Fox News Tells It Like It Is

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you have to choose between supporting fairness, or supporting your man-crush.

You can't help yourself but insult any one who doesn't agree with you

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You can't help yourself but insult any one who doesn't agree with you

You called the Tea Party whiney and unreasonable. Your words.

So did i miss the announcement that only you get to insult those with whom you disagree?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You called the Tea Party whiney and unreasonable. Your words.

So did i miss the announcement that only you get to insult those with whom you disagree?

Sorry, am I supposed to insert the nodding smiley face when I eviscerate your post?

Here goes.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sorry, am I supposed to insert the nodding smiley face when I eviscerate your post?

Here goes.

Really, your suppose to be an actuary and you don't even know what anti selection is? pls tell me how you "eviscerated" my posts. This should be funny. Pls. Make sure your sentences are clear this time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Really, your suppose to be an actuary and you don't even know what anti selection is? pls tell me how you "eviscerated" my posts. This should be funny. Pls. Make sure your sentences are clear this time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear what you are saying about anti-selection (the correct term is adverse selection). I'm just not sure I see the difference between the impact of individuals getting a year amnesty, versus small businesses.

It's also interesting that as a liberal, you are saying (with some validity) that it's OK to give corporations a break, but not the individual. because people on your side have a tendency for beating up those on my side, and accuse us of caring more about corporations than we care about individuals.

I'm actually in favor of requiring everyone to buy some basic level of insurance. For the reasons you say (many sick people are not responsible for being sick, so it's absolutely fair to pool that cost with those who are healthy). No one chooses to have pancreatic cancer, so I have no problem with pooling the cost of their care with healthy people who merely got lucky.

I just don't like the feds being so involved. And I don't like the way it was passed ("let's pass the bill, and then we'll see what's in it"). I also don't see why you'd pass health reform without enacting serious and fair tort reform, which is one thing that would actually reduce costs. Nothing in Obamacare can possibly reduce costs, and it was dishonestly marketed as something that would lower costs.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I hear what you are saying about anti-selection (the correct term is adverse selection). I'm just not sure I see the difference between the impact of individuals getting a year amnesty, versus small businesses. There were relatively few business' impacted by the 1 year delay while there are many many indiv. who would have been impacted (much more than w/the businesses). Given that the individual mandate is really the core of the whole program, w/o those individuals (really the healthy individuals) the whole thing would have fallen apart.

I'm actually in favor of requiring everyone to buy some basic level of insurance. For the reasons you say (many sick people are not responsible for being sick, so it's absolutely fair to pool that cost with those who are healthy). No one chooses to have pancreatic cancer, so I have no problem with pooling the cost of their care with healthy people who merely got lucky. I agree. I would have thought a very high deductible plan with some sort of preventive benefit would have been the way to go. I guess people would complain that they then would be made aware of some illness but still not be able to afford the treatment b/c they have say a $10K deductible.

I just don't like the feds being so involvedvalid point, but I don't know how else to achieve more coverage.. And I don't like the way it was passed ("let's pass the bill, and then we'll see what's in it"). I also don't see why you'd pass health reform without enacting serious and fair tort reform, which is one thing that would actually reduce costs. Nothing in Obamacare can possibly reduce costs, and it was dishonestly marketed as something that would lower costs.

There are a lot of other things we can do to lower costs (including some sort of tort reform) but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. in my opinion we're never going to lower costs as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want. But you can't stop that in a free market society.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

There are a lot of other things we can do to lower costs (including some sort of tort reform) but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. in my opinion we're never going to lower costs as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want. But you can't stop that in a free market society.

Paul, I have to disagree with your last sentence. First of all, we are well into transforming our society from a free market to a government regulated one.

Secondly, in a free market, prices are not established by whatever the seller wants. Prices, in a free market, reach equilibrium when both seller and buyer agree. Government intervention in the business process and by price regulations, when excessive, destroy free markets, transforming them into command economies. Then price equilibriums are not possible, and the demand supply function is distorted to fit rigid patterns outlined by government fiat. Supply dwindles and prices rise. The price "signals" that business uses to determine output and feasibility are replaced by a host of regulatory demands that hide the "free market" portion of transactions which are buried under the cost of fulfilling the regulations.

In a free market, it is actually easier to lower prices if that is what reaches the equilibrium between seller and buyer. In a command economy that free exchange is eliminated and replaced by third party directives. In the case of socialistic governments the goal, supposedly, is to equalize outcomes for everybody. The one size fits all model. Prices, supply and demand, choice . . . and freedom . . . are irrelevant.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

There are a lot of other things we can do to lower costs (including some sort of tort reform) but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. in my opinion we're never going to lower costs as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want. But you can't stop that in a free market society.

"but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. "

For tort reform, there is only one thing stopping it...the Democratic party is pandering to the Trial Lawyers Lobby. I will freely admit that too many on my side are beholden to the NRA. Likewise, too many on your side are in the employ of the Trial Lawyers Lobby.

"as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want."

I don't believe the hospitals/drug/companies are charging outrageous fees, not when you consider the underlying cost of the service provided. If they were simply price gouging, someone would simply open another hospital, charge a bit less, and acquire 100% share, becoming a billionaire in the process. I don't think they can lower prices much, not if we want them to provide current levels of service. I could be wrong.

I don't think the problem is entirely caused by the sticker price that the providers put on their services. The problem is the underlying cost. I have no idea how to lower the underlying cost (other than tort reform), but IMHO, that's the culprit. The prices are high because the cost of the service provided, is high.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You called the Tea Party whiney and unreasonable. Your words.

So did i miss the announcement that only you get to insult those with whom you disagree?

So was it personal and directed directly at you like your insults usually are?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device