Our founding fathers rolled over in their graves on a whole lot of other issues such as: Freeing slaves, civil rights, womens rights, desegregation. Should I go on?
Unbelievable decision. The Supremes are so out of touch with our Constitution that they should be deemed betrayers of their sacred oath of office.
Any chance of economic recovery for us is now in serious doubt for the next 20 years unless this Bill is over turned by Congress and a NEW administration.
Really? How about Washington’s mandate every able white male buy a firearm in the Militia Acts of 1792? Or, the first congress in 1790 requiring ship owners to buy medical insurance for their seamen? Or, in 1798 when Adams signed into law all those seamen being required to buy their own hospital insurance. This is absolutely Constitutional.
The question is – what country to move to? Europe is much worse than here, South America is run by dictators which is also worse. Africa is in turmoil except for perhaps South Africa. I think Australia may be a choice. They only have 20 million people down there and they keep shrimp on the barbie.
The court decision will be a big deal to the shrinking minority who support this boondoggle. Conversely, it might help energise those who find the unread legislation and the manner in which it was passed to be sufficiently odeous to justify making a change up top.
The mandate was defined as a tax. The commerce clause was upheld by Roberts. By defining the mandate as a tax, it precludes the unconstitutionality of the mandate had it been considered within the commerce clause. Roberts made an objective ruling. I can’t argue with that. But, yes, we’re heading down a path to Socialism. We can stop this progression in it’s tracks- GET OUT THERE AND VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
Congratulations to the Supreme Court for making the right decision. I am so tired of the right holding up any and all reform, just because they can. It’s about time we move in any direction to fix the mess that is US Healthcare. This is no more Socialist than Medicare. So Melissa, if you don’t intend to accept Medicare, please, move to another country.
Dirk, please look at Canada, UK, France all have failed to contain cost. Care is rationed, people like my parents were sent home to die in their mid 50’s. Medicare is a social prgram that was shoved down our throats, so November looms large for those that truly love and respect freedom.
Dirk – they are taking away our freedoms, I’m not against healthcare for those that REALLY need it, but am not happy with the way our system has been jerked around by those above, how many of them will use the “system” we’re stuck with – NONE they have a permanent Healthplan in place for them – so what’s good for the geese the “gander” has much better and looks down at us!
This is a sad day for the country. Everyone should read the bill. The cost regarding the healthcare portion of the bill is one thing.
Read the rest of the bill and see how many other taxes,fees, government controls,etc. there are in the bill that will affect everyone in the country. There is no free lunch. The government now controls yet another part of your life, and trust me those of us actually working will have to pick up the tab.
Has anyone out there read the opinion? The “tax” for not buying health insurance is 1%. That is less than 1 month of premium for most folks. Like googlegal says “calm down”. Who do you think pays for the healthcare of the uninsured now? YOU DO!
Ins Girl, where does the tax go when it’s collected – it doesn’t go to a premium. The uninsured still have to buy coverage. They can either pay the tax or pay for coverage. The tax is less than what insurance costs. Because the tax does nothing to secure coverage, the uninsured can still go to the hospital, get treated, and then stick you and me with the bill. Yeah, good idea.
Moreover, 50% of the population already pays no income tax, how does the government think they are going to collect this tax? With half the population currently not paying it looks like those with jobs will pick up the bill.
If I recall, isn’t our government planning on hiring an additional 13,000+ IRS workers to collect and manage the additional taxes for this bill? So Obama can claim more jobs created. And if most of this is paperless, I beleive that he can claim they are created ‘Green’ jobs.
Where are you getting such information? Cite sources, because you just sound like you’re cooking this up. You don’t even attempt to answer your own question: Where does this “tax” money go? I’m just dying to see what you come up with since you’re so panicked about it!
Since it is a tax Former, it will be collected by the wonderful IRS and they are hiring 17,000 more of them to pore over your return and make sure you pay the tax. Isn’t bureaucracy great?
It was Governor Romney who put the mandatory health insurance in place in MA, yet now he wants to back out of it because he wants to become president. Heck, he wasn’t even here for 1/4 of his term, because again he was out stumping to be a presidential candidate.
A great day for the sick and poor! Let’s keep this law, and tweak it to keep improving it, not repeal it. We can’t go back to having nothing for our citizens.
As usual the focus is on the application of the law and ignores the urgency of addressing any of the real problems that drive the cost of healthcare. Enact meaningful malpractice reform, effectively prosecute abuse and create a fair system of reimbursement for the providers and,there would be no need for the law.
Finally, a law that may slightly control the greed and the arrogance of the insurance industry. People have been abused by insurance companies ever since they became private-for profit entities in the 1990’s. The law brings the possibility of competition between these companies which would, hopefully, bring premiums down. It also will save 20,000 American lives a year that are lost simply because 45 million Americans have no access to health care other than emergency room care.
Hopefully this is the beginning of taking the profit out of human illness and treating it as a social entity with which any and every society must deal with as fairly and equally as possible. This would make the need for human healthcare more humane and certainly more DEMOCRATIC!
Narsha, We don’t need more Democratic. The Democrats are responsible for the mess we are in. We don’t need more Socialism either. The Healthcare issue could have been solved 2 years ago with Conservative solutions instead of ramming through a Progressive monster which is going to massively increase taxes on the middle class, cause employers to drop Group coverage and lay off employees. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until next year if this trash isn’t thrown out.
The health care mess could have been solved at any time over the past 40 years with Conservative solutions but the Conservatives, even when they controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate fought tooth and nail to guarantee that those solutions would not happen. You are kidding yourself if you believe that the Republicans would have ever taken a step toward helping poor Americans gain access to the same level of health care that they enjoy. It took a super-majority in the Senate or it couldn’t have happened.
Finally, we are on the right track to Universal Health coverage, if all 330 million people participate, the price of coverage will come down and it will become affordable for those who aren’t fortunate enough to have their employers pay for it. It will also benefit big business as they will see a decrease in their cost and free up money for more equipment and hiring. The medical field will be able to reset their charges knowing they are going to be paid for their services. It is a win win situation for all. Eventually the premium structure could be emcompassed as a deduction to one’s pay check while working not affecting individuals who are already in a group sponsored program, thus ellimanting the taxpayer to pick up the slack. Surely and advanced nation of our size and mentality can find a way to make this work for the benefit of us all. Most States if not all required all individuals who have a car to carry minimum coverages prior to the issue of plates to get on the road and as a result the premiums are affordable even for those who don’t work. Banks make it manadatory to have homeowner insurance before they will give you a loan to close on your house. Do any of you out there feel that your health is less important than those? A 25 year old says, I don’t need insurance, I am healthy, why should I spend money on insurance but the next day this 25 year old has a heart attack and needs extensive suregery to survive and due to his/her lack of responsibility we should all have to pay his/her bill? I think not. As the medical field are not allowed to turn anyone away, than it seems only right that everyone should share the burden of the cost together.
If you don’t want to buy car insurance, then don’t buy a car. If you don’t want to buy homeowners insurance, don’t buy a home. Nothing in these situations results in the government taxing you.
This law is completely different. If you don’t want to buy health insurance, then don’t. If you don’t buy insurance, though, then you get taxed…
If you don’t want health insurance, then you are taxed. Nothing about buying a car or home results in taxes.
I am not saying health insurance isn’t important; however, your arguments about car and home insurance are based on elective decisions to participate in commerce. Health insurance has nothing to do with participating in commerce. The mandate says, “if you breathe, then you participate.” There is no elective decision.
The same yahoo that does not buy auto insurance can still buy a car…and hit someone causing damage and injury that will not be insured..which is why we sell UNINSURED MOTORIST coverage…get it? All the same for cripes sake.
AJ, I think you are right. People seem to have long forgotten to make the distinction between health insurance and health care – some younger folks even think it is all one and the same thing. But it is not. One of the key issues surrounding this is that all Americans use health care even if they say they do not. Everyone participates in the commerce of health care – one of the biggest businesses in the U.S. If they are 20 something and say they don’t need it, I say lets go back and ask their parents if they ever got health care for this person as a child – perhaps ear infections, sport injuries, well child visits and vacinnations, even worse afflictions. No one opts out of health “care” when they need it, just that pesky insurance thing.
Sarah, Our first duty now is to make sure Romney wins since he renewed his pledge to repeal it. We intend to hold his feet to the fire. I think this decision has galvanized Conservatives to redouble their efforts to get all these Progressive radicals out of office before they can destroy the country completely.
What a sad, sad day for America. While I understand and agree that all Americans should have access to health care, I am strongly opposed to how the Government has structured the system. First, I do not believe, as an American, I should be mandated to buy or not buy anything! Free will is a God given right given to all people!!! Second, I do not believe that employers and working Americans should have to foot, yet another, bill for the masses. It will only be a matter of time before this new tax overwhelms the private sector as well as government. If you study history, seriously study it, you will see many similarities between what is happening now and what has led to numerous social uprisings/wars. This tax is just another symptom of a broken system that will inevitably drive the U.S. to some sort of revolution. The system has been corrupted by greed, on both sides of the argument, and is driving American’s apart. What will it take to bring us together?
How do we make sure under your scenario that you pay up front for health care services when you need it, or opt out at that point in time if you do not pay.
Now is the time to support our President by re-electing him and giving him a congress he can work with this November.It’s time to vote out the Republicans that ran on jobs,jobs,jobs in the 2010 mid terms and then turned around and did nothing but attack abortion rights,gay rights and other social issues.For those of you out there that continue to support the big money backing Republican party a few simple questions….Why are you voting against your own interests ? Why do you support a party that thinks it’s fair for you to pay a higher tax rate than the wealthy? Why do you listen to and take the same position as fat cat broadcasters like Lindbaugh and Hannity ? Do you really think their interests and agenda are the same as yours ? The truth is that the Republican party DID nearly bankrupt this great country and they HAVE fillibustered nearly everything this President has put forward to try and get the country moving and put people back to work. Do I agree with everything this President has done ? NO…but really thats not any different than any other President we’ve had. However I do think the current Republican led house has done nothing to help move this counrty ahead and has done everything they can to prevent recovery in an attempt to discredit this President and get him out of office,a case could be made that they are guilty of treason but at the least it’s certainly not acting in the interests of all Americans. And finally,we are all proud patriotic Americans aren’t we ? Then how do you cast your vote against this President who on his watch got public enemy #1 Osama Bin-Laden.
Bush chased after Obama for 8 years. Obama chased after Osama for a little over 2.
If Bush had not chased after him for 8, he never would have dwindled down to being caught. Neither Bush or Obama made the SEALS team that got Osama. Obama did not tell them where to go or change procedure in a way that resulted in Osama getting caught.
So are you trying to say that just because Obama was president he deserves some sort of praise for basically allowing things to keep going on the search for Osama?
I watched an interview where the republicans said they would have not gone in for Osama, so yes the president did make the decsion and Seals performed the attack successfully, he is our Chief In Command in which I as a miltary man still respect, past presidents have done the same, not to name names as there are so many, good leadership made this possible, so yes the credit goes all around, find something else to complain about that makes sense.
June 28, 2012 at 5:53 pm
First Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Tim, You sound like one of those paid Media Matters bloggers promoting the Progressive Agenda. You have swallowed all the lies hook, line and sinker and there is probably no hope for you. Progressivism is a mental disease and you have a bad case of it. The Republican House has passed over 20 bills to help the economy and sent them to your buddy Harry Reid only to have him pronounce them DOA and not debate or vote on them. Republicans believe in tax cuts to promote jobs and hiring. Your buddie Obama believes in redistribution of wealth and taxing everyone to death. Is that a pro job program? Have you ever got a job from a poor man? Probably not and you are probably getting ready to join another OWS rally.
I have read all the responses and have yet to see anything about this helping all the critically Ill people in this country who have been getting massively escalated rates and then being refused coverage in the end. Having a wife with a rare disease and bills totaling over 4 mil in the last 14 years I find it amazing that all responding feel that they will never face this type of problem. We need a real control on overcharges and real control that allows people right to coverage. The only way the program will pay out is for everypne to be covered,and the premiums for those that feel they will never be sick “So why buy coverage at all” to be averaged in the rating process for the companies. Also you might find it interesting that the average percentage of the rates charged by Hospitals to break even is only 16.5% of what they are billing. Do you feel that they are overcharging and if not regulated do you think that will escilate? Just some things to think about for all of you who think you will never be ill and need a hospital. Does Bankruptcy sound like a good plan to you?
I don’t think Roberts read the bill any more than the Congress who voted for it. He could have struck down 2,600 pages of it very easily had he been paying attention. I don’t think he will be showing his face in public much in the coming months.
Being forced to purchase healthcare insurance from publicly traded health insurance companies is not socialism. Single payer would be closer to socialism, but the Affordable Care Act is not. If anything, it’s corporate welfare.
Finally the start of a law that makes sense. Sure it will need to be tweeked but at least now we have a platform to build on and not just more greed and gridlock. Instead of those of you out there being so self centered and out of touch with what the long term odds of you being critically ill at some point in your life is, you should now find some comfort in knowing that you will be cared for should that arise. If you are one of the lucky ones then be proud that you are being humanitarian instead of closed minded and greedy. Something else you should be aware of is that nationally the cost of breaking even for a hospital as a portion of what they are billing is 16.5%. Maby now some controls on health costs will be forthcoming. My wife has MS and bills for last 14 years are over 4 million dollars. If you don’t carry coverage what then, Bankruptcy and a free ride through Medicade. Time to start thing past today and well into your futures.
There’s nothing “closet” about it. What’s wrong with being an open-minded and compassionate (read “liberal”) American? We need to stop sticking our heads in the sand relying on words like “independence” and “freedom” to ignore huge social issues that oppress the masses and build the coffers of the already rich and greedier.
Careful googlegal, you are using Marxist words like oppressing the masses. That went on in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the last century. Eventually, it all imploded because their system was so flawed that they couldn’t stay up with the US economically so Eastern Europe got their independence and the Soviet Union dissolved into a bunch of independent Republics. I would like for you to point out how this country has been oppressing the masses. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to get educated, get a job and pull themselves up by their bootstraps to get ahead. However, when you have a system that encourages welfare, entitlements, lazy people will just use the system and they have no desire to work or be successful. They just blame the country for their problems. They are looking for a hand out instead of a hand up. We are celebrating our Independence tomorrow from a ruthless foreign government and we have no desire to have a domestic ruthless government who is trying to take us to Progressive Socialism. November can’t come soon enough.
If the government says I make enough money to buy health insurance, but I don’t, I will be taxed. I still don’t have my own health insurance. Will I get “free” health care if I’m hospitalized?
The reform doesn’t address the underlying reason that healthcare costs continue going up, which is the expensive and inefficient U.S. healthcare delivery system. The consequences of the fee-for-service model put an unnecessary financial burden on patients and employers and raise the overall cost of healthcare. But there are alternative models out there. Direct primary care providers offer high-quality medical care at a capped, transparent price. http://www.whiteglove.com
If this 80% claim payment stays in place, how will United Health care every be able to pay their CEO $110 million annually in total compensation, or Aetna spring for $65 mil for their boss.
This could even affect the pilots for the corporate jets owned by the insurers.
Are you an agent? 30/70 expense ratios apply, even in light of CEO pay.
So if the company had $65 million of surplus after investing your funds and growing it, 70 would go to you, 30% would go to the whole insurance company pay structure.
You receive 70% of the profits they receive. You receive 0% of 0% of the profits the government receives.
The health insurance companies grow capital. The government does not. Therefore even if it had a 15% expense ratio (half that of insurance companies) then they would have 85% maximum payout.
If insurance companies have a 30%, and grow at an annual 10% rate on non paid premiums, then they can essentially grow funds to pay an amount extremely high (very clear, as if the corporate CEO is receiving $65 million, even if he received the entire 30% of the expense ratio you would be receiving about $200 million, which would not exist if the government were in control, but no no no no, you don’t want that $150 million to go to insureds right? If someone is profiting you don’t want anyone to get anything.
Typical democrat.
The more you make sure the insurance company pays out, the less you control insurance fraud, the more you rise costs, and the less investments the insureds receive back to pay claims.
That should read the more you make sure the insurance company pays out instead of investing against unpaid claims the more you make sure they don’t have to pay claims (real health problems)
Bob, the way I see this playing out if the law isn’t repealed in the next administration is as follows. The Healthcare Insurance market will accept the implementation and officially begin being the shills of the government with the exchanges. When they start paying out more in claims than they take in because of all the Pre X’s not being denied, they will just apply for subsidies from HHS. They will stay in business, but only be a tool of the government using online applications, Medicaid like coverage and the Health Insurance agent will be toast. We have seen this coming for a while and have already seen our commissions cut and that is the tip of the iceberg. They are counting on the tax revenue to go up and cutting Medicare benefits to pay for everything. Sounds like a plan, doesn’t it?
Bob: How can you say “70% would go to you”?? Who is YOU? No company gives away 100% of their surplus and profit. There would be no reason to be in business. And the $65M the CEO is getting is not “salary” and therefore included in the 30% expense ratio. After bonuses and stock options, what is the real expense ratio?? That’s economics 101. Take a class in it.
Woooo boy. The real expense ratio is 30%. Expense ratios are based on PREMIUMS received and how much goes to insureds. No matter what you say 70% GOES TO THE INSURED. Now then, the 30% expense ratio IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL COSTS, OPTIONS, BONUSES. This by default is true as for a FACT 70% goes to the insured, we track the money.
We also track surpluses with insurance company, do you check these reports with your insurance companies? I bet not given your reactions.
Now then back to my prior point: If they are investing that 30% enough to pay these bonuses you speak of, what you don’t realize is that the regulations for a fact, before Obama, kept the SAME 30% 70% ratios for profits. Therefore BY DEFAULT: IF THE BONUSES THE PERSON RECEIVES IS 65$ MILLION THAT IS 30%, AND THE REST OF THE 70% IS GOING TO THE INSURED.
You have NOT taken classes on this. And your prior comment was NOT economics.
Bob, Are you having fun playing with googlegal? She doesn’t have a clue what you are talking about. A committed Progressive like her isn’t into facts and figures. We just aren’t being compassionate to the masses by giving them free healthcare and the evil insurance companies fulfill no role in writing health insurance and paying claims for illnesses. If a company is successful and makes a profit on their business, that is a bad thing and only the government is playing fair.
I never said they gave away 100%. They 70-30 with their profits.
You keep saying what is the “real” ratio. Why don’t you get a copy from your insurance company? For medical companies considering it is law that they don’t exceed 70-30 (just changed to 80-20) we know the expense ratio. The real one.
Expense ratio: 70% to claims, 30% investments, bonuses, etc.
Corporate CEO gets a bonus of 50 million. He can’t be the entire 30% of expense ratio. He is part of it. Let’s say the expense ratio is an easy one, 100 million
30% goes to investments, 70% goes to claims.
On the profits, 30% goes to further invetments, pay, and bonuses, 70% goes to claims.
For profits: The 70% 30% does still apply. In fact, that’s why Obama wants to make it 80% 20%. What he does not realize is that if a corporate CEO guy is making tons of money that means the investments are working. If the CEO is getting 20 Million of 30 for an example of the profits, then we have $50 million on that expense ratio at 30%. Three times more is going to the loss pool on the profits.
As they build capital (economics 101) from the unpaid claims they have more to pay for claims that arise. They take a portion (30% how many times do I have to repeat this) and 70% goes to the risk pool.
Someone could not get a $65 million dollar bonus without literally three times more going to the risk pool. It is literally impossible. And your thick head is saying “what about the bonsues!!??”. The bonuses are their share of the pie. They literally only get 30% and you are ticked about it, while you get 70% of the capital they build (money / profits / bonuses etc)
Bob, You have a monumental problem to overcome with googlegal. She didn’t take Econ 101 in school so she doesn’t understand the first thing about Capitalism, profits, expenses. She also doesn’t understand that if we didn’t have businesses making a profit, we would go out of business and the government would have nothing to tax to pay for their burdensome entitlement programs. Large companies in the private sector have always paid their CEO’s and other key employees bonuses for performance. When they fall short, they get replaced. How many CEO’s have been run through AIG in the past 5 years and they are still into us for $80Bill.
Your math is as simple as your brain. 70% doesn’t all go to pay claims. There is something called investment income. That is what is left over after paying taxes, operating expenses, and claims. I have no problem with business making a profit or CEO’s making a large salary. I don’t want to work for an unprofitable company. You’re just fast and loose with your numbers, that’s all.
Wrong. What you are so ignorant of in the insurance industry is the Combined Ratio. 70% goes directly to claims. 30% is an expense ratio. The expense ratio goes to investments, bonuses, CEO pay.
You are so ignorant you can’t add the numbers.
Now go back up to my prior comments:
On the profits (which come from the 30% to 70% split to begin with) it is also split 30% 70%. So if the expense ratio (including bonuses and investments) allows a CEO to get a $60 million dollar bonus, some of that must be going to grow capital, 70% must be going to you, and some most be going to further investment.
You are an ignorant fool. My numbers are 100% accurate. They include everything you just wrote.
30% is expenses of the insurance company including Salaries, Invetments, CEO pay, etc 70% goes to paying losses. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. Obama wants to change it to 80% 20%.
You are so ignornant you do not realize there are already limits.
Bob, I see you are not having any luck convincing googlegal on Econ 101 principles. I hope she is not in a position of authority with a company or they would go broke in a few years.
You called me ignorant 4 times and you don’t even know me. I think that reflects more on you than it does on me. Profit = earned premium PLUS investment income – incurred loss – underwriting expenses. INCOME – EXPENSES. It is not an automatic 30/70% split. Income = 100%. If losses were 50% and underwriting expenses were 30%, there would be 20% profit to shareholders. (The whole point of an insurance company is to make profits.) I am not an idiot, a freaking idiot, or an ignorant fool.
And FirstAgent – keep your snide remarks to yourself. I happen to be in a position of authority with a very profitable company with an outstanding 100 year history. So shut it.
I can call you ignorant based on your facts not who you are. And you are ignorant.
Applying your numbers, which you keep thinking I’m ignoring (I’m not) we have the following:
Incurred loss: Goes into the 70%. Investment income: Is split again into a very similar form as the combined ratio. This is where you are lacking knowledge, it does not dissappear and you don’t know how to track the funds. You say we don’t know where it goes. I said that we do, and asked if you ever looked at a balance sheet for an insurance company. You clearly have not. The average firm is already above 80% when they count their investments which are split from pay to insured. This is only due to their investment tactics which Obama wants to limit. It’s a manipulative statstic method. Some liberal sites try to say it’s 50%. That is incorrect. In the immediate yes, it can be 50% as they invest the rest and pay to the company’s operational costs. In the long run no. Built up companies take from their surplus to keep rates soft and intentionally sit on it to grow more funds. CEO’s do not want to take so much as to harm their future pay.
This is a liberal interpretation, and even it confirms that the average is over 80%.
I am not lacking knowledge. Your communication skills leave alot to be desired. I’m sure if we were discussing this verbally, we would see we are talking apples and oranges. You stated definitively that 70% of income goes to the policyholders to pay claims. I say that it could be 70%, it could be 50%, it could be 100%. Thus a combined ratio over 100%. While operating expense could (not likely) be as low as 30%, that does not mean 70% goes to paying claims. Operating expense and loss expense are taken from total profit which equals Earned Premiums and Investment Income. Hopefully after you deduct expenses, there is something left over for investment, profit, bonus (which are not always budgeted into operating expenses), and surplus. If you disagree with what I just wrote, then you are totally ignoring what I’m saying and just want to argue. I’m done.
We are now a socialist country, no longer a democracy. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves!!!!!!!
Our founding fathers rolled over in their graves on a whole lot of other issues such as: Freeing slaves, civil rights, womens rights, desegregation. Should I go on?
I agree, congress is definitely out of touch with what many many of our citizens wanted – our freedoms are slowly slipping away, how very sad.
Unbelievable decision. The Supremes are so out of touch with our Constitution that they should be deemed betrayers of their sacred oath of office.
Any chance of economic recovery for us is now in serious doubt for the next 20 years unless this Bill is over turned by Congress and a NEW administration.
Really? How about Washington’s mandate every able white male buy a firearm in the Militia Acts of 1792? Or, the first congress in 1790 requiring ship owners to buy medical insurance for their seamen? Or, in 1798 when Adams signed into law all those seamen being required to buy their own hospital insurance. This is absolutely Constitutional.
Oh calm down!
This is socialism so now we will go insolvent like Europe. Time to move to another country.
The question is – what country to move to? Europe is much worse than here, South America is run by dictators which is also worse. Africa is in turmoil except for perhaps South Africa. I think Australia may be a choice. They only have 20 million people down there and they keep shrimp on the barbie.
And they have government healthcare….irony yes?
Mexico. Learn how to speak broken englis. Sneak back across the border and get everything for free.
You go to another country? Guess what? You get universal healthcare!! Good grief, where have you been? Go to Iraq or Africa if you so see fit!
The court decision will be a big deal to the shrinking minority who support this boondoggle. Conversely, it might help energise those who find the unread legislation and the manner in which it was passed to be sufficiently odeous to justify making a change up top.
Travesty upon travesty! This decision brings us no closer to affordable healthcare or affordable healthcare insurance.
The mandate was defined as a tax. The commerce clause was upheld by Roberts. By defining the mandate as a tax, it precludes the unconstitutionality of the mandate had it been considered within the commerce clause. Roberts made an objective ruling. I can’t argue with that. But, yes, we’re heading down a path to Socialism. We can stop this progression in it’s tracks- GET OUT THERE AND VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
Congratulations to the Supreme Court for making the right decision. I am so tired of the right holding up any and all reform, just because they can. It’s about time we move in any direction to fix the mess that is US Healthcare. This is no more Socialist than Medicare. So Melissa, if you don’t intend to accept Medicare, please, move to another country.
Dirk, please look at Canada, UK, France all have failed to contain cost. Care is rationed, people like my parents were sent home to die in their mid 50’s. Medicare is a social prgram that was shoved down our throats, so November looms large for those that truly love and respect freedom.
Dirk – they are taking away our freedoms, I’m not against healthcare for those that REALLY need it, but am not happy with the way our system has been jerked around by those above, how many of them will use the “system” we’re stuck with – NONE they have a permanent Healthplan in place for them – so what’s good for the geese the “gander” has much better and looks down at us!
This is a sad day for the country. Everyone should read the bill. The cost regarding the healthcare portion of the bill is one thing.
Read the rest of the bill and see how many other taxes,fees, government controls,etc. there are in the bill that will affect everyone in the country. There is no free lunch. The government now controls yet another part of your life, and trust me those of us actually working will have to pick up the tab.
Has anyone out there read the opinion? The “tax” for not buying health insurance is 1%. That is less than 1 month of premium for most folks. Like googlegal says “calm down”. Who do you think pays for the healthcare of the uninsured now? YOU DO!
Ins Girl, where does the tax go when it’s collected – it doesn’t go to a premium. The uninsured still have to buy coverage. They can either pay the tax or pay for coverage. The tax is less than what insurance costs. Because the tax does nothing to secure coverage, the uninsured can still go to the hospital, get treated, and then stick you and me with the bill. Yeah, good idea.
Moreover, 50% of the population already pays no income tax, how does the government think they are going to collect this tax? With half the population currently not paying it looks like those with jobs will pick up the bill.
If I recall, isn’t our government planning on hiring an additional 13,000+ IRS workers to collect and manage the additional taxes for this bill? So Obama can claim more jobs created. And if most of this is paperless, I beleive that he can claim they are created ‘Green’ jobs.
Where are you getting such information? Cite sources, because you just sound like you’re cooking this up. You don’t even attempt to answer your own question: Where does this “tax” money go? I’m just dying to see what you come up with since you’re so panicked about it!
Since it is a tax Former, it will be collected by the wonderful IRS and they are hiring 17,000 more of them to pore over your return and make sure you pay the tax. Isn’t bureaucracy great?
I think Governor Romney should send Justice Roberts a thank you card, because he just gave him a victory in November!
Tom,
It was Governor Romney who put the mandatory health insurance in place in MA, yet now he wants to back out of it because he wants to become president. Heck, he wasn’t even here for 1/4 of his term, because again he was out stumping to be a presidential candidate.
Sounds like President Obama’s first term in the white house…
A great day for the sick and poor! Let’s keep this law, and tweak it to keep improving it, not repeal it. We can’t go back to having nothing for our citizens.
Love the S Court
love hunting
Love Obama
love hunting
love Obamacare
Love hunting
Love Pelosi
love hunting.
I Love America
Sounds like U R stuck in a rut, love all of he above, you must be a very sick person, demented perhaps!
Get a grip dude. Veiled threats…ridiculous…
So the court says if the government says you have enough money to buy something you have to or else you will be taxed.
This isn’t about healthcare, it’s about government dictating you to purchase something or be taxed…….I wonder what’s next?
As usual the focus is on the application of the law and ignores the urgency of addressing any of the real problems that drive the cost of healthcare. Enact meaningful malpractice reform, effectively prosecute abuse and create a fair system of reimbursement for the providers and,there would be no need for the law.
Or the major underlying problem with Heaalth Care – TORT REFORM.
SHould have read on. This just sucks!
Finally, a law that may slightly control the greed and the arrogance of the insurance industry. People have been abused by insurance companies ever since they became private-for profit entities in the 1990’s. The law brings the possibility of competition between these companies which would, hopefully, bring premiums down. It also will save 20,000 American lives a year that are lost simply because 45 million Americans have no access to health care other than emergency room care.
show me where 20000 people lost their lives – that is a crock
Hopefully this is the beginning of taking the profit out of human illness and treating it as a social entity with which any and every society must deal with as fairly and equally as possible. This would make the need for human healthcare more humane and certainly more DEMOCRATIC!
Narsha, We don’t need more Democratic. The Democrats are responsible for the mess we are in. We don’t need more Socialism either. The Healthcare issue could have been solved 2 years ago with Conservative solutions instead of ramming through a Progressive monster which is going to massively increase taxes on the middle class, cause employers to drop Group coverage and lay off employees. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until next year if this trash isn’t thrown out.
The health care mess could have been solved at any time over the past 40 years with Conservative solutions but the Conservatives, even when they controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate fought tooth and nail to guarantee that those solutions would not happen. You are kidding yourself if you believe that the Republicans would have ever taken a step toward helping poor Americans gain access to the same level of health care that they enjoy. It took a super-majority in the Senate or it couldn’t have happened.
Finally, we are on the right track to Universal Health coverage, if all 330 million people participate, the price of coverage will come down and it will become affordable for those who aren’t fortunate enough to have their employers pay for it. It will also benefit big business as they will see a decrease in their cost and free up money for more equipment and hiring. The medical field will be able to reset their charges knowing they are going to be paid for their services. It is a win win situation for all. Eventually the premium structure could be emcompassed as a deduction to one’s pay check while working not affecting individuals who are already in a group sponsored program, thus ellimanting the taxpayer to pick up the slack. Surely and advanced nation of our size and mentality can find a way to make this work for the benefit of us all. Most States if not all required all individuals who have a car to carry minimum coverages prior to the issue of plates to get on the road and as a result the premiums are affordable even for those who don’t work. Banks make it manadatory to have homeowner insurance before they will give you a loan to close on your house. Do any of you out there feel that your health is less important than those? A 25 year old says, I don’t need insurance, I am healthy, why should I spend money on insurance but the next day this 25 year old has a heart attack and needs extensive suregery to survive and due to his/her lack of responsibility we should all have to pay his/her bill? I think not. As the medical field are not allowed to turn anyone away, than it seems only right that everyone should share the burden of the cost together.
AJ you are off based.
If you don’t want to buy car insurance, then don’t buy a car. If you don’t want to buy homeowners insurance, don’t buy a home. Nothing in these situations results in the government taxing you.
This law is completely different. If you don’t want to buy health insurance, then don’t. If you don’t buy insurance, though, then you get taxed…
If you don’t want health insurance, then you are taxed. Nothing about buying a car or home results in taxes.
I am not saying health insurance isn’t important; however, your arguments about car and home insurance are based on elective decisions to participate in commerce. Health insurance has nothing to do with participating in commerce. The mandate says, “if you breathe, then you participate.” There is no elective decision.
The same yahoo that does not buy auto insurance can still buy a car…and hit someone causing damage and injury that will not be insured..which is why we sell UNINSURED MOTORIST coverage…get it? All the same for cripes sake.
AJ, I think you are right. People seem to have long forgotten to make the distinction between health insurance and health care – some younger folks even think it is all one and the same thing. But it is not. One of the key issues surrounding this is that all Americans use health care even if they say they do not. Everyone participates in the commerce of health care – one of the biggest businesses in the U.S. If they are 20 something and say they don’t need it, I say lets go back and ask their parents if they ever got health care for this person as a child – perhaps ear infections, sport injuries, well child visits and vacinnations, even worse afflictions. No one opts out of health “care” when they need it, just that pesky insurance thing.
My reaction? I am sending Mit Romney $500. for his political campaign. How about you?
Time for a TEA Party. (Taxed Enough Already) Now that healthcare is considered a tax, I guess this would be the right discription.
Obamacare – America’s largest tax increase ever!
Sarah, Our first duty now is to make sure Romney wins since he renewed his pledge to repeal it. We intend to hold his feet to the fire. I think this decision has galvanized Conservatives to redouble their efforts to get all these Progressive radicals out of office before they can destroy the country completely.
What a sad, sad day for America. While I understand and agree that all Americans should have access to health care, I am strongly opposed to how the Government has structured the system. First, I do not believe, as an American, I should be mandated to buy or not buy anything! Free will is a God given right given to all people!!! Second, I do not believe that employers and working Americans should have to foot, yet another, bill for the masses. It will only be a matter of time before this new tax overwhelms the private sector as well as government. If you study history, seriously study it, you will see many similarities between what is happening now and what has led to numerous social uprisings/wars. This tax is just another symptom of a broken system that will inevitably drive the U.S. to some sort of revolution. The system has been corrupted by greed, on both sides of the argument, and is driving American’s apart. What will it take to bring us together?
How do we make sure under your scenario that you pay up front for health care services when you need it, or opt out at that point in time if you do not pay.
Now is the time to support our President by re-electing him and giving him a congress he can work with this November.It’s time to vote out the Republicans that ran on jobs,jobs,jobs in the 2010 mid terms and then turned around and did nothing but attack abortion rights,gay rights and other social issues.For those of you out there that continue to support the big money backing Republican party a few simple questions….Why are you voting against your own interests ? Why do you support a party that thinks it’s fair for you to pay a higher tax rate than the wealthy? Why do you listen to and take the same position as fat cat broadcasters like Lindbaugh and Hannity ? Do you really think their interests and agenda are the same as yours ? The truth is that the Republican party DID nearly bankrupt this great country and they HAVE fillibustered nearly everything this President has put forward to try and get the country moving and put people back to work. Do I agree with everything this President has done ? NO…but really thats not any different than any other President we’ve had. However I do think the current Republican led house has done nothing to help move this counrty ahead and has done everything they can to prevent recovery in an attempt to discredit this President and get him out of office,a case could be made that they are guilty of treason but at the least it’s certainly not acting in the interests of all Americans. And finally,we are all proud patriotic Americans aren’t we ? Then how do you cast your vote against this President who on his watch got public enemy #1 Osama Bin-Laden.
Our NAVY SEALS GOT OSAMA. NOT OBAMA. GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.
Yet Bush 43 saved Kuwait and Reagan defeated the Soviets…c’mon man…
Bush chased after Obama for 8 years. Obama chased after Osama for a little over 2.
If Bush had not chased after him for 8, he never would have dwindled down to being caught. Neither Bush or Obama made the SEALS team that got Osama. Obama did not tell them where to go or change procedure in a way that resulted in Osama getting caught.
So are you trying to say that just because Obama was president he deserves some sort of praise for basically allowing things to keep going on the search for Osama?
I think not.
I watched an interview where the republicans said they would have not gone in for Osama, so yes the president did make the decsion and Seals performed the attack successfully, he is our Chief In Command in which I as a miltary man still respect, past presidents have done the same, not to name names as there are so many, good leadership made this possible, so yes the credit goes all around, find something else to complain about that makes sense.
Tim, You sound like one of those paid Media Matters bloggers promoting the Progressive Agenda. You have swallowed all the lies hook, line and sinker and there is probably no hope for you. Progressivism is a mental disease and you have a bad case of it. The Republican House has passed over 20 bills to help the economy and sent them to your buddy Harry Reid only to have him pronounce them DOA and not debate or vote on them. Republicans believe in tax cuts to promote jobs and hiring. Your buddie Obama believes in redistribution of wealth and taxing everyone to death. Is that a pro job program? Have you ever got a job from a poor man? Probably not and you are probably getting ready to join another OWS rally.
Are you on crack? get your head out of you know where and start reading between the lines Tim –
I have read all the responses and have yet to see anything about this helping all the critically Ill people in this country who have been getting massively escalated rates and then being refused coverage in the end. Having a wife with a rare disease and bills totaling over 4 mil in the last 14 years I find it amazing that all responding feel that they will never face this type of problem. We need a real control on overcharges and real control that allows people right to coverage. The only way the program will pay out is for everypne to be covered,and the premiums for those that feel they will never be sick “So why buy coverage at all” to be averaged in the rating process for the companies. Also you might find it interesting that the average percentage of the rates charged by Hospitals to break even is only 16.5% of what they are billing. Do you feel that they are overcharging and if not regulated do you think that will escilate? Just some things to think about for all of you who think you will never be ill and need a hospital. Does Bankruptcy sound like a good plan to you?
Just simply disappointing:
1) The decision
2) Confirmation that Roberts continues to show he’s a closet lib
I don’t think Roberts read the bill any more than the Congress who voted for it. He could have struck down 2,600 pages of it very easily had he been paying attention. I don’t think he will be showing his face in public much in the coming months.
Being forced to purchase healthcare insurance from publicly traded health insurance companies is not socialism. Single payer would be closer to socialism, but the Affordable Care Act is not. If anything, it’s corporate welfare.
Finally the start of a law that makes sense. Sure it will need to be tweeked but at least now we have a platform to build on and not just more greed and gridlock. Instead of those of you out there being so self centered and out of touch with what the long term odds of you being critically ill at some point in your life is, you should now find some comfort in knowing that you will be cared for should that arise. If you are one of the lucky ones then be proud that you are being humanitarian instead of closed minded and greedy. Something else you should be aware of is that nationally the cost of breaking even for a hospital as a portion of what they are billing is 16.5%. Maby now some controls on health costs will be forthcoming. My wife has MS and bills for last 14 years are over 4 million dollars. If you don’t carry coverage what then, Bankruptcy and a free ride through Medicade. Time to start thing past today and well into your futures.
There’s nothing “closet” about it. What’s wrong with being an open-minded and compassionate (read “liberal”) American? We need to stop sticking our heads in the sand relying on words like “independence” and “freedom” to ignore huge social issues that oppress the masses and build the coffers of the already rich and greedier.
Careful googlegal, you are using Marxist words like oppressing the masses. That went on in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the last century. Eventually, it all imploded because their system was so flawed that they couldn’t stay up with the US economically so Eastern Europe got their independence and the Soviet Union dissolved into a bunch of independent Republics. I would like for you to point out how this country has been oppressing the masses. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to get educated, get a job and pull themselves up by their bootstraps to get ahead. However, when you have a system that encourages welfare, entitlements, lazy people will just use the system and they have no desire to work or be successful. They just blame the country for their problems. They are looking for a hand out instead of a hand up. We are celebrating our Independence tomorrow from a ruthless foreign government and we have no desire to have a domestic ruthless government who is trying to take us to Progressive Socialism. November can’t come soon enough.
If the government says I make enough money to buy health insurance, but I don’t, I will be taxed. I still don’t have my own health insurance. Will I get “free” health care if I’m hospitalized?
If the law gets revised so that you can opt out of health insurance and thereby health care permanently, would you do it?
The reform doesn’t address the underlying reason that healthcare costs continue going up, which is the expensive and inefficient U.S. healthcare delivery system. The consequences of the fee-for-service model put an unnecessary financial burden on patients and employers and raise the overall cost of healthcare. But there are alternative models out there. Direct primary care providers offer high-quality medical care at a capped, transparent price. http://www.whiteglove.com
Definitely bad news for the insurance industry.
If this 80% claim payment stays in place, how will United Health care every be able to pay their CEO $110 million annually in total compensation, or Aetna spring for $65 mil for their boss.
This could even affect the pilots for the corporate jets owned by the insurers.
We need to return to unregulated capitalism!
Are you an agent? 30/70 expense ratios apply, even in light of CEO pay.
So if the company had $65 million of surplus after investing your funds and growing it, 70 would go to you, 30% would go to the whole insurance company pay structure.
You receive 70% of the profits they receive. You receive 0% of 0% of the profits the government receives.
The health insurance companies grow capital. The government does not. Therefore even if it had a 15% expense ratio (half that of insurance companies) then they would have 85% maximum payout.
If insurance companies have a 30%, and grow at an annual 10% rate on non paid premiums, then they can essentially grow funds to pay an amount extremely high (very clear, as if the corporate CEO is receiving $65 million, even if he received the entire 30% of the expense ratio you would be receiving about $200 million, which would not exist if the government were in control, but no no no no, you don’t want that $150 million to go to insureds right? If someone is profiting you don’t want anyone to get anything.
Typical democrat.
The more you make sure the insurance company pays out, the less you control insurance fraud, the more you rise costs, and the less investments the insureds receive back to pay claims.
That should read the more you make sure the insurance company pays out instead of investing against unpaid claims the more you make sure they don’t have to pay claims (real health problems)
Insurance 101. Take a class on it.
Bob, the way I see this playing out if the law isn’t repealed in the next administration is as follows. The Healthcare Insurance market will accept the implementation and officially begin being the shills of the government with the exchanges. When they start paying out more in claims than they take in because of all the Pre X’s not being denied, they will just apply for subsidies from HHS. They will stay in business, but only be a tool of the government using online applications, Medicaid like coverage and the Health Insurance agent will be toast. We have seen this coming for a while and have already seen our commissions cut and that is the tip of the iceberg. They are counting on the tax revenue to go up and cutting Medicare benefits to pay for everything. Sounds like a plan, doesn’t it?
Bob: How can you say “70% would go to you”?? Who is YOU? No company gives away 100% of their surplus and profit. There would be no reason to be in business. And the $65M the CEO is getting is not “salary” and therefore included in the 30% expense ratio. After bonuses and stock options, what is the real expense ratio?? That’s economics 101. Take a class in it.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
AH HAHAHAHAHA
Woooo boy. The real expense ratio is 30%. Expense ratios are based on PREMIUMS received and how much goes to insureds. No matter what you say 70% GOES TO THE INSURED. Now then, the 30% expense ratio IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL COSTS, OPTIONS, BONUSES. This by default is true as for a FACT 70% goes to the insured, we track the money.
We also track surpluses with insurance company, do you check these reports with your insurance companies? I bet not given your reactions.
Now then back to my prior point: If they are investing that 30% enough to pay these bonuses you speak of, what you don’t realize is that the regulations for a fact, before Obama, kept the SAME 30% 70% ratios for profits. Therefore BY DEFAULT: IF THE BONUSES THE PERSON RECEIVES IS 65$ MILLION THAT IS 30%, AND THE REST OF THE 70% IS GOING TO THE INSURED.
You have NOT taken classes on this. And your prior comment was NOT economics.
Bob, Are you having fun playing with googlegal? She doesn’t have a clue what you are talking about. A committed Progressive like her isn’t into facts and figures. We just aren’t being compassionate to the masses by giving them free healthcare and the evil insurance companies fulfill no role in writing health insurance and paying claims for illnesses. If a company is successful and makes a profit on their business, that is a bad thing and only the government is playing fair.
And I feel the need to reply to this again:
I never said they gave away 100%. They 70-30 with their profits.
You keep saying what is the “real” ratio. Why don’t you get a copy from your insurance company? For medical companies considering it is law that they don’t exceed 70-30 (just changed to 80-20) we know the expense ratio. The real one.
It’s like arguing with an ape here.
You don’t even make any sense.
Let me make it shorter:
Expense ratio: 70% to claims, 30% investments, bonuses, etc.
Corporate CEO gets a bonus of 50 million. He can’t be the entire 30% of expense ratio. He is part of it. Let’s say the expense ratio is an easy one, 100 million
30% goes to investments, 70% goes to claims.
On the profits, 30% goes to further invetments, pay, and bonuses, 70% goes to claims.
For profits: The 70% 30% does still apply. In fact, that’s why Obama wants to make it 80% 20%. What he does not realize is that if a corporate CEO guy is making tons of money that means the investments are working. If the CEO is getting 20 Million of 30 for an example of the profits, then we have $50 million on that expense ratio at 30%. Three times more is going to the loss pool on the profits.
As they build capital (economics 101) from the unpaid claims they have more to pay for claims that arise. They take a portion (30% how many times do I have to repeat this) and 70% goes to the risk pool.
Someone could not get a $65 million dollar bonus without literally three times more going to the risk pool. It is literally impossible. And your thick head is saying “what about the bonsues!!??”. The bonuses are their share of the pie. They literally only get 30% and you are ticked about it, while you get 70% of the capital they build (money / profits / bonuses etc)
Bob, You have a monumental problem to overcome with googlegal. She didn’t take Econ 101 in school so she doesn’t understand the first thing about Capitalism, profits, expenses. She also doesn’t understand that if we didn’t have businesses making a profit, we would go out of business and the government would have nothing to tax to pay for their burdensome entitlement programs. Large companies in the private sector have always paid their CEO’s and other key employees bonuses for performance. When they fall short, they get replaced. How many CEO’s have been run through AIG in the past 5 years and they are still into us for $80Bill.
Your math is as simple as your brain. 70% doesn’t all go to pay claims. There is something called investment income. That is what is left over after paying taxes, operating expenses, and claims. I have no problem with business making a profit or CEO’s making a large salary. I don’t want to work for an unprofitable company. You’re just fast and loose with your numbers, that’s all.
googlegal:
Wrong. What you are so ignorant of in the insurance industry is the Combined Ratio. 70% goes directly to claims. 30% is an expense ratio. The expense ratio goes to investments, bonuses, CEO pay.
You are so ignorant you can’t add the numbers.
Now go back up to my prior comments:
On the profits (which come from the 30% to 70% split to begin with) it is also split 30% 70%. So if the expense ratio (including bonuses and investments) allows a CEO to get a $60 million dollar bonus, some of that must be going to grow capital, 70% must be going to you, and some most be going to further investment.
You are an ignorant fool. My numbers are 100% accurate. They include everything you just wrote.
30% is expenses of the insurance company including Salaries, Invetments, CEO pay, etc 70% goes to paying losses. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. Obama wants to change it to 80% 20%.
You are so ignornant you do not realize there are already limits.
Freaking idiotic.
Bob, I see you are not having any luck convincing googlegal on Econ 101 principles. I hope she is not in a position of authority with a company or they would go broke in a few years.
You called me ignorant 4 times and you don’t even know me. I think that reflects more on you than it does on me. Profit = earned premium PLUS investment income – incurred loss – underwriting expenses. INCOME – EXPENSES. It is not an automatic 30/70% split. Income = 100%. If losses were 50% and underwriting expenses were 30%, there would be 20% profit to shareholders. (The whole point of an insurance company is to make profits.) I am not an idiot, a freaking idiot, or an ignorant fool.
And FirstAgent – keep your snide remarks to yourself. I happen to be in a position of authority with a very profitable company with an outstanding 100 year history. So shut it.
I can call you ignorant based on your facts not who you are. And you are ignorant.
Applying your numbers, which you keep thinking I’m ignoring (I’m not) we have the following:
Incurred loss: Goes into the 70%. Investment income: Is split again into a very similar form as the combined ratio. This is where you are lacking knowledge, it does not dissappear and you don’t know how to track the funds. You say we don’t know where it goes. I said that we do, and asked if you ever looked at a balance sheet for an insurance company. You clearly have not. The average firm is already above 80% when they count their investments which are split from pay to insured. This is only due to their investment tactics which Obama wants to limit. It’s a manipulative statstic method. Some liberal sites try to say it’s 50%. That is incorrect. In the immediate yes, it can be 50% as they invest the rest and pay to the company’s operational costs. In the long run no. Built up companies take from their surplus to keep rates soft and intentionally sit on it to grow more funds. CEO’s do not want to take so much as to harm their future pay.
This is a liberal interpretation, and even it confirms that the average is over 80%.
http://www.newamerica.net/blog/new-health-dialogue/2009/health-reform-medical-loss-ratio-or-just-medical-loss-15773
The government cannot beat this. It just can’t. The more it limits the investments of unearned premium the more it damages the costs.
I am not lacking knowledge. Your communication skills leave alot to be desired. I’m sure if we were discussing this verbally, we would see we are talking apples and oranges. You stated definitively that 70% of income goes to the policyholders to pay claims. I say that it could be 70%, it could be 50%, it could be 100%. Thus a combined ratio over 100%. While operating expense could (not likely) be as low as 30%, that does not mean 70% goes to paying claims. Operating expense and loss expense are taken from total profit which equals Earned Premiums and Investment Income. Hopefully after you deduct expenses, there is something left over for investment, profit, bonus (which are not always budgeted into operating expenses), and surplus. If you disagree with what I just wrote, then you are totally ignoring what I’m saying and just want to argue. I’m done.