|
jt512
Jan 2, 2009, 5:23 AM
Post #126 of 209
(7245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: "In 2006, the nation's six biggest private health insurers collectively earned almost $11 billion in profits." — Consumer Reports Non-responsive. The task was to find a company (not a selection of six) that IS (not was) turning a profit.
I have a better idea. Instead of giving people "tasks" to disprove your unsupported claims, back up your own claims yourself.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 2, 2009, 6:15 AM
Post #127 of 209
(7237 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: I have a better idea. Instead of giving people "tasks" to disprove your unsupported claims, back up your own claims yourself.
Fair enough...let's see, Cigna is a pretty big health insurer, how are they doing?
In reply to: Shares of Cigna fell 7 percent as health insurance shares fell broadly amid continued turbulence in the wider markets...Cigna shares fell 63 cents to $8.25 in morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange. Through Thursday, the shares had fallen 83 percent this year, compared with a 71 percent drop for the S&P Managed Health Care index .GSPHMO of large health insurers.
Have you ever noticed, economies go up and down...we are in the 12th recession since the great depression...But the government NEVER has a recession??? It just gets bigger, and bigger...
EDited to add reference: http://www.reuters.com/...dUSTRE4AK5H920081121
(This post was edited by onceahardman on Jan 2, 2009, 6:16 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 2, 2009, 6:40 AM
Post #128 of 209
(7231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: I have a better idea. Instead of giving people "tasks" to disprove your unsupported claims, back up your own claims yourself. Fair enough...let's see, Cigna is a pretty big health insurer, how are they doing? In reply to: Shares of Cigna fell 7 percent as health insurance shares fell broadly amid continued turbulence in the wider markets...Cigna shares fell 63 cents to $8.25 in morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange. Through Thursday, the shares had fallen 83 percent this year, compared with a 71 percent drop for the S&P Managed Health Care index .GSPHMO of large health insurers. Have you ever noticed, economies go up and down...we are in the 12th recession since the great depression...But the government NEVER has a recession??? It just gets bigger, and bigger... EDited to add reference: http://www.reuters.com/...dUSTRE4AK5H920081121
Are you fucking kidding me? Your own source says the following:
Onceahardmans' own fucking source wrote: Cigna lowered its forecast for 2008 earnings to a range of $920 million to $950 million excluding special items. It previously forecast $950 million to $980 million, or $3.40 to $3.50 per share.
How awful! Cigna is only making 0.95 Billion dollars this year, instead of the 0.98 Billion dollars they had projected. Now please shut up.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 2, 2009, 12:32 PM
Post #129 of 209
(7220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Jay, you should really stick to nutrition, that's a subject you know.
Apparently you think "earnings" and "profit" are the same thing.
When a company takes in $950 millon, but has expenses over $1 billion...in business, we call that a LOSS.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Jan 2, 2009, 1:39 PM
Post #130 of 209
(7216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
onceahardman wrote: Jay, you should really stick to nutrition, that's a subject you know. Apparently you think "earnings" and "profit" are the same thing. When a company takes in $950 millon, but has expenses over $1 billion...in business, we call that a LOSS.
As much as I hate to get involved in this thread or support anything said by anyone here, I'll chime in for a technical point.
In economist-speak (and I believe it's the same for investor-speak), earnings is the same thing as profits. Earnings is typically used as the more technical term. Revenue is the term used to describe the total amount of money coming in without subtracting expenses.
Edited to add that the price of a share is usually a function of the company's earnings, but a change in share price has little to no direct effect on the earnings of the company. You can't really use change in share price to predict profitability unless you know much more about the company's financials.
(This post was edited by shoo on Jan 2, 2009, 1:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 2, 2009, 2:04 PM
Post #131 of 209
(7206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
reno wrote: jt512 wrote: That's fine. Doctors and nurses are overpaid. According to whom? You?
[crickets chirping]
Well?
[/crickets chirping]
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 2, 2009, 3:39 PM
Post #132 of 209
(7204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Thanks for clarifying, shoo.
In reply to: You can't really use change in share price to predict profitability unless you know much more about the company's financials.
With that in mind, would you agree it is unlikely that a company who's shares fall 83% is turning a profit?
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Jan 2, 2009, 3:52 PM
Post #133 of 209
(7198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
given the recent "down-turn" in the economy, it seems unfair to think that health insurance should be making a large profit NOW instead of 2 years ago. there are only a handful of sectors still turning profits (some banks, oil, defense....).
why pick out health as the sole place that should be doing well?
to be even-handed about it you (one....not YOU) should look at losses relative/proportional to other similarly-profitable-in-the-past sectors.....
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 2, 2009, 4:18 PM
Post #134 of 209
(7184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
altelis, I really don't see it that way. As the linked article shows, the listed index fund of health care insurances is down 71%...while the broader market is down 30-35%.
It has been an extraordinarily difficult year in health care insurance, and it is not unfair to say so.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Jan 2, 2009, 4:23 PM
Post #135 of 209
(7183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: You can't really use change in share price to predict profitability unless you know much more about the company's financials. With that in mind, would you agree it is unlikely that a company who's shares fall 83% is turning a profit?
I think I already answered that, but I will clarify.
While it is slightly less likely (and I really mean very slight here), it is not unlikely. There is simply no reasonable way to make any judgments on current total earnings, and especially not on whether the company is turning a profit, based on the share price, or even changes in share price, alone. To do so would be a folly.
Assuming that Cigna's projections are reasonably accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, Cigna is still poised to have a healthy positive earnings this year.
Please note that I am not taking either Jay or Dr. Hard's sides here, I am just clarifying technical points.
Edited for technical accuracy and emphasis.
Further edited to add: It looks as though Cigna's turning a profit according to their financial reports. The P/E ratio is positive. If it wasn't earning, the P/E ratio would be negative, or more likely, unreported. The profitability ratios are also positive.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=CI
(This post was edited by shoo on Jan 2, 2009, 4:40 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jan 2, 2009, 5:16 PM
Post #136 of 209
(7167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
USnavy wrote: Speaking of which, you guys need to cut the OP some damm slack. If he can’t afford it, he can’t afford it. College students have no income (literally) yet they still have to pay all the same bills any other working class American has to (fuel, car payment, blah, blah). If you guys were in college, didn’t make shit for income, could not afford insurance, and got injured you would be very quick to complain to your friends about how its bull shit insurance is so damm expansive and you can’t afford it. AND DONT SAY YOU WOULDENT because we all know that’s complete bull shit so don’t be so quick to jump on him. I was curious as to how much insurance in the private sector would be for me. I called the most known university on the island and asked them what I would have to pay as a full time student at their college. They wanted $180 a month for me for a shitty ass plan that doesn’t even cover climbing accidents. I don’t smoke, I am in very good health, I am 22 years old and I go to the doctor about twice a year. All in all I cost the Navy maybe $200 a year in medical expenses at this time. Yet they want to charge me 12x what I created in medical bills last year and provide near useless coverage options. How the fuck is that reasonable? The insurance on my $18k truck is 1/3rd the cost of what my medical insurance would be and they have had to pay out many thousands to me for claims. With absolutely insane prices and near useless coverage plans that don’t even cover climbing accidents, it’s not hard to see how the OP can’t afford it.
2 points:
I made it through college with no help from my parents, and managed to maintain health insurance for myself. It can be done. Maybe you and the OP aren't responsible enough to, but some of as were/are.
Of course your truck insurance is cheaper, what's the most they would have to pay out, 18k if your truck is totalled? If you fall climbing and paralyze yourself, your medical insurance could end up paying out a million or more in the long run. That million is spread across healthy folks like you and me. When you're old or injured, I guarantee you'll have years where you collect more in benefits than you pay in.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jan 2, 2009, 5:18 PM
Post #137 of 209
(7164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
jt512 wrote: onceahardman wrote: In reply to: I have a better idea. Instead of giving people "tasks" to disprove your unsupported claims, back up your own claims yourself. Fair enough...let's see, Cigna is a pretty big health insurer, how are they doing? In reply to: Shares of Cigna fell 7 percent as health insurance shares fell broadly amid continued turbulence in the wider markets...Cigna shares fell 63 cents to $8.25 in morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange. Through Thursday, the shares had fallen 83 percent this year, compared with a 71 percent drop for the S&P Managed Health Care index .GSPHMO of large health insurers. Have you ever noticed, economies go up and down...we are in the 12th recession since the great depression...But the government NEVER has a recession??? It just gets bigger, and bigger... EDited to add reference: http://www.reuters.com/...dUSTRE4AK5H920081121Are you fucking kidding me? Your own source says the following: Onceahardmans' own fucking source wrote: Cigna lowered its forecast for 2008 earnings to a range of $920 million to $950 million excluding special items. It previously forecast $950 million to $980 million, or $3.40 to $3.50 per share. How awful! Cigna is only making 0.95 Billion dollars this year, instead of the 0.98 Billion dollars they had projected. Now please shut up. Jay
Given their size, they have lousy margins. Do you really think the government could administer health care to as many people as Cigna does for 950 million overhead hahahaahah funny.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 2, 2009, 5:51 PM
Post #138 of 209
(7157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: Jay, you should really stick to nutrition, that's a subject you know. Apparently you think "earnings" and "profit" are the same thing. When a company takes in $950 millon, but has expenses over $1 billion...in business, we call that a LOSS.
Earnings and profits are the same; and I'm a CPA.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 2, 2009, 6:44 PM
Post #139 of 209
(7147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Thanks again for clarifying, shoo. Always good to have accurate info, especially when it doesn't agree with what I incorrectly thought was true.
A company making a profit, though, is not a bad thing. The profit does not mean people are having claims denied.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 2, 2009, 6:56 PM
Post #140 of 209
(7144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
reno wrote: reno wrote: jt512 wrote: That's fine. Doctors and nurses are overpaid. According to whom? You? [crickets chirping] Well? [/crickets chirping]
Well, yeah, me, for one. But if you want to look at it from an economics standpoint they are overpaid, as well. Medical schools restrict the supply of doctors and nurses, perpetuating a shortage, and causing salaries to be excessive. In addition, imperfect competition for medical services contributes to excessive salaries (as well as abusive pricing of drugs).
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Jan 2, 2009, 8:36 PM
Post #141 of 209
(7127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
After hoping this thread would die, I’ve changed my mind and decided to hop back in….
First a few points on Cigna. Please do not make judgments until you read their financials. First their net margin is 4%. As a point of comparison, Pepsi Co makes 13%. GM (of which all US taxpayers are now shareholders) makes about -13%. Cigna is not a highly profitable company. Second of all, there are lots of places to get insurance from companies which have no profit incentive. If you see the name “mutual” in the title, it is like a credit union and broadly speaking, you become a part owner of the company and not a customer.
If we, as taxpayers, want to own and run several sectors of the health care providing network, I would think that we would do so because either we see an obvious cost that can be removed by single owner, or we see an obvious way that we can manage the demand.
For cost savings, Cigna’s looks like an awfully small part of the overall cost of health care. Most people have been seeing at least 4% increases in their premiums for the past several years. So taking over health care insurance and eliminating that profit would get us, at best, a one years’ abatement on increasing premiums. Seems like small potatoes if we are saying the whole thing is broke.
There are other costs savings possibilities, some of which have been touched on. Mostly they focus around reducing services (i.e. fewer MRI machines) aka eliminating redundancies, fewer choices (only g’ment approved meds) aka g’ment buying power, or salary restructuring for those involved (pay doctor’s less) aka pay caps.
The other possibility is to increase income by including more people in the customer base. As insurance and employment are tied together in the USA (an “interesting” linkage), that means that either the “employed” will need to pay more to cover the increase in customers or the g’ment will need to get money from those people who aren’t in higher paying jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 2, 2009, 9:29 PM
Post #142 of 209
(7118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: There are other costs savings possibilities, some of which have been touched on. Mostly they focus around reducing services (i.e. fewer MRI machines) aka eliminating redundancies, fewer choices (only g’ment approved meds) aka g’ment buying power, or salary restructuring for those involved (pay doctor’s less) aka pay caps.
There are better cost saving options: Reduction of fraud, reduction of duplicitous paperwork, a great push toward electronic record keeping, malpractice lawsuit reform, a greater emphasis on healthy lifestyles and preventative medicine... none of which limit care to the patient, but simply cut out those things that make the provision of such care expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Jan 3, 2009, 12:37 AM
Post #143 of 209
(7091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
jt512 wrote: reno wrote: reno wrote: jt512 wrote: That's fine. Doctors and nurses are overpaid. According to whom? You? [crickets chirping] Well? [/crickets chirping] Well, yeah, me, for one. But if you want to look at it from an economics standpoint they are overpaid, as well. Medical schools restrict the supply of doctors and nurses, perpetuating a shortage, and causing salaries to be excessive. In addition, imperfect competition for medical services contributes to excessive salaries (as well as abusive pricing of drugs). Jay
As I see/understand it, "doctors" aren't overpaid. Many specialists make out like bandits, however many many doctors have trouble paying back their loans 10-20 years out of school.
I heard a report (don't have time to find it now) that stated that while the top percentage of doctor's salaries were leagues more than their Canadian counterparts, the average salary of ALL doctors was only 5-10% more than all Canadian doctors, with a substantial number of docs (mainly rural primary care) making LESS than the lowest paid docs in Canada.
The problem isn't overpaid docs but rather the massive pay gradient. As a future doctor, and one perhaps interested in rural medicine, I would love to see pay restructuring, bringing UP the salary of some and bringing WAY DOWN the salaries of others.
We have some physicians who find paying back loans a piece of cake and some that will be burdened by them for most of their career. Managing the cost of medical education would be another possible way to make lowering physician salaries more of a feasible option, for you can't keep increasing the cost of education and decreasing salaries. There would be NO way to attract anybody but the most self-sacrificing to the field...
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
Jan 3, 2009, 2:17 AM
Post #144 of 209
(7086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
jt512 wrote: But if you want to look at it from an economics standpoint they are overpaid, as well. Medical schools restrict the supply of doctors and nurses, perpetuating a shortage, and causing salaries to be excessive.
Medical schools do not graduate nurses. The nursing shortage is not a result of schools choosing to restrict the number of students they admit and graduate due to some overwhelming flood of prospective nurses. On the contrary, nursing schools are drooling to get more students to apply and enroll, and the best schools are often fighting over the same students at the bachelor's, master's and doctoral levels.
reno wrote: There are better cost saving options: Reduction of fraud, reduction of duplicitous paperwork, ...
Though people might agree that some insurance paperwork seems to have been created with duplicitous intentions, I humbly submit that you might have meant "duplicative" here.
(edited because an end bracket was missing)
(This post was edited by htotsu on Jan 3, 2009, 2:18 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 3, 2009, 2:33 AM
Post #145 of 209
(7080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
htotsu wrote: jt512 wrote: But if you want to look at it from an economics standpoint they are overpaid, as well. Medical schools restrict the supply of doctors and nurses, perpetuating a shortage, and causing salaries to be excessive. Medical schools do not graduate nurses.
Well, the one I work for does.
In reply to: The nursing shortage is not a result of schools choosing to restrict the number of students they admit and graduate due to some overwhelming flood of prospective nurses. On the contrary, nursing schools are drooling to get more students to apply and enroll...
I stand corrected on the reason for the nursing shortage, and by my own argument, that means that they're underpaid, not overpaid.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
Jan 3, 2009, 2:44 AM
Post #146 of 209
(7075 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
jt512 wrote: htotsu wrote: Medical schools do not graduate nurses. Well, the one I work for does.
Then I, too, stand corrected. My point was that Schools of Nursing (and any schools that issue degrees in Nursing) are generally attempting to increase their enrollments, not limit them.
(This post was edited by htotsu on Jan 3, 2009, 2:45 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 3, 2009, 4:01 AM
Post #147 of 209
(7064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
altelis wrote: As I see/understand it, "doctors" aren't overpaid. Many specialists make out like bandits, however many many doctors have trouble paying back their loans 10-20 years out of school.
My ex-father-in-law, a retired OB/GYN, lost money the last two years he was in practice. That is, he spent more money to be a doctor (malpractice insurance, office rent, payroll, and so forth) than he made.
Tell me again how, exactly, he was overpaid, JT?
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 3, 2009, 4:04 AM
Post #148 of 209
(7063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
htotsu wrote: jt512 wrote: But if you want to look at it from an economics standpoint they are overpaid, as well. Medical schools restrict the supply of doctors and nurses, perpetuating a shortage, and causing salaries to be excessive. Medical schools do not graduate nurses.
Don't confuse the man with facts. He's on a mission, and won't be deterred.
In reply to: The nursing shortage is not a result of schools choosing to restrict the number of students they admit and graduate due to some overwhelming flood of prospective nurses. On the contrary, nursing schools are drooling to get more students to apply and enroll, and the best schools are often fighting over the same students at the bachelor's, master's and doctoral levels.
At the risk of repeating myself, don't confuse the man with facts....
In reply to: reno wrote: There are better cost saving options: Reduction of fraud, reduction of duplicitous paperwork, ... Though people might agree that some insurance paperwork seems to have been created with duplicitous intentions, I humbly submit that you might have meant "duplicative" here.
Quite right. Apologies for the error. I misspoke (mistyped?)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 3, 2009, 4:18 AM
Post #149 of 209
(7055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
reno wrote: altelis wrote: As I see/understand it, "doctors" aren't overpaid. Many specialists make out like bandits, however many many doctors have trouble paying back their loans 10-20 years out of school. My ex-father-in-law, a retired OB/GYN, lost money the last two years he was in practice. That is, he spent more money to be a doctor (malpractice insurance, office rent, payroll, and so forth) than he made. Tell me again how, exactly, he was overpaid, JT?
The average salary of an OB/GYN is about $200,000, according to published sources. That doesn't include benefits. I don't know what your father-in-law's problem was, if any.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dj69
Jan 3, 2009, 7:26 AM
Post #150 of 209
(7040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Posts: 43
|
Well doctors do have hefty salaries, but did you ever look at the premiums on malpractice insurance, they are also quite ridiculous. With a quick search, the most expensive premium I found was just over 200 000 dollars, with lowest being somewhere around the 20 000.(for an OB/GYN) Even with the lower premiums, that is still a significant chunk of their salaries. How exactly is an average OB/GYN (who on average makes 200k/year?) Overpaid? Or even paid enough?
Look at it this way.
Average salary for OB/GYN : 200,000
US federal tax for 200,000 dollar a year salary: between 33-35% depending on other circumstances (I am using .33 in this calculation.)
Average cost of malpractice insurance in Nevada (with 2002 rates): 142,000
200,000*67%-142,000 = -8000
Now I understand that an OB/GYN will not work for a loss and therefore one who works in a state with high premiums, will be paid more as well. But this shows you how quickly it can get tight, and it really shouldn't. Doctors if anything are underpaid if anything, they spend years studying the human body especially specialists, and yet if you compare the top paid doctors with say the top paid lawyers, the lawyer will most probably be earning more.
(both highly regarded professions, and both require alot of work.)
Sources: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03702.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/...in_the_United_States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
