FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Those "Evil" Healthcare Companies...





jmi256
There's been a lot of lip service thrown around by Obama and the other left-wing liberals about how "evil" the doctors, nurses and everyone else in the healthcare industry has been in their quest for the almighty dollar. But the AP decided to compare the profit margins of healthcare insurers versus other industries ad found they are well below other industries. Looks like another fringe liberal argument for dismantling the healthcare system we have and are happy with in favor of their government-run healthcare scheme can be safely moved into the debunked column. Kudos to the AP for trying to regain some journalistic integrity and refusing to goosestep to the rest of the liberal media’s cheerleading for Obama. I wonder how long until the fringe left decides to attack the AP as they have everyone else who refuses to follow the party line.


Quote:

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

WASHINGTON (AP) - Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:


THE CLAIMS

_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'" obscene profits."

_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.


THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

Source = http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html
Ophois
Quote:
Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.
Well that makes perfect sense. Everyone has access to these products, and more people purchase those products more often than health insurance. Almost 43 million people don't have health insurance(more than 10% of our population), whereas those other industries sell their products to everyone, multiple times a day, including to the demographic with the most disposable income: teenagers.

Quote:
In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."
I take no issue with a private company making profit. That's what they set out to do, and good for them if they succeed. That part in bold is what I have a problem with. Whether the insurance companies make "obscene" profits or not is irrelevant. The fact remains, people are dying because of how our health care system is being run, and it's completely avoidable. To me, profit margins have almost nothing to do with why health care needs to be reformed. 42.6 million people need coverage, period.

Quote:
The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.
To hell with it then. I'll accuse them of malfeasance. Any idiot can go on the internet and look up countless cases of people being denied their claims, because the insurance companies decided to start splitting hairs after the person showed them a huge medical bill. Obama's plan may suck, but that does not equate to our current system not sucking.

Anyone who stands in defense of the morality of health insurance companies is an idiot. They are one of the most morally bankrupt industries there is. All throughout this health care debacle, cases were cited on this site about health insurance companies denying coverage for stupid reasons or no reason at all, and refusing to pay claims for the same stupid/lack of reasons. I will be glad to look it up if anyone actually needs to see these cases, again(for those who live under rocks).

As I said, I don't care about them making a buck, that's the way industry works. But peoples' lives are at stake, and muddying the waters with an argument over money only serves to distract from that fact. And both sides are falling for this distraction. I don't care who started it(god I sound like I'm talking to children), this kind of crap needs to end so we can have real health care reform, not this whiny ass debate over socialism and profit.
handfleisch
Ophois wrote:
Anyone who stands in defense of the morality of health insurance companies is an idiot. They are one of the most morally bankrupt industries there is. All throughout this health care debacle, cases were cited on this site about health insurance companies denying coverage for stupid reasons or no reason at all, and refusing to pay claims for the same stupid/lack of reasons. I will be glad to look it up if anyone actually needs to see these cases, again(for those who live under rocks).

As I said, I don't care about them making a buck, that's the way industry works. But peoples' lives are at stake, and muddying the waters with an argument over money only serves to distract from that fact. And both sides are falling for this distraction. I don't care who started it(god I sound like I'm talking to children), this kind of crap needs to end so we can have real health care reform, not this whiny ass debate over socialism and profit.


Exactly. And the bodies are stacking up, no matter what some AP opinionator wants to distract us with. Are we supposed to cry and repent because health insurers are "only" 35th out of the 500 top profiteers?

Quote:
FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 500
deanhills
@jmi: common sense says there has to be something wrong with those figures as it is well known that medical professionals are the highest earners of all professions by a large margin.

I did a very superficial search, but this is what I found in WikiAnswers for example:
Quote:
The 2004 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Statics' Occupational Survey revealed the following:


The 25 highest paid professions fall into five categories:

Medical and dental
Business and technology and management
Airline and space
Law
Engineering and science

Medical and dental specialists top the list of the highest paid professions, as they hold numbers one through eight of the 25 highest earning jobs as well as five other rankings on the 2004 list. Anesthesiologists are number one, internists number two and obstetricians and gynecologists number three of the top professional earners in the United States. Oral surgeons take the fourth spot, orthodontists the fifth and prosthodontists the sixth. Psychiatrists are listed as the seventh of the highest paid professions, while surgeons are ranked as the eighth. The average 2004 income for these eight professions is more than $145,600 US dollars (USD).

Family and general physicians, with their average annual 2004 salary listed at $137,090 USD, place tenth on the Survey. Pediatricians, at an average income of $135,730 USD in 2004, are ranked eleventh. Thirteenth on the list of the highest paid professions are dentists, with an average annual 2004 salary of $125,060 USD, while podiatrists are ranked eighteenth with an average income of $94,400 in 2004. According to the Survey, optometrists, with an average salary of $88,410 in 2004, are the twenty-third highest paid professionals in the United States.


Business and technology management professions occupy three of the 25 highest paid professions listed on the Occupational Statistics Survey. Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), with an average annual salary of $140,350 USD in 2004, rank as the ninth highest paid professionals. Computer and Information Technology (IT) managers rank as the twentieth highest earning professionals with an average 2004 income of $92,570 USD. Marketing managers, with average 2004 earnings of $87,640 USD, are ranked twenty-fourth out of the 25 highest paid professions on the Survey.

Airline and space industry jobs are listed as the twelfth, fourteenth and sixteenth highest paid professions in the United States. Airline pilots, copilots and airline engineers earn about $129,250 USD, according to the 2004 statistics. The 2004 average salary of air traffic controllers is about $102,030 USD per year, while astronomers earned an average of $97,320 USD in 2004.

Law-related professions rank seventeenth and nineteenth on the 2004 Occupational Statistics Survey. The average 2004 salary of lawyers is listed as $94,930 USD. Judges and magistrates earn an average of $93,070 USD, according to the 2004 Survey.

Engineering and science professions account for four of the 25 highest paid professions listed on the 2004 Survey. Engineering managers, with an average 2004 annual salary of $97,630 USD, rank as the fifteenth highest earning professionals. Natural Science managers are ranked at the twenty-first highest paid professionals at an average income of $88,660 USD in 2004. Petroleum engineers are listed at number twenty-two on the list due to the findings of their average income at $88,500 USD in 2004. A physicist, with an average annual 2004 salary of $87,450 USD, is the twenty-fifth highest earning professional of the 25 highest paid professions on the 2004 Survey.

jmi256
Ophois wrote:
Quote:
Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

Well that makes perfect sense. Everyone has access to these products, and more people purchase those products more often than health insurance. Almost 43 million people don't have health insurance (more than 10% of our population), whereas those other industries sell their products to everyone, multiple times a day, including to the demographic with the most disposable income: teenagers.

You’re getting market cap and profitability mixed up. Plus your argument that more is spent within “other industries” debunks another common liberal argument that America is spending too much on healthcare. If you are now arguing that more is spent on these other industries, where is the call to socialize Tupperware? (Please note the sarcasm.) Or is it just the case that you’ll use that argument when it benefits your point and argue against it when it blows up in your face (not specifically “you,” Ophois, but the more general “you”). The truth is everyone may have access to these other products, but they don’t buy more and their lower market cap reflects this. The market cap for Hershey’s, Tupperware, etc. are lower, yet they have higher profit margins. This is because the profit insurance companies make (revenue – costs = profit) is much less due to the high cost of treatment. (Profit margin is calculated differently some times, but a common usage is profit/revenue.) Surgery that is charged at say $10k may cost $9,800 in expenses (assuming a 2% profit cited in the article). The other companies have lower expenses, and therefore have higher profits margins. The point is, the health insurance companies aren’t gouging the public, as Obama and the Democrats would have you believe. If anything the problem is rising costs/expenses, not coverage, but the Democrats refuse to listen to the Republicans’ ideas on how to lower costs because they are hell-bent on pushing through their agenda regardless of how little sense it makes.


Ophois wrote:
Quote:
In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

I take no issue with a private company making profit. That's what they set out to do, and good for them if they succeed. That part in bold is what I have a problem with. Whether the insurance companies make "obscene" profits or not is irrelevant. The fact remains, people are dying because of how our health care system is being run, and it's completely avoidable. To me, profit margins have almost nothing to do with why health care needs to be reformed. 42.6 million people need coverage, period.

If the point is irrelevant, then why are liberals using scare tactics and this false information to push their agenda? The issue isn’t access. The number of people you cite do have access to health insurance, but they choose not to get coverage. There is nothing in Obama and the Democrats’ healthcare scheme that tackles the real issues. If anything, they will make it worse by increasing costs.



Ophois wrote:
Quote:
The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

To hell with it then. I'll accuse them of malfeasance. Any idiot can go on the internet and look up countless cases of people being denied their claims, because the insurance companies decided to start splitting hairs after the person showed them a huge medical bill. Obama's plan may suck, but that does not equate to our current system not sucking.

Anyone who stands in defense of the morality of health insurance companies is an idiot. They are one of the most morally bankrupt industries there is. All throughout this health care debacle, cases were cited on this site about health insurance companies denying coverage for stupid reasons or no reason at all, and refusing to pay claims for the same stupid/lack of reasons. I will be glad to look it up if anyone actually needs to see these cases, again(for those who live under rocks).

As I said, I don't care about them making a buck, that's the way industry works. But peoples' lives are at stake, and muddying the waters with an argument over money only serves to distract from that fact. And both sides are falling for this distraction. I don't care who started it(god I sound like I'm talking to children), this kind of crap needs to end so we can have real health care reform, not this whiny ass debate over socialism and profit.


Fine, let’s have a rational argument, but it won’t happen by continuing to use hysterical arguments and scare tactics. Claims are denied and people go without treatment even in countries where they have government-run, socialist-style healthcare schemes, and people are dying there as well. And I doubt doctors, nurses, physical therapists, administrators, etc. got into the industry because they are “morally bankrupt.” If anything, the low profit margins of the insurance companies show the opposite. The article was just pointing out that the argument that healthcare insurance companies are not the profit-laden, “evil” organizations that liberals have tried to paint them out to be.


deanhills wrote:
@jmi: common sense says there has to be something wrong with those figures as it is well known that medical professionals are the highest earners of all professions by a large margin.

I did a very superficial search, but this is what I found in WikiAnswers for example:
Quote:
The 2004 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Statics' Occupational Survey revealed the following:

DH, you’re looking at the individual professions (i.e doctors, specialists, etc.), while the article is looking at health insurance companies. Health insurance companies don’t get to dictate what their costs (i.e. what doctors, etc. charge) are, even though they set limits on what they will pay out for insurance claims. Doctors, etc. do, and one of the reasons the costs have gotten so out of hand is government intrusion.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
DH, you’re looking at the individual professions (i.e doctors, specialists, etc.), while the article is looking at health insurance companies. Health insurance companies don’t get to dictate what their costs (i.e. what doctors, etc. charge) are, even though they set limits on what they will pay out for insurance claims. Doctors, etc. do, and one of the reasons the costs have gotten so out of hand is government intrusion.
Right. I should have qualified why I was looking at the doctors and specialists, as I was trying to say this is one of the reasons for the higher cost of medicare in the United States in comparison with other countries. The good part of course is you get of the best specialist treatment in the world, but the offsetting negative is the overall cost per capita of health care is then higher, and since there is just so much money in the pot, quite a number of people may not be treated equally as a result.

Your article about the healthcare insurance is only relative as an industry vs other industries. The real cost is in the medical care system not in insurance. That part would have to be dealt with successfully first before one starts on healthcare insurance. In other words, for healthcare insurance to be successfully employed, it has to be affordable, and it cannot be affordable while healthcare cost per head in the United States is that high. If the cost had been lower, then health insurance would have been successfully implemented decades ago.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
The real cost is in the medical care system not in insurance. That part would have to be dealt with successfully first before one starts on healthcare insurance. In other words, for healthcare insurance to be successfully employed, it has to be affordable, and it cannot be affordable while healthcare cost per head in the United States is that high. If the cost had been lower, then health insurance would have been successfully implemented decades ago.

Exactly. But the Democrats are focusing on their insurance scheme and increasing costs instead of tackling the core issues: i.e. lowering costs. (And apparently the name is also a core problem in their minds, LOL.)
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
But the Democrats are focusing on their insurance scheme and increasing costs instead of tackling the core issues: i.e. lowering costs. (And apparently the name is also a core problem in their minds, LOL.)
Right! On both accounts. I've always argued that the whole situation needs to be tackled from the bottom up, rather from the top down, at the regional and State level. Government could assist by creating forums such as Commissions of Enquiry to facilitate matters, but to do it the other way round is like building a house without a foundation.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

Fine, let’s have a rational argument, but it won’t happen by continuing to use hysterical arguments and scare tactics. Claims are denied and people go without treatment even in countries where they have government-run, socialist-style healthcare schemes, and people are dying there as well. And I doubt doctors, nurses, physical therapists, administrators, etc. got into the industry because they are “morally bankrupt.” If anything, the low profit margins of the insurance companies show the opposite. The article was just pointing out that the argument that healthcare insurance companies are not the profit-laden, “evil” organizations that liberals have tried to paint them out to be.


At this point, the fundamental right wing traits are denial and projection.
Moonspider
Ophois wrote:
To hell with it then. I'll accuse them of malfeasance. Any idiot can go on the internet and look up countless cases of people being denied their claims, because the insurance companies decided to start splitting hairs after the person showed them a huge medical bill. Obama's plan may suck, but that does not equate to our current system not sucking.

Anyone who stands in defense of the morality of health insurance companies is an idiot. They are one of the most morally bankrupt industries there is. All throughout this health care debacle, cases were cited on this site about health insurance companies denying coverage for stupid reasons or no reason at all, and refusing to pay claims for the same stupid/lack of reasons. I will be glad to look it up if anyone actually needs to see these cases, again(for those who live under rocks).

As I said, I don't care about them making a buck, that's the way industry works. But peoples' lives are at stake, and muddying the waters with an argument over money only serves to distract from that fact. And both sides are falling for this distraction. I don't care who started it(god I sound like I'm talking to children), this kind of crap needs to end so we can have real health care reform, not this whiny ass debate over socialism and profit.


So what has a larger impact upon overall personal health, quality of life, and longevity? Clean water? Good hygiene? Adequate food supplies? Shelter?

Is health care really a greater moral imperative than food and shelter?

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
Is health care really a greater moral imperative than food and shelter?

Respectfully,
M
Good point. How can we work on fancy medical insurance schemes for all when there are quite a large number of people without the basics of food, shelter, and jobs.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
Is health care really a greater moral imperative than food and shelter?

Respectfully,
M
Good point. How can we work on fancy medical insurance schemes for all when there are quite a large number of people without the basics of food, shelter, and jobs.

Oh my god. What a bizarre tangent. Is this the best we can do in what once was the premiere "Can Do" nation?
Ophois
jimi256 wrote:
You’re getting market cap and profitability mixed up. Plus your argument that more is spent within “other industries” debunks another common liberal argument that America is spending too much on healthcare. If you are now arguing that more is spent on these other industries, where is the call to socialize Tupperware? (Please note the sarcasm.) Or is it just the case that you’ll use that argument when it benefits your point and argue against it when it blows up in your face (not specifically “you,” Ophois, but the more general “you”).
I'm not getting either one confused. As I said, whatever amount of money they make is irrelevant. If tupperware were something that people needed, I would push for a way to provide every American with it as well.
Quote:
The truth is everyone may have access to these other products, but they don’t buy more and their lower market cap reflects this. The market cap for Hershey’s, Tupperware, etc. are lower, yet they have higher profit margins. This is because the profit insurance companies make (revenue – costs = profit) is much less due to the high cost of treatment.
Hmmm... could this explain why they compromise morals and ethics in order to deny people their claims, or to deny babies insurance because they are a few pounds too big?
Quote:
(Profit margin is calculated differently some times, but a common usage is profit/revenue.) Surgery that is charged at say $10k may cost $9,800 in expenses (assuming a 2% profit cited in the article). The other companies have lower expenses, and therefore have higher profits margins. The point is, the health insurance companies aren’t gouging the public, as Obama and the Democrats would have you believe. If anything the problem is rising costs/expenses, not coverage, but the Democrats refuse to listen to the Republicans’ ideas on how to lower costs because they are hell-bent on pushing through their agenda regardless of how little sense it makes.
Here, I totally agree with you. As I have said before(despite my apparently fringe leftist beliefs), I think that health care reform is going in the wrong direction. To be honest, I have not heard a good alternative from the Republican party, and if you could show me some(I am way too lazy right now to look for one), then I would be more than willing to consider it. But up to this point, all I have heard from the Republicans are cries of "Socialism!" and whatnot. Forgive me if I sound like a broken record, but the Republican party is not exactly 'well organized' at this point in time, and they tend to spend more time and energy lashing out at the Democrats, rather than putting forth alternative ideas.
Moonspider wrote:
So what has a larger impact upon overall personal health, quality of life, and longevity? Clean water? Good hygiene? Adequate food supplies? Shelter?

Is health care really a greater moral imperative than food and shelter?
All that stuff is important, very important indeed. I don't think it has to be scrapped in order to focus on health care. Damn, we are a big nation, full of smart and hard working people, why do we have to choose one or the other? Start a thread on "Quality of life, longevity, clean water, good hygiene, adequate food supplies and shelter" and I will be one of the biggest supporters of trying to tackle those problems too.
Bringing up "B" doesn't mean that "A" is any more or less important.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
Is health care really a greater moral imperative than food and shelter?

Respectfully,
M
Good point. How can we work on fancy medical insurance schemes for all when there are quite a large number of people without the basics of food, shelter, and jobs.

Oh my god. What a bizarre tangent. Is this the best we can do in what once was the premiere "Can Do" nation?
Would "can do" abilities still be possible in an environment where the Government is acting more like a caretaker than a motivator of people to take care of themselves?
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
Would "can do" abilities still be possible in an environment where the Government is acting more like a caretaker than a motivator of people to take care of themselves?
And what of those who can't take care of themselves? Motivation means jack shit to people who can't afford, or are not approved for, health insurance. If every American could afford to pay for it, this would not even be an issue. The problem is that we have over 40 million people who are uninsured, and the biggest reasons are affordability and qualification. Neither of which "motivation" will do a goddamn thing for.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Would "can do" abilities still be possible in an environment where the Government is acting more like a caretaker than a motivator of people to take care of themselves?
And what of those who can't take care of themselves?
They are obviously calculated in. Do we now have to have a Government that takes care of everyone so that those who cannot take care of themselves can be taken care off?
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
They are obviously calculated in. Do we now have to have a Government that takes care of everyone so that those who cannot take care of themselves can be taken care off?
Seriously?
Let me ask you something.
If you are in the US, and you are with your grandmother, and she has a heart attack on the street, who do you think comes and takes care of her? When your house catches on fire, who do you think puts it out? These are government run institutions. Should I use your logic, and say "why should the government feel obligated to put out the fire in your house"? Why do you feel they are obligated to do that, but not to provide health care? Why the hell is there such a huge double standard there?

I don't expect anyone to actually answer those questions, because I have been asking them for a while now, and all I hear is accusations of "socialism" and "schemes", but nobody has yet answered the question: Why is the government obligated to provide police protection, education, fire departments, and EMS, yet health care is such a huge NO-NO? What makes health care any different than these, in an obligatory sense?

Maybe the government should just provide you people with the "motivation" to put out your own fires, mend your own gun shot wounds, educate your own kids, and protect yourself from crime. That sounds fair, right?
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
Should I use your logic, and say "why should the government feel obligated to put out the fire in your house"? Why do you feel they are obligated to do that, but not to provide health care? Why the hell is there such a huge double standard there?
That is most certainly not my logic. You created it for me. I said that crises would be calculated in services as they have always been. You make it sound as though Government is not taking care of anyone. That is not true at all. There are medical care organizations that have been set up to look after people who cannot look after themselves. Perhaps they need to be improved and expanded as apparently they are not working perfectly. Trying to change the whole system to take care of those who cannot help themselves, when there are already established organizations set up to do that, but not working perfectly enough, and especially when there are not enough funds to cover everyone, has to be foolish in the extreme. The majority of Americans seem to have coverage and are looking after themselves. Ways have to be found to effectively look after a minority that cannot look after themselves. There are already organizations set up for the minority, but need great improvement. If it had been the majority of Americans who could not look after themselves, then it would have been a completely different matter and real cause of concern.
Related topics
my website
GM to Axe 30000 Jobs in US
land of the free uses torture
What annoys you
Do you play emulators?
A (Thai) girl like me :-P
Bermuda Triangle
Should Google provide website hosting?
What would be your dream job?
Why can't we make alternative fuel vehicles a priority?
Do you believe "Fan death"?
What is your favorite cartoon character?
Nasty Deer crash! WARNING: EXTREME GORE!
Dems/BP introduce Cap & Trade
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.