John Stossel: Laws Of Economics Strike Back

[Oddball]

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.

It's no lie at all.

The only tool that gubmint has is the power of force...The kind of force that can hurt people.

Quite typical for the left to shield their naked aggression behind the sainted chiiillllldrrrreeeennnnn, though, like the closeted thugs they are.

 

[Trajan]

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.

at which point the mandate penalty becomes the primary deterrent to adverse selection)

I'll get my third set of teeth first.

By the time obama is done handing out favors to special interests grp.s, mitigating, relieving co's of the responsibilities his bill encompasses etc. the mandate income won't cover a bottle of cough syrup, you know it, I know it.

His problem is this is hard and its only going to get harder and more difficult because the bill is a mess and hes lost the public opinion war.

The bill will call for a whole lot of pain up front, he will be in the trenches and fighting for reelection as we move toward 2014 and the pressure will only increase, there is not enough wiggle room for him to buy off or placate everyone involved each time some change calls for pain.

He has already demonstrated he doesn't have the stones to do whats hard/difficult and even in the search to implement it, whats necessary to follow through, because the law of unintended consequences is waiting around each and every corner, why? Because again, the bill is a mess.

This is not a guy who thinks ahead. He runs from one fire to another as the circle of flames close in.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

"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.

Oh, REPUBLICANS are the ones with no common sense, huh? That's why it was the Democrats who passed a "compassionate" healthcare law that any halfwit - any halfwit who wasn't a Democrat - could've predicted would have the effect of leaving more children WITHOUT health coverage? That's certainly not common sense, and I don't see it as being very compassionate, either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!

Yeah, someone needs to look out for the sick children, because it sure the hell isn't Obama and the Democrats doing it. All they're looking out for are their own egos, and thank you for serving as Exhibit A.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I believe that when leftists start using the words "should" and "shouldn't", it's time to clutch your wallet tightly, because it means they've totally lost touch with reality and what IS, and that always costs the taxpayers a fortune.

In this case, the reality that they've lost touch with is the fact that economics is a factor in EVERYTHING in life, and it's not possible to decide that something is "too important" for economics to be part of it.

 

[Big Fitz]

So are you against Children having health care?

Why do you hate America?

That's about as relevant a question to ask as yours.

Gullible's written on your ceiling too.

BTW, Why do we need to get "Surprise" legislation? Why can't we know details of the laws that will rule us BEFORE they approve it. You know... Just in case we think it's a bad idea?

Oh wait! We DID and still DO think that Obamacare was a bad idea.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Claudette]

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.

Totally agree. This bill needs to be scrapped. They need a bill with real reform in it. Reform that addresses the real problem with HC. THE COST.

If these insurance companies have to compete with each other, country wide, you will see prices come down. Companies and consumers are going to go with the provider who gives the biggest bang for the buck so you can bet your ass the HC providers will be scrambling to BE THAT PROVIDER.

Also agree about the Clowns in Congress and their connection to the HC providers. Get the Clowns out of the picture. Once they are removed the HC providers will be dealing with consumers who will be shopping for the best deals they can get and believe me all of them will be competing to be that best deal.

The free market will work if they let it.

 

[Greenbeard]

If these insurance companies have to compete with each other, country wide, you will see prices come down. Companies and consumers are going to go with the provider who gives the biggest bang for the buck so you can bet your ass the HC providers will be scrambling to BE THAT PROVIDER.

These are somewhat contrary notions. The reality is that a more competitive (i.e. fragmented) insurance market strengthens the hands of providers during reimbursement negotiations, which doesn't bring their prices down. At the very least, what you'd also want is a less consolidated provider market but that ship may have already sailed (and that has its own implications for care delivery).