Full Coverage Government

[King of the Americas]

Not really, no. Last time I checked, the government spends quite a bit on marketing and advertising.

...

Agreed. I get the very 'propaganda' you are talking about. I get about 24-40 pieces a year, depending on the changes to law. I receive SSI Disability. (The amount that I get was decided upon how much I paid into the system during the time I worked, not my level of injury.)

If there are increases, reductions, or NO changes at all they send me a letter telling me what that is. Then they send a yearly statement, and yes occasionally I see a TV advertisement, telling me of a change in benefits, to be expected.

But the amount of spending vs the private sector isn't comparable...

Do you want a link to a pie, bar, or line graph showing the difference between the two?

Because I a certain there is quite a big difference.

ETA:

http://government-policy.blogspot.com/2011/03/advertising-by-federal-government.html

Government spent almost $1 billion...

Geico ALONE spent $500 million. Life insurance companies increased spending to over $12 billion, this year. http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080714/FREE/148874127/1150/ISSUENEWS#seenit

I think this clearly demonstrates real savings potential.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

... all I see is paying premiums in exchange for being paid back in the case that the occurrence in question meets the insurance company's qualifications for payment.

And my further point is that they spend money lobbying lawmakers for more criteria on which to judge potential premium candidates. Your credit score is used to determine car insurance premiums...

Insurance companies have managed to legalize discrimination, based on all sorts of things.

THEN after all your payments, they may or may not honor a claim you make... They might just decide your claim falls outside the parameters of your contract.

The KEEP premium payments for profit...

 

[sopclod]

And my further point is that they spend money lobbying lawmakers for more criteria on which to judge potential premium candidates. Your credit score is used to determine car insurance premiums...

Insurance companies have managed to legalize discrimination, based on all sorts of things.

THEN after all your payments, they may or may not honor a claim you make... They might just decide your claim falls outside the parameters of your contract.

The KEEP premium payments for profit...

If your only goal is to maximize profits, there are ways to do it besides (and/or in addition to) making a superior product or service.

 

[King of the Americas]

If your only goal is to maximize profits, there are ways to do it besides (and/or in addition to) making a superior product or service.

MY goal is to give people the most bang for their collective buck, ending private for-profit insurance agencies would do that.

 

[sopclod]

My point is that in theory, profit motivates one to make an ever better product or service. In fact though this same motivation causes less desirable practices, like buying politicians and lying to the customer.

 

[King of the Americas]

My point is that in theory, profit motivates one to make an ever better product or service. In fact though this same motivation causes less desirable practices, like buying politicians and lying to the customer.

Agreed.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think instead of speaking of these things in the abstract, we should get specific:

The industry leader isn't suffering 'small margins': http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/4...n-geico-a-template-for-growth-stock-investing

I didn't say the margins were small, I said they weren't large. And guess what: that article doesn't contradict what I said. It says, "Geico also enjoyed excellent profit margins", but it doesn't say what they are. Given how context-dependent such a statement is, it essentially means nothing to our current argument.

Insurance companies make profits ATOP spending in advertising and high paid salary expenditures. ALL 3 of which would not be a factor in a government ran model.

Yeah, sorry, but you're wrong on all counts. Government agencies advertise, they pay high salaries (do you have any idea how generous federal benefits can be?), AND they spend money on pork.

The 'margin' in a government model wouldn't exist, AT ALL.

Indeed. But waste would. In fact, waste is not even a bug of government programs. For politicians, it's a feature.

The government model is only designed to replace last year's losses, so that the safer we all are, the lower our taxes.

Such naive faith in the good will of government is charming. If the program runs at a profit, that excess money won't be returned to subscribers, it will be looted by politicians. And if the program runs at a loss, then we'll make up the differences in taxes. The incentive to actually lower costs and increase efficiency will basically evaporate.

 

[sopclod]

I didn't say the margins were small, I said they weren't large. And guess what: that article doesn't contradict what I said. It says, "Geico also enjoyed excellent profit margins", but it doesn't say what they are. Given how context-dependent such a statement is, it essentially means nothing to our current argument.



Yeah, sorry, but you're wrong on all counts. Government agencies advertise, they pay high salaries (do you have any idea how generous federal benefits can be?), AND they spend money on pork.



Indeed. But waste would. In fact, waste is not even a bug of government programs. For politicians, it's a feature.



Such naive faith in the good will of government is charming. If the program runs at a profit, that excess money won't be returned to subscribers, it will be looted by politicians. And if the program runs at a loss, then we'll make up the differences in taxes. The incentive to actually lower costs and increase efficiency will basically evaporate.

What, you don't dig on swine?

Speaking of being naive, I like how people talk about "the government" like there's a handful of crusty old guys in suits who do everything and dream up ways to waste money. If something like this were to ever take place it would be a new organization with it's own budget and it's own set of policy makers and officers and administrators etc.

I think the more important difference between this and private insurance is motivation. It makes economic sense for insurance companies to deny claims no matter the implications. A government run program with no shareholders would have no reason to do this. In fact, taxpayers would be outraged if they did (whether that truly matters or not is debatable). All they would have to do is stay within their budget, which would be a matter of public record.

 

[Ziggurat]

Speaking of being naive, I like how people talk about "the government" like there's a handful of crusty old guys in suits who do everything and dream up ways to waste money.

As opposed to talking about government like a benevolent, omniscient, god-like entity. Sure, that's not naive at all.

I think the more important difference between this and private insurance is motivation. It makes economic sense for insurance companies to deny claims no matter the implications.

Uh, no. If they deny claims no matter the implication, their services will be worthless. Insurance is only worthwhile if the insurer actually pays out for claims. If you don't pay out valid claims, you won't keep any customers. And regardless of your profit margins, you can't run a business without customers. So this claim is pure nonsense.

A government run program with no shareholders would have no reason to do this.

Well, no. Controlling costs will still be a motivating factor, because they've still got customers and tax payers to answer to and who will get upset if costs aren't controlled. And if they don't deny claims, well, that's even worse, because people will start abusing the system.

All they would have to do is stay within their budget, which would be a matter of public record.

Because that's what government programs are known for: staying on budget.

What were you saying about naivety?

 

[King of the Americas]

I didn't say the margins were small, I said they weren't large. And guess what: that article doesn't contradict what I said. It says, "Geico also enjoyed excellent profit margins", but it doesn't say what they are. Given how context-dependent such a statement is, it essentially means nothing to our current argument.



Yeah, sorry, but you're wrong on all counts. Government agencies advertise, they pay high salaries (do you have any idea how generous federal benefits can be?), AND they spend money on pork.



Indeed. But waste would. In fact, waste is not even a bug of government programs. For politicians, it's a feature.



Such naive faith in the good will of government is charming. If the program runs at a profit, that excess money won't be returned to subscribers, it will be looted by politicians. And if the program runs at a loss, then we'll make up the differences in taxes. The incentive to actually lower costs and increase efficiency will basically evaporate.

Geico is kick'n ass: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Berkshire_Hathaway_(BRK)

Exactly how are my numbers wrong...? I AGREE that government agencies spend money on those things, but the sites I offered showed a clear difference in the 'actual amount' being spent by both entities.

Waste, fraud, and abuse accounts for about 7% of government spending. I am sure government insurance programs would operate at the same rate of efficiency. Private insurance agencies have the same sort of expenditures, and even employ lawyers to sue for the right to deny claims...

Government is what a citizenry puts into it. I've seen government be as bad as it gets, but I've also seen responsible government capable of keeping streets paved, the trash picked up, and the water flowing cleanly, at a perfectly livable tax rate. The schools produce capable young adults, who excel more than fail at high learning opportunities. When voters don't know what the elected officials are doing, the government goes to pot. When voters have an actual understanding of what is going on, and take an active role in the formation of policy, government works best.

With my initiative, government would be able to produce better results at lower prices.

We could save money by raising taxes.

(*This thread has inspired my next blog)

 

[King of the Americas]

Francesca R inspired me...

http://betterliberalarguments.blogspot.com/2011/03/raising-taxes-to-save-money.html

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly how are my numbers wrong...?

What numbers? I've seen no numbers from you about the typical insurance company's profit margins.

Waste, fraud, and abuse accounts for about 7% of government spending.

Which is enough larger than the profit margins on quite a few businesses.

I am sure government insurance programs would operate at the same rate of efficiency.

And what makes you sure of that? Is that the medicare/medicaid loss rate?

Government is what a citizenry puts into it.

Government also pits one constituency against another.

I've seen government be as bad as it gets, but I've also seen responsible government capable of keeping streets paved, the trash picked up, and the water flowing cleanly, at a perfectly livable tax rate.

Huh. All those examples are local government. I wonder if that's a coincidence...

The schools produce capable young adults, who excel more than fail at high learning opportunities.

Our public schools are expensive failures. Their costs have been outpacing inflation but their performance has stagnated for decades.

When voters don't know what the elected officials are doing, the government goes to pot. When voters have an actual understanding of what is going on, and take an active role in the formation of policy, government works best.

And voters really understand the inner workings of complex insurance programs, right?

With my initiative, government would be able to produce better results at lower prices.

Nothing about your argument so far is even peculiar to auto insurance. Following your logic, we should let the government take over the entire economy. And yet, that's always a disaster.

Maybe government isn't able to do what you think it can do.

 

[King of the Americas]

double post

 

[King of the Americas]

What numbers? I've seen no numbers from you about the typical insurance company's profit margins.

...

Maybe government isn't able to do what you think it can do.

I have posted links to numbers backing up each of my declarative statements about who spends and makes what. Government non-profit insurance providers could provide much more in benefits for lower prices.

And I am not suggesting the 'federal government' be the provider. I'd MUCH rather see these systems operate on a county or regional state level.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have posted links to numbers backing up each of my declarative statements about who spends and makes what.

I have never seen any data posted by you, nor have you actually made any claims, about what the profit margins on auto insurance companies are, in actual numbers.

Edit: I see now that one of your links was broken, and the correct link has some data. margins seem to be fluctuating from roughly 3% to 9%. That's hardly outrageous profit margins. Furthermore, you're cherry picking one of the better performers, we can expect the average of the industry to be lower. Compare that to your mentioned 7% government waste, and, well, there go the profits.

Government non-profit insurance providers could provide much more in benefits for lower prices.

You make this claim with no actual evidence. And the arguments you use to justify it apply to ANY business. If your arguments were correct, that would indicate we should just socialize the entire economy. But that never works. So obviously your arguments are bull ****.

And I am not suggesting the 'federal government' be the provider.

Oh, wonderful! Just make all that socialism localized, and it'll all work out!

 

[King of the Americas]

I have never seen any data posted by you, nor have you actually made any claims, about what the profit margins on auto insurance companies are, in actual numbers.

Edit: I see now that one of your links was broken, and the correct link has some data. margins seem to be fluctuating from roughly 3% to 9%. That's hardly outrageous profit margins. Furthermore, you're cherry picking one of the better performers, we can expect the average of the industry to be lower. Compare that to your mentioned 7% government waste, and, well, there go the profits.



You make this claim with no actual evidence. And the arguments you use to justify it apply to ANY business. If your arguments were correct, that would indicate we should just socialize the entire economy. But that never works. So obviously your arguments are bull ****.



Oh, wonderful! Just make all that socialism localized, and it'll all work out!

Private companies also suffer losses from waste, fraud, and abuse.

What do you mean I made a claim with no evidence? I posted a link to government spending numbers, and link to what the health insurance company spent last year.

Geico alone spent half of what the government did. The health insurance sector spent some $12 billion on advertising, I linked that also.

It'll 'work' where citizens perform proper oversight of elected officials

 

[Ziggurat]

It'll 'work' where citizens perform proper oversight of elected officials

Because oversight is MAGIC!

Yeah, no. It's already obvious that the oversight we have is not sufficient to make government run without corruption and inefficiency. Expanding the scope of government won't improve oversight, it'll make the problem worse.

And again, nothing about your argument so far is tied to insurance. It is a generic argument for why government should take over basically any profitable business. But since you're not advocating that even though that's what accepting your argument means, I cannot help but conclude that either you don't understand your own argument, or you don't even believe it yourself. So... which is it?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yeah, no. It's already obvious that the oversight we have is not sufficient to make government run without corruption and inefficiency. Expanding the scope of government won't improve oversight, it'll make the problem worse.

You're backwards. Switch the highlighted words and you're closer to disagreeing with the actual argument being made.

 

[carlitos]

You continue to exhibit full ignorance of what insurance is. Since this has been explained in plain language and you have avoided it all, I conclude your reason for these threads is to broadcast rhetoric.

Nevermind

Kudos. As evidenced by the fact that KotA completely forgot that he already raised this topic 2 years ago, the OP doesn't really think these things out before posting.

 

[stokes234]

That's hardly outrageous profit margins. Furthermore, you're cherry picking one of the better performers, we can expect the average of the industry to be lower. Compare that to your mentioned 7% government waste, and, well, there go the profits.

You're assuming that private insurance companies have no waste, abuse or corruption, and you're forgetting that high corporate wages are considered expenses and not included in the profits shown. Those high wages wouldn't be as high for the public sector, which is where you would be saving the significant cash money.