A Chase After Wind

Follow-up Question About Health Insurance
posted by Amy on September 15, 2009 at 10:36 AM in Politics, Economy, Current Affairs

I just heard a guy on NPR say that insurance companies should be tightly regulated so that they would not be allowed to make the kinds of profits that they are making.

Hmm.

Now just the other night, my father, who is an extremely smart man and is also Republican to the core who gets most of his news from Faux Fox, was explaining to me that insurance companies are required by the goverment to make a consideral profit based on actuarial mathmatics. In other words, they HAVE to have a certain amount of cash reserves that come from profits to be able to pay out, even if their business is shrinking.

If insurance companies are going to pay for when we get sick, don't they need to have lots of money?

(I know that this is very closely tied to issues like denying coverage to those who get sick - of course that should be made illegal - and whether or not healthcare should depend on for-profit companies. I know. That is not what I am asking about.)

Permalink | 5 Commented |

____________________________________________________

Related Entries

Ugh, A Post About Health Care September 10, 2009

Kacie (guest)

Comment posted on September 15th, 2009 at 03:03 PM

So... it is super, super rare for me to find a 20-something female who blogs about life and theology and politics. I am one as well, and although I follow a lot of blogs, there's just not a lot of girls out there who like to talk theology and politics!

All that to say, I'm glad to have found you. I'm also interested in your "about me" blog that says you're a former Catholic. I am currently innundated with friends/family/blogs about people converting from evangelicalism and especially the Reformed church into the Catholic church. That always makes me wonder if anyone converts the other way around.

Reply to this comment

chaseafterwind

Comment posted on September 15th, 2009 at 04:32 PM

Oh, and one other thing - my Presbyterian church is FULL of ex-Catholics, so I have a feeling there is always a stream of folks going in both directions. :)

Reply to this comment

chaseafterwind

Comment posted on September 15th, 2009 at 03:15 PM

Thanks for the comment Kacie! I will be checking out your blog as well! :)

You can read a little bit about my ideas on theology in the archives, but I have not yet directly addressed my move from Catholicism to Reformed Protestantism. Hopefully I will someday, but it is a daunting subject to write about, and one that can easily become emotionally charged. But feel free to email me with any specific questions; you can find my email address at the very bottom of the right-hand column. Just click on my name. :) Btw, you are very right about the huge movement of Reformed Christians to Catholicism - there is a very good reason for that, but too much to go into right now! :)

Reply to this comment

Lisa (guest)

Comment posted on September 15th, 2009 at 02:55 PM

The question seems rooted in a misapplication of accounting terms. "Profit" in the two instances do not refer to the same thing at all. Companies do need to have money to pay out, but that money wouldn't go in the profit column. It is overhead. That extra money isn't just sitting around waiting to get paid out. "Profit" is what goes doesn't get paid out. Most of the massive profits go to investors, though the executive pay at most insurance companies is obscene. Thus, insurance companies need to have money available, but that is separate from "profit." When someone talks about limiting profits, they mean what leaves the company. There are plenty of non-profit insurance companies throughout the world.

Reply to this comment

chaseafterwind

Comment posted on September 15th, 2009 at 03:10 PM

That smacking sound is the sound of me hitting my forehead. I am well aware that there are non-profit insurance companies, and I didn't bother to think about what the difference would be. Still, my father is an accountant, so it is odd to me that he would be so careless with his terms when he is a rather meticulous thinker. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

Reply to this comment