| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Normally capital chases yields, but that dynamic can break down when liquidity crunches emerge. well, liquidity usually also makes itself available when there's the yield, outside of systemic credit crisis anyway | ||
|
MstrJinbo
United States1251 Posts
On October 29 2013 18:58 Velr wrote: I work at a health insurance company here in switzerland. You wouldn't believe how stupid many people are when it comes to this stuff  (i'm serious, you wouldn't).What happened is: AMA defines what an insurance plan has to cover. Some plans don't do that and therefore have to be ended. People that had one of the above plans now have to get a new one. Sorry, that sounds pretty reasonable to me or what point am I missing? There is plenty of stuff to go, with good reason, after Obama, but this just doesn't strike me as one of them? Sounds like President Obama shouldn't have promised Americans that they could keep their existing health care plans back in 2010 if that point was so obvious. Unless of course, he was making promises he had power to keep in efforts to tip the scales on an unpopular bill. Also people who actually read the contents of the ACA saw this was coming and have been taking about it for 3 years. Media is only running with it now that insurers are actually dropping plans. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
The worst part about this is that many health insurance companies are going to use this as an excuse to cancel plans that are no longer profitable for them. This gives them a way to claim they're doing it because of Obamacare. If only some sort of "public option" had been created... | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:17 Introvert wrote: You once again display that in your mind, you know better. The administration flat out lying about the law is of no concern to you because now these people will be forced to have "good" insurance by your standards. And they are clearly too inept on their own to decide which plan they want. "Some are being 'scammed,' guess we better screw them and everyone else over, since they are unable to get what they need." Danglars is the one that referred to those people as "dumb", and you just called them "inept", and yet you think I'm the one who acts like I know better? I'm trying to understand what it's like to have no self-awareness, but it's hard. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:21 oneofthem wrote: well, liquidity usually also makes itself available when there's the yield, outside of systemic credit crisis anyway Usually, yes. But the main point of these proposed regulations is to keep things going in unusually stressed times. | ||
|
Thomas Sowell
33 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:11 TheTenthDoc wrote: The worst part about this is that many health insurance companies are going to use this as an excuse to cancel plans that are no longer profitable for them. This gives them a way to claim they're doing it because of Obamacare. If only some sort of "public option" had been created... What would a public option do to address that issue? | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote: What would a public option do to address that issue? Give people health insurance who can't get it otherwise? The problem with public option is that it's expensive, not that it doesn't address the problem. | ||
|
Thomas Sowell
33 Posts
By passing laws to force insurance companies to cover things that have nothing to do with risk, politicians force up the cost of insurance. Annual checkups, for example, are known in advance to take place once a year. Foreseeable events are not a risk. Annual checkups are no cheaper when they are covered by an insurance policy. On the contrary, they are one of many things that are more expensive when they are covered by an insurance policy. All the paperwork, record-keeping and other things that go with having any medical procedure covered by insurance have to be paid for, in addition to the cost of the medical procedure itself. If automobile insurance covered the cost of oil changes or the purchase of gasoline, then both oil changes and gasoline would have to cost more, to cover the additional bureaucratic work involved. In the case of health insurance, however, politicians love to mandate things that insurance must cover, including in some states treatment for baldness, contraceptives and whatever else politicians can think of. Playing Santa Claus costs a politician nothing, but it can cost the policy-holder a bundle -- all of which the politician will blame on the "greed" of the insurance company. Insurance companies are regulated by both states and the federal government. This means that, instead of there being one vast nationwide market, where innumerable insurance companies compete with each other from coast to coast, there are 50 fragmented markets with different rules. That adds to the costs and reduces the competition in a given state. Too many political "solutions" are solutions to problems created by previous political "solutions" -- and will be followed by new problems created by their current "solutions." Health insurance would be a lot less expensive if it covered only the kinds of risks that can involve heavy costs, such as a major operation or a crippling disability. While such things can be individually very expensive, they don't happen to everybody, and insurance is one way to spread the risks, so that the protection of a given individual is not prohibitively expensive. The problem of "pre-existing conditions" is a problem largely because of the way that politicians have written the laws -- more specifically, by giving a tax break to employer-provided health insurance. If individuals bought their own health insurance, with the same tax advantages, the fact that an illness occurred after they changed employers would not make it a "pre-existing condition." There is no inherent reason for employers to be involved, in the first place. The fact that some guy manufactures furniture or plumbing fixtures in no way qualifies him to understand insurance for his employees. Including him in the loop adds another unnecessary layer of bureaucratic costs. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Not covering preventive care can increase costs. Just covering major issues does not lower the cost. You are just putting larger burden on the individual. Lastly, health insurance is all about healthy people paying for sick people. That's the whole goal | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.themitchellfamily.com/users/harlan/paragliding_accident/statement.jpg) How is stuff like that even real :o | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:22 DoubleReed wrote: Danglars is the one that referred to those people as "dumb", and you just called them "inept", and yet you think I'm the one who acts like I know better? I'm trying to understand what it's like to have no self-awareness, but it's hard. Then let me explain. I took Danglers to be making a point about Velr. Velr said that the administration's lie was fine, because now it will force people to buy "actual" insurance. Danglers was pointing out that was an absurd statement. He didn't actually say these people were too stupid to choose (if he did, I would ask he correct me). That's the position he was mocking. You came to defense of Velr, and seem to agree. "Even smart people can be scammed." The implication being, they are being scammed now, don't realize it, and thus should be forced off of what they have for their own good. Now that last bit was slight extrapolation, but it seems reasonable given my previous interaction with you. My point is proven because my comment about being inept was a restatement of what was Velr's premise. Everything else I have said on this topic contradicts my statement on ineptitude, if you take everything seriously. Read with the context in mind instead of having a knee-jerk response. | ||
|
Thomas Sowell
33 Posts
Let's just use our imaginations for a minute. Whenever I see huge inflated prices, the first thing I think is, "well, there is a real profit to be made undercutting those prices!" After all, the cost of keeping a patient in a room for a night should be nowhere near $760. I'm sure it could be done for less than half that cost. But what would happen if I were to open my own hospital? Can you even imagine the avalanche of paper work and regulations and lawyers and health inspectors that would hail down upon me, either resulting in me shutting down completely or forcing me to massively raise my prices? Of course we will be told that all of these regulations and controls and permits and certifications etc. etc. are for the public safety, but what it effectively creates are massive barriers to entry into the market, which is what keeps costs so high. That $68,000 bill buys the illusion of safety. I've given people IV's before. It took a couple hours of training and about 5 minutes to administer. The solution itself is pretty cheap. You could give people IV's for a couple bucks a day in base cost. The other $1480 comes from where? Laws, regulations, lawsuits, permits, certifications, middle men... People will always point to the uninsured but that's been shown again and again to be a small percentage of the costs associated with health care. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 30 2013 03:23 Thomas Sowell wrote: Price controls! If you don't like the price, just change it! Let's just use our imaginations for a minute. Whenever I see huge inflated prices, the first thing I think is, "well, there is a real profit to be made undercutting those prices!" After all, the cost of keeping a patient in a room for a night should be nowhere near $760. I'm sure it could be done for less than half that cost. But what would happen if I were to open my own hospital? Can you even imagine the avalanche of paper work and regulations and lawyers and health inspectors that would hail down upon me, either resulting in me shutting down completely or forcing me to massively raise my prices? Of course we will be told that all of these regulations and controls and permits and certifications etc. etc. are for the public safety, but what it effectively creates are massive barriers to entry into the market, which is what keeps costs so high. That $68,000 bill buys the illusion of safety. I've given people IV's before. It took a couple hours of training and about 5 minutes to administer. The solution itself is pretty cheap. You could give people IV's for a couple bucks a day in base cost. The other $1480 comes from where? Laws, regulations, lawsuits, permits, certifications, middle men... People will always point to the uninsured but that's been shown again and again to be a small percentage of the costs associated with health care. I'm pretty sure a health care system without the pesky "annoyances" of regulations, permits, certifications, and even malpractice lawsuits would be horrifying. Sure, prices would eventually be lowered, but when your medical standards are only enforced by customer rapport, you're essentially saying that people need to be treated by horrible doctors before the bad hospitals are weeded out. Which is why free-market theory is completely inapplicable to health care, unless you're willing to except serious malpractice as acceptable losses. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 30 2013 03:10 Introvert wrote: Then let me explain. I took Danglers to be making a point about Velr. Velr said that the administration's lie was fine, because now it will force people to buy "actual" insurance. Danglers was pointing out that was an absurd statement. He didn't actually say these people were too stupid to choose (if he did, I would ask he correct me). That's the position he was mocking. You came to defense of Velr, and seem to agree. "Even smart people can be scammed." The implication being, they are being scammed now, don't realize it, and thus should be forced off of what they have for their own good. Now that last bit was slight extrapolation, but it seems reasonable given my previous interaction with you. My point is proven because my comment about being inept was a restatement of what was Velr's premise. Everything else I have said on this topic contradicts my statement on ineptitude, if you take everything seriously. Read with the context in mind instead of having a knee-jerk response. That is phenomenally unclear. I think they're being scammed and may or may not realize it. They may not have much choice. That doesn't change the nature of the scam. Being scammed is not a sign of stupidity or ineptitude, however. So that's not a good way to mock the position, because I said the exact opposite. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 30 2013 03:23 Thomas Sowell wrote: Price controls! If you don't like the price, just change it! Let's just use our imaginations for a minute. Whenever I see huge inflated prices, the first thing I think is, "well, there is a real profit to be made undercutting those prices!" After all, the cost of keeping a patient in a room for a night should be nowhere near $760. I'm sure it could be done for less than half that cost. But what would happen if I were to open my own hospital? Can you even imagine the avalanche of paper work and regulations and lawyers and health inspectors that would hail down upon me, either resulting in me shutting down completely or forcing me to massively raise my prices? Of course we will be told that all of these regulations and controls and permits and certifications etc. etc. are for the public safety, but what it effectively creates are massive barriers to entry into the market, which is what keeps costs so high. That $68,000 bill buys the illusion of safety. I've given people IV's before. It took a couple hours of training and about 5 minutes to administer. The solution itself is pretty cheap. You could give people IV's for a couple bucks a day in base cost. The other $1480 comes from where? Laws, regulations, lawsuits, permits, certifications, middle men... People will always point to the uninsured but that's been shown again and again to be a small percentage of the costs associated with health care. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520441/a-tale-of-two-drugs/ Because of medical insurance, co-pay reductions, and expanded access programs for the uninsured, relatively few Americans pay more than a few thousand dollars per year for even the most expensive drugs. The primary customers in the United States are not patients or even individual physicians, although physicians can drive demand for a drug; rather, the customers are the government (through Medicare and Medicaid) and private insurance companies. And since the insurer or government is picking up the check, companies can and do set prices that few individuals could pay. In the jargon of economics, the demand for therapeutic drugs is “price inelastic”: increasing the price doesn’t reduce how much the drugs are used. Prices are set and raised according to what the market will bear, and the parties who actually pay the drug companies will meet whatever price is charged for an effective drug to which there is no alternative. And so in determining the price for a drug, companies ask themselves questions that have next to nothing to do with the drugs’ costs. “It is not a science,” the veteran drug maker and former Genzyme CEO Henri Termeer told me. “It is a feel.” | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Sowell; you should really read up more on the 1800s and all the bad things that happened then with capitalism; it sounds like you're unaware of them. On spying, I came up with a nice sounding lie, pity they can't use it for cover, as it doesn't really fit perfectly: "we were testing the security of their systems, and were preparing reports to send to them about their vulnerabilities and how to fix them." | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
More to the point, I really wonder how much truth there is in Sebelius's blaming of contractors when it comes to the website's flaws. Is this yet another example of how our government's approach to contract work is atrociously stupid? Time will tell. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 30 2013 03:49 zlefin wrote: I'd like to remind people of that wonderful expose in time in the past year or so about chargemaster rates in hospitals using costs that just make no sense at all. Sowell; you should really read up more on the 1800s and all the bad things that happened then with capitalism; it sounds like you're unaware of them. On spying, I came up with a nice sounding lie, pity they can't use it for cover, as it doesn't really fit perfectly: "we were testing the security of their systems, and were preparing reports to send to them about their vulnerabilities and how to fix them." There are always rules of engagement when doing testing. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
ByuN vs Rogue
herO vs SHIN
Serral vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
PiGStarcraft406
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
GSL
Yamato Cup
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
