Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

[Libertarian666]

Are you kidding? The insurance industry loved Obamacare. It forced everyone to buy their product! If anything, I think they're more likely to mandate that people set aside a percentage of their salary in 401ks. Wall St would jizz itself over something like that.

Right on all counts.

[Mdraf]

, but I live in this area professionally, and what's actually happening is WAY different from the way the media is portraying it.

I didn't know that. In that case I defer to your judgement. But aren't the insurance companies now obligated to refund premiums if they exceed some ratio of benefits? And since they will have to cover pre-existing how in the world can they calculate and do any budgeting?

[Pointedstick]

Are you kidding? The insurance industry loved Obamacare. It forced everyone to buy their product! If anything, I think they're more likely to mandate that people set aside a percentage of their salary in 401ks. Wall St would jizz itself over something like that.

Right on all counts.

I could very easily see a Social Security opt-out that came at the expense of being required to save 6% in a 401k. Perhaps a part of this hypothetical law would mandate a percentage of wall street profits made on these 401ks be directed into the social Security Trust fund. That sounds like exactly the sort of cronyistic, corportist law that seems very possible to me.

[Kshartle]

Are you kidding? The insurance industry loved Obamacare. It forced everyone to buy their product! If anything, I think they're more likely to mandate that people set aside a percentage of their salary in 401ks. Wall St would jizz itself over something like that.

Right on all counts.

Time will tell if that's true.

I disagree personally. Many will opt and take the penalty. Many employers are going to drop healthcare offerings if they can and people would be smart to not buy any.

Since there is no pre-existing condition requirement you can just wait until you're sick to buy. Insurance is being made largely obsolete by Obamacare.

I think this is going to destroy private insurance and is paving the way for complete government take over of another industry. It will do as good with it as it does with others.

[MediumTex]

, but I live in this area professionally, and what's actually happening is WAY different from the way the media is portraying it.

I didn't know that. In that case I defer to your judgement. But aren't the insurance companies now obligated to refund premiums if they exceed some ratio of benefits? And since they will have to cover pre-existing how in the world can they calculate and do any budgeting?

I'm mostly talking about the retirement plan side, but the caps on insurance profits under Obamacare are not that big a deal when you consider that the alternative was NO profits (or vastly reduced profits) under a single payer system.

As far as doing projections, it's not a big deal once you know the risk pool you are insuring.

[MediumTex]

Are you kidding? The insurance industry loved Obamacare. It forced everyone to buy their product! If anything, I think they're more likely to mandate that people set aside a percentage of their salary in 401ks. Wall St would jizz itself over something like that.

Right on all counts.

Time will tell if that's true.

I disagree personally. Many will opt and take the penalty. Many employers are going to drop healthcare offerings if they can and people would be smart to not buy any.

Since there is no pre-existing condition requirement you can just wait until you're sick to buy. Insurance is being made largely obsolete by Obamacare.

I think this is going to destroy private insurance and is paving the way for complete government take over of another industry. It will do as good with it as it does with others.

How is the requirement that everyone purchase insurance going to destroy the insurance industry?

If I were an insurance company, I would be tickled pink to have the IRS as my collection agency telling people to buy my product or go to jail.

Has the universal requirement that drivers buy liability insurance been bad for the car insurers?  Judging by GEICO's lavish spending on entertaining commercials I would say that the margins in that business are large and they are very much enjoying the government mandate to buy car insurance as a condition of being a driver.

[Pointedstick]

Obamacare basically said to the insurers, "we'll make everyone buy your product if you stop turning some people away." Car insurance is already like that. Having a couple of accidents on your record is the "pre-existing condition" of the auto world.

It seems to work much better for car insurance though. My policy is barely $40 a month for one car and two drivers. Totally affordable. I sincerely doubt my hypothetical Obamacare premium is going to be any less than ten times that amount.

[Kshartle]

Right on all counts.

Time will tell if that's true.

I disagree personally. Many will opt and take the penalty. Many employers are going to drop healthcare offerings if they can and people would be smart to not buy any.

Since there is no pre-existing condition requirement you can just wait until you're sick to buy. Insurance is being made largely obsolete by Obamacare.

I think this is going to destroy private insurance and is paving the way for complete government take over of another industry. It will do as good with it as it does with others.

How is the requirement that everyone purchase insurance going to destroy the insurance industry?

If I were an insurance company, I would be tickled pink to have the IRS as my collection agency telling people to buy my product or go to jail.

Has the universal requirement that drivers buy liability insurance been bad for the car insurers?  Judging by GEICO's lavish spending on entertaining commercials I would say that the margins in that business are large and they are very much enjoying the government mandate to buy car insurance as a condition of being a driver.

It's not a requirement. You can just pay a much less expensive penalty and buy insurance when you're sick. Of course then it's no longer insurance, it's a loss to the "insurer". People will figure that out quick I think.

[Kshartle]

Right on all counts.

Time will tell if that's true.

I disagree personally. Many will opt and take the penalty. Many employers are going to drop healthcare offerings if they can and people would be smart to not buy any.

Since there is no pre-existing condition requirement you can just wait until you're sick to buy. Insurance is being made largely obsolete by Obamacare.

I think this is going to destroy private insurance and is paving the way for complete government take over of another industry. It will do as good with it as it does with others.

How is the requirement that everyone purchase insurance going to destroy the insurance industry?

If I were an insurance company, I would be tickled pink to have the IRS as my collection agency telling people to buy my product or go to jail.

Has the universal requirement that drivers buy liability insurance been bad for the car insurers?  Judging by GEICO's lavish spending on entertaining commercials I would say that the margins in that business are large and they are very much enjoying the government mandate to buy car insurance as a condition of being a driver.

It's nothing like car insurance. I can't buy a Geico policy after I crash my car and have them pay for the repair.

[Libertarian666]

Time will tell if that's true.

I disagree personally. Many will opt and take the penalty. Many employers are going to drop healthcare offerings if they can and people would be smart to not buy any.

Since there is no pre-existing condition requirement you can just wait until you're sick to buy. Insurance is being made largely obsolete by Obamacare.

I think this is going to destroy private insurance and is paving the way for complete government take over of another industry. It will do as good with it as it does with others.

How is the requirement that everyone purchase insurance going to destroy the insurance industry?

If I were an insurance company, I would be tickled pink to have the IRS as my collection agency telling people to buy my product or go to jail.

Has the universal requirement that drivers buy liability insurance been bad for the car insurers?  Judging by GEICO's lavish spending on entertaining commercials I would say that the margins in that business are large and they are very much enjoying the government mandate to buy car insurance as a condition of being a driver.

It's not a requirement. You can just pay a much less expensive penalty and buy insurance when you're sick. Of course then it's no longer insurance, it's a loss to the "insurer". People will figure that out quick I think.

Only until they make it illegal not to buy.
You read it here first.

[Kshartle]

You guys need to remember the story about A taking from B to give to C.

B will not stand still.

B is the young and healthy and C are the sick and old.

Obamacare is just a big welfare scheme. It will fail and take the insurance industry down with it to pave the way for total federal take over.

Don't focus on the mandate alone. Focus on the fact that the insurers are now in the welfare business.

[MediumTex]

It's nothing like car insurance. I can't buy a Geico policy after I crash my car and have them pay for the repair.

You can't do that this with insurance under Obamacare either.

If I break my arm and go to the hospital and have it set and a cast put on it and go buy an Obamacare policy the next day, they aren't going to pay anything on my broken arm claim for the services I received at the hospital before I bought the policy.

What you are talking about is if I'm a reckless driver (i.e., likely to have a lot of claims) and a I wreck my car today and go buy a car insurance policy tomorrow, are they going to cover the claims from my reckless driving going forward from the effective date of my policy, and the answer is yes.

Think of having cancer as being a reckless driver.

[Kshartle]

It's nothing like car insurance. I can't buy a Geico policy after I crash my car and have them pay for the repair.

You can't do that this with insurance under Obamacare either.

If I break my arm and go to the hospital and have it set and a cast put on it and go buy an Obamacare policy the next day, they aren't going to pay anything on my broken arm claim for the services I received at the hospital before I bought the policy.

What you are talking about is if I'm a reckless driver (i.e., likely to have a lot of claims) and a I wreck my car today and go buy a car insurance policy tomorrow, are they going to cover the claims from my reckless driving going forward from the effective date of my policy, and the answer is yes.

Think of having cancer as being a reckless driver.

Yes I completely understand all this. Your analogy makes my point entirely.

Yes some emergency care might not be covered with a posthumous policy purchase, but this will not be a compelling reason for people to purchase insurance. Who is going to pay several thousand a year, just to be able to get some emergency care costs lowered? This is a by-product of insurance but not the main purpose. When people pay thousands in premiums annually it's for protection in the event of major debilitating diseases such as cancer which you mentioned.

There might be some people so foolish as to waste money getting covered for emergencies but emergencies are such a tiny part of overall medical costs I don't think it's going to be sufficient to compel people. Humans are smart enough to get this. Friends, family and others who understand that pre-existing conditions will not preclude them from getting insurance will be informing millions of people, particularly the young and healthy to not buy. If young people aren't buying into the welfare ponzi scheme how will insurance companies be able to afford the costs of old and sick welfare patients? They will go broke.

People figure out how to get over on the system ALL THE TIME.  Unless I’m misinterpreting the law this is a glaring loophole that many will try to exploit. Practically everyone wants everything for free. If people can wait until their sick to sign up and pay that’s what they’ll do. It’s what I intend to do. 

[Kshartle]

Only until they make it illegal not to buy.
You read it here first.

They will have to overcome the constitution. Of course they have done that a bazillion times already.

I think they will be content to bankrupt the insurance industry rather than try to get this to succeed.

The mafia wants to be the only insurance game in town, jack up the price on everyone and lower the quality. It's what mafias like to do. Of course they never present it that way. They are always solving a crisis and the solution is always and forever less freedom.

[Kshartle]

KShartle, did you ever watch the video?

I did watch it last night. It's a cartoonish Keynesian propaganda piece that ignores reality. It's written to push the agenda of the money printers, cede control of the economy to them and enrich guys like Dalio and his well-connected friends.

It’s so bad and so mistake riddled I don’t know where to begin.

He claims spending drives the economy. It does not. Production drives the economy. Something must be produced before it can be purchased. Buying something prior to production does nothing. It buys only a promise. The actual economy and wealth of the nation only grows with production.

We don’t have cycles because we borrow. Borrowing does not create the cycles. They cycles are a by-product of the government’s monetary and fiscal policy. Since they heavily influence interest rates, inflation rates and directly interfere by buying things and sticking the taxpayer with the bill they produce the cycles.

The government can cause a lot of economic activity by lowering borrowing costs, encouraging people to take on debt and forcing people to consume more by devaluing their savings. It can use outright theft by spending and buying things we don’t want with it’s fiscal policy. That causes distortions in the market that are unsustainable. The bust and contraction happen when the government is no longer able to sustain the bubble or chooses not to.

There are so many more ways he is wrong I’ll point them out as best I can with a few more posts. It might take a few, nearly every minute is another major error.

This is just Ray trying to put one over on the slav er…citizens. It's a disaster of errors and this guy knows much better. He made a little cartoon propaganda peice and it's basically straight from Keynes. This has all been disproven logically and in practice.

[Kshartle]

It's a cartoonish Keynesian propaganda piece that ignores reality. It's written to push the agenda of the money printers, cede control of the economy to them and enrich guys like Dalio and his well-connected friends.

I realize this statement is proof of nothing and basically calling Ray a doo-doo head. I'll keep that out of any further critiques. It's difficult when I see a video like this and it's so obvious this guy is trying to distort, confuse, distract, mislead etc. etc., the people who's wealth him and his ilk would like to take.

That being said, I'll keep my personal opinion out as best I can and stick strictly to the content. I might not succeed.

[Gumby]

Nobody produces something unless they think that there is a demand for a product. It would be pretty dumb to produce something that didn't have any demand. You can't just produce smelly socks and wait for demand to pick up. People start businesses to meet the demand for something that people need or want. But if people don't have money in their pockets, they can't create that demand in the marketplace. We've already been through this. You can't buy that Ferrari you've always dreamed of because you don't have the money. 

[Mdraf]

Nobody produces something unless they think that there is a demand for a product. It would be pretty dumb to produce something that didn't have any demand. You can't just produce smelly socks and wait for demand to pick up. People start businesses to meet the demand for something that people need or want. But if people don't have money in their pockets, they can't create that demand in the marketplace. We've already been through this. You can't buy that Ferrari you've always dreamed of because you don't have the money.

I generally agree with this but Steve Jobs proved the exception. He said that people don't know what they want until you show it to them (ie iPhone)

[Gumby]

Nobody produces something unless they think that there is a demand for a product. It would be pretty dumb to produce something that didn't have any demand. You can't just produce smelly socks and wait for demand to pick up. People start businesses to meet the demand for something that people need or want. But if people don't have money in their pockets, they can't create that demand in the marketplace. We've already been through this. You can't buy that Ferrari you've always dreamed of because you don't have the money.

I generally agree with this but Steve Jobs proved the exception. He said that people don't know what they want until you show it to them (ie iPhone)

Exactly. But Jobs believed that the demand existed for such a product — we just didn't know it. He wouldn't have made the iPhone if he didn't believe there would be demand for it. Same thing with Twitter — the developers believed that it was a messaging system we needed but didn't know we needed it.

[Mdraf]

the developers believed that it was a messaging system we needed but didn't know we needed it.

Thread hijack alert:

I still don't know we need it!

[Pointedstick]

the developers believed that it was a messaging system we needed but didn't know we needed it.

Thread hijack alert:

I still don't know we need it!

Apparently few people do. Aren't the majority of accounts just bots?

[Kshartle]

Article from Forbes saying expect old and sick people to sign up for Obamacare but not the young and healthy. This is how it will ruin the health insurance industry like I said and is nothing more than a welfare program.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... r=yahootix

Quote - "I fully expect that the people who get a good deal out of Obamacare—poorer and sicker individuals—will sign up. The enrollment figures will increase. But the real question isn’t how many people enroll: it’s what kind of people enroll. Two-thirds of the uninsured in America are under the age of 40. What will be the average age of an enrollee on the exchanges? If most enrollees were born before or during the Nixon administration, start worrying."

[notsheigetz]

Article from Forbes saying expect old and sick people to sign up for Obamacare but not the young and healthy. This is how it will ruin the health insurance industry like I said and is nothing more than a welfare program.

The surprising thing to me about Obamacare was that it grew out of the complaints you used to hear over and over about 30-35 million ( or whatever number it was at the time)  people in America without health insurance. I always thought this was about them not having access to healthcare but now that we have Obamacare it appears to me from all the rhetoric that it was much more about those 30 million people not paying into the system. Was this some kind of bait and switch?

[Pointedstick]

The surprising thing to me about Obamacare was that it grew out of the complaints you used to hear over and over about 30-35 million ( or whatever number it was at the time)  people in America without health insurance. I always thought this was about them not having access to healthcare but now that we have Obamacare it appears to me from all the rhetoric that it was much more about those 30 million people not paying into the system. Was this some kind of bait and switch?

Yes. The problem with them not having insurance was that when they got sick, they would go to the emergency room, where they are legally guaranteed treatment even absent any money. A big deal was made of this during the debate over Obamacare before it was passed, I seem to recall.

Of course it would be too EXTREME and RADICAL to even entertain the notion of either repealing the law mandating treatment absent ability to pay, or amending it to have the government pay or something.

[moda0306]

Article from Forbes saying expect old and sick people to sign up for Obamacare but not the young and healthy. This is how it will ruin the health insurance industry like I said and is nothing more than a welfare program.

The surprising thing to me about Obamacare was that it grew out of the complaints you used to hear over and over about 30-35 million ( or whatever number it was at the time)  people in America without health insurance. I always thought this was about them not having access to healthcare but now that we have Obamacare it appears to me from all the rhetoric that it was much more about those 30 million people not paying into the system. Was this some kind of bait and switch?

I think it's a combo.  Make healthy people get insurance and let sick people enter the pool.  If you have the latter without the former, you get adverse selection.

That's why they have the mandate.