Gyroscopic Investing

Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

Pointedstick wrote: Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

Prices would plummet....for the easily and cheaply insurable (fairly young and reasonably healthy...the "young invincibles"). Those with pre-existing conditions (or even those who were simply older) would end up in many cases paying even more than they do now as adverse selection death spirals--brought about due to the cheaply insurable buying policies under the new federalized laws that didn't have community rating and guaranteed issue and thus leaving behind the slightly less healthy, the least unhealthy subset of whom owould then decamp from the risk pool as well and so ad infinitum until only the sickest and oldest are left--brought an end to the community rated and guaranteed issue enforced risk pools that some states now have (and that HIPPA and other Federal laws currently mandate for employer-provided coverage as well...i.e an employer cannot provide coverage for only the healthy under a group plan; they have to cover everyone at the same rate for the same type of coverage).

Of course, this issue COULD be solved by mandating under the new "federalized" rules that all policies be community rated and guaranteed issue but then you'd have the same sort of adverse selection graveyard spiral as only the sickest were eventually left in the risk pools and coverage prices increased more and more due to the degradation of the risk pool and more and more found it cheaper to do without insurance (seeing as how they could buy it whenever they got sick and thanks to the community rating and guaranteed issue laws the insuer couldn't charge them more or turn them down). Well, that could be fixed by mandating that everyone, not just the sick, had to buy insurance under the new Federalized insurance regulations, but then you have people who are basically forced to buy a product they might not be able to even afford and so they will need subsidies....which brings us right back to where we started with......Obamacare.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

Benko wrote:

They all have some form of universal health care system. So you are saying that the rest f the world is somehow evil and we, being the only nation that allows people to die because they don't make enough money or their job doesn't pay benefits, are the last bastion of freedom in the world?

You'll never hear me make the claim that the US is the last bastion of freedom in the world.

Honest and sincere questions - I've heard it said many times that Health Care is a basic right because people need it to live. Ok.

Don't they need food, water, clothing and shelther much much more than health care though?

Are all those things basic rights?

Is everyone entitled to all of those also?

Since they all have to be provided by someone else, are people entitled to have other people be forced to work and provide them on their behalf?

I think if someone wants to make the claim that health care is a basic right they should be able to answer these questions. Otherwise they are being hypocritical.

Hey if somebody loves socialism or Obamacare or whatever then take on the challenge of my questions. Unless you have no b@lls.

Embrace your beliefs and defend them or don't mouth them. It's lame if you blather on about rights and can't support it against the most basic questions. It should tell you something about your thought process. Someone who loves the welfare state step up and answer my questions. Why does one man owe another man his property or time (which is his LIFE)?!?!

Pointedstick wrote: Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

That would also help quite a bit. And amazingly enough, it would actually be Constitutional!
Which is probably why they haven't proposed it... well, that and the fact that it would actually help the problem, which is the opposite of what they want.

Simonjester wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

You'll never hear me make the claim that the US is the last bastion of freedom in the world.

Honest and sincere questions - I've heard it said many times that Health Care is a basic right because people need it to live. Ok.

Don't they need food, water, clothing and shelther much much more than health care though?

Are all those things basic rights?

Is everyone entitled to all of those also?

Since they all have to be provided by someone else, are people entitled to have other people be forced to work and provide them on their behalf?

I think if someone wants to make the claim that health care is a basic right they should be able to answer these questions. Otherwise they are being hypocritical.

Hey if somebody loves socialism or Obamacare or whatever then take on the challenge of my questions. Unless you have no b@lls.

Embrace your beliefs and defend them or don't mouth them. It's lame if you blather on about rights and can't support it against the most basic questions. It should tell you something about your thought process. Someone who loves the welfare state step up and answer my questions. Why does one man owe another man his property or time (which is his LIFE)?!?!

i don't think the logic can be worked out in a way that it can be truly defended, but just for fun i will put on my devils advocate hat and give it a try.... FYI i don't believe the stuff i will be arguing so i will try to make the print blue.. the color if socialism (didn't it used to be red? )

yes Health Care food, water, clothing and shelter Are all basic rights, and yes because we live in a society/environment/world with no outside we have a duty to each other and therefor we all have a right to demand a portion of each others labor/property be redirected to the benefit of the group as a whole, and because we have some who are greedy and would not care for others benefit, we have the right to use force (law and government) to do so... if we don't do this some people may get their needs met by charity but most wont, and those that don't end up costing society financially, putting a greater strain on the system than redistribution would, plus the failure of our humanity and morality letting people suffer represents...

And let's not forget other human basic rights such as:
A right to a cell phone and basic cable
A right to cross borders
A right not to be offended

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

That would also help quite a bit. And amazingly enough, it would actually be Constitutional!
Which is probably why they haven't proposed it... well, that and the fact that it would actually help the problem, which is the opposite of what they want.

How about cancel all regulation and let the market regulate it? People will buy what they want. The best companies will be rewarded. You don't have to worry about bad insurance companies. No one will buy their insurance.

And without the regs the costs will plummet.

Does everyone here understand how free market competition works? It benefits the consumer far far more than the business. With fascism they just lobby the goverment to force you to buy their crappy products. That's what we have now.

I would favor a system where government offers incentives to the private insurance companies based on their performance.  Something like the more members an insurance company attracts the more government subsidies they get. No pre-existing condition exclusions allowed but ability to switch insurance company at any time. So by being more consumer friendly in every way (premiums, customer service, network quality) the insurance company would get more money from the taxpayer pool. Provide lousy service? Lose subsidies.
I do think there needs to be some sort of subsidy as the hands off system we had simply didn't work.

Mdraf wrote: I would favor a system where government offers incentives to the private insurance companies based on their performance. 

What about the crazy idea of letting customers provide incentives by just buying insurance from companies based on their performance? Why do we need the goverment taxing people and sending that money to insurance companies?

Kshartle wrote:

Mdraf wrote: I would favor a system where government offers incentives to the private insurance companies based on their performance. 

What about the crazy idea of letting customers provide incentives by just buying insurance from companies based on their performance? Why do we need the goverment taxing people and sending that money to insurance companies?

Because that's what we had before and it didn't work for all the reasons we discussed before - pre-existing conditions, lawsuits, malpractice, subsidy of drugs to foreigners etc etc.  As a society voters have shown that taxpayer redistribution is wanted (Medicare, Medicaid). The problem we are grappling with now is to how to re-distribute in the most efficient manner.

Mdraf wrote: As a society voters have shown that taxpayer redistribution is wanted (Medicare, Medicaid). The problem we are grappling with now is to how to re-distribute in the most efficient manner.

Good luck with all that.

I would refer anyone who hasn't to read Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work"

Kshartle wrote:

Mdraf wrote: As a society voters have shown that taxpayer redistribution is wanted (Medicare, Medicaid). The problem we are grappling with now is to how to re-distribute in the most efficient manner.

Good luck with all that.

I would refer anyone who hasn't to read Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work"

I would agree. But one has to be pragmatic.  Our society is not about to turn back. So we need to make lemonade with the lemons we have.

Mdraf wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Mdraf wrote: As a society voters have shown that taxpayer redistribution is wanted (Medicare, Medicaid). The problem we are grappling with now is to how to re-distribute in the most efficient manner.

Good luck with all that.

I would refer anyone who hasn't to read Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work"

I would agree. But one has to be pragmatic.  Our society is not about to turn back. So we need to make lemonade with the lemons we have.

I'm afraid it's not lemonade but pee with some sugar poured in.

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Another practical way to solve the problem Obamacare was trying to solve was to federalize the regulation of insurance and destroy all the ridiculous barriers to competition that the states have set up. With one giant nationwide market, I would expect prices to quickly plummet.

That would also help quite a bit. And amazingly enough, it would actually be Constitutional!
Which is probably why they haven't proposed it... well, that and the fact that it would actually help the problem, which is the opposite of what they want.

How about cancel all regulation and let the market regulate it? People will buy what they want. The best companies will be rewarded. You don't have to worry about bad insurance companies. No one will buy their insurance.

And without the regs the costs will plummet.

Does everyone here understand how free market competition works? It benefits the consumer far far more than the business. With fascism they just lobby the goverment to force you to buy their crappy products. That's what we have now.

Yes, that is correct. But my point was that the federal government actually has the authority under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, so all they have to do is to tell the states that they can't stop you from buying insurance from a company in another state, and competition will be greatly improved.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: That would also help quite a bit. And amazingly enough, it would actually be Constitutional!
Which is probably why they haven't proposed it... well, that and the fact that it would actually help the problem, which is the opposite of what they want.

How about cancel all regulation and let the market regulate it? People will buy what they want. The best companies will be rewarded. You don't have to worry about bad insurance companies. No one will buy their insurance.

And without the regs the costs will plummet.

Does everyone here understand how free market competition works? It benefits the consumer far far more than the business. With fascism they just lobby the goverment to force you to buy their crappy products. That's what we have now.

Yes, that is correct. But my point was that the federal government actually has the authority under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, so all they have to do is to tell the states that they can't stop you from buying insurance from a company in another state, and competition will be greatly improved.

How about buying from another country. International insurance.

Why should a company in another be prevented from offereing Americans insurance? They are manica control freaks these politicians.

Tech is right. We can dream all we want, but back in the real imperfect world we all live in, having the federal government take these steps is something that would actually incrementally help; it's even feasible given the political environment and the drive toward federalization and standardization; and *gasp* it's actually constitutional!

Pointedstick wrote: Tech is right. We can dream all we want, but back in the real imperfect world we all live in, having the federal government take these steps is something that would actually incrementally help; it's even feasible given the political environment and the drive toward federalization and standardization; and *gasp* it's actually constitutional!

The point is when you speculate about what the government is going to do you're still dreaming. They don't care what you think. You won't affect what they do or have any influence. They're going to do whatever they were going to do regardless of what anyone here thinks, says or does.

It's all dreams anyway so I say why not dream of a real solution rather than crappy ones?

Since it's all dreams I always like to ask why people would choose bad ones?

The government is probably just as likely to stop interferring as it is to adopt anything dreamt up here....which is to say zero.

Unless someone here dreamt up Obamacare.

Which dream seems more realistic?

"I think that the government should abolish gravity."

"I think that taxes on middle-class people should go down 1% next year."

By dismissing anything to do with government reforms as an unrealistic fantasy, you rob yourself of the ability to be part of realistic, doable, incremental change. I don't know if you're too familiar with gun laws in this country, but they've been getting better for 30 years because of the hard work and realistic, incremental goals of reformers. If 30 years ago they had said, "government is coercion! Abolish all gun laws!" gun ownership in America would be a footnote of history. Because they started small and worked their way up to big wins, today we have five states where you can carry a pistol without permission from the government and 36 where permission is very easy to attain. It may not be perfect, but the trajectory is positive because of realism, not idealism.

Pointedstick wrote: Which dream seems more realistic?

"I think that the government should abolish gravity."

"I think that taxes on middle-class people should go down 1% next year."

By dismissing anything to do with government reforms as an unrealistic fantasy, you rob yourself of the ability to be part of realistic, doable, incremental change. I don't know if you're too familiar with gun laws in this country, but they've been getting better for 30 years because of the hard work and realistic, incremental goals of reformers. If 30 years ago they had said, "government is coercion! Abolish all gun laws!" gun ownership in America would be a footnote of history. Because they started small and worked their way up to big wins, today we have five states where you can carry a pistol without permission from the government and 36 where permission is very easy to attain. It may not be perfect, but the trajectory is positive because of realism, not idealism.

Point well taken.

Thanks!

That said, I basically agree with you that government doesn't care about what you want; it's going to do what it's going to do… but not always. In a gross, lumbering, inefficient manner, representative governments need to be responsive to the desires of their subjects. Politics is a team sport, but a team is made up of its members. Movements are often started by small groups of passionate, engaged, connected people, and once a movement takes off, becoming part of it can help to usher in the changes you want to see.

But you just have to be realistic and pick your battles. Gun rights in California, for example, are doomed simply because of lack of numbers. There aren't enough people to outweigh moderate anti-gun sentiment and far-left politicians. In Texas and Idaho, it's different. Context is everything.

Pointedstick wrote: Thanks!

That said, I basically agree with you that government doesn't care about what you want; it's going to do what it's going to do… but not always. In a gross, lumbering, inefficient manner, representative governments need to be responsive to the desires of their subjects. Politics is a team sport, but a team is made up of its members. Movements are often started by small groups of passionate, engaged, connected people, and once a movement takes off, becoming part of it can help to usher in the changes you want to see.

But you just have to be realistic and pick your battles. Gun rights in California, for example, are doomed simply because of lack of numbers. There aren't enough people to outweigh moderate anti-gun sentiment and far-left politicians. In Texas and Idaho, it's different. Context is everything.

Yes I'm not a crusader, I don't think it's worth the effort but if everyone else wants to lobby for more freedom.....please go right ahead. If you can really get some freedom going, I might even move there. Has to be warm though.

Kshartle wrote:Has to be warm though.

I think this is the kiss of death. Weather that's too good encourages too much in-migration. Exhibit A: California. I think there's a reason that the states that tend to be more libertarian are hotter or colder than average (New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arizona…).

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote:Has to be warm though.

I think this is the kiss of death. Weather that's too good encourages too much in-migration. Exhibit A: California. I think there's a reason that the states that tend to be more libertarian are hotter or colder than average (New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arizona…).

I lived in Hawaii for 4 years and see what you mean.

Florida is hot and a few months are especially brutal but it can be dealt with.

I grew up in Michigan and now I'm allergic to snow. You wanna talk about colder than average......now here you have a libertarian state for 90% of the land mass but since 50% of the people are around detroit it's distorted.