John Stossel: Laws Of Economics Strike Back

[iamwhatiseem]

I'll be honest though. I know that republicans aren't against children having healthcare (I hope ). But I also know that the only type of opinion around here that matters to most people here are the extremist views, so I had to go over the top with my statement just to feel like I fit in.

There is nothing extreme about what Stossel said. It's a totally objective matter about how economics works. If you assume risk on someone's behalf, which is what an insurance company does, you deserve to be compensated for that and you deserve to be compensated in proportion to the level of risk you take. What Obama is doing is trying to turn basic economics on its ear. It's not something he get's to change unfortuantely. Just as there are laws of the universe there are laws of economics. And Obama doesn't seem to get that concepts like scarcity and risk and how they affect market prices can't simply be erased from existance.

And that is where the fundamental difference in opinion comes from. I like many others feel that economics and profitability should NOT be a factor in health care decisions. And when you're judging the worth of providing health care to a group of people, the first concern should not be how much will this cut in to the bottom line.

For the record, I am NOT for total government control of our lives. I am all for free enterprise and letting the market operate freely, EXCEPT when it comes to health care. I don't want peoples well being/living and dying to ever have to be decided because of dollars and cents.

Ah...but you see that is your downfall.
The differerence between liberalism and conservatism is one wants to rely on facts and reality - and the other looks at facts and reality in disgust, and continues their opinion based on an idea only.
Which is why in some matters liberalism is indeed better, but in matters concerning economics - it is a terrible way to think.

 

[boedicca]

And that is where the fundamental difference in opinion comes from. I like many others feel that economics and profitability should NOT be a factor in health care decisions.

IOW, RDD wants health care to be made by magical unicorns and leprechauns.

 

[RDD_1210]

There is nothing extreme about what Stossel said. It's a totally objective matter about how economics works. If you assume risk on someone's behalf, which is what an insurance company does, you deserve to be compensated for that and you deserve to be compensated in proportion to the level of risk you take. What Obama is doing is trying to turn basic economics on its ear. It's not something he get's to change unfortuantely. Just as there are laws of the universe there are laws of economics. And Obama doesn't seem to get that concepts like scarcity and risk and how they affect market prices can't simply be erased from existance.

And that is where the fundamental difference in opinion comes from. I like many others feel that economics and profitability should NOT be a factor in health care decisions. And when you're judging the worth of providing health care to a group of people, the first concern should not be how much will this cut in to the bottom line.

For the record, I am NOT for total government control of our lives. I am all for free enterprise and letting the market operate freely, EXCEPT when it comes to health care. I don't want peoples well being/living and dying to ever have to be decided because of dollars and cents.

Ah...but you see that is your downfall.
The differerence between liberalism and conservatism is one wants to rely on facts and reality - and the other looks at facts and reality in disgust, and continues their opinion based on an idea only.
Which is why in some matters liberalism is indeed better, but in matters concerning economics - it is a terrible way to think.

Facts and reality are we had 45 million people without ANY kind of insurance, and those who did have it are regularly denied claims for critical and needed procedures. Facts are the cost of health care was rising dramatically year over year for EVERYONE. Facts are is that our health care system was/is broken and needed drastic changes.

Those are facts that many on the right refuse to accept and instead wish to instead harp about mandated coverage requirements and Tort reform as opposed to accepting that widespread change is an absolute necessity.

 

[RDD_1210]

And that is where the fundamental difference in opinion comes from. I like many others feel that economics and profitability should NOT be a factor in health care decisions.

IOW, RDD wants health care to be made by magical unicorns and leprechauns.

I'm open to anything that would work better then the shit system we have now.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And that is where the fundamental difference in opinion comes from. I like many others feel that economics and profitability should NOT be a factor in health care decisions. And when you're judging the worth of providing health care to a group of people, the first concern should not be how much will this cut in to the bottom line.

For the record, I am NOT for total government control of our lives. I am all for free enterprise and letting the market operate freely, EXCEPT when it comes to health care. I don't want peoples well being/living and dying to ever have to be decided because of dollars and cents.

Ah...but you see that is your downfall.
The differerence between liberalism and conservatism is one wants to rely on facts and reality - and the other looks at facts and reality in disgust, and continues their opinion based on an idea only.
Which is why in some matters liberalism is indeed better, but in matters concerning economics - it is a terrible way to think.

Facts and reality are we had 45 million people without ANY kind of insurance, and those who did have it are regularly denied claims for critical and needed procedures. Facts are the cost of health care was rising dramatically year over year for EVERYONE. Facts are is that our health care system was/is broken and needed drastic changes.

Those are facts that many on the right refuse to accept and instead wish to instead harp about mandated coverage requirements and Tort reform as opposed to accepting that widespread change is an absolute necessity.

Wrong again.
The "right" also want healthcare changes.
Everyone, on both sides realizes the system no longer adequetly serves the public.
But that doesn't mean we inact policies that make it worse, which is front and center at what is happening now.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ah...but you see that is your downfall.
The differerence between liberalism and conservatism is one wants to rely on facts and reality - and the other looks at facts and reality in disgust, and continues their opinion based on an idea only.
Which is why in some matters liberalism is indeed better, but in matters concerning economics - it is a terrible way to think.

Facts and reality are we had 45 million people without ANY kind of insurance, and those who did have it are regularly denied claims for critical and needed procedures. Facts are the cost of health care was rising dramatically year over year for EVERYONE. Facts are is that our health care system was/is broken and needed drastic changes.

Those are facts that many on the right refuse to accept and instead wish to instead harp about mandated coverage requirements and Tort reform as opposed to accepting that widespread change is an absolute necessity.

Wrong again.
The "right" also want healthcare changes.
Everyone, on both sides realizes the system no longer adequetly serves the public.
But that doesn't mean we inact policies that make it worse, which is front and center at what is happening now.

Well I hear A LOT more complaining about this bill, which IS hugely flawed, as opposed to ideas about how to actually improve it. And "scrap" the whole damn thing" is not an idea.

 

[Bern80]

And that is where the fundamental difference in opinion comes from. I like many others feel that economics and profitability should NOT be a factor in health care decisions. And when you're judging the worth of providing health care to a group of people, the first concern should not be how much will this cut in to the bottom line.

Then your only option is to totally remove that particular industry from the private sector. If you don't want market forces to effect the cost of medicine, then you need to take away those market forces and the only way to do that is to let government run it. Instead of insurance companies our taxes cover all aspects of the medical industry from the cost of your docotor's visits to your doctor's pay. Which would also mean a famility practitioner would have to be paid the same as a neuro surgeon. You need to think very long and very hard about this before you quickly decide the market is a bad thing for the medical industry.

For the record, I am NOT for total government control of our lives. I am all for free enterprise and letting the market operate freely, EXCEPT when it comes to health care. I don't want peoples well being/living and dying to ever have to be decided because of dollars and cents.

Why? What puts medicine above everything else such that you believe cost should not be a factor the consumer has to deal with? Medical care isn't the only life necessity you know. We all need shelter. Damn near all of us pretty much needs cars. Why aren't you arguing that our homes and automobiles be paid for as well?

 

[Bern80]

Facts and reality are we had 45 million people without ANY kind of insurance, and those who did have it are regularly denied claims for critical and needed procedures. Facts are the cost of health care was rising dramatically year over year for EVERYONE. Facts are is that our health care system was/is broken and needed drastic changes.

Those are facts that many on the right refuse to accept and instead wish to instead harp about mandated coverage requirements and Tort reform as opposed to accepting that widespread change is an absolute necessity.

Wrong again.
The "right" also want healthcare changes.
Everyone, on both sides realizes the system no longer adequetly serves the public.
But that doesn't mean we inact policies that make it worse, which is front and center at what is happening now.

Well I hear A LOT more complaining about this bill, which IS hugely flawed, as opposed to ideas about how to actually improve it. And "scrap" the whole damn thing" is not an idea.

Yes it is. This bill can't be 'improved'. Starting over and trying again is the best possible solution. It's a solution that I realize will neve happen of course, but it's still what needs to happen.

What I would do instead is deregulate the insurance industry and make them actually compete. I don't know if you're one of those anti-corporate america types, but trust me, if you are, cutting their ties to government and making them compete is the worst things you can do to them (though they will ultimately be stronger businesses if they compete well) and one of the best things you can do for consumers. Don't let government tell the insurance companies what they have to provide. Let the consumer decide what they want them to provide.

The hard part about the above is breaking the connection between the politicians and the insurance companies. For there to be real competetion there needs to be no behind the scenes deal making between these two groups (or for any industry for that matter). It's this part that is going to be the hardes to accomplish.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Facts and reality are we had 45 million people without ANY kind of insurance, and those who did have it are regularly denied claims for critical and needed procedures. Facts are the cost of health care was rising dramatically year over year for EVERYONE. Facts are is that our health care system was/is broken and needed drastic changes.

Those are facts that many on the right refuse to accept and instead wish to instead harp about mandated coverage requirements and Tort reform as opposed to accepting that widespread change is an absolute necessity.

Wrong again.
The "right" also want healthcare changes.
Everyone, on both sides realizes the system no longer adequetly serves the public.
But that doesn't mean we inact policies that make it worse, which is front and center at what is happening now.

Well I hear A LOT more complaining about this bill, which IS hugely flawed, as opposed to ideas about how to actually improve it. And "scrap" the whole damn thing" is not an idea.

Right..it is not an idea..it is a fact. It needs to be thrown in the trash where it belongs.
Introducing competition in the system is something the Pelosi/Obama crowd do not want to consider even though it is practically guarenteed to reduce costs - and why were they not interested in this and other ideas?
Simple: they want a government ran system, and doing anything to improve a private ran system is off the table. And that...is a goddamn mistake.

 

[Greenbeard]

Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.

Maybe you should ask that question of Obama because he is the idiot who didn't take basic econ I guess and foresee what would happen when you require and insurance company to charge the same rate regardless of the level of risk.

Kids, this is explicitly false. The provision related to child-only policies that went into effect for new plan years after September 23 is a guaranteed issue rule, not a community rating rule. Not only is that right in the law, OSCIIO reiterated that. The relevant issue here is deterring adverse selection, which rating can still be used to do in most states until 2014 (at which point the mandate penalty becomes the primary deterrent to adverse selection). Until the mandate is in force, insurers are free to use rate variations to keep free-loaders from tanking their pools, subject only to existing state laws. And, as noted by OSCIIO, other things:

A number of actions have been suggested by insurance commissioners and insurers to address adverse selection in child-only policies. The following actions are not precluded by existing regulations:

• Adjusting rates for health status only as permitted by State law (note: the Affordable Care Act prohibits health status rating for all new insurance plans starting in 2014);
• Permitting child-only rates to be different from rates for dependent children, consistent with State law;
• Imposing a surcharge for dropping coverage and subsequently reapplying if permitted by State law;
• Instituting rules to help prevent dumping by employers to the extent permitted by State law;
• Closing the block of business for current child-only policies if permitted by State law; and
• Selling child-only policies that are self-sustaining and separate from closed child-only books of business if permitted by State law.

Your lessons in "basic econ" are much appreciated. But it would be more helpful if you were able to apply them correctly.

 

[WillowTree]

Yes the cold hard laws of basic economics are not the friends of the Obama administration.

Similar to the way decency, compassion and common sense aren't compatible with the republican party.

Obviously this statement hits home for Boedicca since she felt that she needed to Neg Rep me for it. Someone has to look out for the sick children of the country since you could care less. Be Proud!

Glad she did. You deserved it. Who's gonna take care of you helpless shits when you've run out of everyone else's money? Huh big turd?

 

[boedicca]

RDD is banking on the Magical Unicorn and Leprechaun Bail Out.

 

[RDD_1210]

Similar to the way decency, compassion and common sense aren't compatible with the republican party.

Obviously this statement hits home for Boedicca since she felt that she needed to Neg Rep me for it. Someone has to look out for the sick children of the country since you could care less. Be Proud!

Glad she did. You deserved it. Who's gonna take care of you helpless shits when you've run out of everyone else's money? Huh big turd?

Says the unemployed woman living off the government

 

[Oddball]

"Let's just sign this thing so we know what's in it.".( paraphrased)---Nancy Pelosi

A snip from an informative article:

Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children (Six Months Later... | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary). Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.


JOHN STOSSEL: The Laws of Economics Strike Back - FoxNews.com

Yes the cold hard laws of basic economics are not the friends of the Obama administration.

Similar to the way decency, compassion and common sense aren't compatible with the republican party.

Decency, compassion and common sense don't come by aggression and coercion....In fact, they are the antithesis of those traits.

 

[Oddball]

So are you against Children having health care?

So, your your way of seeing that the sainted chiiiilllllldrrreeeennnn get health care is so righteous that it has to be enforced at the point of a gun?

 

[RDD_1210]

So are you against Children having health care?

So, your your way of seeing that the sainted chiiiilllllldrrreeeennnn get health care is so righteous that it has to be enforced at the point of a gun?

Yeah, that's exactly what Im saying. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

 

[Oddball]

So much for your hollow moralizing about decency, compassion and common sense.

 

[RDD_1210]

So much for your hollow moralizing about decency, compassion and common sense.

Man you sure did debunk that argument awfully quick. And to think all you had to do was make up one lie about what I said. Not bad.

 

[Trajan]

"Let's just sign this thing so we know what's in it.".( paraphrased)---Nancy Pelosi

A snip from an informative article:

Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children (Six Months Later... | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary). Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children.


JOHN STOSSEL: The Laws of Economics Strike Back - FoxNews.com

Yes the cold hard laws of basic economics are not the friends of the Obama administration.

Similar to the way decency, compassion and common sense aren't compatible with the republican party.

yeah thats a great argument. Typical, they eat puppies. my god.

 

[Trajan]

Yes the cold hard laws of basic economics are not the friends of the Obama administration.

Similar to the way decency, compassion and common sense aren't compatible with the republican party.

Obviously this statement hits home for Boedicca since she felt that she needed to Neg Rep me for it. Someone has to look out for the sick children of the country since you could care less. Be Proud!

question- hows Schip doing?