Jump to content
personreal

"Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by Texas judge"

Recommended Posts

On 12/28/2018 at 3:05 PM, Neomalthusian said:

 

Appreciate the thorough response, but this is getting too long to respond point by point, so I will try to respond in summary.

 

First of all, the attempted explanations for opening the insurance markets to interstate sellers not working are grasping at straws.  The one guy said it was because of the ACA, but then said maybe it isn't but then in that case it's because of some other thing.  And then he said there are many reasons.  He doesn't know, nor does anyone else, because it just isn't clear why.  There are only theories at this point.  But you're taking this and acting like you do know, and that the only explanation can be that government restrictions prevent interstate selling to actually occur.  Or government just isn't going about allowing them to sell interstate the correct way.  Whatever the case, government is screwing it up, and if it weren't for government being a screw-up, all sorts of interstate insurance sales would be taking place.

 

State governments are asking and inviting out-of-state insurers to sell there and they're refusing.  This really casts doubt on the idea that insurers are dying to sell across state lines but governments aren't letting them.  Governments are trying to convince them to do, so and they're ignoring it.  "Oh well it still must be government's fault."  You're making assumptions and they're not really looking strong in light of the evidence.

The explanation that government restrictions are preventing interstate selling or an elimination of needless mandates are not just blind theories resulting from "grasping at straws."  They are based on simple logic, as there is no other rational explanation as to why all these supposedly greedy companies would not be taking advantage of the opportunity to greatly increase their profits.  It is like saying that someone is just dropping $10k in cash on a busy sidewalk every day, and yet no one wants to be bothered to just bend over and pick it up.  Obviously, the only explanation for something like that occurring would be someone using force to prevent people from picking it up.  Saying that no one wants to pick it up because there are simply no greedy people that want more money on that busy street would be preposterous, just as saying that there are no greedy insurance companies that want to make more profit is preposterous.

 

Quote

But I understand the underlying idea that competition suppresses costs. 

It is not simply a matter of more competition that lowers costs and improves quality.  All that is really needed is the mere threat of competition.  You could theoretically have one single seller of a good or service, but if they know that a new competitor could spring up at a moments notice to steal their customers if they don't keep their prices low and their quality high, then this creates an incentive for them to do these things.
 

Quote

1)  Insurer competition.  Insurers compete for customers who demand lowest-equivalent cost of premiums, and in competing with one another

 

It is not just competition among insurance companies that is needed, it is competition among insurance regulators that is badly needed- Link.

 

The original sin of health insurance regulation is not guaranteed issue, community rating, any-willing-provider laws, or mandated coverage laws. It is the insurance-licensing laws that make those regulations possible. Each state uses insurance-licensing laws to require every insurance policy sold to its residents to comply with all that state’s regulations. Those laws prohibit individual insurance purchasers from joining insurance pools with residents of other states. And they prohibit residents from purchasing out-of-state insurance products that come with a different set of regulatory protections. As a result, they erect barriers to trade between the states and prevent individuals from shopping for consumer protections the same way they shop for other insurance features. In effect, insurance-licensing laws give each state’s insurance regulators a monopoly over providing consumer protections. Those regulators then behave the way all monopolists do. They provide a low-quality product at an excessively high cost...

 

Perhaps most important, regulatory federalism would force insurance regulators to compete with one another to provide the optimal level of regulation. States that impose unwanted regulatory costs on insurance purchasers would see their residents’ business — and their premium tax revenue — go elsewhere. The desire to retain premium tax revenue would drive states to eliminate unwanted, costly regulations and retain only those regulations that consumers value.

 

Quote

 

Some free markets result in monopoly naturally, as would-be competitors just say "no thanks" to attempting to sell their goods or services in a particular area, leaving only one willing to do so.  When monopoly power arises, government has to step in to monitor for abuses.  

 

Again, this situation is completely irrational, like the example of the free money on the busy street that I gave above.  If you think otherwise, can you cite an example of a monopoly that was abusive to consumers that lasted for more than just a short period of time, without any use of government force or another form of force whatsoever to protect them from competitors, actually occurring at any point in all of recorded human history?  I have certainly never heard of such a thing and I have issued this challenge numerous times on various forums and no one has ever given even one single, solitary example so far.  I can tell from your posts that you are significantly smarter and more knowledgeable than the majority of the brainless retards infesting these forums, so if even you can't provide an example, then it is pretty strong evidence that they have never existed, just as simple logic would predict.

 

Quote

2)  Provider competition.  This involves insurers taking a more passive role, selling plans with a lot of direct cost-sharing so that patients can shop for providers that charge the most reasonable fees.  There are a lot of barriers to this, which mainly involve a lot of health care that isn't easily shoppable, as well as it being deeply ingrained in a lot of people's minds that health care should be very low cost because some sort of insurer/coverage should be paying most of the bill.  But in theory, direct patient cost-comparisons could control costs, if people could know the price and select a provider based on cost.  

I already told you how to achieve this- simply get the government out of the way and allow a free market to exist for a change.  Problem solved.  Why would healthcare be magically different that every other conceivable good or service that has ever been sold in a free market?

 

Quote

3)  Government price controls.  This would be where insurance is legislatively relegated to the background, if not abolished altogether, and the responsibility for cost control falls to a government bureaucracy.  This is basically what the recent Medicare For All proposals suggest.  This is perhaps the least realistic of the current alternatives. 

It is more than just the least realistic, it is worst alternative for numerous reasons.  It is the complete opposite of the correct solution.

 

Quote


The Forbes link said people are not stupid, but I would argue otherwise, a lot of people are pretty stupid when it comes to the complexities of health care, and many people would buy snake oil policies to save on premiums, and be misled as to what their coverage provides.

 

And you don't think word would quickly get out about the snake oil policy sellers?  You don't think the good insurance companies would be shouting from the rooftops about the snake oil selling competitors screwing sick people in their advertisements, not to mention stories in the media of these things occurring?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2018 at 3:51 PM, Sane said:

Ok, I know you love displaying your ignorant, but get your crayons out. 

Where the hell did the little twit inSane run off to???  Why on earth would he cowardly run away from someone who is supposedly so "ignorant"???  Lol...

 

Bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 12:06 AM, Nighthawk said:

Where the hell did the little twit inSane run off to???  Why on earth would he cowardly run away from someone who is supposedly so "ignorant"???  Lol...

 

Bump.

I'm back.  What's up dipsh*t, sorry I had to go chook your wife with my cock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sane said:

I'm back.  What's up dipsh*t, sorry I had to go chook your wife with my cock.

What, you don't even know how to fucking read?  Wow, I am shocked!  Shocked I tell you!!!  Lol...

 

Just look up in the thread and see where your words are quoted and then they are followed by my words, moron.  If you think you can refute any of those words that I posted, then let's see you do it.  Or you can be a man and admit your abject stupidity and thank me for educating you.  I really shouldn't have to explain to you how the hell a damn message board debate works, nimrod.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nighthawk said:

What, you don't even know how to fucking read?  Wow, I am shocked!  Shocked I tell you!!!  Lol...

 

Just look up in the thread and see where your words are quoted and then they are followed by my words, moron.  If you think you can refute any of those words that I posted, then let's see you do it.  Or you can be a man and admit your abject stupidity and thank me for educating you.  I really shouldn't have to explain to you how the hell a damn message board debate works, nimrod.

 

Good luck.

Are you sore????  I know your wife is. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nighthawk said:

What, you don't even know how to fucking read?  Wow, I am shocked!  Shocked I tell you!!!  Lol...

 

Just look up in the thread and see where your words are quoted and then they are followed by my words, moron.  If you think you can refute any of those words that I posted, then let's see you do it.  Or you can be a man and admit your abject stupidity and thank me for educating you.  I really shouldn't have to explain to you how the hell a damn message board debate works, nimrod.

 

Good luck.

Listen, I enjoy yanking your chain, but I will take some time to read your thoughts.  You might have some valid points.  I prefer conversations vs. the 7th grade taunting.  I have to admit I get caught up in sometimes, but a genuine conversation of ideas is what we really do need to solve these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×