Can we talk about insurance again? (or HELLBLAZER SEES WORLD'S END, HEALTH CARE BILL)

Refrozen

123456789 123456789 (123)
Dec 6, 2006
1,607
22
0
Houses
www.refrozen.com
Insurance companies would be banned from denying benefits or charging higher fees on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

Let's consider (my ECON 101 example) the scenario of a corporation to sell grade insurance. You bought an insurance package that said if you did worse than X% in your course, you would get $100,000 paid out. Who is going to buy that insurance?

  • People who do poorly in school.
  • People who want to do poorly in school.
Are these the people you want to be selling to? They're going to be pretty damn expensive. The first group is adverse selection, while the second is a form of moral hazard.

The health care bill passed the Senate today. You think we'd be a little wary of a 2,700 page bill that was pushed through right before Christmas, but... did anyone read it? What kind of shit is hidden on page 1,437? Why does this bill so fatally misunderstand what insurance is?

Why is your country such a mess. :-(

This bill is seriously going to blow up in Americans collective faces.
 


Be very suspicious of any bill that intentionally doesn't go into effect until YEARS later. It can only mean they're banking on the sheeple's short term memories & they need to build a slush fund (our tax increases happening now) just to pay for it all.
 
Why does this bill so fatally misunderstand what insurance is?

The bill does not misunderstand the nature of insurance. Rather, those who wrote it (including those who lobbied the drafters) understand the nature of power, money, and manipulation, and how to wield all three.

We cannot know the level of destruction this bill causes because we don't know its true price. Nor can we measure the value of services provided.
That is because the bill strips away the price mechanism by which producers and consumers determine the value of every product/service exchanged.

The populace does not understand this. And given how long it takes such state systems to implode under their own weight, we will be debating the effects of this bill for decades.

Think of it like this... FDR put social security and Johnson pushed Medicare into play. Both are imploding. Yet, the populace still thinks of FDR fondly (Johnson's legacy is tainted by Vietnam). The point is, people do not understand the causal relationship between government intervention and its effects. And each year that passes, the concept becomes foggier.

Here we are, 74 years after social security was passed and few voters even attach that monstrosity to FDR. Here we are, a mere 44 years after Medicare was passed into legislation. And all people can think about is how to keep that beast breathing.

Indeed, our kids are still taught that FDR was a hero.

Why is your country such a mess. :-(

Voters.

I have said in the past that if I were a political animal, nothing would make me happier than a docile, unthinking, confused, and stupid populace.

What could possibly be easier to manipulate? Simply keep the embers burning with Repubs vs. Dems, right vs. left, fight, fight, fight for our freedoms in faraway lands, and other nonsense.

And voters, desperate for relief, pick up the remote control and turn their idiot box to Dancing With The Stars.

And the perpetual consumption begins anew.
 
yesssssss epic fail, looks like i didnt send enough threatening letters to Nancy Pelosi. Guess I better step up my game and start adding a sprinkling of white confectioners sugar to real letters instead of threatening emails.
 
Let's consider (my ECON 101 example) the scenario of a corporation to sell grade insurance. You bought an insurance package that said if you did worse than X% in your course, you would get $100,000 paid out. Who is going to buy that insurance?

  • People who do poorly in school.
  • People who want to do poorly in school.
Are these the people you want to be selling to? They're going to be pretty damn expensive. The first group is adverse selection, while the second is a form of moral hazard.

The health care bill passed the Senate today. You think we'd be a little wary of a 2,700 page bill that was pushed through right before Christmas, but... did anyone read it? What kind of shit is hidden on page 1,437? Why does this bill so fatally misunderstand what insurance is?

Why is your country such a mess. :-(

This bill is seriously going to blow up in Americans collective faces.
And what country do you live in that's such a fucking paradise?

The government (theoretically, publicly) doesn't give a shit about reforming health insurance, they're trying to reform healthcare. The goal of the bill isn't to prop up insurance companies, it's to improve healthcare. Therefore, they don't give a fuck what happens to insurance companies - The goal on the pre-existing condition terms is to prevent people from being adversely effected (financially or health care related) if they have pre-existing conditions, not to help insurance companies make more money. The real problem is the way that insurance is currently structured through employment benefits - You're guaranteed coverage in those plans if you're a member of a company's plan, but the moment you try to get it on your own, you're out of luck.

Now explain this to me, since you're so versed in risk and insurance, how someone who buys insurance through their employer's plan is a lower health coverage risk than a small business owner buying their own insurance. I'm pretty sure there's no statistical significant difference between the two, yet group policies treat risk different than individual policies.
 
I agree. Employer benefits health care is a mess to some extent. I don't understand why you're questioning the difference in group policies (mitigating risk) and individual policies though, it seems obvious why that makes sense... and even if it didn't, it seems that those are decisions and negotiations that should be left up to individuals, their companies and any "unions" (or fraternal organizations, etc., as it has been historically) they form. It is certainly not as big of a mess as the government provisioning health care across the board, mandating health insurance, etc.

I understand that it sucks for people who have pre-existing conditions to have trouble finding insurance, but that isn't a problem to be solved by more regulation. It'd be better solved by eliminating the "all or nothing" insurance regime and implementing a "pick and choose"-type coverage. You pick what you want to be covered for, and according to your risk factors, the cost goes up. This would aid in economic efficiency ("people getting the most stuff overall"), while the government regime is looking to waste money (and therefore, taking away "stuff") across the board.

For the record, I'm in Canada. And I take little pride in that, its no better and in many ways much worse. Health care here being one of the worst markets I've ever interacted in... second only to telecommunications, which the government has its fingers in too. The "old ideal" for the US, however, would have created the best country on Earth. No. Did create the best country on Earth. Its falling apart quickly, though.
 
The Senate bill would leave the existing employer-based health system largely intact, in an effort to ensure that already-insured Americans see no change in coverage. However, large companies would have to pay a penalty to the government if they do not provide affordable insurance and their workers end up seeking government assistance. (in my humble opinion, this is a very flawed assumption - why would employers continue to pay for health insurance when paying the fines would cost them less? We should all expect to end up buying health insurance through the State-run Exchange)
 
why would employers continue to pay for health insurance when paying the fines would cost them less? We should all expect to end up buying health insurance through the State-run Exchange

^^^^
And here we have the genius behind the lie the Dems (Obama, et al) have been telling you about having 'Choice' - there will be only one choice when this phenomenon works itself out and they know that.