John Roberts: Extortion is perfectly legal so long as it is packaged as a tax.

[John Galt]

You can't seem to disconnect the exploitation BY GOVERNMENT from the contractual nature of a business relationship, can you?

There is no exploitation if government is kept out of the equation.

I know how the FREE MARKETS are supposed to work, but this "System" is NOT free market. I said in my first post how the "System" perverts things for exploitation/manipulation.
I agree that government absence may result in less exploitation of the insurance market (or their absence by failure to prosecute fraud and intentional market manipulation could result in even worse consequences - look at Wall Street and the financial/banking sector for a perfect example of "selective" exploitation) but government is "not being kept out of it", they're neck deep in it and now even controlling it.
What is it that millions are being forced to buy and what does this whole charade revolve around ......... health INSURANCE! Why do people, HEALTHY people, HAVE to pay for INSURANCE when we already have bookoo systems in place to provide free healthCARE - Medicaid, community health centers, etc. for the "poor"?
Insurance is just the "middle man" in the third party plundering system specifically designed and manipulated to rule and plunder. Just like any other Socialist/Marxist theory, it looks good on paper, but when put under the control of people that stand to personally gain, it becomes an oppressive boot on the throat of society.

 

[hornadylnl]

Insurance companies need to do a better job of personalizing risk. My employer offers 3 tiers of coverage at 3 different levels. Cheap to expensive, employee to full family.

I choose the middle plan. I have a wife and one daughter. The three levels are employee only, employee plus 1 (for husband and wife and no children, a single mom with 1 child, etc), and family. I pay the same weekly premium as a coworker who has six kids.

Also, insurance ought to charge based on risk. I ride a motorcycle so statistically, I pose a higher risk of medical costs than a guy who doesn't. If a coworker's son thinks he's evil kanieval on a skate board and breaks his neck riding off the roof of his house, insurance shouldn't cover it. If you want your Johnny to race motocross, you should pay a premium on that for coverage. If you don't pay the premium and he gets hurt, he's not covered.

There are various activities I don't partake in because I couldn't afford the time off work. If I went snow skiing and broke my leg, I may be off work for months. If we applied these same principles to insurance premiums, people will take less risk or those who choose the risk will be more accountable for their costs.

 

[Fletch]

I know how the FREE MARKETS are supposed to work, but this "System" is NOT free market. I said in my first post how the "System" perverts things for exploitation/manipulation.
I agree that government absence may result in less exploitation of the insurance market (or their absence by failure to prosecute fraud and intentional market manipulation could result in even worse consequences - look at Wall Street and the financial/banking sector for a perfect example of "selective" exploitation) but government is "not being kept out of it", they're neck deep in it and now even controlling it.
What is it that millions are being forced to buy and what does this whole charade revolve around ......... health INSURANCE! Why do people, HEALTHY people, HAVE to pay for INSURANCE when we already have bookoo systems in place to provide free healthCARE - Medicaid, community health centers, etc. for the "poor"?
Insurance is just the "middle man" in the third party plundering system specifically designed and manipulated to rule and plunder. Just like any other Socialist/Marxist theory, it looks good on paper, but when put under the control of people that stand to personally gain, it becomes an oppressive boot on the throat of society.

You're conflating so many things it's really difficult to see where you're coming from. "Insurance is the middle man..." -- yes, in some ways insurance is part of the problem with the system, but this is not a feature inherent to insurance, but rather a result of the system itself. Insurance can exist without the system. It's debatable whether the system can exist without insurance.

 

[cobber]

Some industries could not survive without it, because the risk would be too great to do business at reasonable prices, and they'd have no customers. It is the government's interference in the market that causes insurance costs to spiral out of control, and that is where we should direct our ire. A private company attempting to deal with the business environment it's been dealt is no more at fault than the consumer who's run over by random circumstance.

The risk comes from threat of suit, whether based on tort or consumer protection laws.

I don't want to bang the tort reform gong too loudly, but that's a place to look as well...

 

[IndyDave1776]

The risk comes from threat of suit, whether based on tort or consumer protection laws.

I don't want to bang the tort reform gong too loudly, but that's a place to look as well...

I would say that balance is in order. Negligent performance should be held accountable, but not to the extent of making the injured patient's extended family independently wealthy for several generations.

 

[manwithnoname]

As the state continues to expand beyond boundaries established by the States in the Constitution, I often wonder if people will rise up and say "Enough is enough" and put the beast back in its cage or if they will simply stand by as liberty is continuously attacked and our children and grandchildren are delivered to a life of economic slavery to the master state.

 

[John Galt]

You're conflating so many things it's really difficult to see where you're coming from. "Insurance is the middle man..." -- yes, in some ways insurance is part of the problem with the system, but this is not a feature inherent to insurance, but rather a result of the system itself. Insurance can exist without the system. It's debatable whether the system can exist without insurance.

What did people do before insurance? Medicare/Medicaid? Why is auto and homeowners insurance affordable and health insurance is just the opposite? My opinion is that health insurance, (if allowed to function properly, would work as well as auto/homeowners) has been manipulated due to it being the perfect vehicle/opportunity to create/inflate mayhem into the health industry, therefore requiring an entity (government) to "save" it.
Who is John Galt?

 

[Fletch]

What did people do before insurance? Medicare/Medicaid? Why is auto and homeowners insurance affordable and health insurance is just the opposite? My opinion is that health insurance, (if allowed to function properly, would work as well as auto/homeowners) has been manipulated due to it being the perfect vehicle/opportunity to create/inflate mayhem into the health industry, therefore requiring an entity (government) to "save" it.

It is not modern health insurance that is the problem here. Modern health insurance exists as a result of the rising cost of health care. The question is, why does the cost continue to rise, in defiance of the laws of economics? The answer lies in government interference in health care itself, not in the endless tweaking of insurance rules. We have to go back to the original intervention that created a cascade of "necessary" later interventions.

 

[John Galt]

It is not modern health insurance that is the problem here. Modern health insurance exists as a result of the rising cost of health care. The question is, why does the cost continue to rise, in defiance of the laws of economics? The answer lies in government interference in health care itself, not in the endless tweaking of insurance rules. We have to go back to the original intervention that created a cascade of "necessary" later interventions.

This sounds like the "chicken or the egg" scenario. I view "Modern health insurance" as having evolved into a perverse vehicle that has been used as a cornerstone for a third-party paying system and "protected" by state borders, therefore actually being a major cause of our unaffordable healthcare system. I'm not saying that THEY are the cause of our dysfunctional system, but they are major pawns/tools to be used by Washington in its quest for Control.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Health care costs initially began to rise, as hospitals became more prevalent.

It was at this time that health care cost sharing, through an organization that came to be known as Blue Cross, was brought into being.

The rest is history, one baby step at a time.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Can we all agree that anything the government gets involved with costs more or fails in general?

 

[ATOMonkey]

IMO, health care is expensive, because machines, labs, nurses, techs, admins, etc are expensive.

The only way to reduce cost is to reduce service, as they do in socialized countries.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Can we all agree that anything the government gets involved with costs more or fails in general?

No! Say it isn't so!

 

[Fletch]

IMO, health care is expensive, because machines, labs, nurses, techs, admins, etc are expensive.

And why are they expensive?

Price is a result of an intersection of the supply and demand curves, and the supply side of health care has been artificially restricted by the government for more than a century. Restrict supply, real prices go up. Stop restricting supply, real prices fall.

EVERYTHING else that's wrong about our health care system is a result of or a reaction to the artificial restriction of supply, and no proposed solution can hope to fix things unless it fixes that foundational problem.

100 Years of Medical Robbery - Dale Steinreich - Mises Daily
How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care - Henry Jones - Mises Daily

 

[swany11]

IMO, health care costs rose because consumers didn't act like consumers. You would go to the doctors office, or the hospital, they run some tests, recommend scripts, etc. No worries, insurance will pay for it. You never cared about the actual cost because you had insurance that paid for it.
Health care spending is going down. Why? More high deductible plans where expenses come directly out of the consumer's pocket. We are finally acting like true consumers when it comes to health care. Shopping services, asking questions, finding the best deal.

 

[Fletch]

IMO, health care costs rose because consumers didn't act like consumers. You would go to the doctors office, or the hospital, they run some tests, recommend scripts, etc. No worries, insurance will pay for it. You never cared about the actual cost because you had insurance that paid for it.

They rose long before that happened. As the historical research in the articles I linked says, it started with the cartelization of health care when the AMA decided that doctors were better than non-doctors and deliberately reduced the number of doctors available to drive up prices.

 

[swany11]

They rose long before that happened. As the historical research in the articles I linked says, it started with the cartelization of health care when the AMA decided that doctors were better than non-doctors and deliberately reduced the number of doctors available to drive up prices.

Haven't read those links yet, but they are on my reading list tonight.

 

[ATOMonkey]

And why are they expensive?

Price is a result of an intersection of the supply and demand curves, and the supply side of health care has been artificially restricted by the government for more than a century. Restrict supply, real prices go up. Stop restricting supply, real prices fall.

EVERYTHING else that's wrong about our health care system is a result of or a reaction to the artificial restriction of supply, and no proposed solution can hope to fix things unless it fixes that foundational problem.

100 Years of Medical Robbery - Dale Steinreich - Mises Daily
How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care - Henry Jones - Mises Daily

No argument here.

My only caveat is that machinery and facilites are MUCH better than they were even 10 years ago, and costs reflect that.

 

[Fletch]

My only caveat is that machinery and facilites are MUCH better than they were even 10 years ago, and costs reflect that.

Advancement requires investment, no arguments on that count, but economics teaches us these things would be much cheaper and higher quality, and available sooner, without government interference.