Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
"Do Not Allow Yourself to Get Into a Discussion of the Details"
Topic Started: Mar 19 2010, 10:03 AM (945 Views)
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 20 2010, 09:50 AM
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 09:40 AM
Not at all. I do mean "healthcare" when I write "healthcare," and I do mean "healthcare insurance" when I write "healthcare insurance."
So you have no problem with healthcare insurance companies making a profit? Or should companies be made to assume risk without the reward of true profit? If so, would that be limited to healthcare insurance, or should auto, home, life and professional liability insurance companies also have to assume risk without the reward of true profit?
Response needs to be longer than I want to type on an iPod touch. Will response in the evening after I get to a proper computer. Please bump this if I forget. Thx.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Beacon Chris
Mar 20 2010, 09:32 AM
Larry,

I think the more essential principle behind for-profit business is that it creates efficiency. The profitability demanded by shareholders ensures accountability from the bottom to the top of a corporation. The problem we have in the United States is a shortage of competition created by government mandates and intervention in the free market. New York is a great example. By the time I pay my premiums and copays, my heath care runs about $2,000 per month. I only have three or four insurance companies to choose from. In a state like Texas, for example, where government is less intrusive I could have the same policy for about $800 and far greater choice.

Hmmmm....could that be because of guaranteed issue?
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 20 2010, 09:53 AM
Horace
Mar 20 2010, 09:50 AM
Beacon Chris
Mar 20 2010, 09:32 AM
Larry,

I think the more essential principle behind for-profit business is that it creates efficiency.
Sure, you just have to start to consider exactly what process they're trying to make efficient. Free markets work best for non-essential goods that people can take or leave, and if they take them, they pay for them 100% out of their own pocket.

Health care/insurance breaks that model in about 5 different places, it's a different animal.
Food and housing are much more essential than health care. How does that map on to your thinking about non essential vs essential goods?
Seems like the key concept is that of a ceiling. People sate themselves with housing or food - we recognize the concept of "enough". There is no "enough" for health care.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Horace
Mar 20 2010, 09:54 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 20 2010, 09:50 AM
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 09:40 AM
Not at all. I do mean "healthcare" when I write "healthcare," and I do mean "healthcare insurance" when I write "healthcare insurance."
So you have no problem with healthcare insurance companies making a profit? Or should companies be made to assume risk without the reward of true profit? If so, would that be limited to healthcare insurance, or should auto, home, life and professional liability insurance companies also have to assume risk without the reward of true profit?
The difference as I see it betweeen auto and health insurance is that health is a "priceless" concept in our view, irreplaceable and non-monetizable. So we've monetized the price of health via insurance by simply taking a huge number, the worst-case scenario cost of individual health care, and averaging it out over the entire population. Problem being, the celing there does not exist on the "worst case scenario".

There is always a ceiling for home or auto insurance - the cost of replacement.
Auto insurance is compulsory, so there might be an interesting argument about auto insurance.

Home insurance is not. If the price gets too high, you can self-insure.

The difference between home insurance and health insurance is that your home may never experience a catastrophic event in your lifetime. I don't know the statistics, but I'd bet there's a fairly sizeable percentage of homes that never file a home insurance claim, ever.

Whereas, there's almost a 100% chance that you'll file a claim against health insurance in your lifetime.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Beacon Chris
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 09:55 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 20 2010, 09:50 AM
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 09:40 AM
Not at all. I do mean "healthcare" when I write "healthcare," and I do mean "healthcare insurance" when I write "healthcare insurance."
So you have no problem with healthcare insurance companies making a profit? Or should companies be made to assume risk without the reward of true profit? If so, would that be limited to healthcare insurance, or should auto, home, life and professional liability insurance companies also have to assume risk without the reward of true profit?
Response needs to be longer than I want to type on an iPod touch. Will response in the evening after I get to a proper computer. Please bump this if I forget. Thx.
LOL AX!

TNCR on the ipod touch! You are hard core, dude!
How you durrin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Beacon Chris
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Kincaid
Mar 20 2010, 09:55 AM
Beacon Chris
Mar 20 2010, 09:32 AM
Larry,

I think the more essential principle behind for-profit business is that it creates efficiency. The profitability demanded by shareholders ensures accountability from the bottom to the top of a corporation. The problem we have in the United States is a shortage of competition created by government mandates and intervention in the free market. New York is a great example. By the time I pay my premiums and copays, my heath care runs about $2,000 per month. I only have three or four insurance companies to choose from. In a state like Texas, for example, where government is less intrusive I could have the same policy for about $800 and far greater choice.

Hmmmm....could that be because of guaranteed issue?
That's part of it, but not all of it. By the way, I'm all for folks with tough chronic or uninsurable conditions getting health care. That's one place where I think it would be good for the government to step in.
How you durrin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Imagine there were a thousand medical insurance companies allowed to compete for your business. Imagine these companies had no restrictions on how they designed their products, no government requirement that they insure every single thing under the sun in every single policy they wrote, and they could create a long list of products for you to choose from.

Do you think the competition and freedom to create a variety of products would lower your insurance costs? Of course it would.

Now consider the mess we're in now, where competition is nearly eliminated by government interference in the market place, and where "one size fits all" policies are a requirement.

This is what I don't understand about those who think government is the answer - they created the mess, yet you blame the insurance companies for it and think the solution is to trust the monster that made the mess in the first place.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Horace
Mar 20 2010, 09:58 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 20 2010, 09:53 AM
Horace
Mar 20 2010, 09:50 AM
Beacon Chris
Mar 20 2010, 09:32 AM
Larry,

I think the more essential principle behind for-profit business is that it creates efficiency.
Sure, you just have to start to consider exactly what process they're trying to make efficient. Free markets work best for non-essential goods that people can take or leave, and if they take them, they pay for them 100% out of their own pocket.

Health care/insurance breaks that model in about 5 different places, it's a different animal.
Food and housing are much more essential than health care. How does that map on to your thinking about non essential vs essential goods?
Seems like the key concept is that of a ceiling. People sate themselves with housing or food - we recognize the concept of "enough". There is no "enough" for health care.
Which means by implication that a government healthcare program would have to be unlimited? A 90 year old chain smoking diabetic morbidly obese person should be given that heart transplant?

I suspect that "enough" applies to health care as well once it is out of the hands of the individual to provide for their private goods.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
By the way, I'm all for folks with tough chronic or uninsurable conditions getting health care. That's one place where I think it would be good for the government to step in.



A situation that would be completely solved by simply allowing unfettered competition for business. It's easy to get around preconditions by being in a group plan - allow insurance companies to compete freely and more people will be able to offer these group plans.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 20 2010, 10:10 AM
Horace
Mar 20 2010, 09:58 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 20 2010, 09:53 AM
Horace
Mar 20 2010, 09:50 AM
Beacon Chris
Mar 20 2010, 09:32 AM
Larry,

I think the more essential principle behind for-profit business is that it creates efficiency.
Sure, you just have to start to consider exactly what process they're trying to make efficient. Free markets work best for non-essential goods that people can take or leave, and if they take them, they pay for them 100% out of their own pocket.

Health care/insurance breaks that model in about 5 different places, it's a different animal.
Food and housing are much more essential than health care. How does that map on to your thinking about non essential vs essential goods?
Seems like the key concept is that of a ceiling. People sate themselves with housing or food - we recognize the concept of "enough". There is no "enough" for health care.
Which means by implication that a government healthcare program would have to be unlimited? A 90 year old chain smoking diabetic morbidly obese person should be given that heart transplant?

I suspect that "enough" applies to health care as well once it is out of the hands of the individual to provide for their private goods.
The concept of "enough" needs to come into play. It will assert itself eventually anyway whether we like it or not. Our capacity to innovate treatments for chronic conditions will always be several steps ahead of our ability to pay for it. But since the concept of "enough" where it comes to health and life preservation goes against our memes, it makes us feel unclean to even think about it.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
It does not make me feel unclean.
I have not been infected by the meme.
No one gets out alive anyway. No one has the right to unlimited health care unless they can pay for it themselves.

It makes no sense to me for the government to assume the risk of insuring the health care of the entire population. That is what universal health care purports to do. That, in my book, is not the legitimate role of a government.

If some nation wants to choose that, and wants to entrust their health care and very life to career civil servants, governmental bureaucrats, financial analysts, and policy wonks, that is their political choice. It is not mine.

There are many ways the present system can be regulated to the benefit of the general populace, including those who are involuntarily uninsured, without destroying the present system. Neither the Democrats in Congress nor Obama are interested in that.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Beacon Chris
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Larry
Mar 20 2010, 10:10 AM
Quote:
 
By the way, I'm all for folks with tough chronic or uninsurable conditions getting health care. That's one place where I think it would be good for the government to step in.



A situation that would be completely solved by simply allowing unfettered competition for business. It's easy to get around preconditions by being in a group plan - allow insurance companies to compete freely and more people will be able to offer these group plans.

Larry,

You know I'm as free market as the next guy, but there are illnesses that insurance companies wouldn't grab. Having said that, they would take 99% of everything else. If that 1% need medicare, I don't mind.

How you durrin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 09:55 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 20 2010, 09:50 AM
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 09:40 AM
Not at all. I do mean "healthcare" when I write "healthcare," and I do mean "healthcare insurance" when I write "healthcare insurance."
So you have no problem with healthcare insurance companies making a profit? Or should companies be made to assume risk without the reward of true profit? If so, would that be limited to healthcare insurance, or should auto, home, life and professional liability insurance companies also have to assume risk without the reward of true profit?
Response needs to be longer than I want to type on an iPod touch. Will response in the evening after I get to a proper computer. Please bump this if I forget. Thx.
How hard can it be to type "socialism" even on an iiPod?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Beacon Chris
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Larry
Mar 20 2010, 10:07 AM
Imagine there were a thousand medical insurance companies allowed to compete for your business. Imagine these companies had no restrictions on how they designed their products, no government requirement that they insure every single thing under the sun in every single policy they wrote, and they could create a long list of products for you to choose from.

Do you think the competition and freedom to create a variety of products would lower your insurance costs? Of course it would.

Now consider the mess we're in now, where competition is nearly eliminated by government interference in the market place, and where "one size fits all" policies are a requirement.

This is what I don't understand about those who think government is the answer - they created the mess, yet you blame the insurance companies for it and think the solution is to trust the monster that made the mess in the first place.

+ 100

And in addition, I would probably want a plan that covers true emergencies and the work out yearly rate with my doctors for check-ups and everything else. A doc who is a customer of mine is doing this. He's a primary care physician who just stopped taking insurance. His cost is $1,500 a year for a single and that covers all visits and most tests plus a yearly physical. Tack on another couple grand and he can do it for a family. Voila! He has two or three hundred patients who all have his cell phone # and everything in case they need him urgently instead of getting a lousy $54 from the insurance company and having 3000 patients.

If I could do this plus have basic INSURANCE (you know, the definition of insurance - like when something unexpected goes really wrong?) I could do it for less than half of what I'm paying and have much, much better care and service.

NOOOO - President Obama wants one size fits all, and that ain't gonna work with our bodies.

Just think, if they get this thing through, we can argue and discuss how bad it is not just for a year, but for the rest of our lives... just like the do in England. Wow, now we can beg the president for more care and longer lives. Hey, what's he done for his half brother, George lately...

Nuts...
Edited by Beacon Chris, Mar 20 2010, 11:24 AM.
How you durrin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

Let me see if I get this correct - the healthcare bill will cost $940 billion over ten years, we are going to pay more taxes, and we're going to cut the deficit by an estimated $138 billion, so passing this healthcare bill will actually save us money.



There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Mar 20 2010, 10:07 AM
Imagine there were a thousand medical insurance companies allowed to compete for your business. Imagine these companies had no restrictions on how they designed their products, no government requirement that they insure every single thing under the sun in every single policy they wrote, and they could create a long list of products for you to choose from.

Do you think the competition and freedom to create a variety of products would lower your insurance costs? Of course it would.

Now consider the mess we're in now, where competition is nearly eliminated by government interference in the market place, and where "one size fits all" policies are a requirement.

This is what I don't understand about those who think government is the answer - they created the mess, yet you blame the insurance companies for it and think the solution is to trust the monster that made the mess in the first place.

Imagine when one of those unregulated insurance companies collects premiums and then disappears into the night when claims are made.

You don't have to imagine it. Just change the industry and name it IndyMac.

You don't think that an enterprising, unregulated company might ... oh, I don't know ... set prices in such a way that it can't afford to pay claims? And that such a company might get an awful lot of business, right away, because its prices are lower than those of its competitors? And that, when the house of cards comes tumbling down, the policyholders won't show up on the doorstep of Larry the Taxpayer, demanding that you cover their claims because you didn't regulate a business that, by its very nature, requires regulation?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

I thought this was about getting 30 million non insured persons, medical insurance.

Enron was regulated and look what it managed to get away with. So was Maddof. So were S&L's. More regulation doesn't fix anything, especially given that the government doesn't enforce the existing regulations.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
1hp
Mar 20 2010, 05:03 PM
I thought this was about getting 30 million non insured persons, medical insurance.

Enron was regulated and look what it managed to get away with. So was Maddof. So were S&L's. More regulation doesn't fix anything, especially given that the government doesn't enforce the existing regulations.
Enron wasn't regulated like a brokerage or an insurance company. Let's talk apples and apples, OK?

Madoff was a failure of regulation. If one of George's patients dies, do you conclude that surgery never works?

And the S&L's? That's a laugh! I was right in the middle of that, and that was 100% Ronald Reagan's fault, because of the DE-regulation of S&L's in the mid-80's. Frankly, that proves exactly the opposite of the case you want to make, for anyone who actually knows what happened back then.

Regulation works. What doesn't work is allowing people to take leveraged risks with the government on the hook if the risks go wrong. If the Republicans would just stop getting in the frickin' way of appropriate regulation ....
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
1hp
Mar 20 2010, 05:03 PM
I thought this was about getting 30 million non insured persons, medical insurance.

Enron was regulated and look what it managed to get away with. So was Maddof. So were S&L's. More regulation doesn't fix anything, especially given that the government doesn't enforce the existing regulations.
Never mind, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman says that we need reform.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Would one of you leftwing goobers explain something to me:

They say we have about 30 million people today without health insurance.

Never mind that this number includes young people who have chosen not to purchase it, illegal aliens, etc.

After all is said and done it is projected that there will be around 23 million people who *still* won't have health insurance.

Please explain why it is a smart thing to bankrupt the country and lower the living standards of every single citizen in order to put another 7 million people on the "insured" column?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Mar 20 2010, 07:33 PM
Would one of you leftwing goobers explain something to me:

They say we have about 30 million people today without health insurance.

Never mind that this number includes young people who have chosen not to purchase it, illegal aliens, etc.

After all is said and done it is projected that there will be around 23 million people who *still* won't have health insurance.

Please explain why it is a smart thing to bankrupt the country and lower the living standards of every single citizen in order to put another 7 million people on the "insured" column?

Because you have your numbers wrong.

And because there's more to the bill than insuring the uninsured. Like, stopping insuring companies from deciding that you are uninsurable.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 09:55 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 20 2010, 09:50 AM
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 09:40 AM
Not at all. I do mean "healthcare" when I write "healthcare," and I do mean "healthcare insurance" when I write "healthcare insurance."
So you have no problem with healthcare insurance companies making a profit? Or should companies be made to assume risk without the reward of true profit? If so, would that be limited to healthcare insurance, or should auto, home, life and professional liability insurance companies also have to assume risk without the reward of true profit?
Response needs to be longer than I want to type on an iPod touch. Will response in the evening after I get to a proper computer. Please bump this if I forget. Thx.
Healthcare insurance should be about risk-sharing by all in the risk pool, not about individual companies assuming risk. An organization may exist to administer the risk pool (and earn fair market return for its labor managing the risk pool), but not to "profit" from excess pricing of risk premium or under-payment of just claims. In that sense, the healthcare insurance companies should only earn its keep as "manager" administering risk pools, not as "speculator" speculating to over-price premium and underpay just claims to profit from the spread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Beacon Chris
Mar 20 2010, 09:32 AM
In a state like Texas, for example, where government is less intrusive I could have the same policy for about $800 and far greater choice.

Yet, seemingly paradoxically, among the United States, Texas has the highest percentage of its population going without healthcare insurance coverage. :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 08:17 PM
Beacon Chris
Mar 20 2010, 09:32 AM
In a state like Texas, for example, where government is less intrusive I could have the same policy for about $800 and far greater choice.

Yet, seemingly paradoxically, among the United States, Texas has the highest percentage of its population going without healthcare insurance coverage. :blink:
What percentage of that population is illegal undocumented immigrant?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
Mar 20 2010, 08:20 PM
Axtremus
Mar 20 2010, 08:17 PM
Beacon Chris
Mar 20 2010, 09:32 AM
In a state like Texas, for example, where government is less intrusive I could have the same policy for about $800 and far greater choice.

Yet, seemingly paradoxically, among the United States, Texas has the highest percentage of its population going without healthcare insurance coverage. :blink:
What percentage of that population is illegal undocumented immigrant?
Do you know of any Texas law that bars private insurance companies from selling healthcare insurance policies to illegal undocumented immigrants, or any state regulations that bars illegal undocumented immigrants from buying healthcare insurance? :blink:

Even then, only about 27% of the uninsureds in Texas are non-citizens. (I.e., 73% of the uninsured in Texas are US citizens.)

Be that as it may, let's try to back out the illegal undocumented immigrants from the statistics ...

Texas population is estimated at close to 25 million, of which about 2.5 million are non-citizens. So let's say there are 22.5 million US citizens in Texas, and we estimate the # of uninsured citizens as follows:

# of people uninsured in Texas = 28% of 25 million = 7 million

73% of the uninsured are citizens, i.e.:
73% of that uninsured 7 million = about 5 million uninsured citizens

% of uninsured citizens in Texas = 100% * 5 million / 22.5 million = 22%

So we have an estimate that 22% of citizens in Texas are uninsured.
Compare that to, say, 3%~5% uninsured in Massachusetts (that includes citizens and non-citizens), or about 11% uninsured in the US, Texas still sucks when it comes to extending health insurance coverage to its residents, citizens and non-citizens alike.

Hence the paradox I present to Beacon Chris still stands - despite all the supposed virtue of non-regulation low premium in Texas, it still has extremely high rate of uninsureds, even when we consider only citizens when doing the comparison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2