Exxon Posts Record Profits

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Prof X, I think insurance companies are a huge part of the problem. Once again there is no free market. The insurance companies set prices with doctors and have control as you said.

I suspect that if people paid for their health care directly costs would go down for most (except the catastrophically ill.)

The oil companies do not operate in the free market either. If there is evidence of collusion they should be punished.

If the prices are legitimate then we will have to bite the bullet and deal with it.[/quote]

Man, you guys are too damn right about our health care system. And I blame lawyers… not because it’s fun, but because it’s really all their damn fault. I can see the first domino that has to fall in this multi-dimensional health care quagmire in the US in order to start the chain reaction of positive reforms we need to rein in this beast.

Tort reform.

Once we disable the parasites, then the silliness I see on a daily basis will fall slowly away as they die off one by one. Just take the vampire’s blood away, man, that’s all I want… and then things will improve.

FACT: Most lab testing I perform at my job is based in a desire for protection from lawsuits. I am NOT exaggerating here. I’m not talking medical necessity, I’m talking legal necessity. Sad.

FACT: When a doctor doesn’t provide what the courts have established as the “standard of care”, then they become vulnerable to lawsuits. This creates a TREMENDOUS loophole in which massive waste is generated. Example: a drunk we see every other night comes in complaining of “chest pain”. This, he knows, will get him a free meal and a warm bed to sleep in. Maybe, if he plays it right, even some drugs. We will do a complete cardiac workup on this jerk, because that is the “standard of care”. Not only will he not pay his bill, he will be back in less than a week.

FACT: If the doctors won’t need to protect themselves from retarded lawsuits, then the waste will go away. The people who profit from a dangerous and litigious healthcare environment are A)lawyers (obviously), B)insurance companies. The same insurance companies that set the policy which determines “standard of care” are the same ones who charge over a hundred thousand dollars a year (in many cases) in premiums for malpractice insurance for a doctor.

This is nothing more than a tug of war between insurance companies who provide coverage for patients, and insurance companies who provide coverage for doctors. If we take the power away from the lawyers, then the malpractice premiums go WAYYY down, and the waste I talked about earlier goes WAYYY down, resulting in WAYYY lower bills for patients, resulting in:

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE

Imagine it.

Yeah, I might be out of a job too, but I’m willing to take one for the team if it means everybody gets back to common sense health care. This is important, dammit!

And this entire post was off-topic. YAAAYY!!! LOL I suck.

122

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Prof X, I think insurance companies are a huge part of the problem. Once again there is no free market. The insurance companies set prices with doctors and have control as you said. [/quote]

Then the question remains, why is it we get “applause” from the conservative right as “big businesses” make even more money regardless of ethics, but these same people don’t want doctors to get rich? Why aren’t we hearing the same uproar when it comes to healthcare? We just had nearly every vocal conservative on this board jump to the aid of super-mega-rich oil companies that are pulling in profit hand over fist as they claim that being poor is all because the poor don’t work hard enough.

If that is the case, then logically they would also be against insurance companies with just as much emotion. They should be begging to pay for their own health care as they applaud the downfall of bankruptcy filings. As people find it harder to get to work in their cars due to gas prices, they should be yelling out that they want to pay 500 bucks out of pocket for an exam at the doctor’s office. I don’t get it.

[quote]
I suspect that if people paid for their health care directly costs would go down for most (except the catastrophically ill.)[/quote]

Of course they would. Not only that, but they would get even better medical treatment instead of getting whatever the lowest bidder recommends for a procedure through insurance companies.

123

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Then the question remains, why is it we get “applause” from the conservative right as “big businesses” make even more money regardless of ethics, but these same people don’t want doctors to get rich? [/quote]

I think doctors should be rich. RICH RICH RICH. What conservative doesn’t? If anything, Clinton’s liberal healthcare plan would have stuck its hand into the doctor’s pockets.

[quote]
Why aren’t we hearing the same uproar when it comes to healthcare? We just had nearly every vocal conservative on this board jump to the aid of super-mega-rich oil companies that are pulling in profit hand over fist as they claim that being poor is all because the poor don’t work hard enough.

If that is the case, then logically they would also be against insurance companies with just as much emotion.[/quote]

No, if that is the case, they logically would be for tort reform and against trial lawyers. Insurance companies are free to make as much money as they can. Nothing wrong with that.

[quote]
Not only that, but they would get even better medical treatment instead of getting whatever the lowest bidder recommends for a procedure through insurance companies.[/quote]

No one is required have health insurance. What stops all the doctors from getting together and saying,“We will no longer be accepting any insurance. From now on, it’s pay as you go”?

124

[quote]doogie wrote:
No one is required have health insurance. What stops all the doctors from getting together and saying,“We will no longer be accepting any insurance. From now on, it’s pay as you go”?
[/quote]

LOL that’s like saying “I’m not taking dollars anymore… from now on, it’s bartering chickens or NUTHIN’!!”

The health insurance card is the medium of exchange, and that’s not going to be drastically altered in any way… there is WAYYY (again with the three Y’s) too much power concentrated in health insurance companies in this country.

Try to understand: the insurance companies write what procedures can be performed; they tell the doctors what they can and cannot do. A doctor is little more than a very skilled technician anymore. Think of him/her as a car mechanic that does oil changes on your body instead of your corvette.

If you want the doctors to band together and try to fix this mess, then you are going to have to disable their opponents first. That means tort reform. Once we bleed the power away from the insurance companies, then this will settle down.

They will be FORCED to lower their premiums, because the patient has a choice of different health insurance companies. Even MSA’s. The competition and choice of our capitalist society will take care of itself, once it gets a chance to work it’s “magic”.

It just needs that chance.

125

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

If you want the doctors to band together and try to fix this mess, then you are going to have to disable their opponents first. That means tort reform. Once we bleed the power away from the insurance companies, then this will settle down.

[/quote]

I brought up tort reform.

Don’t skim my posts or you’ll miss really important, really profound things.

126

[quote]doogie wrote:
I brought up tort reform.

Don’t skim my posts or you’ll miss really important, really profound things.

[/quote]
I know doogs, but then you said what I quoted you as saying, and it doesn’t follow. I’m just trying to explain that it can’t happen (doctors banding together, fixing this mess) until certain other shizzle happens first (tort reform).

PS Yes, you are profound and important. Stop bogarting that joint, and pass it over here. :slight_smile:

127

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

PS Yes, you are profound and important. Stop bogarting that joint, and pass it over here. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Joints are illegal, fool. My poison is generic bourbon.

TORT REFORM!!!

128

[quote]doogie wrote:
Joints are illegal, fool. My poison is generic bourbon.

TORT REFORM!!![/quote]

aaaaAAAAAaaahhh!! Generic bourbon? It’s unholy! Pour me a glass, fucker!

KILL TORT LAWYERS!!!

129

[quote]Professor X wrote

Gas prices around here haven’t dropped…and as I said before, there are many days where there is no gas at gas stations. How does a company come out ahead farther than ever before when there is this much going on as far supply? They aren’t even meeting the demand. I am simply asking questions. I understand some seem to want to defend big business with every ounce of your being, but something about this just doesn’t sound right. Someone mentioned ethics above. Many of you would have a fit if your doctor’s office increased prices for an exam double or triple the current fee. I wonder how many would immediately log on after that office visit and say, “oh well, they are a business so they can do as they please and I hope they make more money!”.

Insurance costs rule the health field. they put caps on what doctors can do or choose to do in a procedure. In some cases, the procedure is specified for certain problems. Yet, not one person is running to stop the power of insurance agencies. It seems a little odd to me. Everyone cheering on gas companies for making top profits should also be against health insurance that takes so much control out of the hands of doctors. Hell, why do any of you need insurance? Why not just pay for your procedures out of your pocket? You all worked hard enough, right?

I’m just trying to understand the logic. Bear with me.[/quote]

Where do you live? I live on the Gulf
Coast and have never experienced the shortages you speak of. Please give specifics so we can fix the shortages…

130

Oil is traded on an exchange in barrels (like stocks).

The price has nothing to do with what the oil companies are charging for it. It has 100% to do with what the buyers are willing to pay for it. All of you who mentioned price gouging and price fixing have no clue what you’re saying.

131

[quote]Watson2K5 wrote:
Oil is traded on an exchange in barrels (like stocks).

The price has nothing to do with what the oil companies are charging for it. It has 100% to do with what the buyers are willing to pay for it. All of you who mentioned price gouging and price fixing have no clue what you’re saying.[/quote]

Okay, I’m willing to pay one dollar per barrel. What? You won’t sell it to me? Oh so I guess it’s not just up to me the buyer to set a price, is it?

Hmmm… but what would I know? I have no clue what I’m saying. Here I am thinking that there is such a thing as price gouging and price fixing, but thanks for pointing out that I am wrong.

There is no such thing as price gouging.

132

[quote]jerryiii wrote:
I don’t work in the oil industry, but my business is also commodity driven. When the price of the underlying commodity is low, business sucks. When it is high, business is good (obviously an over simplification).

Pricing is often based on a percentage of the underlying commodity. This is also likely built into the financial systems that run these companies and would be difficult to change.

As someone else noted, the price of commodities is often drive by speculative as well as physical demand. This means that hedge funds can have a significant impact on pricing. These funds react to news (hurricane damage, flooding, etc.) and consequently buy/sell futures contracts.

Something to think about:
We are willing to pay over $1.00 for a 20 oz bottle of water. This is calculates out to over $6.00 per gallon - for water… [/quote]

False analogy on two counts: no one needs bottled water; and, no one buys 12-20 gallons of bottled water at a time.

133

[quote]Robobrewer wrote:

“He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…” Colon Powell 2/24/01

“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” Condoleezza Rice 7/29/01

This is just too easy. You see Thunderbolt23, as an Independent I don’t blindly follow a political party and twist myself into a pretzel trying to defend the indefensible.[/quote]

Then explain to me why the United Nations Security Council believed that the threat of WMD capability. Surely they are not on the GOP payroll? Or wrapped up in a nationalistic fervor?

A bipartisan Senate authorized force on the basis of the threat - are they Bush dupes as well?

Cropped quotes ain’t answering my questions.

By the way, I’d love to read the link you found these on so I could get some context.

[quote]I simply make judgments upon what I see without Republican and Democrat spin filters warping my perceptions. It is our duty as Americans to critically judge our elected officials and hold them accountable for their misdeeds.
You and those of your ilk have chosen not to do so and yet many of you have the nerve to call yourselves patriotic.
I’m done with you now, have a nice weekend.[/quote]

You are so brave. I do, however, get tired of the cheap, lazy argument that somehow I am just a talking-points dupe. It looks more like quick escape hatch for you.

I can’t quit figure out how in the face of so much obvious information to the contrary that we had so many distinguished decisionmaking bodies believe it?

Don’t chicken out so easily. After all, you are an independent-minded independent who thinks independently.

134

[quote]jayhawk1 wrote:
Where do you live? I live on the Gulf
Coast and have never experienced the shortages you speak of. Please give specifics so we can fix the shortages…
[/quote]

I’m not giving you specifics, however, I am also on the Gulf Coast. This isn’t made up. Perhaps you should look deeper into it.

135

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I understand what you are saying. But I absolutely do not agree with the fact that what I am saying is not as credible as what you say because you are older. [/quote]

What you are saying is not as credible as what I am saying because you are wrong! Is that better? Now…I think you are wrong (in part) because you don’t have the breadth of experience that someone older has (like your Professors for example). A 12 year old can be right. He is not automatically wrong simply because he is 12 years old. Following the ball?

No? A good man does not accumulate more knowledge as he gets older? Moreover he accumulates more wisdom which trumps knowledge everytime.

There are age limits on various activities for a reason. Driving at 16 or 17 (depending on the state). Voting at age 18. Drinking at age 21. You can’t even run for President until you are 35! Now why do you suppose that is? Why does the government of the United States forbid you from running for President?

Think about it.

There was no intent to compare your opinion to a 12 year old. Sorry you took it that way. I was simply making a point that you should have acknowledged by now. That point: It’s good to have experience. No? How old are your Professors? Are they younger than you? No probably not. They are older and in a position of authority over you (at least in class) for a reason. They have accumulated a certain amount of knowledge and hopefully wisdom. This is then handed down to you. You are not learning from a 12 year old. Right?

You really need to stop missing the central theme. As I have previously stated a 12 year old is not wrong because he is 12 years old. However, experience, knowledge and wisdom acquired through the years is usually helpful. If not then the smartest people are in fact the youngest. And the older you get the less wisdom and knowledge that you have. Therefore new born babies should be our leaders. Okay, silly but I hope you get the idea by now.

It’s statements like this that make those who actually understand business laugh at you. Sorry, but the above is a very foolish thing to say.

Please tell me at what point they go from “good” to “evil?” Is it a dollar figure or the amount of employees that they have working for them. When does the magic evil button get pushed. I want to hear your opinion on this specifically.

Where does it say that a corporations first duty is to care about civil rights and the environment? If they did have that as their first order of business instead of making money they wouldn’t last long.

Is it your first order of business each day to wake up and make sure that no one’s civil rights were violated. Then do you rush to the enviromental state office to see what you can do to help? No of course not, how foolish that would be. You probably wake up thinking about your own problems. Getting an “A” in one particular class. Running into the blonde who sits in front of you in English class. What YOU are going to eat for breakfast etc.

Corporations are made up of people. Their first obligation is to their stock holders, the actual owners of the company. They need to turn a profit and hopefully do better than they did last quarter. Is that evil? I don’t think so because if they can achieve a better result by putting out a better product and running their company more efficiently then all of the people that they employ will continue to be employd. Is it evil to employ 20,000 people? Put construction workers to work by building new plants? Make products that help people each and every day? That alone is a gift to society. By them wanting to do mmore, be more and have more, more is produced and society benefits.

Of course civil rights and the environment are important. And most large companies take those things into consideration. If not because it’s the right thing to do (as most do), then because it’s the lawful thing to do. And most companies would rather not be sued by anyone.

However, their first order of business is doing business! Looking out for their shareholders and their own interests. Hey, that’s just like you and I huh? If we don’t take care of ourselves then how can we help anyone else? If a business does not first take care of what is essential then there is no business and they don’t have to worry about the environment or anyones civil rights as they won’t have any employees. Taking care of business might be just a tad more difficult than you think.

I know you are a reasonable person, I can tell by your posts. Give this some thought. I’m not trying to win an Internet debate, if you stick around here long enough you know that that never happens (and I mean NEVER). I’m simply trying to give you another perspective.

Please think about it.

136

[quote]HardcoreHypnosis wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Understood. My choice was to go to a bar and spend $6. I know I could have invested that $6 in Exxon, but methinks it wouldn’t have made that much of a difference…

Ah, Therein lies some of the problem. You think of it as only $6, but through the magic of compounding interest those $6 today turn into possibly $100 in 10 years and maybe even $1,000 a few years after that.

I thought the same way when I was in college 20 years ago. Now, I kick myself (figuratively) for not starting my savings/retirement plan sooner.

The problem with the “poor” is that of making choices in their life.

Rhetorical question:

How is it that an immigrant can come to this country, with no money, only the clothes on them , not speak the language and in just a few years own a successful business, a house and probably several different investments?

What is it that he (or she) did that locally born and raised americans don’t or won’t do for themselves?

Usually it is the choices they make.

As a nation we are teaching our kids that they are entitled to things. Just look at how people in south florida are whining because the Feds didn’t show up fast enough with food, water and ice.

Since when is it the role of government (local,state or federal) to provide for our survival?

[/quote]

Exceptional post!

137

[quote]chadman wrote:

I think the point is that, this is the exact reason you DO buy insurance, and don’t expect the government to provide for our survival.

YMMV

Goober, The point is that insurance is the same damn thing as the government. What is the difference if you pay you’re insurance premiums and possibly collect on a claim or if you pay your taxes and possibly collect a government check from FEMA or whoever during a personal time of crisis?

The point is that if you buy into the pull yourself up by your bootstraps dogma, then you shouldn’t need insurance. Just save your money and if something bad happens, pay for it yourself. Most of us couldn’t. Thus the point that the vast majority of us have more in common with the poor than we do with the elite who could pay cash for whatever they wanted. Think Bill Gates or Oprah couldn’t pay for anything they wanted to?

I don’t want some kind of welfare state either, but there are cases where the poor, the sick, the displaced need help.[/quote]

I disagree. Insurance is not the same as government. Insurance is a voluntary collaboration between many people to spread the risks involved (whatever is being insured against) amongst many. Something that those that buy insurance agree to pay and have defined benefits. Risk/reward scenario. You take personal responsability here for the outcome.

While government is nothing more than re-distribution of wealth according to some policy that you may or may not agree with. Here you place responsability with someone else.

The pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps attitude does not mean you stop thinking or analyzing. Nor does it mean that you stop taking responsability for your life.

YMMV

138

[quote]HardcoreHypnosis wrote:
chadman wrote:

I think the point is that, this is the exact reason you DO buy insurance, and don’t expect the government to provide for our survival.

YMMV

Goober, The point is that insurance is the same damn thing as the government. What is the difference if you pay you’re insurance premiums and possibly collect on a claim or if you pay your taxes and possibly collect a government check from FEMA or whoever during a personal time of crisis?

The point is that if you buy into the pull yourself up by your bootstraps dogma, then you shouldn’t need insurance. Just save your money and if something bad happens, pay for it yourself. Most of us couldn’t. Thus the point that the vast majority of us have more in common with the poor than we do with the elite who could pay cash for whatever they wanted. Think Bill Gates or Oprah couldn’t pay for anything they wanted to?

I don’t want some kind of welfare state either, but there are cases where the poor, the sick, the displaced need help.

I disagree. Insurance is not the same as government. Insurance is a voluntary collaboration between many people to spread the risks involved (whatever is being insured against) amongst many. Something that those that buy insurance agree to pay and have defined benefits. Risk/reward scenario. You take personal responsability here for the outcome.

While government is nothing more than re-distribution of wealth according to some policy that you may or may not agree with. Here you place responsability with someone else.

The pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps attitude does not mean you stop thinking or analyzing. Nor does it mean that you stop taking responsability for your life.

YMMV
[/quote]

I disagree. Do you agree with everything your insurance company covers? I doubt it. But you buy it anyway because it at least covers some stuff. Then you have others who can’t afford insurance at all.

The point still is that if you feel you should be completely self-suffient, then you shouldn’t buy insurance because your are completely capable of paying for your bills yourself.

My point is that insurance, much like taxes, re-distributes the wealth too. The insurance companies decide who gets paid for what claims. Many people pay premiums and make no claims. Do you get your money back? No. Just like paying taxes that benefit someone else feeding at the public trough.

I personally would never be without insurance. My point is that people who think that poor lazy people don’t deserve affordable gas (or healthcare) because they don’t work hard enough are being somewhat hypocritical. Until you pay cash for everything yourself, you are really not that far away from the poor. Just my opinion.

139

[quote]HardcoreHypnosis wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Gas prices around here haven’t dropped…and as I said before, there are many days where there is no gas at gas stations. How does a company come out ahead farther than ever before when there is this much going on as far supply? They aren’t even meeting the demand. I am simply asking questions.

I can’t answer for the oil companies, but just thinking about it makes me conclude that those profits didn’t come exclusively from the U.S. market.

So, it could be possible that speculation (futures trading) and profits in other (non-US) markets gave rise to these profits.

YMMV
[/quote]

There’s also the fact that any numbers currently being announced were for the PREVIOUS quarter. We’ll see what the impact of the current situation is with the next announcements.

140

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
doogie wrote:
I brought up tort reform.

Don’t skim my posts or you’ll miss really important, really profound things.

I know doogs, but then you said what I quoted you as saying, and it doesn’t follow. I’m just trying to explain that it can’t happen (doctors banding together, fixing this mess) until certain other shizzle happens first (tort reform).

PS Yes, you are profound and important. Stop bogarting that joint, and pass it over here. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Don’t forget a reform of anti-trust laws, which actually bar doctors from acting together in such a manner.

Stupid anti-trust laws.