when you read an article talking about how gloves cost a hundred bucks, or how much an MRI costs, or the latest insane price increase for a drug, think of who is paying for that - it's usually health insurers. Based on articles I have read over the years, their profit margins are in the range of 5-10%. That is not that high. Their executives make millions, of course, but that is because executives in every big business make millions. They have no more shame than anyone else.

Where does it stop being as simple as "I could either sell you a penis drawing for $5 or I could sell it to BSF for $5 and he can sell it to you for $8"? Like the middleman is here and making 5-10% profit, but on what overall gains or efficiencies?

I think health insurers do a couple different things that make that example inapplicable. The first is to spread risks/losses. Instead of having to pay you for $50,000 for a penis drawing, we can each pay $1000 to the insurer and the insurer pays for all the penis drawings we need that year.

The other thing they do is use market power to get a better deal than you would individually. Just like there is a discount insurance rate at a body shop, the rates charged to insurers are discounted compared to what you would get on your own.

When I was in that bike wreck in 2009, the sticker price on my hospital bills was $80,000. But my health insurance company only had to pay $28,000. If I was on my own, I probably could have gotten discounts off the sticker price, but I don't know if I would have gotten a 65% discount.

The other efficiency or convenience they add is by setting up networks to buy from. I wasn't really in a position to shop around for emergency rooms or compare prices or services. The health insurance had already done that. The buyers from the insurers are in a better position to know the market for emergency room services than most average schmoes are.

So it's not selling a penis drawing for $5 which is then resold for $8. You may like the penis drawing enough to pay $8, but the insurer knows the market and has the negotiating power to get the drawing for only $3, which it then resells to you for $4.

So then the question becomes whether the net benefits insurers add are outweighed by the inefficiency of having a middleman. On that, I have no real idea.

Johnnie wrote:America is three things simultaneously.

Married to the profit motive. Entitled. Sue happy.

It's why we can't have nice things.

Pruitt wrote:

Johnnie wrote:America is three things simultaneously.

Married to the profit motive. Entitled. Sue happy.

It's why we can't have nice things.

Angry seems to fit as well.

Pruitt wrote:Well, trump does kind of have a point.

rass wrote:

Pruitt wrote:Well, trump does kind of have a point.

Yeahyeahyeah. But the "Jail time!" statement just bugs me. As if he's either being magnanimous by not having Snoop arrested, or BO was a delicate snowflake who would have called in the Secret Service over a goof.

duff wrote:And I am sure we could search and find different videos of 'famous' people hanging BO and other images that were much worse than a bang flag.

duff wrote:And I am sure we could search and find different videos of 'famous' people hanging BO and other images that were much worse than a bang flag.

Ted Nugent -- the proud gun-owner, poorly coiffed Michigander, and washed-up rocker -- has said some silly and offensive things in the past, and not just while performing "Cat Scratch Fever." In 2007, he said the following during a concert: "Obama, he's a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary [Clinton], you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch."

brian wrote:Didn't like it when Nugent did it and not a fan of Snoop Dogg doing it. Two wrongs not making a right and all that.

Shirley wrote:That Snoop song is just terrible. 1992 was a long time ago.

mister d wrote:Also, has anyone addressed what the hell Maddow was doing actually releasing that tax form? 25% effective rate is pretty huge relatively speaking unless she was thinking people are too dumb to know rich people pay well under the bracket rate. Seemed stupid all around.

Brontoburglar wrote:

On Thursday, the Trump administration released a preliminary 2018 budget proposal, which details many of the changes the president wants to make to the federal government’s spending. The proposal covers only discretionary, not mandatory, spending..

To pay for an increase in defense spending, a down payment on the border wall and school voucher programs, among other things, funding was cut from the discretionary budgets of other executive departments and agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and the Agriculture Department took the hardest hits. The proposal also eliminates funding for these 19 agencies.

African Development Foundation
Appalachian Regional Commission
Chemical Safety Board
Corporation for National and Community Service
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Delta Regional Authority
Denali Commission
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Inter-American Foundation
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
Legal Services Corporation
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Northern Border Regional Commission
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
U.S. Institute of Peace
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars