united health care ad

[birdog1960]

watching the PGA (what an outrageous golf course!) yesterday, i had the misfortune to watch multiple showings of united health care's ad extolling their contributions to their "patients" (insured lives). a huge point was made of the fact that they have 78,000 employees "caring for" 70 million americans. all i could think of was "what a waste of 78,000 people's talents". united health care does precious little to advance the health of americans. they produce nothing in the way of actual care, medical technology, knowledge or improved outcomes. they are entirely superfluous and unnecessary. there disappearance would do nothing but improve the heath care system in the US. they are in the business of making money from patients and refusing care is one of their most proftable enterprises. very often, their actions are injurious to their customers. yet, many americans would appear to prefer profit as the motive for health care dispersal and prefer businessmen deciding their medical fate over government agencies overseen by elected officials. i suspect the ad was tested on multiple focus groups with great success. i can only hope the research was flawed.... fire away.

[DC Tom]

watching the PGA (what an outrageous golf course!) yesterday, i had the misfortune to watch multiple showings of united health care's ad extolling their contributions to their "patients" (insured lives). a huge point was made of the fact that they have 78,000 employees "caring for" 70 million americans. all i could think of was "what a waste of 78,000 people's talents". united health care does precious little to advance the health of americans. they produce nothing in the way of actual care, medical technology, knowledge or improved outcomes. they are entirely superfluous and unnecessary. there disappearance would do nothing but improve the heath care system in the US. they are in the business of making money from patients and refusing care is one of their most proftable enterprises. very often, their actions are injurious to their customers. yet, many americans would appear to prefer profit as the motive for health care dispersal and prefer businessmen deciding their medical fate over government agencies overseen by elected officials. i suspect the ad was tested on multiple focus groups with great success. i can only hope the research was flawed.... fire away.

 

We're done demonizing the health care industry. We're finishing up BP, and revving up for Big Sugar.

 

Try to keep up.

[Magox]

watching the PGA (what an outrageous golf course!) yesterday, i had the misfortune to watch multiple showings of united health care's ad extolling their contributions to their "patients" (insured lives). a huge point was made of the fact that they have 78,000 employees "caring for" 70 million americans. all i could think of was "what a waste of 78,000 people's talents". united health care does precious little to advance the health of americans. they produce nothing in the way of actual care, medical technology, knowledge or improved outcomes. they are entirely superfluous and unnecessary. there disappearance would do nothing but improve the heath care system in the US. they are in the business of making money from patients and refusing care is one of their most proftable enterprises. very often, their actions are injurious to their customers. yet, many americans would appear to prefer profit as the motive for health care dispersal and prefer businessmen deciding their medical fate over government agencies overseen by elected officials. i suspect the ad was tested on multiple focus groups with great success. i can only hope the research was flawed.... fire away.

I will excuse you, simply because you weren't here during the health care debate as I was schooling people regarding this topic.

 

The FACTS don't support your strawman argument.

 

1) They are not nearly as profitable as you think. http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522qpmd.html The profit margin for UNH is 4.83%, making it the 88th most profitable industry. If you were so concerned about people, why don't you criticize the president for striking a deal with big pharma? Their profit margins are at 20.9% http://biz.yahoo.com/p/510qpmu.html I suppose the money they received from big pharma to support health care didn't have anything to do with it?

 

Where's the outrage Birdog?

 

Also, if they were not able to deny coverage to certain individuals, what do you think would happen to everyone else's premiums? Just the fact that you mentioned this shows your lack of understanding of how things work. Do you think they all sit in a room conspiring with one another thinking of ways to show how evil they are to the rest of the world? Something like "muahahaha, let's deny these fools coverage, just to be cruel and then rape them with these HUGE 4.8% profit margins, muahahaha"

 

I'm sure they would love to cover everyone, but the reality is that some people will cost a whole lot more than what they could ever fairly charge that person, which means their costs have to be subsidized by the rest of their clients. Another point I might add, in this down economy, many people are dropping their coverage, which means that many healthy people are leaving the risk pools, cuasing premiums to soar. Not because they have a desire to fatten their profits, as what most uninformed people would believe (which I would imagine you fall in that camp).

 

The facts don't lie. And don't try to tell me the numbers I provided aren't real, these are the numbers that they officially provide (TO THEIR STOCKHOLDERS). Higher profit margins means higher stock valuations, and 4.8% isn't an unreasonable profit margin by any means. Even if they cut that down in half, it would make an inconsequential difference.

[ExiledInIllinois]

If the math is correct... That is 900 employees to one American. That is 900 insurance employees to a customer? That can't be right? No wonder our system is in the dump.

 

I really don't think the gov't can get any worse.

[Booster4324]

If the math is correct... That is 900 employees to one American. That is 900 insurance employees to a customer? That can't be right? No wonder our system is in the dump.

 

I really don't think the gov't can get any worse.

 

 

78,000 employees "caring for" 70 million americans.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Yep... My bad! I just read it! Good God, thankfully I am not in the focus group!

 

Should be the other way... 900 Americans to 1 employee.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Anyway... How many "friends" can you have on Facebook? UHC should bump that number.

[Nanker]

watching the PGA (what an outrageous golf course!) yesterday, i had the misfortune to watch multiple showings of united health care's ad extolling their contributions to their "patients" (insured lives). a huge point was made of the fact that they have 78,000 employees "caring for" 70 million americans. all i could think of was "what a waste of 78,000 people's talents". united health care does precious little to advance the health of americans. they produce nothing in the way of actual care, medical technology, knowledge or improved outcomes. they are entirely superfluous and unnecessary. there disappearance would do nothing but improve the heath care system in the US. they are in the business of making money from patients and refusing care is one of their most proftable enterprises. very often, their actions are injurious to their customers. yet, many americans would appear to prefer profit as the motive for health care dispersal and prefer businessmen deciding their medical fate over government agencies overseen by elected officials. i suspect the ad was tested on multiple focus groups with great success. i can only hope the research was flawed.... fire away.

With apologies to DC Tom, I'll go back in time and respond anyway.

 

So, you're in favor of a direct pay system? Remove insurance companies - which pool the risk of thousands of individuals - and just how is your mammy going to pay for your emergency appendectomy and concomitant two day hospital stay? Cash out of pocket, I presume. Cut a check for the full amount to the Hospital's ER, Surgeon, attending Physician or Hospitalist, Hosptial's pharmacy, Anesthesiologist, Nursing staff, your personal Physician, Hosptial's general fund to cover the use and resupply of the recovery room and the room on the floor? Let's not forget about the food you'll be eating during your stay there. That costs money too, you know. Are you going to pay bust-out retail for all of those services, or are you going to negotiate with each of them what you'll pay? Maybe you'll not pay at all. Many don't. They're called uninsured in today's parlance.

 

So who's the bad guy here? Thousands of people who band together with insurance coverage to mitigate the risk of each member so they pay less in premiums on the if-come that it's a hell of a lot less if they go naked without any coverage at all, or the insurance companies who accept that pooled risk for a fee and negotiate with the health care suppliers for a group rate for their members? Perhaps it's the health care suppliers themselves for asking for so much money to begin with. "Health Care," it's a right - isn't it? Then shouldn't it be free - right? Or, is it that you just don't want to pay for it?

Perhaps that's really it. You want to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labors at no expense to you.

Who's the bad guy now?

[drnykterstein]

We're done demonizing the health care industry. We're finishing up BP, and revving up for Big Sugar High Fructose Corn Syrup.

[/dev/null]

Good call

 

Sugar sounds sweet

 

High Fructose Corn Syrup sounds all technical and scary. Much easier to demagog. We could also go one step further and use the acronym HFCS. Don't have to bother telling anyone what HFCS stands for, just use the scary acronym

[birdog1960]

With apologies to DC Tom, I'll go back in time and respond anyway.

 

So, you're in favor of a direct pay system? Remove insurance companies - which pool the risk of thousands of individuals - and just how is your mammy going to pay for your emergency appendectomy and concomitant two day hospital stay? Cash out of pocket, I presume. Cut a check for the full amount to the Hospital's ER, Surgeon, attending Physician or Hospitalist, Hosptial's pharmacy, Anesthesiologist, Nursing staff, your personal Physician, Hosptial's general fund to cover the use and resupply of the recovery room and the room on the floor? Let's not forget about the food you'll be eating during your stay there. That costs money too, you know. Are you going to pay bust-out retail for all of those services, or are you going to negotiate with each of them what you'll pay? Maybe you'll not pay at all. Many don't. They're called uninsured in today's parlance.

 

So who's the bad guy here? Thousands of people who band together with insurance coverage to mitigate the risk of each member so they pay less in premiums on the if-come that it's a hell of a lot less if they go naked without any coverage at all, or the insurance companies who accept that pooled risk for a fee and negotiate with the health care suppliers for a group rate for their members? Perhaps it's the health care suppliers themselves for asking for so much money to begin with. "Health Care," it's a right - isn't it? Then shouldn't it be free - right? Or, is it that you just don't want to pay for it?

Perhaps that's really it. You want to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labors at no expense to you.

Who's the bad guy now?

um...yeah those labors would include mine since i'm a physician. it might surprise many of you how many docs support single payer. in some specialties it's a majority. and, yeah, the deal with big pharma sucks. it appears it was a condition to get reform started...the slippery slope has only recently been erected.

[DC Tom]

Good call

 

Sugar sounds sweet

 

High Fructose Corn Syrup sounds all technical and scary. Much easier to demagog. We could also go one step further and use the acronym HFCS. Don't have to bother telling anyone what HFCS stands for, just use the scary acronym

 

"HFCS" is much better...avoids having to explain those pesky corn and corn-based biofuel subsidies. But call it "HFCS", and you can start spewing bull **** like "HFCS is the leading cause of diabetes in America!" and "HFCS production is a major contributor global warming!" (Because, since corn for corn syrup isn't being used for biofuels...) A week of that, and you've got Chuck Rangel calling for Congressional hearings...

[IDBillzFan]

"HFCS" is much better...avoids having to explain those pesky corn and corn-based biofuel subsidies. But call it "HFCS", and you can start spewing bull **** like "HFCS is the leading cause of diabetes in America!" and "HFCS production is a major contributor global warming!" (Because, since corn for corn syrup isn't being used for biofuels...) A week of that, and you've got Chuck Rangel calling for Congressional hearings...

I think it would carry even more fear if you would name it H1-FCS1. A week of that and Dwight is in his underground bunker.

[Rob's House]

Conner, as the avowed protectionist you are, I challenge you to research the rise of high fructose corn syrup and determine why it is so widely used in place of sugar, and get back to us with your conclusions.

[DC Tom]

Conner, as the avowed protectionist you are, I challenge you to research the rise of high fructose corn syrup and determine why it is so widely used in place of sugar, and get back to us with your conclusions.

 

And what are the odds of him coming back with a conclusion more profound than "I like paint chips."?

[Rob's House]

And what are the odds of him coming back with a conclusion more profound than "I like paint chips."?

I'll take the under

[Doc]

um...yeah those labors would include mine since i'm a physician. it might surprise many of you how many docs support single payer. in some specialties it's a majority. and, yeah, the deal with big pharma sucks. it appears it was a condition to get reform started...the slippery slope has only recently been erected.

True there are many docs who support single payer, but they're still in the vast minority. And most that support it refuse to/can't see that if it happens, rates won't be fairly negotiated, just like Medicare/Medicaid rates currently aren't. Not to mention the government as single payer is a system that has proven to be a failure.

[Alaska Darin]

um...yeah those labors would include mine since i'm a physician. it might surprise many of you how many docs support single payer. in some specialties it's a majority. and, yeah, the deal with big pharma sucks. it appears it was a condition to get reform started...the slippery slope has only recently been erected.

All that says to me is that there are ignorant doctors.

[birdog1960]

All that says to me is that there are VISIONARY doctors.

fixed it for you

[Alaska Darin]

fixed it for you

You obviously don't know what that word means.

 

You want single payer? Go practice for DoD or the VA. You'll see the future of American health care as you "VISIONARIES" will get it.

 

Single payer isn't a magic bullet or anything even close. It's just a different set of problems with a bigger bureaucracy running it.

 

The only things "Single Payer" will mean is more overhead, more costs, and less productivity. Just like it has in every other entity the government has put its paws into. DoD? Education? Social Security?

 

Good luck, visionary.