Conquer Club

Health insurance companies are corrupt and vile. Why does anyone actually think those corrupt pieces of shit don't already ration care far worse than a government system possibly could? Those people must either be the stupidest, most easily manipulated idiots in the history of the world, or else just as corrupt and evil as the insurance cartel they defend.

Why does anyone actually think that just because there's a public option (like the USPS), there wouldn't also always be private options (like UPS, DHL, or FedEx)?


OCCUPY

Because if an insurance company says they will cover something and then don't, they can be sued or prosecuted criminally. You have no contractual guarantees with the government and they can change their coverage daily if they so chose (without the ability to sue). Plus, you can't shop around when the government system is the only one around, and they will make it prohibitively expensive for private companies to provide the basic care that they will claim to provide.

By the way, you use a pretty bad comparison considering that private shipping actions are barred by law from sending standard mail. And if they were allowed to send that standard mail, I guarantee they could do it without a multi-billion dollar deficit.

Start living in the real world, Night Strike.

pimpdave wrote:Start living in the real world, Night Strike.

That was actually a good answer to your question.

Nope

How about you go ban Night Strike for openly flaming users in the forum, holding him to the same goddamn standard you demand from everyone else, instead of posting bullshit here.

And those lawsuits seldom go anywhere, and the vast majority of people victimized by the insurance companies don't have the resources to hire attorneys.

And USPS was profitable and nearly independent from any government influence for decades, until the Republican forced an unfunded mandate to bankrupt the system, part of a move to push for a private take over of postal service.

Lastly, we can vote. So the idea that there's no recourse against the government is stupid. We can even sue the government, and have, many times in American history.

Yeah, I remember how amused (and pessimistic about humanity's capacity for rational thought) I was when people were screaming about how government health care would create "death panels", as if insurance companies aren't gigantic death panels as it is. As for the assertion that you'd have a better shot at getting care from the current insurance companies than from the government, that's just silly. The way that insurance companies make money is to scour your record for some minor detail that you forgot to inform them about that could have taken place decades ago, and then refusing you service. God help you if you switch companies, because you better find ALL of your medical history to put on their records or they'll find a way to shut you down when you need the money most. Not to mention that if you actually go to a hospital for something your insurance rates skyrocket. Actually providing medical care for everyone wouldn't result in nearly a large enough profit margin.

pimpdave wrote:And USPS was profitable and nearly independent from any government influence for decades, until the Republican forced an unfunded mandate to bankrupt the system, part of a move to push for a private take over of postal service.

Unrelated but true. I have no idea why there is such a vitriolic hatred of anything the government provides that people don't see a problem with cutting the knees out from under a profitable system that provides a cheap and reasonable service to the public just because there isn't some douchebag elitist CEO getting private jets out of it.

Frigidus wrote:

pimpdave wrote:And USPS was profitable and nearly independent from any government influence for decades, until the Republican forced an unfunded mandate to bankrupt the system, part of a move to push for a private take over of postal service.

Unrelated but true. I have no idea why there is such a vitriolic hatred of anything the government provides that people don't see a problem with cutting the knees out from under a profitable system that provides a cheap and reasonable service to the public just because there isn't some douchebag elitist CEO getting private jets out of it.

Talk radio and FOX "news"

that a serious question dave? LOL

Care costs money, in case you didn't know. If there isn't any money, there isn't any care.

Hope I answered your brain busting question

Night Strike wrote:Because if an insurance company says they will cover something and then don't, they can be sued or prosecuted criminally.

ONLY If you have the money to do so. And, in the meantime..everyone's rates go up to pay for the many attorneys, not to mention any settlement. The insurance company does not really lose even if they do technically lose a lawsuit. They just pass on the cost. A winp-win for them. A lose for the rest of us.

Night Strike wrote:You have no contractual guarantees with the government and they can change their coverage daily if they so chose (without the ability to sue).

Baloney! Laws dictate what the government can and cannot do. The government is brought into court constantly. Also, people can and do vote to change laws so things change. The trouble of late is that too many people would rather believe all they have to do is lower taxes for the wealthy and businesses, along with an occasional toss back to the rest of us and things will somehow magically be fized, not even for free, but with a PROFIT!

I have some bridges for sale, too....

Night Strike wrote:Plus, you can't shop around when the government system is the only one around, and they will make it prohibitively expensive for private companies to provide the basic care that they will claim to provide.

Only a few people who work fulltime in mostly salaried positions for larger companies OR the government get to have any choice at all. Contrary to your "fact" government sponsored Medicare plans provide a lot of choice. Most private employers, even if they provide insurance, offer only one choice.. and it can be VERY poor insurance, indeed.

pimpdave wrote:How about you go ban Night Strike for openly flaming users in the forum, holding him to the same goddamn standard you demand from everyone else, instead of posting bullshit here.

Openly flaming? What's the alternative to open flaming? Secret flaming?

Plus, you know, my standards aren't that high. You must be thinking of another moderator.

Wasn't referring to his post in this thread.

pimpdave wrote:And those lawsuits seldom go anywhere, and the vast majority of people victimized by the insurance companies don't have the resources to hire attorneys.

If that's true, then why assume that suing the government would somehow be more effective in holding insurance companies accountable?

And if insurance companies are somehow impervious to fulfilling their commitments to their customers, then isn't this a legal issue--and not a "gov'munt should provide healthcare!" issue?

pimpdave wrote:And USPS was profitable and nearly independent from any government influence for decades, until the Republican forced an unfunded mandate to bankrupt the system, part of a move to push for a private take over of postal service.

Was the USPS was so profitable because of previous legal barriers on entry into the mail market?

Malpractice lawsuits have little or no effect on the cost of American healthcare.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Because if an insurance company says they will cover something and then don't, they can be sued or prosecuted criminally.

ONLY If you have the money to do so. And, in the meantime..everyone's rates go up to pay for the many attorneys, not to mention any settlement. The insurance company does not really lose even if they do technically lose a lawsuit. They just pass on the cost. A winp-win for them. A lose for the rest of us.

So a governmental system where you have no opportunity for recourse and no other options to buy from is a better system?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:You have no contractual guarantees with the government and they can change their coverage daily if they so chose (without the ability to sue).

Baloney! Laws dictate what the government can and cannot do. The government is brought into court constantly. Also, people can and do vote to change laws so things change. The trouble of late is that too many people would rather believe all they have to do is lower taxes for the wealthy and businesses, along with an occasional toss back to the rest of us and things will somehow magically be fized, not even for free, but with a PROFIT!

Who else do tax cuts go to when it's only the rich(er) who actually pay taxes. It's impossible to give tax cuts to people who don't currently pay taxes. And laws don't govern the government (especially if the mandate stands) because they can change the laws anytime they want (and they can change the non-voted-on regulations daily if they choose to). Laws DO govern private businesses, which is where the safeguards for breach of contract comes in.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Plus, you can't shop around when the government system is the only one around, and they will make it prohibitively expensive for private companies to provide the basic care that they will claim to provide.

Only a few people who work fulltime in mostly salaried positions for larger companies OR the government get to have any choice at all. Contrary to your "fact" government sponsored Medicare plans provide a lot of choice. Most private employers, even if they provide insurance, offer only one choice.. and it can be VERY poor insurance, indeed.

How does Medicare give you a bunch of options when doctors are dropping those patients on a frequent basis because the government won't pay the full costs of the care (by the way, which forces insurance to pay the difference)? Is the government going to make doctors take those patients? By the way, you get more choice when you change to an individual-pay system, not a government-provided system.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Because if an insurance company says they will cover something and then don't, they can be sued or prosecuted criminally.

ONLY If you have the money to do so. And, in the meantime..everyone's rates go up to pay for the many attorneys, not to mention any settlement. The insurance company does not really lose even if they do technically lose a lawsuit. They just pass on the cost. A winp-win for them. A lose for the rest of us.

So a governmental system where you have no opportunity for recourse and no other options to buy from is a better system?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:You have no contractual guarantees with the government and they can change their coverage daily if they so chose (without the ability to sue).

Baloney! Laws dictate what the government can and cannot do. The government is brought into court constantly. Also, people can and do vote to change laws so things change. The trouble of late is that too many people would rather believe all they have to do is lower taxes for the wealthy and businesses, along with an occasional toss back to the rest of us and things will somehow magically be fized, not even for free, but with a PROFIT!

Who else do tax cuts go to when it's only the rich(er) who actually pay taxes. It's impossible to give tax cuts to people who don't currently pay taxes. And laws don't govern the government (especially if the mandate stands) because they can change the laws anytime they want (and they can change the non-voted-on regulations daily if they choose to). Laws DO govern private businesses, which is where the safeguards for breach of contract comes in.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Plus, you can't shop around when the government system is the only one around, and they will make it prohibitively expensive for private companies to provide the basic care that they will claim to provide.

Only a few people who work fulltime in mostly salaried positions for larger companies OR the government get to have any choice at all. Contrary to your "fact" government sponsored Medicare plans provide a lot of choice. Most private employers, even if they provide insurance, offer only one choice.. and it can be VERY poor insurance, indeed.

How does Medicare give you a bunch of options when doctors are dropping those patients on a frequent basis because the government won't pay the full costs of the care (by the way, which forces insurance to pay the difference)? Is the government going to make doctors take those patients? By the way, you get more choice when you change to an individual-pay system, not a government-provided system.

Roughly speaking, when you have a heart attack, how much time should be taken by the paramedics going over your choice of hospitals and doctors, with regards, of course, to your insurance plan, which, again, of course, may well be covered by a company in an entirely different state.

Symmetry wrote:Roughly speaking, when you have a heart attack, how much time should be taken by the paramedics going over your choice of hospitals and doctors, with regards, of course, to your insurance plan, which, again, of course, may well be covered by a company in an entirely different state.

Considering insurance covers emergency care whether you are in-network or out-of-network, it's not an issue. However, as others have stated, if you have to wait 2 days for an appendectomy or even fixing a broken bone, I'd say that's a major issue.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Roughly speaking, when you have a heart attack, how much time should be taken by the paramedics going over your choice of hospitals and doctors, with regards, of course, to your insurance plan, which, again, of course, may well be covered by a company in an entirely different state.

Considering insurance covers emergency care whether you are in-network or out-of-network, it's not an issue. However, as others have stated, if you have to wait 2 days for an appendectomy or even fixing a broken bone, I'd say that's a major issue.

Not really, but you can take a few anecdotal bits of evidence about a guy you saw on the internet who had a dad who whatever in Denmark and that's why communism failed.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Roughly speaking, when you have a heart attack, how much time should be taken by the paramedics going over your choice of hospitals and doctors, with regards, of course, to your insurance plan, which, again, of course, may well be covered by a company in an entirely different state.

Considering insurance covers emergency care whether you are in-network or out-of-network, it's not an issue. However, as others have stated, if you have to wait 2 days for an appendectomy or even fixing a broken bone, I'd say that's a major issue.

Not really, but you can take a few anecdotal bits of evidence about a guy you saw on the internet who had a dad who whatever in Denmark and that's why communism failed.

Isn't that exactly what you did with your theoretical scenario? At least the one posted here was reality.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Roughly speaking, when you have a heart attack, how much time should be taken by the paramedics going over your choice of hospitals and doctors, with regards, of course, to your insurance plan, which, again, of course, may well be covered by a company in an entirely different state.

Considering insurance covers emergency care whether you are in-network or out-of-network, it's not an issue. However, as others have stated, if you have to wait 2 days for an appendectomy or even fixing a broken bone, I'd say that's a major issue.

Not really, but you can take a few anecdotal bits of evidence about a guy you saw on the internet who had a dad who whatever in Denmark and that's why communism failed.

Isn't that exactly what you did with your theoretical scenario? At least the one posted here was reality.

Pretty sure that I didn't do that, and that you don't understand the difference between an anecdote and a theoretical situation anymore.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

pimpdave wrote:And USPS was profitable and nearly independent from any government influence for decades, until the Republican forced an unfunded mandate to bankrupt the system, part of a move to push for a private take over of postal service.

Was the USPS was so profitable because of previous legal barriers on entry into the mail market?

And if it was privately run, would it cost the same amount to send a letter no matter where it went in the country, whether down the street or to Alaska? Would all areas receive the same service or would some be deemed too sparsely populated to be served? But this isn't about how awesome our postal service is, it's about health care.

pimpdave wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

pimpdave wrote:And USPS was profitable and nearly independent from any government influence for decades, until the Republican forced an unfunded mandate to bankrupt the system, part of a move to push for a private take over of postal service.

Was the USPS was so profitable because of previous legal barriers on entry into the mail market?

And if it was privately run, (1) would it cost the same amount to send a letter no matter where it went in the country, whether down the street or to Alaska? (2) Would all areas receive the same service or would some be deemed too sparsely populated to be served? But this isn't about how awesome our postal service is, it's about health care.

Since you asked additional questions, I feel obliged to answer; otherwise, why disregard your own suggestion? Besides, it's still relevant to health care and health care insurance.


The costs:
1) The costs are paid by everyone already (taxes, deficit spending), so we should consider that cost as well as the price of services actually rendered (e.g. sending a letter).


1a) People can seek substitutes, like email. That solves a lot of problems, but if people really value sending a letter, then they'll have to pay whatever price that may be--without forcing other people to pay for something they want (taxation to provide USPS).

The truth is neither of us know; however, given the superior quality of service of private mail providers compared to USPS, then it's very likely that freer competition in markets monopolized by USPS would be beneficial.


2) It depends on the regulatory structure, specifically the legal barriers to entry and state-legislated start-up costs. With a more flexible avenue for adapting to various demands in various markets, businesses would be more likely to meet their demand.


3) Then there's profit and loss incentives. Bureaucratic incentives are not geared toward staying in tune with customer preferences because the bureaucracy derives its revenue from involuntary decisions (tax revenue). The USPS incentive to innovate, lower costs, and increase quality is not rewarded by additional revenue. If they decrease their budget (i.e. lower costs, innovate), they receive less revenues next year. The incentive is perverse--unlike the incentives of profit and loss.


My above points provide a framework for understanding health care insurance. Profit and loss v. bureaucratic and political incentives, regulations, freedom of competition, substitutes, legal enforcement, law creation, etc. all play a part in the provision of any good.


(edit: added "substitutes" )