www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote:A shame. Perhaps they should have leveraged their enormous profits into stability for their industry, rather than into executives' pockets.

1) Do you really understand the amount of profit these companies generate vs. what their executives get paid? It's utterly inconsequential. Executive compensation has become a red herring people love to crow about but doesn't amount to shit. You could cut every executive salary in an insurance company to a dollar and it would make no real difference to the bottom line.

2) Their industry is stable. We're talking about the introduction of a massive destabilizing force to the equation.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Drug & insurance companies: " We'd like you to force people to pay for health insurance, but we don't want any fairly priced competition. We've got yacht payments, you know?"

Government: " Hey, okay. Now that we've pointed out to the public that you guys make profits approaching the level of outright thievery, we'll capitulate and do what you tell us to."

They've made this huge show of telling the public about the fact we're being ripped off, and now they're turning around and helping to rip off even more people.

The United States of America: brought to you by Pfizer.

I didn't realize a profit margin of 2.5 to 4% was outright thievery. That's a rough net profit margin for the health insurance industry.

Tyyr wrote: 1) Do you really understand the amount of profit these companies generate vs. what their executives get paid? It's utterly inconsequential. Executive compensation has become a red herring people love to crow about but doesn't amount to s**t. You could cut every executive salary in an insurance company to a dollar and it would make no real difference to the bottom line.

2) Their industry is stable. We're talking about the introduction of a massive destabilizing force to the equation.

Tyyr, we all realize that in the big picture the executive bonus's are a small thing financial wise. The issue is that they got paid a bonus for running their industry into the ground. I mean would you expect a bonus if you drove your lift truck through the warehouse wall and collapsed the building?

That's for the banking industry, I can't really comment on health insurance. Ours is run quite a bit differently.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Tyyr, we all realize that in the big picture the executive bonus's are a small thing financial wise. The issue is that they got paid a bonus for running their industry into the ground. I mean would you expect a bonus if you drove your lift truck through the warehouse wall and collapsed the building?

I don't dispute that and I am certainly of the opinion that they need a massive house cleaning. However down here where bacon is rectangular, mostly, executive compensation is trotted out like it's an actual reason these companies got into trouble. Now you might be able to say it's a symptom of why they're in trouble, a total disconnect from reality in that these companies should have realized that sub-prime is Wall-streeteeze for "junk" and that every bubble burst eventually. Should they have lost their jobs, yeah, but its at best a symptom of the actual problem and you don't fix something by nattering on about the symptoms, you get after the actual problem.

That's for the banking industry, I can't really comment on health insurance. Ours is run quite a bit differently.

Lets just say a profit margin of 2.5 to 4% is on the low side. A lot of companies run significantly higher.

Tyyr wrote:Lets just say a profit margin of 2.5 to 4% is on the low side. A lot of companies run significantly higher.

Where'd that figure come from, BTW?

I was referring to the drug companies with the "thievery" bit. Frankly, I don't care if the profits for insurance are less than 5% when their prices are through the roof.

And, please tell me you're not actually defending corporations that take advantage of sick people... Seriously?

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1469

Profits registered by the 10 drug companies on the list were equal to more than half the $69.6 billion in profits netted by the entire roster of Fortune 500 companies - when all losses are subtracted from all gains.

Hey, wow. They're really hurting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/id ... 8920090420

The stronger dollar, by lowering the value of overseas inventories, improved the cost of goods sold -- boosting profit margins 6.9 percentage points to 83.8 percent.

Hey, no, an 83% profit margin is perfectly reasonable.

Come on.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Where'd that figure come from, BTW?

Yahoo finance, comparing total revenue with net profit. The actual money they make over and above operating expenses.

I don't care if the profits for insurance are less than 5% when their prices are through the roof.

Then your issue isn't the insurance companies. Their prices are directly based off what they get charged by health care providers. And by the way, the CBO has already said that the scheme being proposed by Obama will do exactly nothing about health care prices meaning the root cause of the problem isn't addressed.

And, please tell me you're not actually defending corporations that take advantage of sick people... Seriously?

I'm talking about the insurance companies.

Profits registered by the 10 drug companies on the list were equal to more than half the $69.6 billion in profits netted by the entire roster of Fortune 500 companies - when all losses are subtracted from all gains.

Hey, wow. They're really hurting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/id ... 8920090420

The stronger dollar, by lowering the value of overseas inventories, improved the cost of goods sold -- boosting profit margins 6.9 percentage points to 83.8 percent.

Hey, no, an 83% profit margin is perfectly reasonable.

Come on.

You first. At no point have I defended drug company's. The one question I have in these situations, which I always do, is are they talking about gross or net profit or even total revenue. Net profit is the actual money made that is owed to no one. What people typically consider to be "profit." That said, what I'm seeing is Eli Lilly operating at a loss at the moment with a net profit of -7.8% If I were you I'd use one of the other drug companies that look to be running around 16 to 26% profit margins to vilify.

Tyyr wrote:...And by the way, the CBO has already said that the scheme being proposed by Obama will do exactly nothing about health care prices meaning the root cause of the problem isn't addressed.

Hey, trust me, I'm not some liberal loony that thinks Obama is a god; I voted for Bush twice.

It's starting to look like all the talk of "change" was rhetoric. A lying politician. Go figure.

Tyyr wrote:

And, please tell me you're not actually defending corporations that take advantage of sick people... Seriously?

I'm talking about the insurance companies.

Yes.

Call me when they deny your claim despite years of prompt payment, or find some loophole that allows them to drop your coverage altogether. My mom worked for Prudential (you may have heard of them) for several months. She quit when she was told that step one in evaluating a new claim is to toss it in the garbage.

Tyyr wrote:That said, what I'm seeing is Eli Lilly operating at a loss at the moment with a net profit of -7.8% If I were you I'd use one of the other drug companies that look to be running around 16 to 26% profit margins to vilify.

No, I'll vilify them. When my friend's dad blew his brains out (he'd never owned a gun; bought one just to off himself) after being prescribed Prozac, they settled with him for $50,000.

Funny thing is, it wasn't isolated. Bankruptcy is hardly good enough for "people" like that.

Tsukiyumi wrote:No, I'll vilify them. When my friend's dad blew his brains out (he'd never owned a gun; bought one just to off himself) after being prescribed Prozac, they settled with him for $50,000.

I've got to take exception to this. Why does the pharmaceutical company owe him anything? My doc prescribed Vasotec for my essential hypertension. Should I be able to sue if my hypertension was bad enough to not respond to the amount of Vasotec I was prescribed? Hell no.

There are lot of things that major providers do that is outright shitty; however, there is a trend to demonize them for everything, whether they deserve the blame or not, because of their size and general success.

Mikey wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:No, I'll vilify them. When my friend's dad blew his brains out (he'd never owned a gun; bought one just to off himself) after being prescribed Prozac, they settled with him for $50,000.

I've got to take exception to this. Why does the pharmaceutical company owe him anything? My doc prescribed Vasotec for my essential hypertension. Should I be able to sue if my hypertension was bad enough to not respond to the amount of Vasotec I was prescribed? Hell no.

There are lot of things that major providers do that is outright shitty; however, there is a trend to demonize them for everything, whether they deserve the blame or not, because of their size and general success.

In this case, they're to blame because the drug likely caused him to commit suicide. See the linked article. There are dozens more, if I need to link them. They knew about these risks, and still put it on the market anyways. The FDA is just as complicit, IMO.

See, he actually liked his dad; if they offed my dad, I'd throw a party.

If they were responsible for the death of anyone I care about, monetary compensation would be irrelevant.

I'd call teh FDA more responsible, if anything. Like it or not, you live in a regulated capitalism. If you had a hat shop, and the government told you it was OK to sell a certain hat (even though you used a small amount of mercury) - and if you didn't sell that hat, you'd be swallowed up by your competitors - your idealism about not selling that hat would vanish pretty quick.

Mikey wrote:...Like it or not, you live in a regulated capitalism.

I don't like it.

Mikey wrote:...If you had a hat shop, and the government told you it was OK to sell a certain hat (even though you used a small amount of mercury) - and if you didn't sell that hat, you'd be swallowed up by your competitors - your idealism about not selling that hat would vanish pretty quick.

So... it's okay to sell a product that will kill some people, because you have to compete? That's one of the best arguments against the competitive system I've ever heard.

Since when is not killing people "Idealism"?

How about simply not selling anything that wasn't proven to be safe?

Rochey wrote:How about simply not selling anything that wasn't proven to be safe?

That would be too nice for big business.

Rochey wrote:How about simply not selling anything that wasn't proven to be safe?

stitch626 wrote:That would be too nice for big business.

Exactly.

Rochey wrote:How about simply not selling anything that wasn't proven to be safe?

That would sort of put drug companies out of business, and before Tsuki starts to crow about how wonderful that would be I mean every one of them, permanently. There's no way to prove that a medicine is 100% safe. There will always be that one or two oddballs with some unknown condition that reacts badly to a drug and kills them. Or some cocktail of prescriptions that kills them. If you mandated that only drugs proven to be perfectly safe could be sold that would end the development of drugs.

The fact is they test drugs, a lot. Half the reason they're so damned expensive is that drugs spend years in testing before being released. When a drug is proven to be safe enough it's allowed to be marketed. Any adverse reactions are noted and doctors informed. That being said the case Tsuki is using demonstrates that the FDA needs better control on the process. However you can't make a drug 100% safe, which if you read what he linked should be obvious as the article linked indicates that the side effects of Prozac were/are not anomalous but simply above average.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Hey, trust me, I'm not some liberal loony that thinks Obama is a god; I voted for Bush twice.

It's starting to look like all the talk of "change" was rhetoric. A lying politician. Go figure.

Gee, you mean the guy just said what he needed to in order to get in office? Wow, who'd think a Chicago politician might not be playing it straight.

I mention the CBO because its findings on the current proposal are that it will ultimately do absolutely nothing about costs which are the root problem of the current situation. In other words the current proposal is pretty much a waste of time of money. Once again the government is trying to give the US a tylenol for a brain tumor so that they can look compassionate and proactive without actually doing something useful.

Tyyr wrote:Yes.

Call me when they deny your claim despite years of prompt payment, or find some loophole that allows them to drop your coverage altogether. My mom worked for Prudential (you may have heard of them) for several months. She quit when she was told that step one in evaluating a new claim is to toss it in the garbage.

You have your horror stories and your opinion. My immediate family has had something like ten major surgeries for as long as I can remember, no denial of the claim, not even a whimper. My father has a cronic condition, the insurance company never even flinched on payment. My daughter had three major surgeries in her first year and the insurance company didn't bat an eye. My little girl alone as sucked more money out of the insurance company than they will ever get back in premiums out of me. If insurance companies really are looking for any reason possible to deny claims or drop coverage then someone is asleep at the wheel when it comes to the people I know.

No, I'll vilify them. When my friend's dad blew his brains out (he'd never owned a gun; bought one just to off himself) after being prescribed Prozac, they settled with him for $50,000.

Funny thing is, it wasn't isolated. Bankruptcy is hardly good enough for "people" like that.

Allow me to be a bastard for a moment but if he was on Prozac he was depressed and depressed people can be suicidal. Just because he took Prozac doesn't mean that's why he killed himself. Additionally your initial issue with them seemed to be their profit margins in one sector where as overall they aren't even profitable right now.

Tyyr wrote:...However you can't make a drug 100% safe, which if you read what he linked should be obvious as the article linked indicates that the side effects of Prozac were/are not anomalous but simply above average.

I agree. I just think a drug for treating depression should probably not be released if it may cause suicidal impulses.

Tyyr wrote:Gee, you mean the guy just said what he needed to in order to get in office? Wow, who'd think a Chicago politician might not be playing it straight.

This is part of why I wish a moderately large asteroid would hit in the Atlantic.

Tyyr wrote:Once again the government is trying to give the US a tylenol for a brain tumor so that they can look compassionate and proactive without actually doing something useful.

Regardless of our opinions on social issues, we can certainly agree on that.

Tyyr wrote:You have your horror stories and your opinion.

It is neither a story nor opinion. My mom quit soon after that; she realized that Prudential couldn't care less about the people they're being paid to protect.

Tyyr wrote:My immediate family has had something like ten major surgeries for as long as I can remember, no denial of the claim, not even a whimper. My father has a cronic condition, the insurance company never even flinched on payment. My daughter had three major surgeries in her first year and the insurance company didn't bat an eye. My little girl alone as sucked more money out of the insurance company than they will ever get back in premiums out of me. If insurance companies really are looking for any reason possible to deny claims or drop coverage then someone is asleep at the wheel when it comes to the people I know.

My Grandparents never had any trouble at all either; they were insured by Shell Oil. You have bog-standard family-plan insurance? Well, then you've been lucky, and I'm glad for your children's sake.

Tyyr wrote:Allow me to be a b*****d for a moment

You mean as opposed to the rest of the time?

Tyyr wrote:...but if he was on Prozac he was depressed and depressed people can be suicidal.

CAN BE. Doesn't mean they are. Especially not in this case.

Tyyr wrote:Just because he took Prozac doesn't mean that's why he killed himself.

Yes, it's probably just a massive coincidence.

Tyyr wrote:Additionally your initial issue with them seemed to be their profit margins in one sector where as overall they aren't even profitable right now.

That company in particular isn't currently profitable. R&D costs for drug companies account for a fraction of their expenditures. A lot of it goes to lobbying and marketing so they can hook people on the next generation of poison they're developing.

Yet somehow, marijuana is illegal.