- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Ann Coulter on Health Care Fix
Posted on 3/30/17 at 8:55 am
Posted on 3/30/17 at 8:55 am
Simple, clear, effective. So why not?
Cue SJW uproar.
quote:
This is how it works today:
ME: I'm perfectly healthy, but I'd like to buy health insurance for heart disease, broken bones, cancer, and everything else that a normal person would ever need, but no more. INSURANCE COMPANY: That will be $700 a month, the deductible is $35,000, no decent hospital will take it, and you have to pay for doctor's visits yourself. But your plan covers shrinks, infertility treatments, sex change operations, autism spectrum disorder treatment, drug rehab and 67 other things you will never need.
UNDER ANN'S PLAN: That will be $50 a month, the deductible is $1,000, you can see any doctor you'd like, and you have full coverage for any important medical problems you could conceivably have in a million years.
Mine is a two-step plan (and you don't have to do the second step, so it's really a one-step plan).
Cue SJW uproar.
This post was edited on 3/30/17 at 8:58 am
6
Posted on 3/30/17 at 8:59 am to JawjaTigah
in theory this is great but how would the insurance companies make any money? trust me the insurance companies do not want this. we have to hold them and their lobbying efforts accountable as well.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:02 am to tke857
quote:I don't think she understands that this is what everyone wanted initially and that providers just won't go for it unless forced.
in theory this is great but how would the insurance companies make any money? trust me the insurance companies do not want this. we have to hold them and their lobbying efforts accountable as well.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:03 am to tke857
quote:Don't disagree with the second part of your statement, but the first part - "Trust me..." that would be a big leap. Why should I?
trust me the insurance companies do not want this. we have to hold them and their lobbying efforts accountable as well.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:18 am to JawjaTigah
When are you going to stop letting people lie to you just because they are "conservative"?
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:39 am to JawjaTigah
It doesn't have to be $50. But start somewhere and let's see what happens.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:43 am to JawjaTigah
Posted this the other day in the hopes of getting some well thought out pros/cons...
quote:
Something I've tossed about for a while now but would really like constructive feedback on: barring insurance companies from dealing with medical personnel/facilities.
Around 25% of medical costs come from the brigade of employees a doctor needs to keep around just to handle dealing with the various insurance companies and each one's particular way of doing things.
Removing this avenue does two things:
-it lowers costs by allowing the medical professional/establishment to cut staff
-eventually market forces would push insurance companies to streamline their services
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:45 am to JawjaTigah
quote:
'm perfectly healthy, but I'd like to buy health insurance for heart disease, broken bones, cancer, and everything else that a normal person would ever need, but no more.
I thought they put a horse down when it broke it's leg.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:47 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:
quote:
in theory this is great but how would the insurance companies make any money? trust me the insurance companies do not want this. we have to hold them and their lobbying efforts accountable as well.
I don't think she understands that this is what everyone wanted initially and that providers just won't go for it unless forced.
Of course providers want to maximize profits. Insurance providers want to take advantage of rules to improve their bottom line.
Do you know who else does that? Every single person, company, and government entity.
We are all rational actors for our own benefit. Do you want to know what the government can effectively do about it?
Nada.
It's only the freedom of consumers to choose that can keep that natural force in check. That's not to say that some guidelines, regulations, and government controls aren't also necessary to protect people from the harshness of capitalism, but you can never ignore or hope to negate the forces of individual rational actors in the market place.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:48 am to Jimbeaux
A simple explanation from a simple person.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:50 am to Jimbeaux
I agree....repeal and do not replace. Let market forces dictate what happens.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 9:57 am to Foy
A simple person. Are you talking about Colter or me? 
I've been called a lot of things, but this is a first! Strangely, I take it as a compliment of sorts. I often try to make myself less complicated. As the Lynyrd Skynyrd song says, "Be a simple kind of man..."
I've been called a lot of things, but this is a first! Strangely, I take it as a compliment of sorts. I often try to make myself less complicated. As the Lynyrd Skynyrd song says, "Be a simple kind of man..."
Posted on 3/30/17 at 10:03 am to slaphappy
quote:
I agree....repeal and do not replace. Let market forces dictate what happens.
Pure repeal removes federal control and gives it to the states were individuals have more power to control their own politicians!
One is only able to vote for 2 senators (1 in 50), 1 congressman (1 in 435), and the president (1 in about 320,000,000).
Posted on 3/30/17 at 10:04 am to Jimbeaux
quote:True
Of course providers want to maximize profits. Insurance providers want to take advantage of rules to improve their bottom line.
quote:True for the most part.
Do you know who else does that? Every single person, company, and government entity.
quote:Wrong
We are all rational actors for our own benefit. Do you want to know what the government can effectively do about it?
Nada.
quote:But what is available for you to choose can be easily manipulated, forcing you to choose something that may not be as good as a competitor.
It's only the freedom of consumers to choose that can keep that natural force in check.
quote:Yea, but that is an over simplification. You are strictly looking at it from demand, but not taking into account the supply and how is manipulated through government, mainly lobbyist, looking to maximize profits. Its okay to purse the maximization of profits, but don't squeeze out any competition along the way to do so. That isn't truly a fee market.
That's not to say that some guidelines, regulations, and government controls aren't also necessary to protect people from the harshness of capitalism, but you can never ignore or hope to negate the forces of individual rational actors in the market place.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 10:14 am to JawjaTigah
will never see the light of day.
we are already one big risk pool and for all practical purposes single payer despite having the illusion of choice.
Healthy, contributing citizens will pay for the health care of those who aren't as they do with everything else the government operates, roads, as an example.
We are simply watching the same chess pieces being moved around on the same board
we are already one big risk pool and for all practical purposes single payer despite having the illusion of choice.
Healthy, contributing citizens will pay for the health care of those who aren't as they do with everything else the government operates, roads, as an example.
We are simply watching the same chess pieces being moved around on the same board
Posted on 3/30/17 at 10:19 am to Bard
most providers I'm around are pretty darn lean. the staffing trap is typically, one is not enough but two are too many...therein is much of your staffing costs and in an employment market that isn't real flush with practitioners.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 10:31 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:
quote:
We are all rational actors for our own benefit. Do you want to know what the government can effectively do about it?
Nada.
Wrong
Maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that the market can't be influenced by government action. Quite the contrary! What I meant is that every entity will always make choices for their own best interest given whatever changing factors present themselves. Government intervention will always effect people's choices, but there is always unintended consequences, ie. individuals who do things differently than the government wanted them to do - often unexpectedly.
In looking at the rest of your response, I think you and I are basically in agreement. I was simply focusing on the very narrow concept of freedom of choice. I was responding to the post that was decrying the bad ole "providers" for taking advantage of government interventions for their own profit. To rail against that is to deny a fundamental reality of market forces.
Yes, of course, changes to the market, including governmental involvment, will force people to make adjustments. The problem is that the governmental changes to the system can not possibly come close to keeping up with the market changes itself.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 10:35 am to wfallstiger
You are forgetting the pivotal issues. You are only focusing on "coverage". You are forgetting about costs and about quality and availability of service.
The analogy of roads is not especially helpful.
The analogy of roads is not especially helpful.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 12:57 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:The biggest issue in the government's influence, for me, comes from the corporations. Having lobbyist do your bidding to the government in the name of profits is horrible. The government being influenced by this, making decisions in the best interest of the corporations at the cost of the people is flat out insane.
Maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that the market can't be influenced by government action. Quite the contrary! What I meant is that every entity will always make choices for their own best interest given whatever changing factors present themselves. Government intervention will always effect people's choices, but there is always unintended consequences, ie. individuals who do things differently than the government wanted them to do - often unexpectedly.
In looking at the rest of your response, I think you and I are basically in agreement. I was simply focusing on the very narrow concept of freedom of choice. I was responding to the post that was decrying the bad ole "providers" for taking advantage of government interventions for their own profit. To rail against that is to deny a fundamental reality of market forces.
Yes, of course, changes to the market, including governmental involvment, will force people to make adjustments. The problem is that the governmental changes to the system can not possibly come close to keeping up with the market changes itself.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News