leaving obamacare?

[dblack]

UnitedHealth CEO: We may bail on Obamacare


And when all providers leave will our premiums hit the moon?

(A) What makes you think all providers would leave? Usually when one bails the others swoop in and pick up their customers
(B) If there were no insurance companies, who would you pay your premiums to?

There is only one single reason that an insurance company would voluntarily terminate all their policies under ObamaCare.... it's no profitable.

If it's not profitable.... no one else is going to pick them up either.

See, you are looking at it from a free-market perspective. When one company falls out of the market, other companies move in, because they can now raise the rates, because there is less competition.

But this isn't a free market. They can't raise rates. The law prevents them. So if it's not profitable.... then they will slowly all move away.

They won't all move away. As long as the mandate remains in place, those who remain will prosper.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If it was profitable for them to be in the business of ObamaCare they wouldn't be bailing on it in the first place.

They're still getting the same premiums. What's bugging them is that they can't deny patients for preexisting conditions or set lifetime caps for coverage, poor babies.

Single-payer, here we come.

Single-payer has little to no realistic chance of happening anytime in the near future

And neither does Obamacare.

So the Tardis left you in 2009? You must have made The Doctor very, very angry.

Ironically, my doctor sold his practice. In fact I just got a letter in the mail, that my dentist sold his practice too.

Oddly enough, I happen to ask both, and you are right, they were both mad.... at Obama Care.

Not a unique tale.

 

[dblack]

They're still getting the same premiums. What's bugging them is that they can't deny patients for preexisting conditions or set lifetime caps for coverage, poor babies.

Single-payer, here we come.

Single-payer has little to no realistic chance of happening anytime in the near future

And neither does Obamacare.

So the Tardis left you in 2009? You must have made The Doctor very, very angry.

Ironically, my doctor sold his practice. In fact I just got a letter in the mail, that my dentist sold his practice too.

Oddly enough, I happen to ask both, and you are right, they were both mad.... at Obama Care.

The for-profit insurers entered the market in the late '70s/early 80s.

This doesn't pass the sniff test. But feel free to prove it.

 

[Arianrhod]

Single-payer has little to no realistic chance of happening anytime in the near future

And neither does Obamacare.

So the Tardis left you in 2009? You must have made The Doctor very, very angry.

Ironically, my doctor sold his practice. In fact I just got a letter in the mail, that my dentist sold his practice too.

Oddly enough, I happen to ask both, and you are right, they were both mad.... at Obama Care.

The for-profit insurers entered the market in the late '70s/early 80s.

This doesn't pass the sniff test. But feel free to prove it.

I've posted the information in several threads already - to the extent that Sassy felt compelled to contradict me and say it was earlier than my date of the 1980s.

I'll be happy to post it again after Andylusion provides his proof that it's all the fault of "socialism."

 

[dblack]

And neither does Obamacare.

So the Tardis left you in 2009? You must have made The Doctor very, very angry.

Ironically, my doctor sold his practice. In fact I just got a letter in the mail, that my dentist sold his practice too.

Oddly enough, I happen to ask both, and you are right, they were both mad.... at Obama Care.

The for-profit insurers entered the market in the late '70s/early 80s.

This doesn't pass the sniff test. But feel free to prove it.

I've posted the information in several threads already - to the extent that Sassy felt compelled to contradict me and say it was earlier than my date of the 1980s.

I'll be happy to post it again after Andylusion provides his proof that it's all the fault of "socialism."

In other words, "i got nuthin'"

 

[Arianrhod]

So the Tardis left you in 2009? You must have made The Doctor very, very angry.

Ironically, my doctor sold his practice. In fact I just got a letter in the mail, that my dentist sold his practice too.

Oddly enough, I happen to ask both, and you are right, they were both mad.... at Obama Care.

The for-profit insurers entered the market in the late '70s/early 80s.

This doesn't pass the sniff test. But feel free to prove it.

I've posted the information in several threads already - to the extent that Sassy felt compelled to contradict me and say it was earlier than my date of the 1980s.

I'll be happy to post it again after Andylusion provides his proof that it's all the fault of "socialism."

In other words, "i got nuthin'"

What you have is an attempt to divert from the fact that Andylusion made an unsupported claim and then left the forum.

Aside from that, I can't remember the last time you provided anything other than "dblack says so," so in that respect, you do have nothing.

Now, you and your nothing may chat among yourselves, because I'm not getting on your merry-go-round this time.

 

[dblack]

Ironically, my doctor sold his practice. In fact I just got a letter in the mail, that my dentist sold his practice too.

Oddly enough, I happen to ask both, and you are right, they were both mad.... at Obama Care.

The for-profit insurers entered the market in the late '70s/early 80s.

This doesn't pass the sniff test. But feel free to prove it.

I've posted the information in several threads already - to the extent that Sassy felt compelled to contradict me and say it was earlier than my date of the 1980s.

I'll be happy to post it again after Andylusion provides his proof that it's all the fault of "socialism."

In other words, "i got nuthin'"

What you have is an attempt to divert from the fact that Andylusion made an unsupported claim and then left the forum.

Aside from that, I can't remember the last time you provided anything other than "dblack says so," so in that respect, you do have nothing.

Now, you and your nothing may chat among yourselves, because I'm not getting on your merry-go-round this time.

Still nothing. You make the preposterous claim that for-profit insurance companies didn't enter the market until the Eighties. Before then, insurance companies were charitable organizations. Uh-huh. Right.

Prove it. Or shut the fuck up.

 

[Mr. H.]

Just the other day, Mrs. H. posited the notion of us carrying no health insurance. We would pay an $800+ penalty for the year while avoiding $5,000 in annual premiums for a policy that affords a $13,000 per person deductible.

Do the math, motherfuckers.

 

[dblack]

Just the other day, Mrs. H. posited the notion of us carrying no health insurance. We would pay an $800+ penalty for the year while avoiding $5,000 in annual premiums for a policy that affords a $13,000 per person deductible.

Do the math, motherfuckers.

Yeah. But once everyone figures that out, they'll ramp up the penalties and start putting scofflaws in jail. This is the same game they played with mandatory auto liability insurance.

 

[Andylusion]

UnitedHealth CEO: We may bail on Obamacare


And when all providers leave will our premiums hit the moon?

(A) What makes you think all providers would leave? Usually when one bails the others swoop in and pick up their customers
(B) If there were no insurance companies, who would you pay your premiums to?

There is only one single reason that an insurance company would voluntarily terminate all their policies under ObamaCare.... it's no profitable.

If it's not profitable.... no one else is going to pick them up either.

See, you are looking at it from a free-market perspective. When one company falls out of the market, other companies move in, because they can now raise the rates, because there is less competition.

But this isn't a free market. They can't raise rates. The law prevents them. So if it's not profitable.... then they will slowly all move away.

They won't all move away. As long as the mandate remains in place, those who remain will prosper.

You say that, and yet their are not prospering.

You realize that more than half of all the co-ops Obama pushed have long gone out of business, right?

More than half of ACA co-ops now out of insurance marketplaces

At what point in this train wreck, do you stop saying it's a success?

My guess is, when they all fail, somehow you guys will blame Bush, and claim it was the evil CEOs fault or something.

 

[dblack]

UnitedHealth CEO: We may bail on Obamacare


And when all providers leave will our premiums hit the moon?

(A) What makes you think all providers would leave? Usually when one bails the others swoop in and pick up their customers
(B) If there were no insurance companies, who would you pay your premiums to?

There is only one single reason that an insurance company would voluntarily terminate all their policies under ObamaCare.... it's no profitable.

If it's not profitable.... no one else is going to pick them up either.

See, you are looking at it from a free-market perspective. When one company falls out of the market, other companies move in, because they can now raise the rates, because there is less competition.

But this isn't a free market. They can't raise rates. The law prevents them. So if it's not profitable.... then they will slowly all move away.

They won't all move away. As long as the mandate remains in place, those who remain will prosper.

You say that, and yet their are not prospering.

You realize that more than half of all the co-ops Obama pushed have long gone out of business, right?

More than half of ACA co-ops now out of insurance marketplaces

At what point in this train wreck, do you stop saying it's a success?

My guess is, when they all fail, somehow you guys will blame Bush, and claim it was the evil CEOs fault or something.

I'm not saying ACA is a success, at least not for the nation. It serves the interests of those who wrote it. My point here is that the major players in the insurance industry will use ACA to destroy competition and position themselves as ubiquitous rent-collectors in the health care market. We'll probably end up with two or three major health insurers whose profits will be protected by government.

I make it a point to emphasize this because when liberals hear about ACA killing off insurance companies, they take it differently than you might be. They see it as a sign of success, wrongly assuming that it will lead to single-payer. They are deluded. Everything about ACA was designed in reaction to the threat of single-payer, with the intent of avoiding it.

 

[Andylusion]

UnitedHealth CEO: We may bail on Obamacare


And when all providers leave will our premiums hit the moon?

(A) What makes you think all providers would leave? Usually when one bails the others swoop in and pick up their customers
(B) If there were no insurance companies, who would you pay your premiums to?

There is only one single reason that an insurance company would voluntarily terminate all their policies under ObamaCare.... it's no profitable.

If it's not profitable.... no one else is going to pick them up either.

See, you are looking at it from a free-market perspective. When one company falls out of the market, other companies move in, because they can now raise the rates, because there is less competition.

But this isn't a free market. They can't raise rates. The law prevents them. So if it's not profitable.... then they will slowly all move away.

They won't all move away. As long as the mandate remains in place, those who remain will prosper.

You say that, and yet their are not prospering.

You realize that more than half of all the co-ops Obama pushed have long gone out of business, right?

More than half of ACA co-ops now out of insurance marketplaces

At what point in this train wreck, do you stop saying it's a success?

My guess is, when they all fail, somehow you guys will blame Bush, and claim it was the evil CEOs fault or something.

I'm not saying ACA is a success, at least not for the nation. It serves the interests of those who wrote it. My point here is that the major players in the insurance industry will use ACA to destroy competition and position themselves as ubiquitous rent-collectors in the health care market. We'll probably end up with two or three major health insurers whose profits will be protected by government.

I make it a point to emphasize this because when liberals hear about ACA killing off insurance companies, they take it differently than you might be. They see it as a sign of success, wrongly assuming that it will lead to single-payer. They are deluded. Everything about ACA was designed in reaction to the threat of single-payer, with the intent of avoiding it.

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

It's just how regulations naturally result in less competition, and a defacto monopoly.

Just think about it.... If you want to join insurance market... how do you compete with larger companies?

A: By offering different products.
B: By offering a lower price.

Under the ACA.... you can't do either. You can't offer a different product, because by law, you must offer product conforming to the Bronze, Silver Gold standards government created.

You can't lower your price either, because the big companies already offer subsidized products, at a lower rate than you could possibly offer unsubsidized. If an insurance company offered an unsubsidized insurance at say $170, and the big companies offer larger policy for $250, but subsidized to $80 a month... which do you choose?

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

 

[dblack]

(A) What makes you think all providers would leave? Usually when one bails the others swoop in and pick up their customers
(B) If there were no insurance companies, who would you pay your premiums to?

There is only one single reason that an insurance company would voluntarily terminate all their policies under ObamaCare.... it's no profitable.

If it's not profitable.... no one else is going to pick them up either.

See, you are looking at it from a free-market perspective. When one company falls out of the market, other companies move in, because they can now raise the rates, because there is less competition.

But this isn't a free market. They can't raise rates. The law prevents them. So if it's not profitable.... then they will slowly all move away.

They won't all move away. As long as the mandate remains in place, those who remain will prosper.

You say that, and yet their are not prospering.

You realize that more than half of all the co-ops Obama pushed have long gone out of business, right?

More than half of ACA co-ops now out of insurance marketplaces

At what point in this train wreck, do you stop saying it's a success?

My guess is, when they all fail, somehow you guys will blame Bush, and claim it was the evil CEOs fault or something.

I'm not saying ACA is a success, at least not for the nation. It serves the interests of those who wrote it. My point here is that the major players in the insurance industry will use ACA to destroy competition and position themselves as ubiquitous rent-collectors in the health care market. We'll probably end up with two or three major health insurers whose profits will be protected by government.

I make it a point to emphasize this because when liberals hear about ACA killing off insurance companies, they take it differently than you might be. They see it as a sign of success, wrongly assuming that it will lead to single-payer. They are deluded. Everything about ACA was designed in reaction to the threat of single-payer, with the intent of avoiding it.

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

 

[Andylusion]

There is only one single reason that an insurance company would voluntarily terminate all their policies under ObamaCare.... it's no profitable.

If it's not profitable.... no one else is going to pick them up either.

See, you are looking at it from a free-market perspective. When one company falls out of the market, other companies move in, because they can now raise the rates, because there is less competition.

But this isn't a free market. They can't raise rates. The law prevents them. So if it's not profitable.... then they will slowly all move away.

They won't all move away. As long as the mandate remains in place, those who remain will prosper.

You say that, and yet their are not prospering.

You realize that more than half of all the co-ops Obama pushed have long gone out of business, right?

More than half of ACA co-ops now out of insurance marketplaces

At what point in this train wreck, do you stop saying it's a success?

My guess is, when they all fail, somehow you guys will blame Bush, and claim it was the evil CEOs fault or something.

I'm not saying ACA is a success, at least not for the nation. It serves the interests of those who wrote it. My point here is that the major players in the insurance industry will use ACA to destroy competition and position themselves as ubiquitous rent-collectors in the health care market. We'll probably end up with two or three major health insurers whose profits will be protected by government.

I make it a point to emphasize this because when liberals hear about ACA killing off insurance companies, they take it differently than you might be. They see it as a sign of success, wrongly assuming that it will lead to single-payer. They are deluded. Everything about ACA was designed in reaction to the threat of single-payer, with the intent of avoiding it.

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

 

[dblack]

They won't all move away. As long as the mandate remains in place, those who remain will prosper.

You say that, and yet their are not prospering.

You realize that more than half of all the co-ops Obama pushed have long gone out of business, right?

More than half of ACA co-ops now out of insurance marketplaces

At what point in this train wreck, do you stop saying it's a success?

My guess is, when they all fail, somehow you guys will blame Bush, and claim it was the evil CEOs fault or something.

I'm not saying ACA is a success, at least not for the nation. It serves the interests of those who wrote it. My point here is that the major players in the insurance industry will use ACA to destroy competition and position themselves as ubiquitous rent-collectors in the health care market. We'll probably end up with two or three major health insurers whose profits will be protected by government.

I make it a point to emphasize this because when liberals hear about ACA killing off insurance companies, they take it differently than you might be. They see it as a sign of success, wrongly assuming that it will lead to single-payer. They are deluded. Everything about ACA was designed in reaction to the threat of single-payer, with the intent of avoiding it.

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You say that, and yet their are not prospering.

You realize that more than half of all the co-ops Obama pushed have long gone out of business, right?

More than half of ACA co-ops now out of insurance marketplaces

At what point in this train wreck, do you stop saying it's a success?

My guess is, when they all fail, somehow you guys will blame Bush, and claim it was the evil CEOs fault or something.

I'm not saying ACA is a success, at least not for the nation. It serves the interests of those who wrote it. My point here is that the major players in the insurance industry will use ACA to destroy competition and position themselves as ubiquitous rent-collectors in the health care market. We'll probably end up with two or three major health insurers whose profits will be protected by government.

I make it a point to emphasize this because when liberals hear about ACA killing off insurance companies, they take it differently than you might be. They see it as a sign of success, wrongly assuming that it will lead to single-payer. They are deluded. Everything about ACA was designed in reaction to the threat of single-payer, with the intent of avoiding it.

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Hammer meet nail.....squarely.

The big multinational I worked for helped regulators write specifications and regulations that favored our products and made it difficult for others to enter the market (made it very very expensive).

The left simply does not understand that the government simply becomes a tool of big business.

 

[Andylusion]

You say that, and yet their are not prospering.

You realize that more than half of all the co-ops Obama pushed have long gone out of business, right?

More than half of ACA co-ops now out of insurance marketplaces

At what point in this train wreck, do you stop saying it's a success?

My guess is, when they all fail, somehow you guys will blame Bush, and claim it was the evil CEOs fault or something.

I'm not saying ACA is a success, at least not for the nation. It serves the interests of those who wrote it. My point here is that the major players in the insurance industry will use ACA to destroy competition and position themselves as ubiquitous rent-collectors in the health care market. We'll probably end up with two or three major health insurers whose profits will be protected by government.

I make it a point to emphasize this because when liberals hear about ACA killing off insurance companies, they take it differently than you might be. They see it as a sign of success, wrongly assuming that it will lead to single-payer. They are deluded. Everything about ACA was designed in reaction to the threat of single-payer, with the intent of avoiding it.

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Yes I do.

I think the cases where specific companies, push for laws that hinder "all competitors" are fairly small.

Liz Fowler got a job in the private sector, as a liaison to the government.

This is again, NORMAL. It's not something hideous, or intrinsically evil.

When the government makes the decision that it's going to regulate the widget business.... inherently the widget company now has invested interest in giving feed back to the government.

If you want to get your story related to government, how do you go about it? Find some guy off the street, and tell him to talk to people in Washington? Promote the guy who works in the mail-room? Or hiring someone with experience working in Washington?

You are of course going to hire someone with experience in government. If were going to hire a guy to fix your car, you would generally hire someone who has experience as a mechanic. Or to fix your driveway, someone with experience in asphalt. Or fix your roof, someone with experience in roofing.

Companies do the same thing, and you automatically assume it's corruption. I don't think so.

Now obviously sometimes it is, and we find those people out, and they get in trouble. But the vast majority of the time, I don't see anything that suggests corruption.

The problem is that the public wants regulations. They actually believe that government regulations will fix all our problems. Which is bonkers. It never has before, and it never will in the future, and companies will always find ways of making regulations work for their best interest, as anyone would.

Doesn't mean it's corruption. If anything, it just means the public needs to stop being stupid, and supporting regulations.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

It's beyond clear.

Does anyone deny this ?

 

[Andylusion]

I'm not saying ACA is a success, at least not for the nation. It serves the interests of those who wrote it. My point here is that the major players in the insurance industry will use ACA to destroy competition and position themselves as ubiquitous rent-collectors in the health care market. We'll probably end up with two or three major health insurers whose profits will be protected by government.

I make it a point to emphasize this because when liberals hear about ACA killing off insurance companies, they take it differently than you might be. They see it as a sign of success, wrongly assuming that it will lead to single-payer. They are deluded. Everything about ACA was designed in reaction to the threat of single-payer, with the intent of avoiding it.

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Hammer meet nail.....squarely.

The big multinational I worked for helped regulators write specifications and regulations that favored our products and made it difficult for others to enter the market (made it very very expensive).

The left simply does not understand that the government simply becomes a tool of big business.

I'd love to know which product? I would find that very interesting.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Hammer meet nail.....squarely.

The big multinational I worked for helped regulators write specifications and regulations that favored our products and made it difficult for others to enter the market (made it very very expensive).

The left simply does not understand that the government simply becomes a tool of big business.

I'd love to know which product? I would find that very interesting.

You can start with agricultural products.

Licensing them is tedious and we purposely asked for more stringent testing requirements and tighter environmental regulations.

All of our fluorinated ag products were put into the market against very little competition.