Insurance company is running a business, not a welfare department. If you are a share holder, why don't you complain at the share holder meeting. Do you think Government run health care is more efficient? Look at our federal deficits and some States deficits, will those numbers keep you up at night? Or you just want free health care. Insurance company is not the problem, the problem is we lost millions and millions well paying jobs to other nation and imported millions of labors to our country.
Let's see if I understand the reasoning here. Ret. US Col. Ralph Peters says that the purpose of war is to win. He also declares that whatever war the United States becomes involved in is a war in which it is necessary to "win" in order to insure "humanity's welfare." Without exception. In all wars involving the United States, there are no doubts that victory is the only option and that anything short of total victory (such as a negotiated peace agreement) would "nourish monsters." It may be necessary to behave in a monstrous manner in order to achieve this total victory. But being a monster is not the same as nourishing monsters. In fact, according to Peters, we can be both monsters and not monsters at the same time. Anything goes. The ends justify the means. Do as we say, not as we do. And all that are good ideas according to Peters. Is this guy for real?
THE LATEST FIGURES:
The health insurance companies continue to play a major role in our current healthcare crisis. They make huge profits and their CEOs make millions, while the rest of us are are subject to life-threatening insurance denials. The CEOs continue to make outrageous salaries, money that could provide healthcare for Americans.
<B>The Total Package: Health plan CEO compensation for 2008</B>
May 14, 2009
Despite the trials and tribulations of the past year, the health insurance executives are still raking in MILLIONS of dollars at the end of the day. This is a look at some of the top total compensation packages from 2008 based on information gathered from the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission.
1. Ron Williams, Aetna - $24.3 million
2. H. Edward Hanway, CIGNA - $12.2 million
3. Angela Braly, WellPoint - $9.8 million
4. Dale Wolf, Coventry Health Care - $9 million
5. Michael Neidorff, Centene - $8.8 million
6. James Carlson, AMERIGROUP - $5.3 million
7. Michael McCallister, Humana - $4.8 million
8. Jay Gellert, Health Net - $4.4 million
9. Richard Barasch, Universal American - $3.5 million
10. Stephen Hemsley, UnitedHealth Group - $3.2 million
– adapted from a Special Report by Dan Bowman
<a href="http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/special-reports/total-package-health-plan-ceo-compensations-2008 ">http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/special-reports/total-package-health-plan-ceo-compensations-2008 </a>
Only a single-payer approach to healthcare reform will END THE INHUMANITY OF OUR FAILED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE SYSTEM, WHERE PROFITS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PATIENTS’ HEALTH, and where people die because of it.
We need to get the insurance companies OUT of healthcare. Our fight for equal access to healthcare for all is about democracy, human rights, civil rights, and basic human decency.
Thank you for the media advisory above. Here is some additional information:
HMO Executive Salaries
Reprinted from FAMILIES USA
The HMOs complain that any increase in their costs of treating patients will require them to raise premiums, making them too costly, and causing many to go without insurance.
Are their budgets really so spare that they couldn't absorb any cost increases without raising premiums?
For a start, we might look at the amount of premium dollars removed from patient care by being paid to executives.
You decide how much room there is for savings.
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm" title="http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm ">http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm </a></p>
<blockquote>"All the environmental problems will be solved by setting up a giant ponzi scheme selling carbon futures."</blockquote>
That's the lamest, stupidest straw man I've ever seen. No one claims cap-and-trade will solve "all environmental problems." Not everyone even agrees that cap-and-trade will help very much just to control CO2. And no one who is alarmed by the threat of global warming denies the Gulf dead zone, the destructiveness of mountaintop removal, or any of the other environmental ravages that threaten us, or believes we can afford to ignore them while we deal with greenhouse gas emissions.
I think you're just playing the outraged enviro to make yourself seem credible in trying prop up the belief that the reality of global warming with CO2 as its prime cause is still "debatable." I, for one, don't buy it.
Let's see if I understand the reasoning here. Ret. US Col. Ralph Peters says that the purpose of war is to win. He also declares that whatever war the United States becomes involved in is a war in which it is necessary to "win" in order to insure "humanity's welfare." Without exception. In all wars involving the United States, there are no doubts that victory is the only option and that anything short of total victory (such as a negotiated peace agreement) would "nourish monsters." It may be necessary to behave in a monstrous manner in order to achieve this total victory. But being a monster is not the same as nourishing monsters. In fact, according to Peters, we can be both monsters and not monsters at the same time. Anything goes. The ends justify the means. Do as we say, not as we do. And all that are good ideas according to Peters. Is this guy for real?
Pages