Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Bern80]

You're hung up on the media message that trusting ''make more money regardless of the cost to others'' is always better than government services.

Not exactly following what you mean here. But in general, yes, the private sector almost always does a better job of providing goods and services than the government. The very simple reason being government has less incentive to insure quality or to efficiently manage costs. The same would be true of health care.

There is no evidence that's true. In fact, the evidence is contrary to that. The countries that are more competitive than we are all employ health care systems with heavy government involvement. Not surprising given the details of the health care market.

More competetive than we are, how? There is no economy closer to a free market in the world than ours. And let's not pretend, despite being government run, that other countries don't still have issues with their systems. France's government run system is billions in debt and we know the issues about the waits in Canada.

 

[Immanuel]

Last time I checked, I wasn't lobbying to take out any more products.

But I'm sure you can tell me what I believe better than I know what I believe, so...

Well, the post I quoted you on was enough wasn't it? Obviously, if you are seeking to take this product, you have no qualms about taking others.

Immie

You know what happens when you assume.

I don't believe health care should be considered the same way as automobiles, cell phones, etc.; the free market works perfectly well for those kind of things. Health care? Not so much.

I find that hard to believe. You are willing to force us to allow the corruption in Washington to make life and death decisions for us without even considering the consequences. What else are you willing to take from us? Fess up!

Health care works just fine in this country. What does not work is health insurance and that is because people like you want to give all that power to a corrupt group of individuals.

Immie

 

[PMZ]

You're hung up on the media message that trusting ''make more money regardless of the cost to others'' is always better than government services.

Not exactly following what you mean here. But in general, yes, the private sector almost always does a better job of providing goods and services than the government. The very simple reason being government has less incentive to insure quality or to efficiently manage costs. The same would be true of health care.

There is no evidence that's true. In fact, the evidence is contrary to that. The countries that are more competitive than we are all employ health care systems with heavy government involvement. Not surprising given the details of the health care market.

More competetive than we are, how? There is no economy closer to a free market in the world than ours. And let's not pretend, despite being government run, that other countries don't still have issues with their systems. France's government run system is billions in debt and we know the issues about the waits in Canada.

We spend 2X all other countries for decidedly mediocre results. A huge competitive disadvantage. We can't possibly do worse.

 

[Immanuel]

Well, the post I quoted you on was enough wasn't it? Obviously, if you are seeking to take this product, you have no qualms about taking others.

Immie

You know what happens when you assume.

I don't believe health care should be considered the same way as automobiles, cell phones, etc.; the free market works perfectly well for those kind of things. Health care? Not so much.

Republicans need reasons to hate Obamacare. The real reason is that they know that it's a great improvement to our old non-system and they get and deserve zero credit for that. But, they can't admit to being so lousy at governance so they have to make up other reasons. Top of the list? It's socialistic. It isn't at all of course, but there are lots of cultists who will believe anything so telling them that it is will be accepted without any thinking.

Modern cult media run America.

If we are on average, that stupid, we don't deserve the democracy that the greatest generation gave their lives to preserve for us.

I am not a Republican. If it came to a vote between Bush and Obama only, Obama would get my vote.

I am somewhat in favor of single payer. If I could just figure out a way to separate the "elite" in Washington from the process, I would be all for it.

My problem is by no means the process but rather the who and that includes Republicans as well as Democrats. I trust neither to do this right and it scares the hell out of me that we are giving them so much more control over our lives.

Immie

 

[PMZ]

Well, the post I quoted you on was enough wasn't it? Obviously, if you are seeking to take this product, you have no qualms about taking others.

Immie

You know what happens when you assume.

I don't believe health care should be considered the same way as automobiles, cell phones, etc.; the free market works perfectly well for those kind of things. Health care? Not so much.

I find that hard to believe. You are willing to force us to allow the corruption in Washington to make life and death decisions for us without even considering the consequences. What else are you willing to take from us? Fess up!

Health care works just fine in this country. What does not work is health insurance and that is because people like you want to give all that power to a corrupt group of individuals.

Immie

There is government corruption and business corruption and personal crime. They all cost us money. Let's not design any system around crime. Let's let law enforcement take care of criminals and design each system that we need around honest people.

 

[Immanuel]

You know what happens when you assume.

I don't believe health care should be considered the same way as automobiles, cell phones, etc.; the free market works perfectly well for those kind of things. Health care? Not so much.

I find that hard to believe. You are willing to force us to allow the corruption in Washington to make life and death decisions for us without even considering the consequences. What else are you willing to take from us? Fess up!

Health care works just fine in this country. What does not work is health insurance and that is because people like you want to give all that power to a corrupt group of individuals.

Immie

There is government corruption and business corruption and personal crime. They all cost us money. Let's not design any system around crime. Let's let law enforcement take care of criminals and design each system that we need around honest people.

I would agree with you. But why are so many people so willing to turn such an important aspect of our lives over to the corrupt?

We are doing exactly what you say we should not do, "Let's not design any system around crime". That is what this bill is all about.

As with most social issues, I think the idea is good, unfortunately, I am convinced the thirst for power, as well as greed, play a huge part in this government solution. Democrat or Republican bill, makes no difference. This is about power and freedom loving people are going to suffer the consequences.

I have no problem providing insurance for those who need it and cannot afford it. I am willing to see my taxes go up for such a noble cause, but truthfully, I do not believe Obamacare even scratches the surface of that. Do you think the homeless are going to sign up for insurance? They don't file tax returns, what do they care?

This is a play by rich individuals to take more power. Nothing more and nothing less and we have fallen for it.

Immie

 

[Bern80]

You're hung up on the media message that trusting ''make more money regardless of the cost to others'' is always better than government services.

Not exactly following what you mean here. But in general, yes, the private sector almost always does a better job of providing goods and services than the government. The very simple reason being government has less incentive to insure quality or to efficiently manage costs. The same would be true of health care.

There is no evidence that's true. In fact, the evidence is contrary to that. The countries that are more competitive than we are all employ health care systems with heavy government involvement. Not surprising given the details of the health care market.

More competetive than we are, how? There is no economy closer to a free market in the world than ours. And let's not pretend, despite being government run, that other countries don't still have issues with their systems. France's government run system is billions in debt and we know the issues about the waits in Canada.

We spend 2X all other countries for decidedly mediocre results. A huge competitive disadvantage. We can't possibly do worse.

Doesn't address much of what I said, but okay. What part of the system is responsible for that? How can we get that number down. We could stop traveling down a road that removes the financial impact of health care costs to the consumer. When you do that obviously the cost of services will go up. We can remove the medical device tax which raises their cost when said tax only exists to pay for this ridiculous plan. We could stop requiring that people purchase coverage they don't need. You see, Obamacare is is not going to make that number go down. If anything it's going to make it go up.

 

[PMZ]

I recently had to redo how Medicare is delivered to me. I went to the Medicare Web site and there laid out for me, were all of the private Medicare Advantage Plans. Prices, coverage, features, estimates of how much in total someone like me can expect to lay out annually for health care and insurance.

Private insurance companies competing completely transparently for my business. The government administering the process and requiring me to have prepaid a significant part of my retirement health care responsibilities, and holding my money through all of the years that I worked.

And, in the background, gentle pressure relentlessly applied to the health care business to contain costs.

No different conceptually than Obamacare.

 

[Destroyer2]

Well, the post I quoted you on was enough wasn't it? Obviously, if you are seeking to take this product, you have no qualms about taking others.

Immie

You know what happens when you assume.

I don't believe health care should be considered the same way as automobiles, cell phones, etc.; the free market works perfectly well for those kind of things. Health care? Not so much.

I find that hard to believe. You are willing to force us to allow the corruption in Washington to make life and death decisions for us without even considering the consequences. What else are you willing to take from us? Fess up!

Health care works just fine in this country. What does not work is health insurance and that is because people like you want to give all that power to a corrupt group of individuals.

Immie

Fess up to what? My belief in socialism that you created?

Besides, how badly can you mess up a single payer health care system? I don't trust politicians with everything, but I trust them to perform simple tasks.

 

[Immanuel]

You know what happens when you assume.

I don't believe health care should be considered the same way as automobiles, cell phones, etc.; the free market works perfectly well for those kind of things. Health care? Not so much.

I find that hard to believe. You are willing to force us to allow the corruption in Washington to make life and death decisions for us without even considering the consequences. What else are you willing to take from us? Fess up!

Health care works just fine in this country. What does not work is health insurance and that is because people like you want to give all that power to a corrupt group of individuals.

Immie

Fess up to what? My belief in socialism that you created?

Besides, how badly can you mess up a single payer health care system? I don't trust politicians with everything, but I trust them to perform simple tasks.

You put way too much trust in them.

Immie

 

[Bern80]

I recently had to redo how Medicare is delivered to me. I went to the Medicare Web site and there laid out for me, were all of the private Medicare Advantage Plans. Prices, coverage, features, estimates of how much in total someone like me can expect to lay out annually for health care and insurance.

Private insurance companies competing completely transparently for my business. The government administering the process and requiring me to have prepaid a significant part of my retirement health care responsibilities, and holding my money through all of the years that I worked.

And, in the background, gentle pressure relentlessly applied to the health care business to contain costs.

No different conceptually than Obamacare.

And if it that is all there was to it, that wouldn't be so terrible. But that isnt' all there is to it. First, try to look big picture. What's the goal? To make health care more affordable right? Even that right there is a nuanced question. Do you want to try to lower the cost of services or do we just want less money coming out of the consumer's pockets? This plan seems to go for the later, which is to me more of a band aid approach than truly fixing the issue. Anyway, to accomplish that Obama chose an insurance based approach, instead of trying to find mechanisms for lowering the costs of services, so that maybe people aren't so dependent on insurance in the first place, he chose a solution to try to get everyone covered by insurance. Not the way I would go, but okay, could work under the right circumstances.

But then a monkey wrench gets thrown into that. Obama doesn't allow insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work. He doesn't allow community providers to price on the basis of risk. Out the window goes the entire concept of insurance right there. In every other form of insurance your rates are based on your risk to the insurer. The riskier you are the more you're going to pay. In auto insurance for example, this incentivises safer drving. Where is the incentive to take responsibility for yourself and be healthy when you're not going to pay anymore than a healthy person? As a result rates didin't drop to those of healthy people. They went up to the rates of UNhealthy people.

Next issue is choice. Obama can pretend he's giving us choice with these exchanges, but when he mandates all of these different things everyone plan must cover in reality, that limits options. You're supposed to be able to pick the coverage that's right for you. If you're a young healthy person you should be able to buy a low premium, catastrophic only plan. But you can't do that because Obama requires insurance cover all these preventative tests and mental health coverage and drug addiction coverage. NO. I'll decide what I want to pay for out of my pocket and what I want insurance to cover. That is why this system is doomed to failure.

The only silver lining and what Republicans should stop fighting is the individual mandate. That's the only way I see people waking up is when it hits them in the pocket book. Then maybe finally the MINORITY of people that say they're for Obamacare will change their minds.

 

[PMZ]

Competitive businesses can't thrive on an unhealthy workforce. Kids can't learn if they're not feeling well. Ill parents can't parent.

So the main purpose of Obamacare is for everyone, not just the wealthy, to have affordable health care. Seeing as how the government is not interested in being any more than we have been in either the insurance or health care business, Obamacare does not go in those directions. It sets the standard of care for insurance purposes, and allows insurance companies to compete transparently for business. How will they do that? Put pressure on, and offer help to health care providers and pharmaceutical companies to lower costs to them, so they can lower costs to us, and beat their competition.

As I said before, Republicans don't have a leg to stand on trying to sabatoge it. Not that collaboration between the two parties couldn't improve it. But Republicans have killed that idea.

 

[PMZ]

One consideration is that the business of business pretty much owns the GOP. Therefore, whatever the GOP is for, is good for business.

That means that what was most profitable for business was our old health care and insurance business. Very lucrative.

Obamacare will make it harder for people to get rich on health care. That will translate into lower health care costs for us.

A necessary direction if we are going to win at global competition.

 

[Bern80]

Competitive businesses can't thrive on an unhealthy workforce. Kids can't learn if they're not feeling well. Ill parents can't parent.

So the main purpose of Obamacare is for everyone, not just the wealthy, to have affordable health care. Seeing as how the government is not interested in being any more than we have been in either the insurance or health care business, Obamacare does not go in those directions. It sets the standard of care for insurance purposes, and allows insurance companies to compete transparently for business. How will they do that? Put pressure on, and offer help to health care providers and pharmaceutical companies to lower costs to them, so they can lower costs to us, and beat their competition.

As I said before, Republicans don't have a leg to stand on trying to sabatoge it. Not that collaboration between the two parties couldn't improve it. But Republicans have killed that idea.

Except that's not what's actually happening. For an aweful lot of people the cost of health care is going up. The cost of many procedures are going up because Obama is taxing those too. In that cost I'm including insurance premiums. And why does the government need to set the standard? Why can't we make people be responsible for their own standard? I have friends that are insurance reps and the community rating mandate is killing a lot of people. It's literally financially punishing the healthy and rewarding the unhealthy. A friend of mines premiums are going UP $400/mo. as a result.

I agree Republicans don't have a lot of credibilituy on this because they don't have an alternative plan, but that doesn't mean sticking with this is a good idea.

One consideration is that the business of business pretty much owns the GOP. Therefore, whatever the GOP is for, is good for business.

That means that what was most profitable for business was our old health care and insurance business. Very lucrative.

Obamacare will make it harder for people to get rich on health care. That will translate into lower health care costs for us.

A necessary direction if we are going to win at global competition.

The health insurance industry has never been one that rakes in money. They typically have single digit profit margins. That's why with Obamacare premiums are going up. They were barely profitable before. I'm afraid you're thinking is backwards in making it sound like it's bad to make money selling health care. There wouldn't be health care if you couldn't make money selling it. But you're starting to touch on an idea that is central to this conversation. What type of payment system works best is irellevant if a certain premise is not agreed on and that has to be that health care is commodity like anything else. It isn't special. People should be able to sell their services for it for whatever someone is willing to pay like anything else. You, however, seem to be edging toward the notion that health care is a right and money should not be a factor for those that need it. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not a right. It's not a right because you don't have the right to take money from me to pay for you. What happens when you start treating it that way is supply goes down. People keep pointing to the French system and how wonderful it is, but a couple harsh facts are it is deeply in debt and their doctors make a fraction of ours. If that were translated here, that's going to make being a physician a less attractive profession. No one's going to decide to pursue that career especially given the expense involved in becoming one if they can't pay their debts and make a comfortable living at it. That will reduce supply making it harder to find service. Cheaper health care is irellevant if you can't find anyone to treat you.

 

[PMZ]

Competitive businesses can't thrive on an unhealthy workforce. Kids can't learn if they're not feeling well. Ill parents can't parent.

So the main purpose of Obamacare is for everyone, not just the wealthy, to have affordable health care. Seeing as how the government is not interested in being any more than we have been in either the insurance or health care business, Obamacare does not go in those directions. It sets the standard of care for insurance purposes, and allows insurance companies to compete transparently for business. How will they do that? Put pressure on, and offer help to health care providers and pharmaceutical companies to lower costs to them, so they can lower costs to us, and beat their competition.

As I said before, Republicans don't have a leg to stand on trying to sabatoge it. Not that collaboration between the two parties couldn't improve it. But Republicans have killed that idea.

Except that's not what's actually happening. For an aweful lot of people the cost of health care is going up. The cost of many procedures are going up because Obama is taxing those too. In that cost I'm including insurance premiums. And why does the government need to set the standard? Why can't we make people be responsible for their own standard? I have friends that are insurance reps and the community rating mandate is killing a lot of people. It's literally financially punishing the healthy and rewarding the unhealthy. A friend of mines premiums are going UP $400/mo. as a result.

I agree Republicans don't have a lot of credibilituy on this because they don't have an alternative plan, but that doesn't mean sticking with this is a good idea.

One consideration is that the business of business pretty much owns the GOP. Therefore, whatever the GOP is for, is good for business.

That means that what was most profitable for business was our old health care and insurance business. Very lucrative.

Obamacare will make it harder for people to get rich on health care. That will translate into lower health care costs for us.

A necessary direction if we are going to win at global competition.

The health insurance industry has never been one that rakes in money. They typically have single digit profit margins. That's why with Obamacare premiums are going up. They were barely profitable before. I'm afraid you're thinking is backwards in making it sound like it's bad to make money selling health care. There wouldn't be health care if you couldn't make money selling it. But you're starting to touch on an idea that is central to this conversation. What type of payment system works best is irellevant if a certain premise is not agreed on and that has to be that health care is commodity like anything else. It isn't special. People should be able to sell their services for it for whatever someone is willing to pay like anything else. You, however, seem to be edging toward the notion that health care is a right and money should not be a factor for those that need it. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not a right. It's not a right because you don't have the right to take money from me to pay for you. What happens when you start treating it that way is supply goes down. People keep pointing to the French system and how wonderful it is, but a couple harsh facts are it is deeply in debt and their doctors make a fraction of ours. If that were translated here, that's going to make being a physician a less attractive profession. No one's going to decide to pursue that career especially given the expense involved in becoming one if they can't pay their debts and make a comfortable living at it. That will reduce supply making it harder to find service. Cheaper health care is irellevant if you can't find anyone to treat you.

Casinos and insurance companies and banks and investment houses don't take risk.

If you don't think that is true, just look at their offices and their executive compensation.

 

[Bern80]

Competitive businesses can't thrive on an unhealthy workforce. Kids can't learn if they're not feeling well. Ill parents can't parent.

So the main purpose of Obamacare is for everyone, not just the wealthy, to have affordable health care. Seeing as how the government is not interested in being any more than we have been in either the insurance or health care business, Obamacare does not go in those directions. It sets the standard of care for insurance purposes, and allows insurance companies to compete transparently for business. How will they do that? Put pressure on, and offer help to health care providers and pharmaceutical companies to lower costs to them, so they can lower costs to us, and beat their competition.

As I said before, Republicans don't have a leg to stand on trying to sabatoge it. Not that collaboration between the two parties couldn't improve it. But Republicans have killed that idea.

Except that's not what's actually happening. For an aweful lot of people the cost of health care is going up. The cost of many procedures are going up because Obama is taxing those too. In that cost I'm including insurance premiums. And why does the government need to set the standard? Why can't we make people be responsible for their own standard? I have friends that are insurance reps and the community rating mandate is killing a lot of people. It's literally financially punishing the healthy and rewarding the unhealthy. A friend of mines premiums are going UP $400/mo. as a result.

I agree Republicans don't have a lot of credibilituy on this because they don't have an alternative plan, but that doesn't mean sticking with this is a good idea.

One consideration is that the business of business pretty much owns the GOP. Therefore, whatever the GOP is for, is good for business.

That means that what was most profitable for business was our old health care and insurance business. Very lucrative.

Obamacare will make it harder for people to get rich on health care. That will translate into lower health care costs for us.

A necessary direction if we are going to win at global competition.

The health insurance industry has never been one that rakes in money. They typically have single digit profit margins. That's why with Obamacare premiums are going up. They were barely profitable before. I'm afraid you're thinking is backwards in making it sound like it's bad to make money selling health care. There wouldn't be health care if you couldn't make money selling it. But you're starting to touch on an idea that is central to this conversation. What type of payment system works best is irellevant if a certain premise is not agreed on and that has to be that health care is commodity like anything else. It isn't special. People should be able to sell their services for it for whatever someone is willing to pay like anything else. You, however, seem to be edging toward the notion that health care is a right and money should not be a factor for those that need it. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not a right. It's not a right because you don't have the right to take money from me to pay for you. What happens when you start treating it that way is supply goes down. People keep pointing to the French system and how wonderful it is, but a couple harsh facts are it is deeply in debt and their doctors make a fraction of ours. If that were translated here, that's going to make being a physician a less attractive profession. No one's going to decide to pursue that career especially given the expense involved in becoming one if they can't pay their debts and make a comfortable living at it. That will reduce supply making it harder to find service. Cheaper health care is irellevant if you can't find anyone to treat you.

Casinos and insurance companies and banks and investment houses don't take risk.

If you don't think that is true, just look at their offices and their executive compensation.

Casinos and investment houses? What do they have to with anything? Given the brevity of the reply it seems you aren't able to counter any of the above and are resorting to the truly nonsensical. I think you know what kind of an insurance I'm talking about. Your kidding yourself if you don't think other forms of insurance don't charge on the basis of risk. The kind of car you drive, your driving record, where you drive, all play a role in your auto insurance rates. Where your home is. Is it in tornado alley, is it somewhere that floods a lot. All of that will come in play in your home owner's insurance rates. Someone who insures you has the right to protect themselves from the risk you pose them.

 

[PMZ]

Except that's not what's actually happening. For an aweful lot of people the cost of health care is going up. The cost of many procedures are going up because Obama is taxing those too. In that cost I'm including insurance premiums. And why does the government need to set the standard? Why can't we make people be responsible for their own standard? I have friends that are insurance reps and the community rating mandate is killing a lot of people. It's literally financially punishing the healthy and rewarding the unhealthy. A friend of mines premiums are going UP $400/mo. as a result.

I agree Republicans don't have a lot of credibilituy on this because they don't have an alternative plan, but that doesn't mean sticking with this is a good idea.



The health insurance industry has never been one that rakes in money. They typically have single digit profit margins. That's why with Obamacare premiums are going up. They were barely profitable before. I'm afraid you're thinking is backwards in making it sound like it's bad to make money selling health care. There wouldn't be health care if you couldn't make money selling it. But you're starting to touch on an idea that is central to this conversation. What type of payment system works best is irellevant if a certain premise is not agreed on and that has to be that health care is commodity like anything else. It isn't special. People should be able to sell their services for it for whatever someone is willing to pay like anything else. You, however, seem to be edging toward the notion that health care is a right and money should not be a factor for those that need it. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not a right. It's not a right because you don't have the right to take money from me to pay for you. What happens when you start treating it that way is supply goes down. People keep pointing to the French system and how wonderful it is, but a couple harsh facts are it is deeply in debt and their doctors make a fraction of ours. If that were translated here, that's going to make being a physician a less attractive profession. No one's going to decide to pursue that career especially given the expense involved in becoming one if they can't pay their debts and make a comfortable living at it. That will reduce supply making it harder to find service. Cheaper health care is irellevant if you can't find anyone to treat you.

Casinos and insurance companies and banks and investment houses don't take risk.

If you don't think that is true, just look at their offices and their executive compensation.

Casinos and investment houses? What do they have to with anything. Given the brevity of the reply it seems you aren't able to counter any of the above and are resorting to the truly nonsensical. I think you know what kind of an insurance I'm talking about. Your kidding yourself if you don't think other forms of insurance don't charge on the basis of risk. The kind of car you drive, your driving record, where you drive, all play a role in your auto insurance rates. Where your home is. Is it in tornado alley, is it somewhere that floods a lot. All of that will come in play in your home owner's insurance rates. Someone who insures you has the right to protect themselves from the risk you pose them.

You said that the insurance business was low return. Low return investments are low risk. All of the businesses that I pointed out are low rate of return, low risk, but high amount of return because they use other people's money.

 

[Bern80]

Casinos and insurance companies and banks and investment houses don't take risk.

If you don't think that is true, just look at their offices and their executive compensation.

Casinos and investment houses? What do they have to with anything. Given the brevity of the reply it seems you aren't able to counter any of the above and are resorting to the truly nonsensical. I think you know what kind of an insurance I'm talking about. Your kidding yourself if you don't think other forms of insurance don't charge on the basis of risk. The kind of car you drive, your driving record, where you drive, all play a role in your auto insurance rates. Where your home is. Is it in tornado alley, is it somewhere that floods a lot. All of that will come in play in your home owner's insurance rates. Someone who insures you has the right to protect themselves from the risk you pose them.

You said that the insurance business was low return. Low return investments are low risk. All of the businesses that I pointed out are low rate of return, low risk, but high amount of return because they use other people's money.

I don't think I've ever seen so many incorrect ideas in so few sentences. You really deny that car, home and up until now health insurance are priced based on risk? Dude stop digging.

 

[PMZ]

Casinos and investment houses? What do they have to with anything. Given the brevity of the reply it seems you aren't able to counter any of the above and are resorting to the truly nonsensical. I think you know what kind of an insurance I'm talking about. Your kidding yourself if you don't think other forms of insurance don't charge on the basis of risk. The kind of car you drive, your driving record, where you drive, all play a role in your auto insurance rates. Where your home is. Is it in tornado alley, is it somewhere that floods a lot. All of that will come in play in your home owner's insurance rates. Someone who insures you has the right to protect themselves from the risk you pose them.

You said that the insurance business was low return. Low return investments are low risk. All of the businesses that I pointed out are low rate of return, low risk, but high amount of return because they use other people's money.

I don't think I've ever seen so many incorrect ideas in so few sentences. You really deny that car, home and up until now health insurance are priced based on risk? Dude stop digging.

The insurance business is sharing risks among policy holders. If you die early, another client will die equally late. The business uses actuarial science to avoid risk. No different than casinos. They take no risk, it's all passed on to their customers.

Plainly, you are not experienced in risk management.

 

[Bern80]

You said that the insurance business was low return. Low return investments are low risk. All of the businesses that I pointed out are low rate of return, low risk, but high amount of return because they use other people's money.

I don't think I've ever seen so many incorrect ideas in so few sentences. You really deny that car, home and up until now health insurance are priced based on risk? Dude stop digging.

The insurance business is sharing risks among policy holders. If you die early, another client will die equally late. The business uses actuarial science to avoid risk. No different than casinos. They take no risk, it's all passed on to their customers.

Plainly, you are not experienced in risk management.

Actually I am. And how insurance companies mitigiate their risks is by charging those that are of higher risk more money to be insured by them. That's an undeniable fact.