4 ms·
Another poster here wrote that the profit margins at those companies are about 6%, and the overall costs on the order of 30%. Meaning that if the profit drops t
by Arnt 2y ago
Another poster here wrote that the profit margins at those companies are about 6%, and the overall costs on the order of 30%. Meaning that if the profit drops to zero, the health insurer could only pay for eight days instead of seven without raising premiums, and if the profit and total salaries drop to zero, only for about 11 days instead of seven. 11 is far from the needed 21.
If you want to blame someone, consider blaming the avaricious premium payers. And consider going easy on the blame. Blaming is easy but it makes you see people as avaricious when that's not reasonable.
- justinclift 2y agoYou might want to check the salary figures for those insurance company executives. ;)
- Arnt 2y agoI think you're implying that a firing a few people with those nice million-dollar salaries and spending those millions on hospital care would make a significant difference. But the US is a country where a single hospital stay can cost a million dollars. Fire the highest-paid executive and pay for ten hospital treatments. Fire the next-highest, nine more. At some point you've fired all employees at all insurers, can't pay for lack of employees to do the chores, and even at that point the savings cover only a few of the rejected applications.
- justinclift 2y agoInteresting. > If you want to blame someone, consider blaming the avaricious premium payers What's an "avaricious premium payer"?