Comments on: What Does Pelosi Define as “Immoral” Profits? Greater than Zero?

By: artemis fowl

artemis fowl — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:38:18 +0000

Small Business Owner:

If you remove cars and homicides, we also have a longer life expectancy. So I guess the problem with our system is that we keep people alive.

% of GDP expenditure is about the most useless measure I can think of for determining where we stand with healthcare.

By: small business owner

small business owner — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:52:14 +0000

you all just hate Pelosi and the Democrats. Forget about her ‘comment’. The important point is this country needs an answer to health care.

49 million Americans do not have health care. The US spends 16% of our Gross Domestic Product on health care versus 10% in Canada. Something is wrong with our system.

What is your answer?

By: Hondo

Hondo — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:23:25 +0000

Any word from Nancy Pelosi on whether Microsoft’s profits are immoral or obscene?

By: TomB

TomB — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:09:10 +0000

I calculated the annual margins for health care companies a month or two back:
http://unintendedeconomist.blogspot.com/2009/06/health-care-company-margins.html

I did the past 5 years for Humana, Cigna, Aetna, United Health, Wellpoint, and Coventry.

By: Another guy named Dan

Another guy named Dan — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:04:45 +0000

Seems about right to me. The health insurance business is a heavily regulated industry with fairly large barriers to entry, in the form of the establishment of a provider network and claims processing system, and the size of the market is largely fixed and controlled by forces outside of the control of the companies.

The government regulations and mandates are going to ensure that every policy is going to cover essentially the same set of services, and the ubiquity of computerization is going to make the claims processing systems similar in terms of efficiency. this leads to two major factors: high marketing costs to attempt to differentiate your product, and generally low profits, as the only way to compete is on price

By: Pino

Pino — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:36:48 +0000

Correct me if I am wrong, but what free market folks want in respect to “profit” is not so much a guy getting what he deserves, but rather that profit acts as the single best indicator of how best to allocate scarce resources.

If we don’t allocate via profit, then we allocate via…, via…what? Politics? Regulators ala Soviet Russia and food?

Right?

By: John Moore

John Moore — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:26:57 +0000

What IS immoral is the outrageous salaries and bonuses their executives (like executives of most big countries in the US) pay to themselves.

Of course, the “victims” in this case are as much the stockholders as the customers. It’s an agency problem that we need to address somehow.

The idea that an executive is worth $100,000,000 for a couple of years work is just not supportable. Unlike an actor, who may earn an equivalent and totally undeserved amount, the executive is replaceable (while the actor is a “brand” and the brand is worth a lot).

By: Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:27:17 +0000

@Sbabg.org Not so fast on those executive bonuses. We’re going to do away with those, too.

By: SBABG.org

SBABG.org — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:35:26 +0000

There’s another, better way to get those “obscene” profit margins down. Pay out bigger bonuses to executives!

By: Mesa Econoguy

Mesa Econoguy — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:37 +0000

I find everything Nancy Pelosi says to be immoral, so letâ€™s apply the same standard to her, take away her government jet, offices, staff, and various other accoutrements.

Then letâ€™s take it one step further, preventing her from abusing anyone else by imprisoning her.