White House knew millions couldn't keep health plans

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes, the health insurance market is in trouble because they are in bed with the government. There is no inherent reason for insurance markets to crumble. They do not share the values of the government. Insurance is not an involuntary wealth transfer scheme.

It most certainly is. The involuntary part is slavery to the emotional need to feel safe and secure. People go crazy if they can't have insurance. Heck, they're already freaking out right now.

You overlook the case where states require insurance or posting of a liability bond as a condition for registering a vehicle for legal use on the roads. Compulsory auto insurances has put us in the vice.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

It'd make more sense to talk about health insurance separately from other types since it is in mostly the other types that hoi polloi here get conflicted with Greg who likes to spread his jelly over the whole piece of toast.

In US medicine third-party payer came into great vogue in WWII as employers used it as a pay inducement as they were forbidden to simply offer higher wages. It was as such the indirect way government became generally involved with medicine. This was sort of coincident with the establishment of Social Security in the late 1930s. Logically Medicare, established in the 1960s, was the supercharged offshoot and did the most harm respecting the control and pricing of medical services. Now the system is destroying itself. Unfortunately, patients, doctors and other health care "providers" are just beginning to get ground up in the out of control through control machinery. Doctors, in particular, are starting to say "enough is enough!" When the patients themselves reach the "enough" stage they'll be looking at a medical wasteland aping the kind of medicine that was available in the former USSR.

In regard to the quality and price of medicine we could be enjoying right now if there hadn't come the dominance of third-party paying and government regulation of the medical business and industry and out of control tort, it is already a wasteland. (Because of my medical training and experience, I am especially keen on this.)

Doctors are not slaves--or shouldn't be--but Obamacare treats them like they were. In Atlas Shrugged going on strike was generalized amongst the men of ability, but in actuality it is going to be manifest group by affected group. Even so the obviousness of the situation will be muted by the can't see, won't see non-thinking population, which doesn't include Greg, who's a thinker who pretends he isn't. (Thinking as a "stolen concept"?)

--Brant

You offered a very even handed description of insurance, Brant.

There is a basic economic principle of when goods and services are not paid directly by the person who receives them to the person who provides them, but are paid by others who are not parties to the original transaction, and the funding for the transaction is processed through a huge bureaucracy...

...there are NO cost controls... and LOTS of fraud and abuse.

The advantage of a personal insurance savings account is that does not violate that principle because the provider is paid directly by the purchaser. It's totally beyond me why almost everyone is so willing to have third parties controlling their financial transactions. It's cultural lunacy.

The wholesale abdication of personal autonomy and personal responsibility is absolutely breathtaking.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, the health insurance market is in trouble because they are in bed with the government. There is no inherent reason for insurance markets to crumble. They do not share the values of the government. Insurance is not an involuntary wealth transfer scheme.

It most certainly is. The involuntary part is slavery to the emotional need to feel safe and secure. People go crazy if they can't have insurance. Heck, they're already freaking out right now.

You overlook the case where states require insurance or posting of a liability bond as a condition for registering a vehicle for legal use on the roads. Compulsory auto insurances has put us in the vice.

If the roads were privately owned the owners would most likely require insurance and demand more direct control over how the vehicle is operated than now.

--Brant

and if Greg owned a highway . . . ?

[moralist]

Yes, the health insurance market is in trouble because they are in bed with the government. There is no inherent reason for insurance markets to crumble. They do not share the values of the government. Insurance is not an involuntary wealth transfer scheme.

It most certainly is. The involuntary part is slavery to the emotional need to feel safe and secure. People go crazy if they can't have insurance. Heck, they're already freaking out right now.

You overlook the case where states require insurance or posting of a liability bond as a condition for registering a vehicle for legal use on the roads. Compulsory auto insurances has put us in the vice.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I own all of my vehicles outright and have a good driving record so the minimum required policies for their registrations only costs me a total of $1.70 a day. That's really not much of a vice.

"For every temptation there is a way of escape."

--Bible

Greg

[moralist]

I'm not exactly fond of the insurance industry, having taken a big loss once (a stolen car) on which a big company found invalid cause to renege payment, and heard of many other similar instances. I recognize it plays an important role, though.

The other option of 'self insurance' always appealed to me, but would depend on starting young, having a reasonably predictable income and possessing high self-discipline to regularly feed and not touch your fund - exactly things you tend to lack when young. ;)

...but the personal rewards for cultivating those disciplines are enormous.

And anyone can begin to self insure at any time.

Greg

[Darrell Hougen]

There's no reason for the insurance pyramid not to crumble. No system is sustainable when every participant feels entitled to get back more than they pay in.

Since you repeated yourself, I'll repeat myself. The purpose of insurance is to mitigate risk. Insurance is not inherently a pyramid scheme.

I chose an alternative to home insurance by building insurance into my home.

Protection: Substantial

Premiums: Zero

I think you're doing yourself a disservice by not buying homeowner's insurance.

It most certainly is. The involuntary part is slavery to the emotional need to feel safe and secure. People go crazy if they can't have insurance. Heck, they're already freaking out right now.

Feeling like something is involuntary doesn't make it so.

The religion of insurance has its own internally sound logic, and you are doing a goof job of defending your beliefs. But the articles of faith of the religion of insurance are entirely different when viewed from the outside world by an unbeliever.

I thought you thought religion was a good thing.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

I'm not exactly fond of the insurance industry, having taken a big loss once (a stolen car) on which a big company found invalid cause to renege payment, and heard of many other similar instances. I recognize it plays an important role, though.

The other option of 'self insurance' always appealed to me, but would depend on starting young, having a reasonably predictable income and possessing high self-discipline to regularly feed and not touch your fund - exactly things you tend to lack when young. ;)

I don't think many people are "fond" of the insurance industry. People aren't fond of auto mechanics, used car salesmen, or dentists either. Insurance exists to mitigate risk, but it doesn't eliminate it entirely. The insurance company could welch on it's obligations. The probability that you have a problem and the insurance company decides to welch is lower than the probability of having a problem. P(problem & welch) < P(problem). So, hopefully you come out ahead if you have insurance.

When I've been in an accident, my insurance has paid, although the first time it wasn't enough because they said my old car wasn't worth that much and had been "totaled." Still, they paid about 80% which was a lot better than nothing. How is it that your claim was denied? Did you not have comprehensive insurance? Was your insurance expired? Or did they just welch on their obligation?

Darrell

P.S. My apologies to the Welsh.

Tomorrow's vocabulary word is "gyp" as in, "The insurance agent gypped me out of my premiums when he welched on his obligations."

[Darrell Hougen]

The advantage of a personal insurance savings account is that does not violate that principle because the provider is paid directly by the purchaser. It's totally beyond me why almost everyone is so willing to have third parties controlling their financial transactions. It's cultural lunacy.

The wholesale abdication of personal autonomy and personal responsibility is absolutely breathtaking.

Greg

Greg,

I agree that most healthcare should be purchased at the time of service. That's why I'm a big fan of health savings accounts (HSA's). But, most people can't afford to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars if they get cancer. That is where insurance has a legitimate purpose. The probability of getting cancer is relatively low, but the financial consequences would be devastating for most people, hence the need for insurance.

Saving money in a health savings account (or other account) and buying catastrophic health insurance is a financially prudent way of taking personal responsibility.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Having health insurance means you are more likely to go with unnecessary, dubious and potentially dangerous surgeries and other treatments instead of getting better answers than provided by doctor authority.

--Brant

lost my tonsils, did me no good

[BaalChatzaf]

If the Republicans can keep from looking stupid until 2016, the Independents will ditch the Democrats in droves because of the f*ck up with ACA. Obama has really painted himself into a corner here. All the Republicans have to do is quietly point out just how incompetent the Obama administration is.

Comes 2016 the Republicans can elect a president.

[moralist]

There's no reason for the insurance pyramid not to crumble. No system is sustainable when every participant feels entitled to get back more than they pay in.

Since you repeated yourself, I'll repeat myself. The purpose of insurance is to mitigate risk. Insurance is not inherently a pyramid scheme.

It's ok to agree that we each disagree on that point. If the people participating in the insurance Ponzi scam didn't feel entitled to getting more back than they paid in, they'd simply pay their own bills and be done with it. It's natural for each of us believe that we made the right choice, because in fact we each did make the right choice... for each of us.

I have no problem with what others choose as they're the ones who get what they deserve as the consequence of their choice, and not me. I'm content to get the consequences I deserve from my own choices.

I chose an alternative to home insurance by building insurance into my home.

Protection: Substantial

Premiums: Zero

I think you're doing yourself a disservice by not buying homeowner's insurance.

I built my own home so I'm the best judge of that. I also own my own home outright with no mortgage, and so cannot be forced to pay to insure it for a loan company.

It's a simple matter of engineering to design insurance into a home. I live in both earthquake and wildfire extreme danger zones. So I built a home which is highly earthquake and fire resistant, and get to enjoy being totally free from having to pay insurance premiums for the rest of my life.

It most certainly is. The involuntary part is slavery to the emotional need to feel safe and secure. People go crazy if they can't have insurance. Heck, they're already freaking out right now.

Feeling like something is involuntary doesn't make it so.

It is for people who are enslaved by their emotional need to feel safe and secure that others will pay their bills. They cannot live without insurance. And that is what insurance is for... for people who cannot live without it. And I have no problem with that because I'm free to live outside of that system altogether.

The religion of insurance has its own internally sound logic, and you are doing a goof job of defending your beliefs. But the articles of faith of the religion of insurance are entirely different when viewed from the outside world by an unbeliever.

I thought you thought religion was a good thing.

It is.

It's good to acknowledge God, because inherent to that awareness is the self consciousness of our personal moral accountability to the objective reality of moral law which is greater than ourselves.

However, worshipping insurance as the god who keeps you safe and secure and indemnifies you against every possible contingency known to man, is a form of secular idolatry, where the unholy occupies the the place of the Holy. This has consequences. You can already see the results of misplaced faith in the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth of millions of people who are now seeing the pyramid, upon which they have grown weak and dependent, crumbling away right in front of their eyes.

Greg

[anthony]

Hey Greg: a nice turn of Biblical phrasing.

So you reckon there is deification of Big Insurance ? Well, after deification of the State, why not this too?

"We don' t hassle - we p( r )ay".

[Darrell Hougen]

It's good to acknowledge God, because inherent in that awareness is the self consciousness of our personal moral accountability to the objective reality of moral law which is greater than ourselves.

However, worshipping insurance as the god who keeps you safe and secure and indemnifies you against every possible contingency known to man, is a form of secular idolatry, where the unholy occupies the the place of the Holy. This has consequences. You can already see the results of misplaced faith in the wailing and gnashing of teeth of millions of people who are now seeing the idol, upon which they have grown weak and dependent, crumbling away right in front of their eyes.

Greg

Hi Greg,

That one made me chuckle.

I don't think the idol that people were worshiping was insurance. The idol, or rather, the Pied Piper was Obama. Now some of them are weeping and gnashing their teeth because they're finally realizing they were dupes.

Darrell

P.S. Other people, like my brother and his wife, who haven't been dramatically affected yet, are still blissfully drinking the Kool Aid.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Darrell Hougen

[Brant Gaede]

Why don't we talk about car idolatry and how it keeps us from walking?

--Brant

running?

or shoe idolatry and how it keeps us from thick-skinned go almost anywhere naked feet?

[moralist]

The advantage of a personal insurance savings account is that does not violate that principle because the provider is paid directly by the purchaser. It's totally beyond me why almost everyone is so willing to have third parties controlling their financial transactions. It's cultural lunacy.

The wholesale abdication of personal autonomy and personal responsibility is absolutely breathtaking.

Greg

Greg,

I agree that most healthcare should be purchased at the time of service. That's why I'm a big fan of health savings accounts (HSA's).

It's so much simpler to deal directly with your providers without having to pay extra for all the useless insurance parasites sucking off of your transaction. I apply exactly the same principle of my health savings account to all of the other situations where people are dependent on insurance.

What works for one... works for all.

But, most people can't afford to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars if they get cancer.

That is not always the case...

My wife had cancer. We negotiated a direct cash price for the operation completely outside of the crappy insurance system and got a really good deal. The doctor said that if she did not get radiation and chemotherapy, the cancer would return with a vengeance and kill her in two years. She had seen more than enough friends get f**ked by the toxic poisonous radiation/chemo "treatment". She decided that she didn't want to live that way, and chose alternative holistic health practices instead. It's been over 8 years now and she is completely cancer free. Only stupid people believe everything doctors say under the duress of trying to discharge their insurance lawsuit liability.

There's a point when you simply need to grow up and take personal responsibility for your own life, and quit abdicating that responsibility to others. If you do, you will lose your life bit by bit until there's nothing left of you.

Greg

[moralist]

Hey Greg: a nice turn of Biblical phrasing.

So you reckon there is deification of Big Insurance ? Well, after deification of the State, why not this too?

"We don' t hassle - we p( r )ay".

It's logical that one would follow the other as both are symptoms of the same societal sickness.

Government subsidized Universities are also deified in much the same way.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Insurance is a socially acceptable way of hedging bets. The best you can do is share the hazard with others according to your inherent risk.

[moralist]

Insurance is a socially acceptable way of hedging bets. The best you can do is share the hazard with others according to your inherent risk.

Go for it, Baal.

You'll get exactly what you paid for... whenever you try to get more than you paid for.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Insurance is a socially acceptable way of hedging bets. The best you can do is share the hazard with others according to your inherent risk.

Go for it, Baal.

You'll get exactly what you paid for... whenever you try to get more than you paid for.

Greg

Does this mean shoot for the moon to get to New York?

--Brant

or that you get less than you paid for unless you tried to get more?

or that if you try to get less than you paid for you'll still get what you paid for?

or that "paid for" is (a deterministic, judgemental) God?

Heaven help us!

[moralist]

Insurance is a socially acceptable way of hedging bets. The best you can do is share the hazard with others according to your inherent risk.

Go for it, Baal.

You'll get exactly what you paid for... whenever you try to get more than you paid for.

Greg

Does this mean shoot for the moon to get to New York?

--Brant

or that you get less than you paid for unless you tried to get more?

or that if you try to get less than you paid for you'll still get what you paid for?

or that "paid for" is (a deterministic, judgemental) God?

Heaven help us!

Yeah, you're right, Brant. It could have been way more specific.

You get what you deserve when you try to get more back from insurance than what you paid in.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Yeah, you're right, Brant. It could have been way more specific.

You get what you deserve when you try to get more back from insurance than what you paid in.

Greg

Let's see. Two years ago I had an accident policy that cost me $1000 in premiums. I was plowed into by some New Jersey harridan (it was a rear ender) they inflected $5000 worth of damage on my auto. I had a $500 deductible which I had to pay and get $4500 dollars in repairs to `completely fix the car. I paid out $1500 and I got $4500 dollars coverage for the repairs. In short I got back three times what I paid. Did I get what I deserved?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Bob: Self-evidently you got what you deserved for driving in front of the harridan in the first place.

[Selene]

Bob: Self-evidently you got what you deserved for driving in front of the harridan in the first place.

ah the rule/law of contributtory negligence...

Contributory Negligence

Historically, contributory negligence was a common law defense available in tort actions. In the past, if two people were in an accident, the injured person could only recover for his/her injuries and damages if they did not contribute to the accident in any way. This approach was based on a policy originally established in England that stated a person who negligently causes harm to another cannot be held liable if that injured individual contributed to his own suffering and injury, even if it was only a very slight factor. For example, if Dave and Debbie were in an accident where Jane was injured, and Jane was only 5% at fault, she would recover nothing. This method of calculating damages is still followed in states with a pure contributory negligence system. In light of the potentially harsh result, most states have moved from the strict nature of a pure contributory negligence system to some form of a comparative negligence system. Currently, only five (5) states, including the District of Columbia, follow the pure contributory negligence rule.

Don't drive in those five (5) states and D.C. [remember Marion Barry and political people drive there]!

http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/negligence.html

[Brant Gaede]

Bob: Self-evidently you got what you deserved for driving in front of the harridan in the first place.

ah the rule/law of contributtory negligence...

Contributory Negligence

Historically, contributory negligence was a common law defense available in tort actions. In the past, if two people were in an accident, the injured person could only recover for his/her injuries and damages if they did not contribute to the accident in any way. This approach was based on a policy originally established in England that stated a person who negligently causes harm to another cannot be held liable if that injured individual contributed to his own suffering and injury, even if it was only a very slight factor. For example, if Dave and Debbie were in an accident where Jane was injured, and Jane was only 5% at fault, she would recover nothing. This method of calculating damages is still followed in states with a pure contributory negligence system. In light of the potentially harsh result, most states have moved from the strict nature of a pure contributory negligence system to some form of a comparative negligence system. Currently, only five (5) states, including the District of Columbia, follow the pure contributory negligence rule.

Don't drive in those five (5) states and D.C. [remember Marion Barry and political people drive there]!

http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/negligence.html

It looks like four states plus D.C. Three of the four border on another: Virginia, Maryland, D.C. and North Carolina, with only Alabama off there by itself.

--Brant

things most learn about after consulting with their lawyer

[moralist]

Yeah, you're right, Brant. It could have been way more specific.

You get what you deserve when you try to get more back from insurance than what you paid in.

Greg

Let's see. Two years ago I had an accident policy that cost me $1000 in premiums. I was plowed into by some New Jersey harridan (it was a rear ender) they inflected $5000 worth of damage on my auto. I had a $500 deductible which I had to pay and get $4500 dollars in repairs to `completely fix the car. I paid out $1500 and I got $4500 dollars coverage for the repairs. In short I got back three times what I paid. Did I get what I deserved?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes... at someone else's expense. And why would you be proud of that when you learned absolutely nothing to prevent the next accident?

Greg