Free Market Health Insurance

[kcshocker11]

so you are part of the 1% - who want to give everybody else's money away because you have your in tax shelters or cheating the IRS - got it, thanks.

Dont have to cheat, but yes I do shelter money. The option is also available legally to you.

[shocka khan]

Trust me, SHOCKvalue I have worked for some very large companies during my time and I can tell you that when I was paying child support, my ex (who worked as an IT administrator for several Texas school districts) wanted our kid on my health insurance b/c it was cheaper and provided more coverage.

Also, I can't see how you feel that auto insurance is voluntary. The only way around it is to not drive at all. You can't even rent a car without having it. If the state catches you without it, you get fined and lose your license. Would you still be able to run your business and live the way you want if you didn't have a car (I did go without a car for about a year and a half one time when I was close to everything and had a good bicycle, but I could no more do that now than a man on the moon)?

I could just see you carrying a backpack and paneers on your bicycle so you could buy your $100 worth of groceries.....especially in that 50 below wind chill weather you sometimes get up there.

[SHOCKvalue]

And you would be wrong

[SHOCKvalue]

Trust me, SHOCKvalue I have worked for some very large companies during my time and I can tell you that when I was paying child support, my ex (who worked as an IT administrator for several Texas school districts) wanted our kid on my health insurance b/c it was cheaper and provided more coverage.

Oh, okay. So you have a sample size of one, just like me.

Also, I can't see how you feel that auto insurance is voluntary. The only way around it is to not drive at all. You can't even rent a car without having it. If the state catches you without it, you get fined and lose your license. Would you still be able to run your business and live the way you want if you didn't have a car (I did go without a car for about a year and a half one time when I was close to everything and had a good bicycle, but I could no more do that now than a man on the moon)?

I could just see you carrying a backpack and paneers on your bicycle so you could buy your $100 worth of groceries.....especially in that 50 below wind chill weather you sometimes get up there.

I'm not running down this tangent with you, it's asinine and non-analogous on many levels in comparison to the health insurance issue.

[shocka khan]

SHOCKvalue, I would disagree about your argument regarding the difference between having health insurance and having auto insurance. Government can and does use many enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance, whether any of us agree or disagree with it. They can either legislate directly that you must have it or they can make your life so miserable that you would have to have it, if for no other reason than to be able to function at a certain level.

[SHOCKvalue]

SHOCKvalue, I would disagree about your argument regarding the difference between having health insurance and having auto insurance. Government can and does use many enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance, whether any of us agree or disagree with it. They can either legislate directly that you must have it or they can make your life so miserable that you would have to have it, if for no other reason than to be able to function at a certain level.

You sound like someone who has been in the corporate machine too long. Where else do you use 200 words to state something that requires 10, all while using a pedestrian vocabulary. It's like a protective shield for stupid people who have no highest and best use in life.

[shocka khan]

And you, SHOCKvalue, seem like an empty suit who engages in gratuitious insults and seems to have a self-entitled sense of arrogance.

For instance, thinking it's OK for you to ignore tickets you get when at your (I'm assuming, all this may be puffery) client's place of business without fully comprehending the consequences. Let me make this simple for you: That's just stupid. Advising others on this blog to follow your example is even more stupid.

I guess that makes you twice as stupid as I am. I may over-rely on words, but I would much rather be a little diplomatic and tactful than coming off like a blunt, uneducated hick. However, if that's the way you wish to communicate (tactless and disrespectful), there's your sign. Wear it proudly.

[SHOCKvalue]

You're reading comprehension skills are terrible. I base this on a historical context of all your activity on this forum, not just right here and now. How you are even employable is beyond me.

And you, SHOCKvalue, seem like an empty suit who engages in gratuitious insults and seems to have a self-entitled sense of arrogance.

Haven't worn a suit since I don't know when; never had a job that required it.

If by "self-entitled sense of arrogance" you mean I don't suffer fools, then yes, you are correct.

For instance, thinking it's OK for you to ignore tickets you get when at your (I'm assuming, all this may be puffery) client's place of business without fully comprehending the consequences. Let me make this simple for you: That's just stupid. Advising others on this blog to follow your example is even more stupid.

What are you even talking about? Good grief!

Okay, for one: this is applicable to a totally separate thread, in another sub forum. And two: where did I ever say anything about "client's place of business?" I made an analogy between the effective context and enforcement of private-nature (not public court fine) parking ticket between WSU and any given large employer.

As for me, I can't recall the last time I was on the premises of any of my client's oiffices - in many cases it would require a flight to a place I've never even been (and never will).

If you want to sprint off down that "client" tangent be my guest, but be advised it gives the impression you don't have a good grasp on communication in the English language. There's zero context, because you introduced it to the convo, not me. I can't defend against words or concepts I've never even said or introduced. You're chasing your own tail.

I guess that makes you twice as stupid as I am. I may over-rely on words, but I would much rather be a little diplomatic and tactful than coming off like a blunt, uneducated hick. However, if that's the way you wish to communicate (tactless and disrespectful), there's your sign. Wear it proudly.

Yep, I have a low tolerance for morons - be they clients or internet posters. Telling the former to eff off if they get to be more pain than they are worth is a part of business - even moreso when you are in a field with a shrinking volume of competition. The latter just because.

[shocka khan]

1) This isn't a business, it's a blog. Or maybe it's your business. Maybe you post here all day and don't tend to your business.
2) Don't look now, but don't you have a business to run? Or is your business shrinking, too? As for me, I'm done wasting my time with you.

[Aargh]

Let me clear up two misconceptions running through this thread.

1) If you have no income and live in Kansas, you qualify for zero, none, 0, nada subsidy under Obamacare. You have to earn at least $15,500 to qualify for federal subsidies under Obamacare. If you earn less than that, you fall under state, not federal, guidelines. The ACA policy I was looking at for my wife would have cost me $24 a month if I earned between $15,500 and somewhere in the range of $35,000 a year. Since I earn nothing, I would have to pay the full $480 unsubsidized amount.

2) The $700 policy I had quoted for my wife was quoted prior to Obamacare being in effect. That was the cheapest "reasonable" policy I could find and I checked with Blue Cross, Coventry, Aetna, and others. After Obmacare was in effect, I found a policy on the Health Marketplace website that was nearly identical to the $700 one. The price for the same coverage at the Health Marketplace website was more than $200 below what the policy would have cost me BEFORE the ACA went into effect. The lower price was the price offered to any and all and was PRIOR to any subsidies.

Everything I heard was that costs would go up under Obamacare. This mainly came from the providers of health insurance, and those ideologically opposed to the ACA. I was in the market for health insurance both before and after the ACA went into effect. I was buying it myself, not getting it through an employer, so I was getting prices quoted directly to me from the provider. I found the prices went down in price after ACA went into effect.

Where I believe that price difference came about is that under ACA someone 25 years old would pay the same $400+ quoted for my 60-year-old wife. If that 25-year-old were to purchase a policy independently from a provider prior to ACA, they would have had a lower quote because of their lower risk.

The ACA has also put limits on administrative costs. Several insurance companies recently made significant refunds to their insured because they had exceeded 20% of their revenue going to administrative costs. Under free market conditions, insurance companies could retain any amount of revenue for administrative costs. The only control would be other providers, but why would they compete in tht area. What is the incentive when all the other providers are doing about the same thing?

[pinstripers]

Costs have gone up. Figuring in the subsidy, the individual cost is likely lower, if you qualify. Naturally, we are talking about health care insurance, not health care. Anything that you receive that others pay for, will be cheaper for you, but perhaps not cheaper.

[WuDrWu]

Free competition. Just like every other product known to man.

[pinstripers]

"nuthin ain't worth nuthin, but it's free"

[Kung Wu]

Since there is no factor that will convince those that refuse to believe the tragedy caused by price controls that even great liberal economists recognize (such as Keynes), I will just go ahead and drop the numbers.

The average cost of private group insurance in 1960 for a household was $107/year.
Inflation adjusted to 2008 dollars that means, if no laws had passed in 1965 to change anything, you would expect to be paying $741 _per year_ per household.
Instead you and/or your employer are paying $13, 968 per household (as of 2008).

So many research studies are attempting to explain the high cost of insurance and medical costs but only analyze the symptoms - they fail to get to the root of the cause. They see high cost of elderly care and blame it on that. They see high cost of technology and blame it on that. The cost of treating obesity. The cost of treating smokers. The cost of treating drug addicts. The cost of pharmaceuticals. And on and on.

ALL of those things have a common problem: High prices. High prices are the EFFECT, not the CAUSE.

None of those things HAVE to be expensive to treat.

The CAUSE is: Price controls and government interference coupled with citizens not having enough skin in the game (really a subset of government interference but in conjunction with corporate tax laws [also government interference]).

Even liberal economists recognize that price controls are generally just an imminent disaster in the making. They force those costs to skyrocket due to overuse and abuse, among other reasons.

Elderly healthcare is expensive. That's not the CAUSE of the problem it's the EFFECT of a much larger problem. You don't have to deny elderly patients healthcare to fix the problem.

$750 per year versus $14000 per year.

Would you rather pay (12 x 480)/yr with no deductible for subsidized insurance plus an exorbitant amount for your wife's private insurance, or $750/yr for private insurance with a $1000/2000 deductible? It's your choice, and it really is that simple.

You need to pull the plug on the generator that was designed with a faulty feedback control system that is causing it's coils to burn up. The generator is smoking and can be swapped out with one that runs smooth and quiet. What should we do? Obama's solution was to add more fuel to the generator and swap out a capacitor. That doesn't stop the motor from spiraling out of control, only speeds it up.

There IS a free market solution that would see our prices fall back in line to inflation adjusted pre-medicare costs and not leave the destitute or elderly high and dry. But until Americans recognize what is causing the problem then it's all moot. And to do that we need to understand that high prices are the EFFECT not the CAUSE of the problem.

[Aargh]

Would you rather pay (12 x 480)/yr with no deductible for subsidized insurance plus an exorbitant amount for your wife's private insurance, or $750/yr for private insurance with a $1000/2000 deductible? It's your choice, and it really is that simple.

Where did a subsidized $480 /mo. with no deductible come from? The cost mentioned, as I have said in 2 previous posts is an UNSUBSIDIZED figure. That is a quote for my wife, so the part about "plus an exorbitant amount for your wife" makes no sense whatsoever. Do you even read opinions that differ from yours?

I pick the $750 a year. Where can I choose that option? Also, who's subsidizing that, since that's not going to cover more than about 2 doctor's visits if tests are ordered.

I notice you've left out a big change in medical care in the last 50 or 60 years. Hospitals have gone from pretty much charitable organizations largely sponsored by churches to for-profit corporations, where a significant profit is more important than it was in the pre-1960's medical model.

Are you proposing getting rid of Medicare?