Time to get health care right once and for all

[JQPublic1]

But Karl lMarx was a Jewish convert to Christianity BEFORE he became an atheist. You can't seem to grasp that.
Your denial of the evidence put before you casts a shadow over your entire world view. Frankly,I am weighing the wisdom of continuing this exchange with someone who so blatantly disregards facts.

Denial of evidence? I can give you direct quotes from Marx where he unequivocally says that religion is a hindrance in establishment of Socialism and you want to talk about his early childhood. I make the strong and indisputable case for the success of free market capitalism and you want to talk about exploitation and cronyism. You are the one denying evidence and disregarding facts.

Using the words immortalized in a famous Beatles song, "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah," I attach them as a sign of scorn in reflecting upon your disingenuous deflections. Our exchange began when I mentioned some of the altruistic similarities found in Socialism and Christianity. Rather than addressing that, you went off on a tangent about Marx's atheism and stayed there even after I showed Marx was a Christian before he was an atheist. Realizing that Christian Socialism, even if not identified as such, came 2 millennia before Marx was born it is obvious that Marx simply stripped religiosity from Christian Socialism when he became an atheist and is credited with inventing Marxism. Yes, he was said to be an atheist at the time and his writings do suggest he was. BUT...
You cannot escape the reality of the Christian based socio-economic model Marx brought with him when he invented Marxism.

 

[JQPublic1]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the market for healthcare insurance has never been anything even close to a free market. From the earliest days of the health insurance, state and federal laws have increasingly regulated the market. Today 60% of healthcare is paid for by the government and most of the remaining private insurance is offered by nonprofits or co-ops. Thinking the free market is going have any real impact on American healthcare is a fantasy.

Sounds like a free market would be a radical departure from past policy. How could that not have any real impact?

The point is it can't happen because neither side would support it. No sensible person would support giving health insurance companies cart Blanche freedoms. Policies and premiums would be constructed to minimize claims and maximize premiums excluding coverage and subscribers that would jeopardize that goal.

The person in the White House is not a sensible person!

 

[Boss]

Policies and premiums would be constructed to minimize claims and maximize premiums excluding coverage and subscribers that would jeopardize that goal.

And we get to the actual root of the problem... You don't trust free market capitalism. This is a fundamental problem with most socialists. You are convinced (in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that you'd be better off in a Nanny State.

In a free market, policies would be constructed to attract customer share. Competition would force paying of claims and encourage lower premiums. The problem is cutting through decades of layered government collusion, corruption, bureaucracy and regulation prohibiting the free market from functioning.

 

[Boss]

Using the words immortalized in a famous Beatles song, "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah," I attach them as a sign of scorn in reflecting upon your disingenuous deflections. Our exchange began when I mentioned some of the altruistic similarities found in Socialism and Christianity. Rather than addressing that, you went off on a tangent about Marx's atheism and stayed there even after I showed Marx was a Christian before he was an atheist. Realizing that Christian Socialism, even if not identified as such, came 2 millennia before Marx was born it is obvious that Marx simply stripped religiosity from Christian Socialism when he became an atheist and is credited with inventing Marxism. Yes, he was said to be an atheist at the time and his writings do suggest he was. BUT...
You cannot escape the reality of the Christian based socio-economic model Marx brought with him when he invented Marxism.

The reality is, Socialism as outlined by Marx is essentially secular. He repeatedly makes the case for it in his writings. Trying to claim that Marx was a Christian is laughable. Trying to claim he based his philosophy on anything Christian is equally laughable. Please tell us... WHERE is this Great Christian-Socialist Empire???

 

[JQPublic1]

Using the words immortalized in a famous Beatles song, "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah," I attach them as a sign of scorn in reflecting upon your disingenuous deflections. Our exchange began when I mentioned some of the altruistic similarities found in Socialism and Christianity. Rather than addressing that, you went off on a tangent about Marx's atheism and stayed there even after I showed Marx was a Christian before he was an atheist. Realizing that Christian Socialism, even if not identified as such, came 2 millennia before Marx was born it is obvious that Marx simply stripped religiosity from Christian Socialism when he became an atheist and is credited with inventing Marxism. Yes, he was said to be an atheist at the time and his writings do suggest he was. BUT...
You cannot escape the reality of the Christian based socio-economic model Marx brought with him when he invented Marxism.

The reality is, Socialism as outlined by Marx is essentially secular. He repeatedly makes the case for it in his writings. Trying to claim that Marx was a Christian is laughable. Trying to claim he based his philosophy on anything Christian is equally laughable. Please tell us... WHERE is this Great Christian-Socialist Empire???

Your sincere ignorance has turned into conscientious stupidly. If you're interested, read the links I provided and you will come to the same conclusion that I did. That is, if you have any sense of objectivity at all.

 

[Boss]

Your sincere ignorance has turned into conscientious If you're interested, read the links I provided and you will come to the same conclusion that I did. That is, if you have any sense of objectivity at all.

I don't waste my time reading Socialist propaganda. I already understand which system has lifted more out of poverty and created more millionaires and billionaires and a better way of life than any system man has ever devised. It's NOT Socialism.

You don't like millionaires and billionaires or a system where every man is able to achieve as much wealth as they desire. You prefer a system where only a few at the top enjoy immense opulence while the masses wallow in poverty. For you, that is fairness and equity. You'd rather see your fellow man struggle and be dependent on the state than to embrace freedom.

Most modern Socialists are that way because they lack confidence in their ability to succeed. By setting up a society which ostensibly works for the collective good, you can escape responsibility for your own shortcomings and lack of confidence while others do the heavy lifting.

 

[Flopper]

Policies and premiums would be constructed to minimize claims and maximize premiums excluding coverage and subscribers that would jeopardize that goal.

And we get to the actual root of the problem... You don't trust free market capitalism. This is a fundamental problem with most socialists. You are convinced (in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that you'd be better off in a Nanny State.

In a free market, policies would be constructed to attract customer share. Competition would force paying of claims and encourage lower premiums. The problem is cutting through decades of layered government collusion, corruption, bureaucracy and regulation prohibiting the free market from functioning.

Companies would construct policies to attract customers whose health and demographics made them actuarially sound risks. Those that had serious health problems would pay much higher rates. Those that were racking up healthcare bills of say $100,000+ would simple be declared as un-insurable.

Assuming a pure free market for health insurance, the insured would have no recourse for denied claims other than legal actions.

Since insurers can always out wait patients in approving costly procedure, particular if the patient is seriously ill, delaying approval for seriously ill patients would become common practice in controlling costs. Small claims for common healthcare problems would be paid rapidly which would keep most customers happy at least until they had a very serious problem.

Since government would not be setting reserve requirements, nor other onerous regulations on policies, loopholes in converge contracts would protect the company from large claims and there would be no mandated reserves, and thus there no guarantee that any claims would actually be paid.

Each company would strive to make their polices unique so it would it be nearly impossible for a layman to compare policies. Summary of coverage documents would be be flowery advertisements and coverage contracts would take a lawyer to analysis them.

In short, disreputable operators, nonuniform contracts, and no government oversight would quickly destroy faith in the products.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the market for healthcare insurance has never been anything even close to a free market. From the earliest days of the health insurance, state and federal laws have increasingly regulated the market. Today 60% of healthcare is paid for by the government and most of the remaining private insurance is offered by nonprofits or co-ops. Thinking the free market is going have any real impact on American healthcare is a fantasy.

Sounds like a free market would be a radical departure from past policy. How could that not have any real impact?

The point is it can't happen because neither side would support it.

Maybe not. I have little faith in either of the major parties when it comes to protecting individual freedom. But I do think that making the market more free, rather than less, is a better goal.

No sensible person would support giving health insurance companies cart Blanche freedoms.

This isn't about freedom for the insurance companies. They've been so far up government's ass that they deserve whatever they get. My concern is with freedom for the rest of us. In particular to freedom tell the insurance companies to go fly a kite if we don't like what they're selling.

 

[Boss]

Policies and premiums would be constructed to minimize claims and maximize premiums excluding coverage and subscribers that would jeopardize that goal.

And we get to the actual root of the problem... You don't trust free market capitalism. This is a fundamental problem with most socialists. You are convinced (in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that you'd be better off in a Nanny State.

In a free market, policies would be constructed to attract customer share. Competition would force paying of claims and encourage lower premiums. The problem is cutting through decades of layered government collusion, corruption, bureaucracy and regulation prohibiting the free market from functioning.

Companies would construct policies to attract customers whose health and demographics made them actuarially sound risks. Those that had serious health problems would pay much higher rates. Those that were racking up healthcare bills of say $100,000+ would simple be declared as un-insurable.

Assuming a pure free market for health insurance, the insured would have no recourse for denied claims other than legal actions.

Since insurers can always out wait patients in approving costly procedure, particular if the patient is seriously ill, delaying approval for seriously ill patients would become common practice in controlling costs. Small claims for common healthcare problems would be paid rapidly which would keep most customers happy at least until they had a very serious problem.

Since government would not be setting reserve requirements, nor other onerous regulations on policies, loopholes in converge contracts would protect the company from large claims and there would be no mandated reserves, and thus there no guarantee that any claims would actually be paid.

Each company would strive to make their polices unique so it would it be nearly impossible for a layman to compare policies. Summary of coverage documents would be be flowery advertisements and coverage contracts would take a lawyer to analysis them.

In short, disreputable operators, nonuniform contracts, and no government oversight would quickly destroy faith in the products.

Since insurers can always out wait patients in approving costly procedure, particular if the patient is seriously ill, delaying approval for seriously ill patients would become common practice in controlling costs. Small claims for common healthcare problems would be paid rapidly which would keep most customers happy at least until they had a very serious problem.

No... word would spread that certain companies cheat their customers and other companies would pride themselves on building solid reputations for handling serious illness in order to gain market share. Nothing would become "common practice" because consumers would demand the best quality for the money and competition would deliver it.

Those that were racking up healthcare bills of say $100,000+ would simple be declared as un-insurable.

Of course, this has to be the case in any viable insurance system. Insurers are not benevolent rich uncles, they are businesses. We see the very same thing happen to people with auto insurance who have multiple accidents. Eventually, they are too high of a risk to be insured.

Since government would not be setting reserve requirements, nor other onerous regulations on policies, loopholes in converge contracts would protect the company from large claims and there would be no mandated reserves, and thus there no guarantee that any claims would actually be paid.

Again, companies would have a reputation to uphold in order to attract market share. Companies who routinely didn't pay out on policies would be sued but they would also develop a bad reputation with consumers. They would quickly be eliminated as competition provided a more reliable service.

And I am not suggesting absolutely NO government regulation. Certain aspects of free market capitalism have to be protected and the government is useful in doing that. Without SOME measures, free market capitalism can be exploited. The delineation is regulations and policies that protect and encourage free markets.

 

[Boss]

Each company would strive to make their polices unique so it would it be nearly impossible for a layman to compare policies. Summary of coverage documents would be be flowery advertisements and coverage contracts would take a lawyer to analysis them.

And in a free market, some capitalist would realize this problem and offer a common sense policy that was easy to understand which consumers would love. Hey potential customer, come insure with us... where your policy doesn't take a lawyer to understand and life is simpler!

Free market SOLVES these problems.

 

[JQPublic1]

Each company would strive to make their polices unique so it would it be nearly impossible for a layman to compare policies. Summary of coverage documents would be be flowery advertisements and coverage contracts would take a lawyer to analysis them.

And in a free market, some capitalist would realize this problem and offer a common sense policy that was easy to understand which consumers would love. Hey potential customer, come insure with us... where your policy doesn't take a lawyer to understand and life is simpler!

Free market SOLVES these problems.

You are delusional!

 

[Boss]

Each company would strive to make their polices unique so it would it be nearly impossible for a layman to compare policies. Summary of coverage documents would be be flowery advertisements and coverage contracts would take a lawyer to analysis them.

And in a free market, some capitalist would realize this problem and offer a common sense policy that was easy to understand which consumers would love. Hey potential customer, come insure with us... where your policy doesn't take a lawyer to understand and life is simpler!

Free market SOLVES these problems.

You are delusional!

Uhm... No... I am correct and you don't have a response. Therefore, the personal insults begin.

 

[JQPublic1]

Your sincere ignorance has turned into conscientious If you're interested, read the links I provided and you will come to the same conclusion that I did. That is, if you have any sense of objectivity at all.

I don't waste my time reading Socialist propaganda. I already understand which system has lifted more out of poverty and created more millionaires and billionaires and a better way of life than any system man has ever devised. It's NOT Socialism.

You don't like millionaires and billionaires or a system where every man is able to achieve as much wealth as they desire. You prefer a system where only a few at the top enjoy immense opulence while the masses wallow in poverty. For you, that is fairness and equity. You'd rather see your fellow man struggle and be dependent on the state than to embrace freedom.

Most modern Socialists are that way because they lack confidence in their ability to succeed. By setting up a society which ostensibly works for the collective good, you can escape responsibility for your own shortcomings and lack of confidence while others do the heavy lifting.

What Socialist propaganda? According to YOU, Socialists are atheists; so, what Socialist , in your limited scope, would credit Christian altruism as the root of their philosophy? Your logic is failing. It fails further when you refuse to even acknowledge the historical fact that Karl Marx , at 17, wrote and published a book that uplifted Christianity.

Those of you who serve Mammon don't want to hear about the influence Christianity had on Karl Marx. You'd rather focus on his transformation into atheism and attribute all the permutations of Marxism to that, even though atheism had no pro socialist precedent. Yet, you stick out your chest and glorify Mammon by pointing proudly at millionaires and billionaires. Christ Himself said to the rich man who came to him seeking salvation: " TO be perfect,sell all you have, give to the poor and follow me." The rich man couldn't bring himself to do that so he just walked away. Do I need to link that? Why bother? You will just dismiss it as Socialist propaganda.

The most egregious outrage of all appears in your last paragraph. First of all, not everyone who departs from the anti-Socialist groupthink, so prevalent in American thought, is a Socialist. And your spurious assertion :

"You prefer a system where only a few at the top enjoy immense opulence while the masses wallow in poverty. For you, that is fairness and equity. You'd rather see your fellow man struggle and be dependent on the state than to embrace freedom."


You have just described the present status quo where the top 10% of this country own about 70% of family wealth. Are you seriously trying to attribute that imbalance in wealth distribution to Socialism? You're insane!

The crumbs left to the rest of us wouldn't be possible without collective bargaining and other labor and social initiatives overseen by the government. Here is a graphic reminder of what the world was like before your so-called:"nanny state" produced the middle class. Behold the effects of unfettered Capitalism:

[/C]




​

 

[JQPublic1]

Each company would strive to make their polices unique so it would it be nearly impossible for a layman to compare policies. Summary of coverage documents would be be flowery advertisements and coverage contracts would take a lawyer to analysis them.

And in a free market, some capitalist would realize this problem and offer a common sense policy that was easy to understand which consumers would love. Hey potential customer, come insure with us... where your policy doesn't take a lawyer to understand and life is simpler!

Free market SOLVES these problems.

You are delusional!

Uhm... No... I am correct and you don't have a response. Therefore, the personal insults begin.

Umm, that is not a personal attack, it is an astute observance. Nearly everything you said is speculative at best. There isn't much room for commentary in response to delusions that reside only in your mind.

 

[Boss]

You have just described the present status quo where the top 10% of this country own about 70% of family wealth. Are you seriously trying to attribute that imbalance in wealth distribution to Socialism? You're insane!

Not at all. That is the byproduct of a free market capitalist system where people are free to obtain any level of wealth they desire. This doesn't happen in Socialist societies. It is a terribly burdensome problem Free Market Capitalists have that we create so fucking many wealthy people... if only we could manage to kill more people and push them into enslavement to the state and generational poverty! Oh well... it's a burden we have to accept.

 

[Boss]

What Socialist propaganda? According to YOU, Socialists are atheists; so, what Socialist , in your limited scope, would credit Christian altruism as the root of their philosophy?

Disingenuous ones who are lying to people in order to promote Socialism as a religion. What they like to do is juxtapose Socialism with Christianity with memes like "Jesus was a Socialist!" Or... "Helping the poor is what Jesus taught!" Again, it goes back to the teachings of Marx... you replace religious faith with faith in the State.

This is an essential part of Socialism. Marx knew this because he wrote about it extensively. You cannot have the masses devoting their faith and trust in God when you NEED them to devote faith and trust in State. You MUST have them devoting faith and trust in State in order to make the system work.

So usurping Christian values is a very clever way of converting religious people to the ideas of Socialism and it has been effective. They're not actually crediting Christian altruism, they are exploiting it.

 

[JQPublic1]

You have just described the present status quo where the top 10% of this country own about 70% of family wealth. Are you seriously trying to attribute that imbalance in wealth distribution to Socialism? You're insane!

Not at all. That is the byproduct of a free market capitalist system where people are free to obtain any level of wealth they desire. This doesn't happen in Socialist societies. It is a terribly burdensome problem Free Market Capitalists have that we create so fucking many wealthy people... if only we could manage to kill more people and push them into enslavement to the state and generational poverty! Oh well... it's a burden we have to accept.

Hmmm. You are less educated than I thought. I guess you don't know about billionaire Russian oligarchs and Europe's 468 billionaires. Boss, no offense but you really need to open up your horizons. Your education is severely lacking!

 

[Boss]

Hmmm. You are less educated than I thought. I guess you don't know about billionaire Russian oligarchs and Europe's 468 billionaires. Boss, no offense but you really need to open up your horizons. Your education is severely lacking!

So now you're going to offer up the ruling class oligarchs who exploit their people under the glorious Socialist system as some symbol of economic freedom and liberty happening?

That's just goofy as hell.

 

[JQPublic1]

What Socialist propaganda? According to YOU, Socialists are atheists; so, what Socialist , in your limited scope, would credit Christian altruism as the root of their philosophy?

Disingenuous ones who are lying to people in order to promote Socialism as a religion. What they like to do is juxtapose Socialism with Christianity with memes like "Jesus was a Socialist!" Or... "Helping the poor is what Jesus taught!" Again, it goes back to the teachings of Marx... you replace religious faith with faith in the State.

This is an essential part of Socialism. Marx knew this because he wrote about it extensively. You cannot have the masses devoting their faith and trust in God when you NEED them to devote faith and trust in State. You MUST have them devoting faith and trust in State in order to make the system work.

So usurping Christian values is a very clever way of converting religious people to the ideas of Socialism and it has been effective. They're not actually crediting Christian altruism, they are exploiting it.

I guess the picture I posted depicting a child laborer in the early days of Industry were lost on you. Free Market Capitalists, or the closest thing to them, was responsible for that. Marx observed that the masses were locked into a never ending cycle of poverty and exploitation by a few wealthy industrialists who basked in their " Divine Right" to rule over the less fortunate. An oxymoron can be applied here to describe the behavior of wealthy "Christians" who exploited the poor for profit long before Marxism arose to confront them.

True piety was ensconced among the poor whereas their ambitions were kept in check by fear of damnation and promises of posthumous heavenly rewards.
Marxist secularism championed redistribution of wealth from the few wealthy industrialists to the exploited labor force. but he had to reject the deceptive false Christianity that served to maintain the status quo. Christian socialists had grown comfortable with the exploitation of their families and of themselves and could not have brought their masses out of poverty without Marx's secular movement. And although many embraced his ideals, they could not forgo their religiosity. Europe infused capitalism into their Christian Socialist milieu while China and Russia embraced Communism.

The European Socialist model did not usurp Christian values, they have been there for more than a thousand years.

 

[dblack]

Since insurers can always out wait patients in approving costly procedure, particular if the patient is seriously ill, delaying approval for seriously ill patients would become common practice in controlling costs. Small claims for common healthcare problems would be paid rapidly which would keep most customers happy at least until they had a very serious problem.

No... word would spread that certain companies cheat their customers and other companies would pride themselves on building solid reputations for handling serious illness in order to gain market share. Nothing would become "common practice" because consumers would demand the best quality for the money and competition would deliver it.

...

Since government would not be setting reserve requirements, nor other onerous regulations on policies, loopholes in converge contracts would protect the company from large claims and there would be no mandated reserves, and thus there no guarantee that any claims would actually be paid.

Again, companies would have a reputation to uphold in order to attract market share. Companies who routinely didn't pay out on policies would be sued but they would also develop a bad reputation with consumers. They would quickly be eliminated as competition provided a more reliable service.

Boss, no offense, but I think conservatives drop the ball when they let themselves get pushed into making these kinds of claims. The law should vigorously protect consumers from fraud.

This is the common premise for statists defending "regulation". They pretend that arguing against their authoritarian agenda is an argument for anarchy. It's not. Again, the key is the protection of individual rights. A law that punishes insurance companies who don't do what they say they will is simply protecting consumers from theft. On the other hand, a law that tells consumers what kind of insurance they can buy, and forces them to buy it, violates individual rights for the benefit of the state.