Why I'm not hiring

[pocketfullofshells]

And in time as well, we will follow the the path of Britain.. article.





The free market works, when you allow it to work. Not allowing it to work, and then pointing to it as a free market failure is outrageous.



Are you actually arguing that what we had in place before ObamaCare was a "free market" system??? Laughable.

I don't think in health care you can ever have a real free market...You can't shop around when your very sick like your buying a new car...and unlike a car, your not making life or death choices with basically little info. A dr can tell you anything..unless your in the medical field...its not like you can just check easy to find out whats right. Insurance ..so filled with loopholes for them, made so you can't understand them, and the cost of not having the right coverage is death...

taking your paycheck and having to decided Food ..or Cable TV is a choice
Having to take paycheck and decided health care or not...is not realy.

Much like Pollution, you can't solve it by just saying...well I hope they just listen to the free market...if you do that, you get to live in a smog filled black city...

The Free market does not work in all places...

and you can't get away from Insurance as the way to get health care...unless you go single payer...The only way people can pay for most health care,...is by having insurance ...trying to buy it all peice meal with no insurance would mean there was no market for 95% of all expensive medical procedures...no one would expect people to whip out a check book and just pay for Cancer treatment...and the free market would not bring costs down, it would raise them..by making such a small pool of people who needed it, and could actually pay for it.

And the Insurance companies...like we can really trust them to just do the right thing...and not the profitable thing...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Great post Rob.

That's an actual photo of a Cuban hospital... which is where single payer eventually leads.

well gosh thats a great argument...clearly if we have single paryer, thast how all hospitals will be.....

you know, every industrial nation on earth , has basically a single payer...a lot of them rank better then the US, and most pay far less per person...But yes, you proved your right with a argument a 2nd grader would see as pathetic.

a realistic picture of place with single payer.....odd looks just like ours...

whats sad is your smart enough to know how dumb your argument that single payer leads to that...but you don't care , because I guess you got nothing better to argue with, then things you know are not even true

 

[pocketfullofshells]

And in time as well, we will follow the the path of Britain.. article.





The free market works, when you allow it to work. Not allowing it to work, and then pointing to it as a free market failure is outrageous.



Are you actually arguing that what we had in place before ObamaCare was a "free market" system??? Laughable.

I never said it was going to be a perfect system...but what the US has had for many years is having some of the same issues...while having many people who can't even get coverage at all...You don't think nursing homes are closing here? You dont think we are cutting back services? And Yes, if you actually let everyone get health care, some things will be more limited or take longer...More people needing the service that can get it now...and no increase in people who can do it, will always lead to that...the issue should not be, well let less people get help...it should be, get more people to help.

And as for if it was a free market before Obama...No, and its not now, and its not going to be...There is a reason so far as I know, no nation on earth has a 100% free market health care system...it would fail and everyone knows it. Free markets sell potato chips and cars...not kidney transplants.

And also, odd thing...since obama care passed....I can still go see any Dr my insurance lets me, just like before...only now my insurance company cant just drop me because I get sick, or deny me coverage if I lost my job and needed a new plan later but got sick first...And if I lost my job, a better safty net to get some coverage while I try to find a new job.

 

[GenSeneca]

the free market would not bring costs down, it would raise them..

If you believe that, then I want to hear your definition of a "Free Market".

And the Insurance companies...like we can really trust them to just do the right thing...and not the profitable thing...

So what is the "right thing"? Unlike the government, private companies cannot operate in deficit every year while racking up massive debts and expect to remain in business.

 

[GenSeneca]

no nation on earth has a 100% free market health care system...it would fail and everyone knows it.

Everyone = Progressives

Free markets sell potato chips and cars...not kidney transplants.

Free Markets reduce the costs of any product or service, even healthcare.

 

[BigRob]

I never said it was going to be a perfect system...but what the US has had for many years is having some of the same issues...while having many people who can't even get coverage at all...You don't think nursing homes are closing here? You dont think we are cutting back services? And Yes, if you actually let everyone get health care, some things will be more limited or take longer...

Yes, there are some nursing homes closing, yes services get cut back, but you state in this very post a few lines down that we do not operate under a free market healthcare system.

I find it somewhat perplexing that you would agree that we are not operating under a free market system, but point to the outcomes of our system as a failure of the free market.

More people needing the service that can get it now...and no increase in people who can do it, will always lead to that...the issue should not be, well let less people get help...it should be, get more people to help.

I don't think the issue ever was "let less people get help." The issue was there were better solutions than the bill that was passed, which does nothing to control costs, and heaps more government control on a failing system already overrun with it.

Think about this, if MN had a car company that made low quality cars, but it was a law that you had to buy a car in MN, I think you would agree that is a bad setup, and that if we opened up the border to allow TN (for example) to sell the better cars they make in MN, it would benefit everyone right? In terms of health insurance, that is the set up. We are not allowed to buy better insurance from somewhere else. When there is no competition, it is little surprise quality decreases and prices remain high.

And as for if it was a free market before Obama...No, and its not now, and its not going to be...There is a reason so far as I know, no nation on earth has a 100% free market health care system...it would fail and everyone knows it. Free markets sell potato chips and cars...not kidney transplants.

It would fail, but no one has tried it? Why then would it fail?

Free markets sell everything, and free markets ought to be allowed to sell health insurance...unfortunately that is not allowed.

And also, odd thing...since obama care passed....I can still go see any Dr my insurance lets me, just like before...only now my insurance company cant just drop me because I get sick, or deny me coverage if I lost my job and needed a new plan later but got sick first...And if I lost my job, a better safty net to get some coverage while I try to find a new job.

Well, according to the legislation, it does not actually kick in for three years...it was ten years of spending to cover seven years of "services." Quite the accounting trick to "lower the deficit."

Putting that aside however, we did not need this bill to enact something like you are talking about. Why not just allow people to shop around and buy coverage at birth, outside of their work? The problem was we attempted to cover the uninsured when we should have focused solely on the uninsurable, a huge difference.

 

[PLC1]

I must say, I'm curious about the rule that insurance companies can't sell in other states. Is that true? If so, why?

It has a smell of industry dictating government policy about it, but it also has a smell of half truth and outright falsehood being repeated until it is believed.

It makes no sense at all to disallow insurance sales across state lines, except as a way to maintain a monopoly in particular states.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I must say, I'm curious about the rule that insurance companies can't sell in other states. Is that true? If so, why?

It has a smell of industry dictating government policy about it, but it also has a smell of half truth and outright falsehood being repeated until it is believed.

It makes no sense at all to disallow insurance sales across state lines, except as a way to maintain a monopoly in particular states.

The main reason I have heard for it, is so that we don't have a case where one state makes the laws the easiest for them, gives buyers the least protection, and they all just HQ there ( for real or by mailbox) It helps avoid what would be a drive to the bottom by all states to lure them in.

Also I live in MN, my insurance is from TX, where my company is based...

also most insurance companies have there networks of places to go thatl limits where you can go, and most often these are limited to places where they of course have a buisness selling them...so my network is all located in MN...and limited even here..

 

[PLC1]

The main reason I have heard for it, is so that we don't have a case where one state makes the laws the easiest for them, gives buyers the least protection, and they all just HQ there ( for real or by mailbox) It helps avoid what would be a drive to the bottom by all states to lure them in.

Also I live in MN, my insurance is from TX, where my company is based...

also most insurance companies have there networks of places to go thatl limits where you can go, and most often these are limited to places where they of course have a buisness selling them...so my network is all located in MN...and limited even here..

So, there is some interstate selling of insurance. If the problem is states that allow the industry too much leniency, the federal government could step in under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, couldn't it?

 

[BigRob]

The main reason I have heard for it, is so that we don't have a case where one state makes the laws the easiest for them, gives buyers the least protection, and they all just HQ there ( for real or by mailbox) It helps avoid what would be a drive to the bottom by all states to lure them in.

Companies are "lured" into areas because of favorable tax climates etc... I don't see how basing in any particular place would suddenly "give the buyer less protection." Does the fact that a company (like Wal-Mart maybe) is based out of Arkansas suddenly give the shoppers at Wal-Mart stores "less protection"?

I don't get that argument.. maybe you could expand on it?

Also I live in MN, my insurance is from TX, where my company is based...

also most insurance companies have there networks of places to go thatl limits where you can go, and most often these are limited to places where they of course have a buisness selling them...so my network is all located in MN...and limited even here..

Is it actually from Texas, or is it just paid for out of Texas, but really supplied through a MN branch of a MN network?

My argument is we need to eliminate getting healthcare from our employers, and be allowed to shop around, across state lines, for the best policies. That would foster real competition in the industry.

 

[BigRob]

I must say, I'm curious about the rule that insurance companies can't sell in other states. Is that true? If so, why?

It has a smell of industry dictating government policy about it, but it also has a smell of half truth and outright falsehood being repeated until it is believed.

It makes no sense at all to disallow insurance sales across state lines, except as a way to maintain a monopoly in particular states.

The argument I have heard as to why they don't allow it is because it would "raise prices" (apparently) in the areas that were lower cost to begin with. I think that is a bogus argument, but that is what I have heard defending it.

Interesting WSJ article on the subject.

 

[PLC1]

The argument I have heard as to why they don't allow it is because it would "raise prices" (apparently) in the areas that were lower cost to begin with. I think that is a bogus argument, but that is what I have heard defending it.

Interesting WSJ article on the subject.

Yes, that does sound like a bogus argument. If lack of competition across state lines lowers costs, why not limit such competition for other goods and services? No, that flies in the face of reason.

 

[BigRob]

Yes, that does sound like a bogus argument. If lack of competition across state lines lowers costs, why not limit such competition for other goods and services? No, that flies in the face of reason.

Exactly. PFOS might can elaborate further though.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Exactly. PFOS might can elaborate further though.

the problem is not lowering prices...its lowering the protections and loopholes they have.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Companies are "lured" into areas because of favorable tax climates etc... I don't see how basing in any particular place would suddenly "give the buyer less protection." Does the fact that a company (like Wal-Mart maybe) is based out of Arkansas suddenly give the shoppers at Wal-Mart stores "less protection"?

I don't get that argument.. maybe you could expand on it?




Is it actually from Texas, or is it just paid for out of Texas, but really supplied through a MN branch of a MN network?

My argument is we need to eliminate getting healthcare from our employers, and be allowed to shop around, across state lines, for the best policies. That would foster real competition in the industry.

what tax rate my company pays does by being in taxes does not really effect me...there rules and medical insurance laws...do effect me, so long as they effect my policy...as a worker.