Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 09:06 AM)frankksj Wrote:  We already pay more than any other country on health care, and get mediocre care at best, and we're complaining because this makes it even worse.

Yea yea we get it 'Obamacare' is the devil. Ok. If you don't think we could pass socialized healthcare, then it is the best option we have for now. If you do think we could pass socialized healthcare, then you are living in a beautiful fantasy land with no republicans or teatards. I would like to join you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
04-11-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 11:19 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Lol bragging about my kids' free tooth brushes. Yea that is what I was doing for sure. I certainly wasn't trying to prove a point that regardless of your definition most insurance plans cover more things. The last time I checked my ex-husband has $97 a month taken out of his check for insurance. I guess in about 236 years he will have spent enough on insurance to pay for a Bentley....

I think you misread my post. There may only be $97/month taken out that is SHOWN on the paycheck, but research studies have shown that employers deduct their portion of these costs from what they pay the employees. So, if the health insurance costs $1000/month, and the employer only takes $97/month from your paycheck, the other $993/month comes in reduced salary. In other words, there's no free lunch. You ARE paying $1000/month, even if you don't see a line item deduction on your paycheck. And if you told your employer to cancel the insurance and just give you the $1000/month, which you invest, say, in a health savings account, and you pay your medical bills by yourself, it will only be a few years before you've saved enough to buy a Bentley. So, YES, you really ARE paying the cost of a Bentley to get a free toothbrush.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 10:36 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  So what happens is the people that can afford to pay for some insurance have to get insurance which means they are covered if they can't afford it they get subsidies towards it.

You're not thinking this through. Let's say the government gave everybody a check for $1 million. And then took it back with a tax of $1 million. According to your logic, we're all $1 million richer because you only factor in what the government pays out, but not who pays for it.

Here's a serious question: Who pays for those subsidies? Did they raise taxes on the rich to pay for them? Nope. So it's not the rich who are paying. Somebody is paying for them, and it is not the rich. So please tell me, who is paying for those subsidies?

I'll give you a hint.... Read my other posts about the Federal Reserve. What happens is the Federal Reserve prints money which it gives to the government in bond purchases, which the government then gives to the insurance companies as subsidies. Is this a free lunch? Free money? Hardly, after the Fed hits the print button, all it's done is dilute the existing value of dollars in circulation. Who is effected? The poor and middle class since they're the ones who are paid in and save in currency-denominated instruments (the rich don't--they make their money on capital gains, rather than fixed salaries). So, all that's happening is you're effectively deducting $200/month from the paycheck of poor people (which comes in the form of higher prices), and giving that $200/month to the health insurance company.

The poor are NOT getting a free ride. They are STILL paying the full price of the health insurance. It's just that now they're paying it and don't even realize it because the money trail gets so convoluted they lose track. When they pay more money for gas, or food, or rent, they don't stop and realize "I am REALLY paying this money for insurance". It's smoke and mirrors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 12:56 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
I don't believe for a second that canceling the insurance would mean you get paid $1000 more a month. Even if it did work it would still take about 23 years to be enough for a Bentley. When we were young and we didn't have kids and he made a lot less money (same place just before raises and such) we had to cancel the insurance for a while because we were super broke. His check increased only by the amount that was usually taken out for insurance. Not a dollar more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 01:47 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 12:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You're not thinking this through. Let's say the government gave everybody a check for $1 million. And then took it back with a tax of $1 million. According to your logic, we're all $1 million richer because you only factor in what the government pays out, but not who pays for it.

Here's a serious question: Who pays for those subsidies? Did they raise taxes on the rich to pay for them? Nope. So it's not the rich who are paying. Somebody is paying for them, and it is not the rich. So please tell me, who is paying for those subsidies?

I'll give you a hint.... Read my other posts about the Federal Reserve. What happens is the Federal Reserve prints money which it gives to the government in bond purchases, which the government then gives to the insurance companies as subsidies. Is this a free lunch? Free money? Hardly, after the Fed hits the print button, all it's done is dilute the existing value of dollars in circulation. Who is effected? The poor and middle class since they're the ones who are paid in and save in currency-denominated instruments (the rich don't--they make their money on capital gains, rather than fixed salaries). So, all that's happening is you're effectively deducting $200/month from the paycheck of poor people (which comes in the form of higher prices), and giving that $200/month to the health insurance company.

The poor are NOT getting a free ride. They are STILL paying the full price of the health insurance. It's just that now they're paying it and don't even realize it because the money trail gets so convoluted they lose track. When they pay more money for gas, or food, or rent, they don't stop and realize "I am REALLY paying this money for insurance". It's smoke and mirrors.

What about people that have low income that can't afford to pay insurance under the current system. If they get coverage then surely that's a step in the right direction?

Well then it seems to me its your tax system that's the bigger issue. Instead of complaining about what is the first real step towards reform of the joke that is your healthcare system you should spend your energy and time trying to get the tax system to be more fair (the rich pay more etc) or even for cutting your countries overly bloated military budget and that money redistributed to where it's actually needed like healthcare for example.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 01:49 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 12:56 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  I don't believe for a second that canceling the insurance would mean you get paid $1000 more a month. Even if it did work it would still take about 23 years to be enough for a Bentley. When we were young and we didn't have kids and he made a lot less money (same place just before raises and such) we had to cancel the insurance for a while because we were super broke. His check increased only by the amount that was usually taken out for insurance. Not a dollar more.

Nope. Go into Excel and do a future value of money calculation for 10 years, setting aside $1,000/month, with a 7% ROI (average for blue chip stocks). In 10 years you'll have $175,000.

Regarding your experience, first, some employers, like Whole Foods, have let employees opt-out of insurance and take the cash instead in tax-free investments (HSA). Even if your employer didn't give you the cash when your insurance was cancelled, there have been studies that look at empirical data and that rate at which companies give raises and how that correlates with the employer's increasing costs (taxes, insurance, etc.), and have determined that employers over time pay a fixed 'total compensation cost', and the costs the employers pay (like employment taxes, insurance, etc.) simply reduce the paycheck. It will take time to see the effects, and your employer may have been an anomaly, but it's an established fact that the employee ultimately bears the burden of employer costs. It is NOT coming out of shareholder's dividends, it comes in the form of reduced raises, longer work hours, more layoffs, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
04-11-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 01:47 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  What about people that have low income that can't afford to pay insurance under the current system. If they get coverage then surely that's a step in the right direction?

Not necessarily. Say you're a healthy 30 year old who doesn't have any medical costs, working 40 hours/week full time. First, lots of employers, like Walmart, have cut these employees work hours down to 29 hours/week, so they're below the cutoff where the employer has to provide insurance. So you make take a 25% pay cut. And then on top of it, with what's left of your salary you'll be forced to pay for health insurance you may never use, out of your own pocket.

But even if you put that aside, just look at where the government gets the money. If your insurance costs $200/month and the government pays for it with a subsidy, they're just doing it by printing money, which, in the long run, dilutes and reduces the buying power of your paycheck by $200/month. So, if you're a healthy 30 year old, maybe you'd rather NOT have $200/month in health insurance that you don't use, and rather have that $200/month to buy food. There is no free lunch--since the rich aren't paying for the poor and middle class's insurance, that means the poor and middle class are paying it for themselves. So, even if you get a subsidy, you're STILL paying for it, and Obamacare just takes away your ability to exercise free will and decide to spend your paycheck elsewhere.

(04-11-2013 01:47 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  cutting your countries overly bloated military budget and that money redistributed to where it's actually needed like healthcare for example.

Now we agree completely. Other countries have governments that tax and spend much less (as a % of gdp) AND still have enough to properly defend their country AND can provide good safety nets and social services. The amount of the money the US wastes by occupying over 100 countries with over 1,000 military bases all over the world, and constantly waging wars on multiple fronts, costs MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more than it would take to get everybody health insurance. I am 100% for cutting out the military spending, and putting it to use taking care of the people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like frankksj's post
04-11-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 01:58 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Now we agree completely. Other countries have governments that tax and spend much less (as a % of gdp) AND still have enough to properly defend their country AND can provide good safety nets and social services. The amount of the money the US wastes by occupying over 100 countries with over 1,000 military bases all over the world, and constantly waging wars on multiple fronts, costs MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more than it would take to get everybody health insurance. I am 100% for cutting out the military spending, and putting it to use taking care of the people.

I'm curious. Would you prefer a healthcare system like in many western countries where everyone regardless of status gets healthcare. Funded by taxes you end up paying anyway. Eliminating the need to pay insurance (unless you choose to go for private healthcare). e.g. Nhs in the uk?

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 02:11 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  I'm curious. Would you prefer a healthcare system like in many western countries where everyone regardless of status gets healthcare. Funded by taxes you end up paying anyway. Eliminating the need to pay insurance (unless you choose to go for private healthcare). e.g. Nhs in the uk?

Certainly the single-payer healthcare systems of most Western governments do work better than the bastardized system we have in the US. And Obamacare is imo a huge step backward, and we'd have been better off with a single-payer system than this crazy monstrosity, which is just corporate welfare--transfers of wealth from the working man to the insurance companies that fund the politicians campaigns.

With that being said, I believe that a true free-market system (not the non-sense the US had pre-Obamacare) would work even better. And, as a libertarian, I'm opposed to using threats of violence against people. I don't know about the UK, but, for example, I've read that in Canada, in many provinces, if a doctor feels a patient needs something right away, and the patient is able to pay for it himself, it is actually illegal for the doctor to provide that service. Meaning a doctor who, despite warnings and fines, keeps doing it, will eventually be hauled off at gunpoint. Even if the system works, I'm opposed on principle to using such threats of violence to achieve it, and feel that if people put their heads to it, there's always a better way that's peaceful and voluntary. It's more complex, for sure, since it involves making sure everyone's interests are aligned. Pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "do this or else" is very expeditious and is the obvious solution that the left always chooses, but it usually produces inferior results in the long run.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like frankksj's post
04-11-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 02:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 02:11 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  I'm curious. Would you prefer a healthcare system like in many western countries where everyone regardless of status gets healthcare. Funded by taxes you end up paying anyway. Eliminating the need to pay insurance (unless you choose to go for private healthcare). e.g. Nhs in the uk?

Certainly the single-payer healthcare systems of most Western governments do work better than the bastardized system we have in the US. And Obamacare is imo a huge step backward, and we'd have been better off with a single-payer system than this crazy monstrosity, which is just corporate welfare--transfers of wealth from the working man to the insurance companies that fund the politicians campaigns.

With that being said, I believe that a true free-market system (not the non-sense the US had pre-Obamacare) would work even better. And, as a libertarian, I'm opposed to using threats of violence against people. I don't know about the UK, but, for example, I've read that in Canada, in many provinces, if a doctor feels a patient needs something right away, and the patient is able to pay for it himself, it is actually illegal for the doctor to provide that service. Meaning a doctor who, despite warnings and fines, keeps doing it, will eventually be hauled off at gunpoint. Even if the system works, I'm opposed on principle to using such threats of violence to achieve it, and feel that if people put their heads to it, there's always a better way that's peaceful and voluntary. It's more complex, for sure, since it involves making sure everyone's interests are aligned. Pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "do this or else" is very expeditious and is the obvious solution that the left always chooses, but it usually produces inferior results in the long run.

Ahh. See, love, I knew we were friends. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: