Quote:Why is it so different from car insurance? But glad to hear you aren't one of those scrap everything because it's a liberal bill.
Owning a car isn't mandatory. You still have price control in the free market because consumers have the option of not using private transporation at all and avoiding car insurance.
To keep your analogy imagine if we passed a law that said EVERYONE doesn't matter if you own one car, two cars, or no cars is mandated to carry automobile insurance. What would that do to auto insurance rates? They would sky rocket because the market is forced to buy their product no matter what!
Quote:Owning a car isn't mandatory. You still have price control in the free market because consumers have the option of not using private transporation at all and avoiding car insurance.
To keep your analogy imagine if we passed a law that said EVERYONE doesn't matter if you own one car, two cars, or no cars is mandated to carry automobile insurance. What would that do to auto insurance rates? They would sky rocket because the market is forced to buy their product no matter what!
Actually, auto insurance rates would go way down if people who didn't own autos were forced to buy auto insurance. If you don't own a car, you won't ever file a claim.
Really, the only way insurance works is if there is a broad base of coverage that includes people who do not file claims. Hence the mandate that everyone have health insurance. You have to force healthy people to buy health insurance, otherwise, only sick people would buy health insurance, and either health insurance companies would be bankrupted, or insurance rates would go to the moon.
My personal view is that I am subsidizing the health care of people who eat too many potato chips and drink too many milk shakes.
Watching fat people walk around with subsidized health care does rankle me. Why force me to subsidize their health care when they won't do the simplest thing, which is lose a few pounds so they don't develop diabetes and heart disease. I'm forced to subsidize their health insurance, so why not force them to make better choices? Is there a single healthy thing on the menu at Sonic? I see commercials for Sonic, and I think, my taxes went up because of them. They're giving people diabetes and heart disease, and I'm paying for it with Obamacare tax surcharges. So do we outlaw Sonic, or do we let people die in the streets because they don't have health insurance? A large part of me says, I'm subsidizing people's bad lifestyle choices. We need to be cruel to these people. Another part of me says, I don't want to see a society where people are forced to live with their lifestyle choices. Nobody wants to recreate Dickensian England with very rich people stepping over very poor people who are lying in the street dying because they don't have health insurance. I'll pay some taxes to level things out a little.
It's a difficult issue, a lot more difficult than proponents and opponents seem to want to admit.
Basically, liberals want to take care of people, and conservatives want people to live with the consequences of their actions. I am a little of both. In my view, both liberals and conservatives like to see things in very simple terms, and don't seem to want to admit that things are complicated.
Quote:Actually, auto insurance rates would go way down if people who didn't own autos were forced to buy auto insurance. If you don't own a car, you won't ever file a claim.
Really, the only way insurance works is if there is a broad base of coverage that includes people who do not file claims. Hence the mandate that everyone have health insurance. You have to force healthy people to buy health insurance, otherwise, only sick people would buy health insurance, and either health insurance companies would be bankrupted, or insurance rates would go to the moon.
My personal view is that I am subsidizing the health care of people who eat too many potato chips and drink too many milk shakes. Watching fat people walk around with subsidized health care does rankle me. Why force me to subsidize their health care when they won't do the simplest thing, which is lose a few pounds so they don't develop diabetes and heart disease. I'm forced to subsidize their health insurance, so why not force them to make better choices? Is there a single healthy thing on the menu at Sonic? I see commercials for Sonic, and I think, my taxes went up because of them. They're giving people diabetes and heart disease, and I'm paying for it with Obamacare tax surcharges. So do we outlaw Sonic, or do we let people die in the streets because they don't have health insurance? A large part of me says, I'm subsidizing people's bad lifestyle choices. We need to be cruel to these people. Another part of me says, I don't want to see a society where people are forced to live with their lifestyle choices. Nobody wants to recreate Dickensian England with very rich people stepping over very poor people who are lying in the street dying because they don't have health insurance. I'll pay some taxes to level things out a little.
It's a difficult issue, a lot more difficult than proponents and opponents seem to want to admit.
Basically, liberals want to take care of people, and conservatives want people to live with the consequences of their actions. I am a little of both. In my view, both liberals and conservatives like to see things in very simple terms, and don't seem to want to admit that things are complicated.
Your fundamental premise is inaccurate and Obamacare proved it. When you eliminate price competition (the check on prices) and you infinitely increase demand (the driver of prices) then the inevitable result is MASSIVE inflation.
You need a.) a wide range of options to provide a good or service. The ACA created a market so heavily regulated that in some cases people only have one insurance option to buy from. b.) you also need alternative goods and services to any good or service. The conventional health care system should have competition from emerging methods of delivering health care. Concierge practices, allowing more trained individuals to write low level prescriptions, alternative medicine whatever. That keeps the demand and cost of the regular system down and also provides incentives to innovate and lower operating costs. What you have now are stringent regulations on what you have to buy and what constitutes insurance. We know over time that leads to less options and more money out of pocket.
Moreover, we have to define what insurance. Insurance is an aleatory contract based on an unforeseen risk. That's a lot different than prepayment of a predictable event. The current system mixes these two risk classes creating a mess of actuarial inefficiency. There should be one system for the event that you get run over buy a bus and another system for basic check ups, low level stitches, low level sick visits, elective mole removal etc. That would allow healthier people to participate in the catastrophic coverage providing more surety to the risk pool at low cost while not having to spend all their money worrying about the general practices.
The greater the amount and diversity of choice, the better the result for the consumer. We all want to take care of the indigent. No one is talking about walking over people in the street. That's the false argument progressives make any time we talk about an entitlement. If we had a privatized retirement system instead of an old age insurance program (social security) then we could have taken a portion of the cap gains taxes and provided care for those too poor to have saved any money. Instead we lumped all of society into a broken system and stole trillions of dollars of potential earnings creating more poverty. In the case of healthcare we can subsidize the catastrophic care for the indigent without creating a system where those on completely free government assisted healthcare make it so expensive for actual tax payers that its the indigent at the front of the line and those out tilling the field who can't afford their deductibles.
Quote:Actually, auto insurance rates would go way down if people who didn't own autos were forced to buy auto insurance. If you don't own a car, you won't ever file a claim.
Really, the only way insurance works is if there is a broad base of coverage that includes people who do not file claims. Hence the mandate that everyone have health insurance. You have to force healthy people to buy health insurance, otherwise, only sick people would buy health insurance, and either health insurance companies would be bankrupted, or insurance rates would go to the moon.
My personal view is that I am subsidizing the health care of people who eat too many potato chips and drink too many milk shakes. Watching fat people walk around with subsidized health care does rankle me. Why force me to subsidize their health care when they won't do the simplest thing, which is lose a few pounds so they don't develop diabetes and heart disease. I'm forced to subsidize their health insurance, so why not force them to make better choices? Is there a single healthy thing on the menu at Sonic? I see commercials for Sonic, and I think, my taxes went up because of them. They're giving people diabetes and heart disease, and I'm paying for it with Obamacare tax surcharges. So do we outlaw Sonic, or do we let people die in the streets because they don't have health insurance? A large part of me says, I'm subsidizing people's bad lifestyle choices. We need to be cruel to these people. Another part of me says, I don't want to see a society where people are forced to live with their lifestyle choices. Nobody wants to recreate Dickensian England with very rich people stepping over very poor people who are lying in the street dying because they don't have health insurance. I'll pay some taxes to level things out a little.
It's a difficult issue, a lot more difficult than proponents and opponents seem to want to admit.
Basically, liberals want to take care of people, and conservatives want people to live with the consequences of their actions. I am a little of both. In my view, both liberals and conservatives like to see things in very simple terms, and don't seem to want to admit that things are complicated.
Obamacare proved that without the option for non participation price control is impossible. If everyone was forced to buy car insurance the price would sky rocket because it's mandatory participation. The cost of insurance has nothing to do with claims paid out, that's the line they sell you. It has everything to do with supply and demand. Infinite demand equates expensive supply.
Quote:Except it isn't tied to any religion, at all.
You say it is.
So quote for me in the EO specifically where it says it bans individuals of the Islamic faith from entering the United States. Do it, or like Solid Snake, forever be branded a "Fake News Activist".
Dude stop being ignorant like Trump! You know this was a ban on Muslims, he been saying he was gonna do it, his whole campaign..
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/'>http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/</a>
And let me guess CNN a major news report, is not credible enough?? Lol you amuse me!
Quote:Obamacare proved that without the option for non participation price control is impossible. If everyone was forced to buy car insurance the price would sky rocket because it's mandatory participation. The cost of insurance has nothing to do with claims paid out, that's the line they sell you. It has everything to do with supply and demand. Infinite demand equates expensive supply.
There is no supply constraint on insurance. They can issue as many policies as they want. So supply of car insurance is theoretically unlimited. And there is competition among car insurance companies. I see the commercials constantly on TV.
Quote:There is no supply constraint on insurance. They can issue as many policies as they want. So supply of car insurance is theoretically unlimited. And there is competition among car insurance companies. I see the commercials constantly on TV.
If everyone were required to own it the price would go up. That is a basic economic principle.
Quote:If everyone were required to own it the price would go up. That is a basic economic principle.
The principle of supply and demand only applies where there is limited supply. There is no limit on the supply of insurance policies. That's why, if everyone is required to buy an insurance policy, the only effect would be to increase the profits of insurance companies.
I was in the business of publishing programming and content. Since we published on the internet, there was no theoretical constraint on supply. We had no need for extra people, or extra programmers, or extra content creators, so for every additional client we signed up, we just made more money. We could sign up as many people as we wanted. There was no upward pressure on price, because the demand never put any strain on supply. We actually could have cut our prices, because every additional client just spread our fixed costs thinner and thinner.
It's the same thing with insurance policies, especially if the additional policy holders are healthy people who have no need to file claims. The insurance companies issue the policies, they take the money, and their profits go up. It actually exerts a downward pressure on the prices of the policies, because the additional policy holders are pure profit, they do not file claims because they are healthy and they are only buying policies because they are forced into it.
Quote:The principle of supply and demand only applies where there is limited supply. There is no limit on the supply of insurance policies.
Yes there is, insurance companies cannot write more policies than they can fulfill and there are tremendous barriers to entry that prevent new companies from joining the industry. Mandatory demand, forcing someone to purchase something, always makes the price go up.
Quote:Yes there is, insurance companies cannot write more policies than they can fulfill and there are tremendous barriers to entry that prevent new companies from joining the industry. Mandatory demand, forcing someone to purchase something, always makes the price go up.
I'm not sure you read my entire post. The additional policies that insurance companies have to write because of the mandate are not ones that they have to fulfill. The mandate is what's forcing healthy people to buy health insurance. So the additional policies they write are not going to result in a lot of claims. So when you say they cannot write more policies then they can fulfill that is irrelevant because the mandate is forcing healthy people to sign up. Not unhealthy people.
Quote:I'm not sure you read my entire post. The additional policies that insurance companies have to write because of the mandate are not ones that they have to fulfill. The mandate is what's forcing healthy people to buy health insurance. So the additional policies they write are not going to result in a lot of claims. So when you say they cannot write more policies then they can fulfill that is irrelevant because the mandate is forcing healthy people to sign up. Not unhealthy people.
You are banking on a false narrative of a mandatory majority being healthy when that is not the case at all. With forced, subsidized health care regardless of pre-existing conditions, you are dramatically increasing demand, but in fact, the supply of medical care either remains the same or drops. In the case of ACA, healthcare services have actually dropped. This is not speculation but fact. We witnessed this for the upcoming ACA fiscal year. There have been nearly across the board increases in deductibles and monthly payments for ACA and it will continue this way as providers drop out. If you go the other direction with Medicaid/Medicare for all, which is rapidly starting to head that direction with record registrations, you have an even bigger issue. Doctors will be forced to close up shop because they can't afford to stay in practice, nor is there really any incentive. Lower pay, less providers, longer wait times, insufficient care.
Quote:Dude stop being ignorant like Trump! You know this was a ban on Muslims, he been saying he was gonna do it, his whole campaign..
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/'>http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/</a>
And let me guess CNN a major news report, is not credible enough?? Lol you amuse me!
The Executive order is not a ban on Muslims.
Hundreds of thousands were allowed in.
From Muslim nations.
Keep trying to lie your way to the truth.
Quote:Obamacare proved that without the option for non participation price control is impossible. If everyone was forced to buy car insurance the price would sky rocket because it's mandatory participation. The cost of insurance has nothing to do with claims paid out, that's the line they sell you. It has everything to do with supply and demand. Infinite demand equates expensive supply.
Actually if everyone was forced to buy car insurance, I imagine someone would create a car insurance company that sold insurance to people without cars. $5.00/month (unless there were vouchers, at which point I imagine the price would rise). They would then get the business of everyone who didn't own cars, and almost never have to actually work a claim.
Healthcare costs rose because there were people with pre-existing conditions that now have to be covered by Insurance Companies. It's not like they can create a health insurance company for people who don't go to the doctor--or at least not without being absolutely worthless. Because while not everyone has a car, everyone does have a body. The risk is there.
Quote:My personal view is that I am subsidizing the health care of people who eat too many potato chips and drink too many milk shakes.
So long as you have health insurance, you're subsidizing the health insurance of people who eat too many potato chips, people who smoke, etc... I mean that's basically what health insurance is. Healthy People make up for the unhealthy people--otherwise insurance companies wouldn't make a profit.
Quote:
So long as you have health insurance, you're subsidizing the health insurance of people who eat too many potato chips, people who smoke, etc... I mean that's basically what health insurance is. Healthy People make up for the unhealthy people--otherwise insurance companies wouldn't make a profit.
But my complaint is, I have to subsidize their health care, and they don't have to change their bad habits.
Quote:But my complaint is, I have to subsidize their health care, and they don't have to change their bad habits.
That's the problem with public healthcare insurance
Quote:That's the problem with public healthcare insurance
It's the problem with all healthcare insurance. People are allowed to insure themselves against a healthcare expenditure they could have avoided if they had made better choices. It drives up the cost of health care and the cost of health insurance for everybody.
Quote:It's the problem with all healthcare insurance. People are allowed to insure themselves against a healthcare expenditure they could have avoided if they had made better choices. It drives up the cost of health care and the cost of health insurance for everybody.
I think the primary driver of high cost is the use for preventative and routine care. If able I would simply hold catastrophic insurance.
Quote:It's the problem with all healthcare insurance. People are allowed to insure themselves against a healthcare expenditure they could have avoided if they had made better choices. It drives up the cost of health care and the cost of health insurance for everybody.
Not really true. People who have never smoked or used tobacco have gotten lung cancer. I know that personally because we recently buried my godfather who died of the disease even though he was not a smoker. Catastrophic illness or injury is something "unexpected".
Quote:I think the primary driver of high cost is the use for preventative and routine care. If able I would simply hold catastrophic insurance.
Bingo. As I've said many times, people think that "health insurance" is the same as "health care". The two are not the same at all. Routine care should be paid for by the patient and a better solution is to allow the patient to have a tax-free health savings account. Health insurance is supposed to be "catastrophic insurance" for cases of unexpected illness or injury. It's not supposed to be there to pay for physical exams or routine procedures.