And that should make sense Rich, most deaths related to Doctors and Hospitals are derived from post-surgical secondary infections. No surgeries do to no doctors means no infections. Deaths due to prolonged illness or trauma would not show up as a difference in this statistic (the other 50% or more) but the part that drops off would be exactly what the numbers are pointing at.

This is why the numbers are goofy if you look at them the wrong way and can be very misleading. If the same number of deaths you mention are related to the number of surgeries performed you would see a similar rise and fall in their trends.

Interesting tidbit from “SuperFreakonomics” – during doctor strikes or loss from other issues (conferences) mortality rates in those areas actually go down, as much as 50% in some cases. You should get the book (get the first one also) lots of info applicable to things we talk about. I guess I should start a recommended reading list on here…

Rich

We could go on and on about this one but the bottom line is that more big government is not going to solve anything and in fact will likely make it worse.

Rich

Businesses that have to maintain high numbers of personnel also have very high overhead, Retail companies and insurance brokers/agencies are two industries that maintain the largest numbers of personnel with low to medium wage income. In insurance, most of these individuals get benefits, vacation, etc. these all add to your overhead. Businesses that largely depend on technology or a mix of tech and personnel actually pay so much less in overhead. Same benefits (or better) and usually higher individual income but a much smaller operating cost for maintenance and repair/upgrade of the tech used. Occasionally they take a large hit in profits to replace large pieces of equipment or full scale upgrades but this does not happen often.

Comparing the Profitability of resource producers, communications companies or manufacturing to the insurance industry is erroneous at best and intentionally misleading at worst and are comparing apples to oranges, spider monkey turds or anything other than more apples.

I am not attacking anything other than their methodology for making a comparison.

I really don’t think that its fair to attack the health insurance companies based on the amount of money they spend on lobbying. Every large corporation spends a large portion of their capital on lobbying. Even most small businesses belong to larger groups which lobby for them. In a capitalist society where legislation has a profound impact on a company’s bottom line, this is simply a part of doing business. We can argue till the cows come home about the ethics involved or how much is considered “obscene” but I don’t think its fair to single out the insurance companies on this point.

Rich

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/full_list/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/10/health-care_lobbyists_continue.html?hpid=topnews

First, Lobbying Costs are not discussed, but I will guarantee you they show up in the ‘Overhead’ category of an operating budget for each of these Private Health Insurance providers.

Second, Wal-Mart, typically No. 1 at the top of the Fortune 500 list averages between 2-4% profit, and thought the last 2 years have seen some goofy numbers (4 companies in the top 10 reporting losses) these numbers are still huge. The two health insurers at the top of the heap are Cardinal and United, Cardinal posted 2.1% in profits for 2007 and 1.4% in 2008 (Shown in the lists in 2008 and 2009) while United posted 6.2% and 3.7% respectively. This industry is heavy with administrative costs and with lobbying amounts close to $2 million dollars a day so far in 2009 that will cut into that profit margin heavily.

Third, they maintain these profits through shady dealings and unfair policies. They drop coverage on individuals that need it the most, deny claims for procedures based upon arbitrary rules and have a heavily administrative bureaucracy that maintains profit as their motivation. The bureaucrat you fear from Government denying you coverage or telling you how much your life is worth is already out there, but instead of making a call based upon law or regulation he is doing it with the bottom line first and foremost in his mind. Non-Profit organizations follow industry reimbursements and pricing, they stay competitive but cannot leap too far ahead because they cannot play similar games with their policies and the lives of those that pay into the system. It isn’t an even playing field.

Fourth, and possibly most important, let’s look at what they make a profit from, the pain and suffering of others. If they didn’t play shady and deceptive games, worked with the public and the Doctors to help reduce the administration costs by streamlining the paperwork done at the point of service (the Doctor’s Office or Emergency Room) this would not be the argument it has become, but because they have shown over the past 30 years that they are more interested in raising rates and fees and cutting services and patients from their rosters all in the name of profit, it just shows the darker side of capitalism. A side that can stand to be fixed.

Chris