PDA

View Full Version : Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders: Get Rid of All Private Insurance Companies




FrankRep
02-03-2011, 12:39 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9xSLGZaPbDywzWkVXoJEfV4yDMemNh n3ltPd89pQ_Uvv3CQOiPw


Sen. Bernie Sanders: Get Rid of All Private Insurance Companies (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sen-bernie-sanders-get-rid-of-all-private-insurance-companies/)


Video:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sen-bernie-sanders-get-rid-of-all-private-insurance-companies/



“I hope to be able to get waivers from Congress and the White House to allow us to do so. At the end of the day, if you are going to provide health care to all of our people in a cost effective way, you have to get rid of the health insurance companies, not profiteering and bureaucracy,” he said.

Sanders prefers a universal health care system in America.

Stary Hickory
02-03-2011, 12:40 PM
Ah so instead of many private companies he wants a giant monopoly imposed by force. Wow such a forward thinker!

Brian4Liberty
02-03-2011, 12:57 PM
Isn't this like replacing a large crime syndicate with a government version?

IceForester
02-03-2011, 01:57 PM
Why not have a national non-profit cooperative?

Private insurance companies are thieving crooks, parasites that syphon off billions.

oyarde
02-03-2011, 01:59 PM
Get rid of Sanders & socialists !!

Brett85
02-03-2011, 02:02 PM
Why not have a national non-profit cooperative?

Private insurance companies are thieving crooks, parasites that syphon off billions.

Huh?

Jack Bauer
02-03-2011, 02:04 PM
Why not have a national non-profit cooperative?

Private insurance companies are thieving crooks, parasites that syphon off billions.

Describes the Federal Government perfectly!

Sola_Fide
02-03-2011, 02:07 PM
Why not have a national non-profit cooperative?

Private insurance companies are thieving crooks, parasites that syphon off billions.

W-w-w-whaaaat?

Do you think more competition or less competition tempers the problem of greed?

ItsTime
02-03-2011, 02:20 PM
Insurance is a scam but government is a bigger one.

Slutter McGee
02-03-2011, 02:22 PM
I like Sanders. At least he is honest about his intentions and vision.

That being said, I hope somebody can defeat him in an election.

Slutter McGee

nobody's_hero
02-03-2011, 03:49 PM
Why not have a national non-profit cooperative?

Private insurance companies are thieving crooks, parasites that syphon off billions.

They're middle men, just as the government is a middle man, so there is bound to be some siphoning going on, and I think you have a point I'll agree with, before everyone comes down hard on you (and maybe me, now).

It's funny to me, as a nursing student, that they stress in our courses the importance and revered sanctity of the patient-doctor (or in my case, nurse) relationship. Any breach of confidentiality could result in expulsion from the program. It isn't anyone else's business what your personal health issues are. But then, perhaps ironically, one of the projects we had last semester was to break down parts of the healthcare reform and discuss how those changes will affect the healthcare system. It's one thing to have to discuss treatment plans with your doctor, but then you have to explain those decisions to the insurance agent.

Until private insurance goes back to covering catastrophic maladies, the people are not going to see much of a reduction in healthcare costs. Nor would we see those healthcare costs drop if the government (which can write as many checks as it wants) steps in to cover everything.

Middle men.

Working Poor
02-03-2011, 04:00 PM
Personally, I think everyone should boycott insurance especially if you are healthy and see how much money comes back to the people even for one month if everyone stopped paying it we would see all kinds of "forgiveness programs" crop up from them no doubt it would become cheaper if we could all stick together and do it.

nobody's_hero
02-03-2011, 04:04 PM
Another solution, which could be implemented on a state level, that would reduce costs through competition by allowing supply to grow to meet demand:


In North Carolina and 34 other states, if you are a health care entrepreneur and you want to do anything from adding a new wing or extra beds to an existing hospital, to opening an office that offers MRI or other services, you need a “Certificate of Need” from the state. If this sounds like the kind of central planning one might find in a socialist economy – it is. In North Carolina, the central planning authority is known as the Health Planning Development Agency, part of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. The role of this agency is to plan economic activity provided by medical-care facilities. This is done down to the most minute detail, circumventing the most basic function of private decision-making in a free enterprise system, i.e., the allocation of resources based on entrepreneurial insight and risk taking.

Full article, .pdf file, and an excellent read:

http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/policyReports/con_laws-macon_no.1.pdf

GunnyFreedom, if you're reading, I saw that this one is related to North Carolina, but I don't know if CON's have been repealed since this was written in 2005. Maybe you could put it on your to-do list, since democrats keep accusing republicans of not wanting to do anything about healthcare.

Brian4Liberty
02-03-2011, 04:06 PM
They're middle men, just as the government is a middle man, so there is bound to be some siphoning going on, and I think you have a point I'll agree with, before everyone comes down hard on you (and maybe me, now).

It's funny to me, as a nursing student, that they stress in our courses the importance and revered sanctity of the patient-doctor (or in my case, nurse) relationship. Any breach of confidentiality could result in expulsion from the program. It isn't anyone else's business what your personal health issues are. But then, perhaps ironically, one of the projects we had last semester was to break down parts of the healthcare reform and discuss how those changes will affect the healthcare system. It's one thing to have to discuss treatment plans with your doctor, but then you have to explain those decisions to the insurance agent.

Until private insurance goes back to covering catastrophic maladies, the people are not going to see much of a reduction in healthcare costs. Nor would we see those healthcare costs drop if the government (which can write as many checks as it wants) steps in to cover everything.

Middle men.

Agreed. By it's very nature, insurance is "socialist". It distorts the free market in medical care. Costs are no longer controlled or even known by consumers, who don't have to directly pay. In that sense, the free market in health care long ago stopped functioning, which has led to our current state.

sailingaway
02-03-2011, 04:07 PM
when insurance companies don't properly fund plans they are successfully sued. When the government doesn't properly fund plans they call it 'social security' and 'medicare'.

No thanks.

Brian4Liberty
02-03-2011, 04:54 PM
when insurance companies don't properly fund plans they are successfully sued. When the government doesn't properly fund plans they call it 'social security' and 'medicare'.

No thanks.

AIG? If for some reason the largest medical insurers in the US ran into trouble, no doubt there would be some kind of taxpayer bailout, and probably a government takeover...

sailingaway
02-03-2011, 04:58 PM
AIG? If for some reason the largest medical insurers in the US ran into trouble, no doubt there would be some kind of taxpayer bailout, and probably a government takeover...

Then it was still fully funded....:) But that was an unusual kind of insurance. And I agree. Government should not bail them out. But you at least have some accountability and insurance if voluntary is something you can just decide not to have. Those who want to pool risk can. Unlike Obamacare where the determinations of 'best practices' to be covered by health care would be determined by a governmental commission specifically shielded from lawsuit by statute -- the better to ration care.

Fox McCloud
02-03-2011, 06:50 PM
Until private insurance goes back to covering catastrophic maladies, the people are not going to see much of a reduction in healthcare costs. Nor would we see those healthcare costs drop if the government (which can write as many checks as it wants) steps in to cover everything..

I'm sure they would love to do this, but, by law, they just can't--they are forced into covering procedures X, Y, and Z because group X, Y, and Z convinced State legislators that they were being "discriminated against"...so the congresscritters+senators of a state end up passing "must carry laws", which drives up the cost of healthcare---Obamacare makes this even worse, with even more "must carry" laws, only on a federal, instead of state level.

This is one reason why "buy insurance across state lines" isn't terribly popular (it would be a legitimate act of the commerce clause too); it would could cause a "race to zero" where these "must carry" laws are gradually done away with, just to bring in more revenue to that company (and thus taxes into that particular State's treasury). Even if it is eventually allowed, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we see the Federal government step into the States' rolls and initiate federal "must carry" rules to prevent the market form working. =T

oyarde
02-03-2011, 08:03 PM
Bernie needs to run off Article One , Section Eight , then run 1000 copies , bind it , put it in front of him and constantly smack himself in the head with it .

juvanya
02-04-2011, 03:27 AM
A few months ago, I wouldve agreed with him... I still want to, but I know it wont work...

jtstellar
02-04-2011, 10:53 AM
Why not have a national non-profit cooperative?

Private insurance companies are thieving crooks, parasites that syphon off billions.

why bother responding to this guy

wimpy poster hasn't even got the balls to stick around to debate his beliefs

Sola_Fide
02-04-2011, 11:18 AM
//

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 11:20 AM
insurance reform or health care reform is just a joke on everyone! The bottom line is insurance companies have no interest in covering you or helping you .When your the paying customer! The only goal of an insurance company is to profit off you and f you when they can and at all possible chances they can!! The best solution is to just do away with insurance companies all together. they are nothing more then ponzi schemes f'in over hard working insurance paying americans!!

Insurance companies are the very reason for high health care costs and the abuse of the system!! i am not advocating gov health care but both sides are f'in americans!!

wall street and the corrupt health insurance companies and the gop establishment along with many dems are destroying america!! Health Insurance companies destroyed the american dream for us! 500,000 in medical bills and much more,so i say to the banks and wall street and insurance f you and the horse you ride on!!! We are left penniless and trying to rebuild at 43!! As far as i am concerned the us gov/insurance/banks are dead to me!!

Brian4Liberty
02-04-2011, 11:25 AM
insurance reform or health care reform is just a joke on everyone! The bottom line is insurance companies have no interest on covering you or helping you .When your the paying customer! The only goal of a insurance company is to profit off you and f you when they can and at all possible chances then can!! The best solution is to just do away with insurance companies all together. they are nothing more then ponzi schemes!!

Insurance compnaies are the very reason for high health care costs and the abuse of the system!! i am not advocating gov health care but both sides are f'in americans!!

Lol! Good summary... we can certainly agree with Bernie on the problem, but not his solution.

teacherone
02-04-2011, 11:27 AM
why not get rid of all private companies then?

Krugerrand
02-04-2011, 11:28 AM
My healthcare solution would be to outlaw health insurance and to outlaw pain & suffering awards on malpractice lawsuits (unless one can prove malicious intent.)

If you want it - pay for it. I'm not a fan of behavior modification by tax breaks - but I'd be willing to allow tax breaks for health savings accounts. I'd definitely allow unlimited tax free transfers between tax savings accounts. (I believe those with excess would charitably transfer to tragedy cases in need.)

If the doctor messes up and should have known better - sue for lost wages, sue for remedy medical expenses. But, unless you can show he was trying to mess with you, you don't' get pain & suffering.

WHAMMO - the price of health care drops drastically. Now, virtually everybody can afford it and those who can have a means of seeking assistance from those willing to help.

Sola_Fide
02-04-2011, 11:34 AM
insurance reform or health care reform is just a joke on everyone! The bottom line is insurance companies have no interest in covering you or helping you .When your the paying customer! The only goal of an insurance company is to profit off you and f you when they can and at all possible chances they can!! The best solution is to just do away with insurance companies all together. they are nothing more then ponzi schemes f'in over hard working insurance paying americans!!

Insurance companies are the very reason for high health care costs and the abuse of the system!! i am not advocating gov health care but both sides are f'in americans!!

wall street and the corrupt health insurance companies and the gop establishment along with many dems are destroying america!! Health Insurance companies destroyed the american dream for us! 500,000 in medical bills and much more,so i say to the banks and wall street and insurance f you and the horse you ride on!!! We are left penniless and trying to rebuild at 43!! As far as i am concerned the us gov/insurance/banks are dead to me!!


No man! Insurance companies would not drive up health care costs if it weren't for government involvement! Don't fall into that socialist lie! Health care costs increase because government is the one paying for the costs!

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 11:35 AM
My healthcare solution would be to outlaw health insurance and to outlaw pain & suffering awards on malpractice lawsuits (unless one can prove malicious intent.)

If you want it - pay for it. I'm not a fan of behavior modification by tax breaks - but I'd be willing to allow tax breaks for health savings accounts. I'd definitely allow unlimited tax free transfers between tax savings accounts. (I believe those with excess would charitably transfer to tragedy cases in need.)

If the doctor messes up and should have known better - sue for lost wages, sue for remedy medical expenses. But, unless you can show he was trying to mess with you, you don't' get pain & suffering.

WHAMMO - the price of health care drops drastically. Now, virtually everybody can afford it and those who can have a means of seeking assistance from those willing to help.

i agree,^^^ the rest of my post from above below

Speciallyblend
"insurance reform or health care reform is just a joke on everyone! The bottom line is insurance companies have no interest in covering you or helping you .When your the paying customer! The only goal of an insurance company is to profit off you and f you when they can and at all possible chances they can!! The best solution is to just do away with insurance companies all together. they are nothing more then ponzi schemes f'in over hard working insurance paying americans!!

Insurance companies are the very reason for high health care costs and the abuse of the system!! i am not advocating gov health care but both sides are f'in americans!!

wall street and the corrupt health insurance companies and the gop establishment along with many dems are destroying america!! Health Insurance companies destroyed the american dream for us! 500,000 in medical bills and much more,so i say to the banks and wall street and insurance f you and the horse you ride on!!! We are left penniless and trying to rebuild at 43!! As far as i am concerned the us gov/insurance/banks are dead to me!! "

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 11:40 AM
No man! Insurance companies would not drive up health care costs if it weren't for government involvement! Don't fall into that socialist lie! Health care costs increase because government is the one paying for the costs!

i 100% disagree the problem is the insurance companies. this is the very reason why docs and hospitals inflate the prices knowing insurance will pay it!! Insurance is the root of the problem! I have 500,000 in meical bills to prove it;) and we have approval letters! the bottom line is insurance companies, the motive of insurance is to profit off you at all costs. that is not helping a paying insurance customer. that is basically saying we are gonna screw you at any chance we get so we can profit of you!! i have seen both sides of this issue over the last 4-5 yrs. Insurance is the bottom line problem when you can have approval letters and then after the fact be denied and left penniless!! The next answer is oo but you have law on your side BULL SHIT! we have approval letters and yet all the lawyers say is well 25,000 and we can move forward or they use meidcal laws as a reason why it is to costly to pursue!! bottom line insruance compnaies are the problem while we have to rebuild! who gets f'ed ? the paying insruance customer so the compnay can make a profit while we lost everything!!

you must of missed where i say i do not advocate gov insurance!! i dont buy into either sides LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fox McCloud
02-04-2011, 11:43 AM
I can't tell if a few people here are just being sarcastic and intentionally silly now or if they're trying to make legitimate arguments.

Brian4Liberty
02-04-2011, 11:44 AM
We also need to eliminate all of the government barriers to providing healthcare. Competition is the solution.

Sola_Fide
02-04-2011, 11:45 AM
why not get rid of all private companies then?

Good point.

Why not nationalize every business because they are all "greedy" and "drive up costs"?

Guys, don't ever ever ever ever ever think that government lowers the cost of ANYTHING. Lets be consistent libertarians here.

It is because government covers the cost of the health care expenses that prices always rise. Prices would not rise if the health care industry was exposed to the free market. It would be the same as computers: we would get better products and services at lower and lower prices.

teacherone
02-04-2011, 11:49 AM
government created this mess with the HMO act, + licensing and regulation requirements.

under a true free market you could shop hospitals for the best rates for non-emergency procedures.

for the rare emergency you could purchase catastrophic coverage.

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 11:51 AM
I can't tell if a few people here are just being sarcastic and intentionally silly now or if they're trying to make legitimate arguments.

no f'in sarcasm in my post. I can assure you!! f both sides!

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 11:53 AM
Good point.

Why not nationalize every business because they are all "greedy" and "drive up costs"?

Guys, don't ever ever ever ever ever think that government lowers the cost of ANYTHING. Lets be consistent libertarians here.

It is because government covers the cost of the health care expenses that prices always rise. Prices would not rise if the health care industry was exposed to the free market. It would be the same as computers: we would get better products and services at lower and lower prices.

he said none of what you say above. he said do away with insurance gov and private. the are the f'in problem!

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 11:55 AM
government created this mess with the HMO act, + licensing and regulation requirements.

under a true free market you could shop hospitals for the best rates for non-emergency procedures.

for the rare emergency you could purchase catastrophic coverage.

government did not create "our" mess Ameriben Insurance did! A private insurance company like any insurance company whos sole purpose is to f its paying customers!! Insurance primary purpose is to f its paying customers to turn a profit! That is it!! not one gov regulation is why the private company screwed us! please show one gov regulation that gives a private company the ability to approve a major surgery ,then after the major surgery deny it and get away with this crime! the compnaies know they can do this since it takes money to fight money! we will continue to shop our case but everyone wants money which the insurance companies made sure we had none to fight!!

We have the f'in approval letters, yet we cannot find one attorney to take this solid case wthout mentioning 25,000 to start!! What good are approval letters?? f the whole bs system.

teacherone
02-04-2011, 11:59 AM
government did not create "our" mess Ameriben Insurance did! A private insurance company like any insurance company whos sole purpose is to f its paying customers!! Insurance primary purpose is to f its paying customers to turn a profit! That is it!!

so...why didn't you drop your coverage with ameriben at the first sign of trouble and sign on with a different company?

Krugerrand
02-04-2011, 12:05 PM
so...why didn't you drop your coverage with ameriben at the first sign of trouble and sign on with a different company?

Consumers are stuck when it comes to insurance companies - and the companies exploit that. Pre-existing conditions, limited companies in an area and a host of other reasons can make switching insurance companies expensive.

The tax system drives coverage to be linked through employers. That leads to making switching difficult or impossible.

The medical world has bought into the insurance paradigm - which makes existing outside of health insurance exceptionally challenging.

teacherone
02-04-2011, 12:07 PM
Consumers are stuck when it comes to insurance companies - and the companies exploit that. Pre-existing conditions, limited companies in an area and a host of other reasons can make switching insurance companies expensive.

The tax system drives coverage to be linked through employers. That leads to making switching difficult or impossible.

The medical world has bought into the insurance paradigm - which makes existing outside of health insurance exceptionally challenging.

thank you...that's my point.

because of government actions we are now
1) forced to purchase health insurance to cover even the most mundane health issues
2) stuck with the health insurer our employer offers

of course the corporations exploit this. just as halliburton exploits theirs.

but the genesis of the problem came from government first.

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 12:08 PM
so...why didn't you drop your coverage with ameriben at the first sign of trouble and sign on with a different company?

are fucking serious??? you want us to pay a compnay that left us with 500,000 in medical bills with approval letters. are you fucking serious. think man think!!! we cannot get insured now cause my wife has 14 fused vertebrae and is disabled. FIRST SIGN OF TROUBLE?? AFTER THE MAJOR SURGERY? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON? WE HAD TO WAIT ONE YEAR TO GET THE APPROVAL AS MY WIFE WAS SHRINKING AND THEN GOT THE APPROVAL LETTERS AND THEN HAD THE SURGERY AND THEN GET DENIED 1 WEEK AFTER SURGERY AFTER THE APPROVAL LETTER. PLEASE TELL ME WHO THE F WILL INSURE A 14 FUSED VERTEBRAE WOMAN!! PLEASE GET REAL F'IN REALL DUDE!! I KNOW YOU THINK YOUR HELPING BUT YOUR ONLY POINTING OUT WHY INSURANCE IS FULL OF SHIT!!! SHE LOST HER JOB AND IS DISABLED AND WE ARE BROKE ! INSURANCE IS NO LONGER AN OPTION THANKS TO PRIVATE INSURANCE BANKRUPTING US, SO F'IN BROKE HAVENT BEEN ABLE TO FILE FOR 4 YRS FOR BANKRUPTCY AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL AFTER DEALING WITH CORRUPT BANKS,INSURANCE AND GOV!! F THEM ALL

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 12:12 PM
Bottom line is no insurance company is in business to help the paying customer!? They are in business to take your money and run at every possilbe chance , until people get that. They are clueless and for the ones that pay insurance and have had nothing major happen to them. They are clueless to!! Wake up folks

teacherone
02-04-2011, 12:18 PM
why didn't you research insurance companies before signing up?

you could have picked a more reputable one.

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 12:19 PM
i gotta go this thread has just brought back the last 5-6 yrs of memories over the banks,insurance companies! My thoughts would make me a felon!! I am f'in angry! I cannot be this angery for cpac or i wll have to stay in my hotel room:(

speciallyblend
02-04-2011, 12:22 PM
why didn't you research insurance companies before signing up?

you could have picked a more reputable one.

your not making any sense with your post teacherone i gotta go before you make me want to commit a crime!!

Sola_Fide
02-04-2011, 12:23 PM
Bottom line is no insurance company is in business to help the paying customer!? They are in business to take your money and run at every possilbe chance , until people get that. They are clueless and for the ones that pay insurance and have had nothing major happen to them. They are clueless to!! Wake up folks

Okay. So, do people have the liberty to buy insurance, even if you think they are clueless in doing so? Should be an easy question.

Also, what we have with Obamacare is government forcing people to purchase insurance. How does that solve the evil of insurance?

Sola_Fide
02-04-2011, 12:25 PM
i gotta go this thread has just brought back the last 5-6 yrs of memories over the banks,insurance companies! My thoughts would make me a felon!! I am f'in angry! I cannot be this angery for cpac or i wll have to stay in my hotel room:(

I'll let it go man. I hate the feeling of getting screwed. I've been there brother.

Brian4Liberty
02-04-2011, 12:34 PM
The "profit" motive for a doctor is for them to treat you (get paid), and to keep you as a patient (repeat customer).

The "profit" motive for medical insurance companies is to take as much money as possible from it's customers without providing any service. Their perfect customer lives a long, healthy life, paying them big bucks, never using their services, and then dies suddenly and unexpectedly, costing them nothing. And if you do need to utilize the benefits they are supposedly selling you, they will do anything and everything in their power to terminate the "contract".

Brian4Liberty
02-04-2011, 12:35 PM
Also, what we have with Obamacare is government forcing people to purchase insurance. How does that solve the evil of insurance?

Who is supporting Obamacare in this thread other than Bernie Sanders?

teacherone
02-04-2011, 12:36 PM
your not making any sense with your post teacherone i gotta go before you make me want to commit a crime!!

dude...i'm playing a socratic exercise here. sorry you're not playing along :)

in a free market you would have

1) decided whether or not you wanted full coverage medical insurance or just catastrophic.
2) shopped doctors and hospitals to find the ones with the best quality at the lowest price
3) researched your insurance company to find the one with the best service and customer reputation at the lowest price.

instead you were forced by the system to take the one insurance company your employer offered.

you could not shop hospitals to find the best price.

and you got screwed.

this system was produced by the government.

it should bear the brunt of your anger.

Sola_Fide
02-04-2011, 12:41 PM
Who is supporting Obamacare in this thread other than Bernie Sanders?

Yes, but my only reason for saying that is it would be absurd to make a law that made insurance companies illegal....about as absurd as the government forcing us to buy insurance.

Krugerrand
02-04-2011, 12:43 PM
thank you...that's my point.

because of government actions we are now
1) forced to purchase health insurance to cover even the most mundane health issues
2) stuck with the health insurer our employer offers

of course the corporations exploit this. just as halliburton exploits theirs.

but the genesis of the problem came from government first.

That's some degree of chicken / egg.

The government doesn't change that doctors and hospitals have incentive to maximum-bill an insurance company. It's the same issue with car accident repairs. A garage would never try and directly charge a customer what they charge an insurance company. The simple presence of an insurance company skews the free market relationship between the service provider and service purchaser.

Krugerrand
02-04-2011, 12:45 PM
Yes, but my only reason for saying that is it would be absurd to make a law that made insurance companies illegal....about as absurd as the government forcing us to buy insurance.

I see health insurance in line with ponzi schemes and unfair gambling. I'm not opposed to outlawing those and for the same reason would not be opposed to outlawing health insurance.

oyarde
02-04-2011, 01:12 PM
We also need to eliminate all of the government barriers to providing healthcare. Competition is the solution.

Yep

Fox McCloud
02-04-2011, 02:53 PM
That's some degree of chicken / egg.

The government doesn't change that doctors and hospitals have incentive to maximum-bill an insurance company. It's the same issue with car accident repairs. A garage would never try and directly charge a customer what they charge an insurance company. The simple presence of an insurance company skews the free market relationship between the service provider and service purchaser.

insurance companies will be obliged to pay the doctor as little as possible, as well, which forces the doctor and insurance company to negotiate the proper pricing for coverage, or for the doctor to refuse insurance company X, Y, and Z.

Techerone's points are quite valid, and you dismissed them entirely with a short quip that's not even really relevant to what was stated. It's merely the nature of health insurance that makes it kooky; we don't see this problem in catastrophic damages to homes/housing--it's only in the realm of medicine. Why, because it's not insurance anymore, it's a sort of quasi-voluntary private socialism because of the hundreds upon hundreds of "must carry laws" these days (which, again, is only getting worse with the recent healthcare reform change). If it was truly insurance, you wouldn't see this problem.

Another issue is the doctors' union, which has licensing restrictions on who can do what, when (same with nurse's unions) you restrict the supply of labor, you will get higher prices, overall, on everything.

Another aspect is the FDA+patents, both of which make it extremely difficult to get a new drug to market, not to mention the total cost for just complying with the trials (let alone the default high cost of the drug)...top this off with patents insulating the drug companies from competition, and you'll have more expensive than average drugs.

Those combinations, amongst others, work together, perfectly, to drive up the cost of care for everyone---what you're effectively advocating is blaming an industry for high prices when they're incentivized/forced by the government to act in a certain manner that causes those higher prices.

It would be like if if there was an insurance company in the fictitious of Wet-Dry World--the center area of this world never floods or has any problems with water damage; the coast, however, floods quite frequently; at least 2-3 times a year. There is a lone insurance company that provides housing insurance to all the members of this area--they do not provide insurance to those who choose to live on the coast, as it's not very economic for them to do so, with the damages. That said, they do offer regular disaster insurance to the members of the dry area.

Now let's say the government instituted a policy of "must carry" for this insurance company; they have to carry insurance for both the wet/flood-prone area, and the dry area as well. What do you think will happen to rates for everyone? They will have to go up to compensate for the fact that the wet area gets damaged so often (and therefore it'll have to pay out to those people as well). The secondary effect is that people will have no incentive to live inland anymore--heck, might as well go live on the coast; it's beautiful, and the insurance company has to pay for it anyway, right? This will only drive up premiums even more because there isn't a penalty for living there anymore---so basically, the losses of the people on the coast are being socialized by the people who live inland.

Is this the insurance company's fault? Heck no; they didn't want to provide insurance to people of that area--they wanted to remain a competitive company with low prices for their customers, but they are deliberately prevented from doing so because the government forced them to cover the people on the cost.


It's no different with health-insurance, only the people being subsidized are those who make poor health decisions (and some unfortunate people), and there are many many more must-carry laws than just a single one.

Krugerrand
02-07-2011, 09:11 AM
insurance companies will be obliged to pay the doctor as little as possible, as well, which forces the doctor and insurance company to negotiate the proper pricing for coverage, or for the doctor to refuse insurance company X, Y, and Z.

Techerone's points are quite valid, and you dismissed them entirely with a short quip that's not even really relevant to what was stated. It's merely the nature of health insurance that makes it kooky; we don't see this problem in catastrophic damages to homes/housing--it's only in the realm of medicine. Why, because it's not insurance anymore, it's a sort of quasi-voluntary private socialism because of the hundreds upon hundreds of "must carry laws" these days (which, again, is only getting worse with the recent healthcare reform change). If it was truly insurance, you wouldn't see this problem.

Another issue is the doctors' union, which has licensing restrictions on who can do what, when (same with nurse's unions) you restrict the supply of labor, you will get higher prices, overall, on everything.

Another aspect is the FDA+patents, both of which make it extremely difficult to get a new drug to market, not to mention the total cost for just complying with the trials (let alone the default high cost of the drug)...top this off with patents insulating the drug companies from competition, and you'll have more expensive than average drugs.

Those combinations, amongst others, work together, perfectly, to drive up the cost of care for everyone---what you're effectively advocating is blaming an industry for high prices when they're incentivized/forced by the government to act in a certain manner that causes those higher prices.

It would be like if if there was an insurance company in the fictitious of Wet-Dry World--the center area of this world never floods or has any problems with water damage; the coast, however, floods quite frequently; at least 2-3 times a year. There is a lone insurance company that provides housing insurance to all the members of this area--they do not provide insurance to those who choose to live on the coast, as it's not very economic for them to do so, with the damages. That said, they do offer regular disaster insurance to the members of the dry area.

Now let's say the government instituted a policy of "must carry" for this insurance company; they have to carry insurance for both the wet/flood-prone area, and the dry area as well. What do you think will happen to rates for everyone? They will have to go up to compensate for the fact that the wet area gets damaged so often (and therefore it'll have to pay out to those people as well). The secondary effect is that people will have no incentive to live inland anymore--heck, might as well go live on the coast; it's beautiful, and the insurance company has to pay for it anyway, right? This will only drive up premiums even more because there isn't a penalty for living there anymore---so basically, the losses of the people on the coast are being socialized by the people who live inland.

Is this the insurance company's fault? Heck no; they didn't want to provide insurance to people of that area--they wanted to remain a competitive company with low prices for their customers, but they are deliberately prevented from doing so because the government forced them to cover the people on the cost.


It's no different with health-insurance, only the people being subsidized are those who make poor health decisions (and some unfortunate people), and there are many many more must-carry laws than just a single one.

I apologize if the brevity of my response upset you. I can allocate more time for responses on some occasions and less time on others.

The secondary effect is that people will have no incentive to live inland anymore--heck, might as well go live on the coast; it's beautiful, and the insurance company has to pay for it anyway, right?

This point you bring up in as the villain of "must carry" laws. I am not an advocate of must carry laws. At the same time - look what insurance companies do to people every day. Your scenario is about insuring against a known foreseeable situation. Your car insurance rates will go up if you have accidents that are not your fault. Your house insurance rates will go up if you make too many claims that are not known foreseeables. The insurance company will recoup what they pay out for you in raised premiums. Health insurance companies will look for any way to get out of paying high expenses - no matter how much a person has contributed before that. Even when there is not government intervention - everyday people get hosed by their insurance companies.

It's merely the nature of health insurance that makes it kooky; we don't see this problem in catastrophic damages to homes/housing--it's only in the realm of medicine.

Catastrophic house insurance is pretty straight forward stuff. You house burns up, you get a check for $x.xx. But - have a tree fall on your house. Compare the price to get it fixed if you have insurance than if you don't have insurance. Watch the maximum billing take affect. Replace a broken windshield on your car - compare the price if you have insurance or if you don't. When it happened to me - the insurance company was in line to get billed higher.

I think of when a friend's car got hit be flying scrap metal. The shop suggested to him that they could use this to get the entire care repainted - even though that was not necessary. Plus - without the levels of insurance we see today, people would more frequently leave cosmetic damage unrepaired.

What goes though a doctor's mind when the order tests, MRI's etc. "Is this covered by insurance?" If it is not, they typically suggest a different path. Doctor's will often put patients through a battery of tests that they would never do if it was their own family member they were treating. Why is this? 1 - the tests are 'paid for' 2 - ordering the tests shields them from liability in the remote chance that something would come up on them. We are a drastically over tested and over treated population, medically speaking.

It's been a while since I've seen day time television. But, I remember the commercials for the old-folks scooters. Which old folks scooters do you think sell for a higher price - the one on the competitive marketplace where the customer forks over payment - or the one where they take care of all the direct billing to the insurance company for you and simply ship it to your door?

Pretty much, wherever you turn, insurance is kooky. Yes, government intervention exacerbates that - but it's kooky on it's own. It creates a world where the purchaser and seller are not in direct negotiation. That is a problem.

Here's a very long article that I believe I originally found on RPF:
How American Health Care Killed My Father
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/#
It's written by a democrat that understands the dangers of people not ever knowing what the true health care costs are. Sadly, he leaves out the impact that protection from lawsuits causes to the bottom line of health care.

Another issue is the doctors' union, which has licensing restrictions on who can do what, when (same with nurse's unions) you restrict the supply of labor, you will get higher prices, overall, on everything.

Another aspect is the FDA+patents, both of which make it extremely difficult to get a new drug to market, not to mention the total cost for just complying with the trials (let alone the default high cost of the drug)...top this off with patents insulating the drug companies from competition, and you'll have more expensive than average drugs.

Those combinations, amongst others, work together, perfectly, to drive up the cost of care for everyone---what you're effectively advocating is blaming an industry for high prices when they're incentivized/forced by the government to act in a certain manner that causes those higher prices.

Doctor's union, nurses union, FDA, pattens - yup those are all contributing factors. Except for perhaps the FDA, I think they all pale in comparison to the insurance/litigation hike. Go ahead - sell your pills for $200 a piece. If the insurance company doesn't pay for them - they don't sell. Your patten means nothing if you price your product outside of what the market will pay.

I believe OB/GYN's pay something like $300,000/year just to insure themselves from lawsuits. What does that do to the cost of service? Do you think there's extra pressure there to put people though tests they do not really need? What do you think those tests do to the price of service? I bet that's a lot more the cost of union division of labor.

So, perhaps my chicken/egg comment was over simplistic - but I think it's still valid.