Off-Topic DiscussionsThis is the area for general banter/chat. There are rules for this section, please read the sticky post in the section before participating. Enter at your own risk as some posts in here may be NSFW
If the health care price-setting-czar denies me coverage under a "public" option, I will have little recourse.
If you're denied coverage by a for-profit insurance corporation, you won't have any recourse, either. You can take your business elsewhere but it'll be after the fact, at which point you will have lost the money you paid in premiums and still be stuck with the bill.
Not that any of that's relevant now, for two reasons:
A) Nobody's ever suggested that for-profit insurance corporations won't be allowed to continue doing business as usual.
B) The whole national health care reform initiative is dead anyway. Were there any intent on Capitol Hill to get it done, it'd be done by now. Consider how fast the Patriot Act, FISA, TARP and off-budget supplemental appropriations for operations in Iraq & Afghanistan sailed through. At this point, it's just bad kabuki.
Most likely, and about the best we can hope for at this point, is that this session of Congress will run out the clock without enacting anything. It's also possible they'll enact some terrible rehash of HillaryCare or a federalized version of Massachusetts Mandatory, but I'm betting on (and hoping for) a recess without a bill.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell
November 5, 2008: The fat lady sang. Back to actually working for a living.
1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles. Hella headlights, (highly recommended) DOT C-2 back end. (also recommended) R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. 4.1:1 rear axle converted to 3.4:1.
9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation due to rust.
Not affiliated with the Campbell Soup Company.
Last edited by drcampbell : 07-31-2009 at 05:21 PM.
... I would like to be able to purchase a cheaper policy that covers only the "very large, unexpected health problems", with a very high deductible. I would write a check for all routine checkups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drcampbell
So who's preventing you from doing just that? Oh, right: For-profit insurance corporations.
I stumbled upon part of the answer to "who's preventing me from purchasing a catastrophic-only policy": The answer is often ... the government.
Since 1979, the number of mandate laws which require insurance companies to cover certain treatments has ballooned from 252 to over 1,900. Special interest groups lobby lawmakers who then pass bills which require that these treatments be covered. The mandated treatments include such "necessities" as: acupuncture, alcoholism treatment, athletic trainers, breast reduction, dieticians, drug abuse treatment, hair prosthesis, home health care, hormone replacement therapy, in vitro fertilization, marriage therapy, massage therapy, nature treatments, pastoral counseling, smoking cessation, speech therapy and varicose vein removal.
When insurance companies are forced to cover things like this, they raise the price of their policies. Also, with these things covered, people are more likely to seek these treatments when they would not if paying out of pocket, which drives up medical demand, and therefore price.
These higher premiums are certainly responsible for pushing many out of the market for health insurance.
Once again, government action takes away my freedom to chose a policy that fits my needs and ability to pay.
In a free market, if I wanted to purchase a catastrophic-only health insurance policy, I could surely find a company that would be interested in selling me one. We would agree on the terms which satisfy the both of us and both feel that we came out ahead in the deal. But unfortunately, it is often the case that government will not allow us to enter into such a contract.
full disclosure: the mandates, as often as not, come from state governments. Still not good, but as I've said before, moving to a new state to escape excessive government is a reasonable option. Moving out of country, less so.
In a free market, if I wanted to purchase a catastrophic-only health insurance policy, I could surely find a company that would be interested in selling me one.
Right. Just like you can save money by buying a car without power steering, power brakes or an automatic transmission, insurance corporations will beat a path to your door to sell you a less-profitable policy with fewer attachments.
Just whose payroll do you think those special interest group lobbyists are on? Soccer moms? What could possibly be a more effective way to move a "product" and increase profits than by getting the Legislature to require it?
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell
November 5, 2008: The fat lady sang. Back to actually working for a living.
1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles. Hella headlights, (highly recommended) DOT C-2 back end. (also recommended) R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. 4.1:1 rear axle converted to 3.4:1.
9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation due to rust.
Right. Just like you can save money by buying a car without power steering, power brakes or an automatic transmission, insurance corporations will beat a path to your door to sell you a less-profitable policy with fewer attachments.
Just whose payroll do you think those special interest group lobbyists are on? Soccer moms? What could possibly be a more effective way to move a "product" and increase profits than by getting the Legislature to require it?
It doesn't make a lot of sense for a company to lobby for laws that place restrictions on themselves and drive up their costs. If they only wanted to sell the expensive packages, they could do it without government intervention. Kinda like the car companies often do in your example with all their expensive add-ons. The car companies do also see the wisdom of offering cars that are less expensive for those of limited means. Wouldn't doing the same be a good thing for the insurance companies, and their less wealthy customers?
The lobbyists are on the payroll of those that are providing the services for acupuncture, alcoholism treatment, athletic trainers, breast reduction, dieticians, drug abuse treatment, hair prosthesis, etc, etc. If they can force insurance companies to cover those services, they will have a lot more customers. The study I read confirmed that once these policies are required, the demand for them increases greatly. As a result, there is a tremendous incentive to get mandates for services.
On the bright side, I take it that we agree that it would be best to remove the government mandates, thus allowing less expensive policies to be offered?
No, it actually does make a lot of sense – if you're a big insurance corporation (or cartel of corporations) with a majority market share.
The number of people who have medical insurance policies is more or less constant. It's almost impossible to increase profits by increasing the number of people enrolled.
Most of the policies are purchased by other corporations, not individuals, so the price will be subject to intense scrutiny, making it almost impossible to increase profits just by raising rates.
So how do you increase profits when you're caught between not being able to sell to more people and not being able to raise prices? Lobby the government to mandate a bunch of stuff that people wouldn't otherwise pay for. Sure, it raises costs, but it raises premiums (and profits) even more. And if some small, aggressive insurance company wanted to bite into the big corporations' market share with bare-bones, low-cost (and low-margin) policies, they're now prevented from doing so. It's a classic protection racket on both ends.
Unrestrained capitalism leads to two things: monopolies and corruption.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell
November 5, 2008: The fat lady sang. Back to actually working for a living.
1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles. Hella headlights, (highly recommended) DOT C-2 back end. (also recommended) R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. 4.1:1 rear axle converted to 3.4:1.
9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation due to rust.
No, it actually does make a lot of sense – if you're a big insurance corporation (or cartel of corporations) with a majority market share.
The number of people who have medical insurance policies is more or less constant. It's almost impossible to increase profits by increasing the number of people enrolled.
Most of the policies are purchased by other corporations, not individuals, so the price will be subject to intense scrutiny, making it almost impossible to increase profits just by raising rates.
So how do you increase profits when you're caught between not being able to sell to more people and not being able to raise prices? Lobby the government to mandate a bunch of stuff that people wouldn't otherwise pay for. Sure, it raises costs, but it raises premiums (and profits) even more. And if some small, aggressive insurance company wanted to bite into the big corporations' market share with bare-bones, low-cost (and low-margin) policies, they're now prevented from doing so. It's a classic protection racket on both ends.
Unrestrained capitalism leads to two things: monopolies and corruption.
This is very accurate and insightful.
Also add that the steady investment income streams that made private insurance work in the past are gone. I.E. investment with your money in the stock market, bonds and simple savings accounts.
That is how the insurance companies used to make profit rather than take it out of the pockets of customers and doctors.
I recall that the first hike in auto insurance and health care premiums came after the Dot.com bust in 2000......every time interest rates are cut or the stock market takes a dump, insurance rates go up.
So how do you increase profits when you're caught between not being able to sell to more people and not being able to raise prices? Lobby the government to mandate a bunch of stuff that people wouldn't otherwise pay for. Sure, it raises costs, but it raises premiums (and profits) even more. And if some small, aggressive insurance company wanted to bite into the big corporations' market share with bare-bones, low-cost (and low-margin) policies, they're now prevented from doing so. It's a classic protection racket on both ends.
Unrestrained capitalism leads to two things: monopolies and corruption.
I can produce LOTS of examples where the party seeking the mandates is not the insurance companies, but I'll take you at your word that large insurance companies do team up with the government to put mandates in place that favor the large companies.
That hardly fits the definition of a free market.
If the problem is government mandates that favor large insurance companies and prohibit free competition, it seems that the solution should be less government, not more. Getting the government out of the picture (no more mandates) would allow companies with creative packages and low prices to compete.
I can produce LOTS of examples where the party seeking the mandates is not the insurance companies, but I'll take you at your word that large insurance companies do team up with the government to put mandates in place that favor the large companies.
I don't have any inside information from Capitol Hill, let alone the Texas Ledge. But ask yourself this: Who has the money, clout & hired lobbyists to get their agenda enacted into law: Insurance corporations and HMOs or acupuncturist PACS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtFarmer
That hardly fits the definition of a free market.
What is this mythical "free market" to which you and Milton Friedman keep referring? In real life, there is only a manipulated market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtFarmer
If the problem is government mandates that favor large insurance companies and prohibit free competition, it seems that the solution should be less government, not more. Getting the government out of the picture (no more mandates) would allow companies with creative packages and low prices to compete.
And just how would that be accomplished?
I say the solution is not necessarily less government, (or more) but less-corrupt government.
And the only way to that end is to elect people who do not accept lobbyist money, special-interest money, PAC money, corporate contributions or soft money.
If we can't do that, the very least we could do is require members of Congress to be open about who's backing them by wearing the corporate logos of the corporations sponsoring them out in the open, a'la NASCAR.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell
November 5, 2008: The fat lady sang. Back to actually working for a living.
1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles. Hella headlights, (highly recommended) DOT C-2 back end. (also recommended) R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. 4.1:1 rear axle converted to 3.4:1.
9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation due to rust.
I say the solution is not necessarily less government, (or more) but less-corrupt government.
That sounds like a good start, IF we can get there. But I don't think we can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drcampbell
And the only way to that end is to elect people who do not accept lobbyist money, special-interest money, PAC money, corporate contributions or soft money.
I'd like to be able to do this, but again, I don't think we can. The money is going to find its way to the politicians. No amount of laws, rules, or promises will keep the big money from those with power and influence.
On the other hand, if we limited the power and influence of the government, there would be less incentive for the money to come looking.
If the state and federal governments did not have the ability to pass mandates on insurance, the insurance companies (and others) would have no reason to try to buy off the politicians.
Tell me how this would not work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drcampbell
If we can't do that, the very least we could do is require members of Congress to be open about who's backing them by wearing the corporate logos of the corporations sponsoring them out in the open, a'la NASCAR.
I'd like to be able to do this, but again, I don't think we can. The money is going to find its way to the politicians. ...
Sure we can. Just stop voting for the lesser of two weevils and start voting for people who don't accept tainted money. It'll take a little work to find them, because they (almost by definition) won't have nearly the advertising budget.
Then call the media out every time they pretend money=support. There is an awful lot of, um, bovine biosolids about public participation in elections through campaign contributions, and I doubt it's accidental. Last year, we heard even more b.bs. about "small contributors". The fact is, fewer than 1% of voters ever contribute anything to election campaigns. I don't think a sample of 1% of the voters ought to be used to decide who's viable and who's not, and limit the voters' choices months before the actual election. It is true that Obama persuaded an unprecedented number of people to contribute to his campaign but numerous as they were, they still represent fewer than 1% of the electorate and contributed a minority of his campaign dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtFarmer
On the other hand, if we limited the power and influence of the government, there would be less incentive for the money to come looking.
Power abhors a vacuum. If we limit the power & influence of government, somebody else will wield influence. Your own Texas state Ledge is the poster child for limited government with part-time legislators and a weak governor; do you want to tell me there's substantially less corrupting campaign-contribution influence there than in other state legislatures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtFarmer
If the state and federal governments did not have the ability to pass mandates on insurance, the insurance companies (and others) would have no reason to try to buy off the politicians.
Tell me how this would not work.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce. (Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution)
Even if that were not spelled out in the Constitution, Congress (and the state legislatures) still inherently has the power to enact laws. The only way to take the power to enact laws away from the legislative branch is to disband the legislative branch.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell
November 5, 2008: The fat lady sang. Back to actually working for a living.
1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles. Hella headlights, (highly recommended) DOT C-2 back end. (also recommended) R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. 4.1:1 rear axle converted to 3.4:1.
9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation due to rust.
Not affiliated with the Campbell Soup Company.
Last edited by drcampbell : 09-09-2009 at 04:18 PM.
On the other hand, if we limited the power and influence of the government, there would be less incentive for the money to come looking.
If the state and federal governments did not have the ability to pass mandates on insurance, the insurance companies (and others) would have no reason to try to buy off the politicians.
Tell me how this would not work.
Would your solution to a corrupt police force be to get rid of police altogether, change the laws so that the police don't have any to enforce or get rid of the corruptness by getting involved and bringing the criminals back into submission of the law?
The Republicans in 1999, changed the laws so there weren't any to enforce thus allowing entities like AIG to engage in insuring the bundled up mortgages that Wall Street bought from them.
These are your ideals in practice in the real world.
Last edited by checkthisout : 09-02-2009 at 07:15 AM.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for a company to lobby for laws that place restrictions on themselves and drive up their costs. If they only wanted to sell the expensive packages, they could do it without government intervention. Kinda like the car companies often do in your example with all their expensive add-ons. The car companies do also see the wisdom of offering cars that are less expensive for those of limited means. Wouldn't doing the same be a good thing for the insurance companies, and their less wealthy customers?
The lobbyists are on the payroll of those that are providing the services for acupuncture, alcoholism treatment, athletic trainers, breast reduction, dieticians, drug abuse treatment, hair prosthesis, etc, etc. If they can force insurance companies to cover those services, they will have a lot more customers. The study I read confirmed that once these policies are required, the demand for them increases greatly. As a result, there is a tremendous incentive to get mandates for services.
On the bright side, I take it that we agree that it would be best to remove the government mandates, thus allowing less expensive policies to be offered?
Yes, lets make it so the insurance companies can get out of covering anything because what they are saying must be true. It must be the evil government that forces them to offer a service in return for funds paid that is causing insurance prices to rise.
Maybe you should buy insurance through United Health Care. They are another fine example of your ideals being implemented in the real world.
You have been baited and have fallen into the trap.
Would your solution to a corrupt police force be to get rid of police altogether, change the laws so that the police don't have any to enforce or get rid of the corruptness by getting involved and bringing the criminals back into submission of the law?
I would! If we had a corrupt police force, I would want to get rid of the whole lot of them. If it was something less than the entire force being corrupt or some lesser offence, I would make it clear that they had overstepped their bounds, and reign in their power. Boundaries would be drawn and it would be made clear that to cross those lines would invite their termination.
I would even support drawing the clear line in the sand preemptively. For example, after law enforcement went door to door in New Orleans in '05 looking for, and confiscating weapons owned by law abiding citizens, many states passed laws that would prohibit any such action in their state and I support that 100%.
I would! If we had a corrupt police force, I would want to get rid of the whole lot of them. If it was something less than the entire force being corrupt or some lesser offence, I would make it clear that they had overstepped their bounds, and reign in their power. Boundaries would be drawn and it would be made clear that to cross those lines would invite their termination.
I would even support drawing the clear line in the sand preemptively. For example, after law enforcement went door to door in New Orleans in '05 looking for, and confiscating weapons owned by law abiding citizens, many states passed laws that would prohibit any such action in their state and I support that 100%.
If the police were corrupt and chose to do nothing to obvious lawbreakers, your solution would be to draw a line in the sand and make laws that would make them less powerful?
If the people making the laws were corrupt and were working on behalf of the criminals and simply removed laws that protected you such as Gramm/Leech and Bliley did back in 1999, your solution would be to further limit government's power to regulate?
Do you see how you have become a victim of poll-tested spin?
Last edited by checkthisout : 09-02-2009 at 05:41 PM.
If the police were corrupt and chose to do nothing to obvious lawbreakers, your solution would be to draw a line in the sand and make laws that would make them less powerful?
...
Do you see how you have become a victim of poll-tested spin?
Up until your last note, this thread was about politicians (and by analogy, police) who do too much, not too little. Even Mr Campbell stated that in the case of insurance mandates, the politicians had done too much. If you want to discuss doing too little, we can do that. Oh, to have politicians who did too little!!!
First, I was just curious about your "poll-tested spin" reply to my post. Are you stating that those that are against government confiscation of weapons without due process nor even probable cause are simpleton victims of "poll-tested spin"? Were the lawmakers who banned this type of confiscation in some states victims of poll-tested spin?
If a local government bans guns and a citizen does not turn his guns in, is he then a criminal who should (your words from an earlier post) "be brought into submission of the law"?
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
