Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
Mdraf
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:54 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Mdraf » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:34 pm

You can use the same arguments about Obamacare but they rammed it through against the wishes of the insurance industry, big pharma, the AMA etc.
Your point about the average person not being able to nurse a 401k nest egg is absolutely true and that's where they will start...with a convincing argument.
France just started.

And techno is right. It will turn into Social Security II, and they will use the funds (leaving a lockbox) to spend and spend.  Asset "swap" be damned.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8700
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:36 pm

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.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9078
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by MediumTex » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:37 pm

Mdraf wrote: You can use the same arguments about Obamacare but they rammed it through against the wishes of the insurance industry, big pharma, the AMA etc.
Your point about the average person not being able to nurse a 401k nest egg is absolutely true and that's where they will start...with a convincing argument.
France just started.

And techno is right. It will turn into Social Security II, and they will use the funds (leaving a lockbox) to spend and spend.  Asset "swap" be damned.
Just take what I'm saying FWIW, but I live in this area professionally, and what's actually happening is WAY different from the way the media is portraying it.

As far as Obamacare and the insurance industry, I would say the insurance industry made out like bandits when you consider that a single payer system was a legitimate alternative.
Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.
-Dwight Eisenhower
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7161
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by technovelist » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:39 pm

Pointedstick wrote: 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.
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
Mdraf
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:54 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Mdraf » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:41 pm

MediumTex wrote:, 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?
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8700
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:44 pm

technovelist wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: 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.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:45 pm

technovelist wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: 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.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9078
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by MediumTex » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:47 pm

Mdraf wrote:
MediumTex wrote:, 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.
Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.
-Dwight Eisenhower
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9078
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by MediumTex » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:50 pm

Kshartle wrote:
technovelist wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: 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.
Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.
-Dwight Eisenhower
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8700
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:54 pm

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.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:57 pm

MediumTex wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
technovelist wrote: 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
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:58 pm

MediumTex wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
technovelist wrote: 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.
Post Reply