What's Wrong With Ann Coulter's Approach

[Kalam]

What's Wrong With Ann Coulter's Approach to health care?

I've underlined the main problem for you.

 

[rdean]

This is the easiest question I have had all day. She is nuts!

Again thank you so much to all the liberals for proving my point. Just the mere mention of the word Coulter turns liberals into intellectual neophytes.

If only neo con fascists cared as much about the middle class of america as they do about she males.

What's a "middle class"? Said the Tranny to the Hannity.

 

[rdean]

When we take the Congress back in 2010 we'll deem the Coulter Bill passed and we'll even deem it signed by President Biden.

Yea, America will be standing in line to vote for the Party that brought the world economy to it's knees.

And started two wars.

And created a hard core Islamic Theocracy with the blood of American soldiers. A country who made a "national hero" out of a jerk who threw shoes at our president.

Yea, they'll be standing in line.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey, dropped in to say I'm posting in between getting some work done. I'll post further on the issue I promise.

EDIT: I'll simply say for now that the differences between the types of insurance boils down to excessive state mandates and mutual enforcement agreements. The even shorter answer is because the states say so.

I'll be back later.

That's cool. But when you come back we'll discuss why healthcare insurors should be allowed monopolies within states when nobody else is allowed such a monopoly. And how does that not violate federal anti-trust laws if push comes to shove on that?

The only reason an insurance company would be afforded a monopoly or near monopoly is because somebody is benefitting mightily from it. And it sure as hell isn't the policyholders.

There is no reason, legally or economically, that free market competition wouldn't work with healthcare as much as it does with anything else. The difference is federal government saying that healthcare companies HAVE to cover whatever. They don't do that with any other kind of insurance, and that has to be corrected before there can be any fix to the system.

 

[Bern80]

This is the easiest question I have had all day. She is nuts!

Again thank you so much to all the liberals for proving my point. Just the mere mention of the word Coulter turns liberals into intellectual neophytes.

If only neo con fascists cared as much about the middle class of america as they do about she males.

Oh we do. I understand the left is more vocal about it. Unfortunately you have this problem distinguishing between what looks all warm and fuzzy on paper and what will actually work.

 

[Bern80]

So the right is all for states rights as long as it suits their purpose?

hard to respond to posts loaded with baseless assumptions.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Threads like this are great.

They clearly expose just how clueless liberals truly are!

 

[Wicked Jester]

She has no real concept of people who are suffering with sick kids, parents, themselves. All she is worried about is her own future keeping the republican agenda front and center.

That's what's wrong with her opportunistic approach.

And do you have a clue as to the suffering of an innocent life being chopped into lil' pieces and sucked from the womb?

Christ, liberals are hypocritical fucking idiots!

 

[ihopehefails]

She is selfish and she doesn't care about other people.

Maybe it's who doesn't know people as well as you think you do. See that's the error the original poster made. Had you excerpted this without stating the author 'maybe' the libs would have been capable of rationale intelligent conversation regarding it. But shame on him, he noted it was by Ann Coulter, thus opening up the flood gates of ad hominems and other general excuses to not actual discuss the ideas presented.

Like your idea. That people who think the free market is a better way to provide health care must obviously hate kids and don't understand suffering. Open your eyes. The reason things are so expensive right now is in large part due to too much government involvement already. It's government regualtion that exempts insurance companies from having to compete nationally. It's state regulations that make insurance companies cover a laundry list of things the consumer may not want to pay for. If those two regulations alone were removed costs would go down for the poor children and suffering and they would be better able to purchase coverage they actually want. Maybe it's YOU that really doesn't care about the poor kids and suffering of people.

You're clueless about the law, so let me school you. The reason why insurance companies don't operate across state lines ISNT some oppressive government. It's because of the sovereignty of each state's own laws.

Let me repeat that for you. States each have their own insurance laws and that's why insurance isn't sold beyond state lines.

If this were changed, the insurer would have to follow the regs in the state where it is based or "domiciled" - not the rules of the state where the consumer or policyholder lives. Allowing the the insurer to choose state laws rather than the laws of the state where the consumer lives to govern health insurance regulation is bad for the consumer. Period.

Selling insurance across state lines invariable means higher premiums for Americans seeking comprehensive insurance. Beyond that, allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines would eliminate any guarantee that important benefits like maternity and emergency care will be included in insurance packages in the future. Consumers would get little in exchange - overwhelming evidence shows that benefit mandates per se are not why health insurance costs so much.

Coulter's a shock-jock in a micro-mini.

Once an insurance company does business in that state they have to abide by the laws of that state no matter where they are located.

States do put up protective barriers but it is the federal government's power to regulate trade among the states that breaks those barriers down since any regulations like that will supercede any state law since the constitution's supremacy clause says all constitutional laws are supreme in this land.

 

[ihopehefails]

She has no real concept of people who are suffering with sick kids, parents, themselves. All she is worried about is her own future keeping the republican agenda front and center.

That's what's wrong with her opportunistic approach.

Yes, the only POSSIBLE reason anyone could disagree with YOUR position is because they're selfish and don't give a damn about other people, since YOUR position is OBVIOUSLY the only morally correct and compassionate one. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that someone disagrees with you simply because they have a different idea of how to accomplish caring and compassionate goals, right? The only choices are agreeing with you, and being evil.

She is selfish and she doesn't care about other people.

This whole argument about not caring about other people usually is used to trump other people's rights. Its never she never cares about other people because she hordes all her money but because she did not support some legislation that would destroy someone else's freedom. If I had to choose between not caring and freedom I will always choose freedom.

 

[ihopehefails]

This is the easiest question I have had all day. She is nuts!

Again thank you so much to all the liberals for proving my point. Just the mere mention of the word Coulter turns liberals into intellectual neophytes.

If only neo con fascists cared as much about the middle class of america as they do about she males.

Did you just call someone a fascist and then go on to say that only the middle class deserve to be cared about....

 

[ihopehefails]

yeah, um I'm not the one that needs to go to school. I recommend economics 101 for you. Or maybe even high school level econ. You just proved the point smart guy. That fact that states have an over abundance of regulation prevents them from having to compete. When companies providing like prodcuts or services compete cost goes down for the consumer.

Sigh...where to begin with you. First of all, I've got an Economics degree (among others) and have been published regarding the hyper-inflation problem in Russia of the late 90s.
I doubt you could school me on anything. Especially with your post.

And YOU missed the point. The sovereignty of the states PREVENTS them from being able to compete, not some big government conspiracy as you're trying to paint it. Each state's citizens get to choose THEIR OWN laws and insurance companies can't use jurisdictional issues to hide from that.

You just dont get it.

I get it just fine. I'm not sure how what you said changes the fact that government regulation, state or othewise, is preventing competition.

Many states have erected laws preventing other insurance companies in other states from doing businessn in their state. These other insurance companies might be able to offer lower price and better services for a variety of reasons such as lower taxes in their state, smarter management, and etc. Also, protected companies tend get greedy with their profits and charge really high prices since they know that the government will always protect them.

When airports and phone companies were deregulated in the eighties the price of fares and long distant phone serviced dropped a lot. The same thing can happen in the insurance companies if we let it.

In fact, I think we should go a step further and allow international insurance companies to compete domestically. This will maximize competition.

 

[Vanquish]

Hey, dropped in to say I'm posting in between getting some work done. I'll post further on the issue I promise.

EDIT: I'll simply say for now that the differences between the types of insurance boils down to excessive state mandates and mutual enforcement agreements. The even shorter answer is because the states say so.

I'll be back later.

That's cool. But when you come back we'll discuss why healthcare insurors should be allowed monopolies within states when nobody else is allowed such a monopoly. And how does that not violate federal anti-trust laws if push comes to shove on that?

The only reason an insurance company would be afforded a monopoly or near monopoly is because somebody is benefitting mightily from it. And it sure as hell isn't the policyholders.

There is no reason, legally or economically, that free market competition wouldn't work with healthcare as much as it does with anything else. The difference is federal government saying that healthcare companies HAVE to cover whatever. They don't do that with any other kind of insurance, and that has to be corrected before there can be any fix to the system.

Thanks for putting the party on pause.

I happen to live in Alabama where BC/BS has a virtual monopoly on the insurance market here. But there's nothing stopping anyone from coming here and abiding by our laws.

The other answer to the underlying question comes back to the differences between workers comp and "regular healthcare"...the answer is really history. It's simple but powerful at the same time. The collected laws in each different kind of healthcare are what make one able to be nationalized and the other non-national at its core.

Add to that the fact that doing this would make national insurance healthcare a race to the bottom. Surely you've heard that argument. I'll spare you what I'm sure you've heard on that note. Now one of the best retorts to the race to the bottom idea is that is that surely the market will reject inferior products ...and that constituents can lobby to enact protections. *record scratch* huhhhh?? If that were true then the history of the credit card usury would have played out differently.

And dont forget that you're setting up regulatory Federalism...the anti-thesis of what most conservatives want. So you're spitting in the face of state rights.

It's interesting that we're both on the side against insurance company influence, but we're on opposite sides of this argument.

This isnt going to maximize competition...it'll do just the opposite.

 

[Cuyo]

Healthcare is expensive because big insurance gouges the public when we most need their services. They are racketeers and you will unfortunately only find that out when you and yours become gravely ill and have to deal with them.

If you want to have a real honest debate about why health care costs what it costs we can do that. You are going to be hard pressed to blame it on an industry that has a single digit profit margin.

mmm-hmmm. mmm-hmmm. Say, is that "Single digit profit margin" calculated before, or after executive payroll and bonuses?

 

[jeffrockit]

Well, Mr. Coulter is a lawyer.
Then we hear about Christianity ... Does anyone think hateful Coulter is a Christian?

Fortunately for her it doesn't matter what anyone here thinks about her salvation. Jesus had some unfavorable things to say to the religious leaders during his time. His judgement came from God as will Coulters'.

 

[jeffrockit]

This is the easiest question I have had all day. She is nuts!

Again thank you so much to all the liberals for proving my point. Just the mere mention of the word Coulter turns liberals into intellectual neophytes.

If only neo con fascists cared as much about the middle class of america as they do about she males.

If only politicians cared as much about the middle class of America (for that matter any of the citizens of America), as they do about growing government and increasing their power. It is extremely foolish to think that this healthcare bill is simply for we the people, and that our health care issues are the driving force behind their obsession with this bill. They have this country completely divided and, as such, weakened to the point of being ineffectual. ALL politicians are either corrupt, power mad, arrogance and self important and we continue to allow this with partisan bickering. Can you not see this to be fact? and if so, why continue to choose sides. We the people could do some amazing things if we would drop the us against them mentality and fight for a single goal...Fix Washington so it will work for us. Get the power back to the people!

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey, dropped in to say I'm posting in between getting some work done. I'll post further on the issue I promise.

EDIT: I'll simply say for now that the differences between the types of insurance boils down to excessive state mandates and mutual enforcement agreements. The even shorter answer is because the states say so.

I'll be back later.

That's cool. But when you come back we'll discuss why healthcare insurors should be allowed monopolies within states when nobody else is allowed such a monopoly. And how does that not violate federal anti-trust laws if push comes to shove on that?

The only reason an insurance company would be afforded a monopoly or near monopoly is because somebody is benefitting mightily from it. And it sure as hell isn't the policyholders.

There is no reason, legally or economically, that free market competition wouldn't work with healthcare as much as it does with anything else. The difference is federal government saying that healthcare companies HAVE to cover whatever. They don't do that with any other kind of insurance, and that has to be corrected before there can be any fix to the system.

Thanks for putting the party on pause.

I happen to live in Alabama where BC/BS has a virtual monopoly on the insurance market here. But there's nothing stopping anyone from coming here and abiding by our laws.

The other answer to the underlying question comes back to the differences between workers comp and "regular healthcare"...the answer is really history. It's simple but powerful at the same time. The collected laws in each different kind of healthcare are what make one able to be nationalized and the other non-national at its core.

Add to that the fact that doing this would make national insurance healthcare a race to the bottom. Surely you've heard that argument. I'll spare you what I'm sure you've heard on that note. Now one of the best retorts to the race to the bottom idea is that is that surely the market will reject inferior products ...and that constituents can lobby to enact protections. *record scratch* huhhhh?? If that were true then the history of the credit card usury would have played out differently.

And dont forget that you're setting up regulatory Federalism...the anti-thesis of what most conservatives want. So you're spitting in the face of state rights.

It's interesting that we're both on the side against insurance company influence, but we're on opposite sides of this argument.

This isnt going to maximize competition...it'll do just the opposite.

Okay consider this Marketwatch piece from 2006:

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- Consolidation among health insurers is creating near-monopolies in virtually all reaches of the U.S. - with the most dominant firms grabbing more market share by several percentage points a year - according to a study released Monday.

Data from the American Medical Association shows that in each of 43 states, a handful of top insurers have gained such a stronghold that their markets are considered "highly concentrated" under Department of Justice guidelines, often far exceeding the thresholds that trigger antitrust concerns.

The study also shows that in 166 of 294 metropolitan areas, or 56%, a single insurer controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization (HMO) and preferred provider networks (PPO) underwriting.

"This problem is widespread across the country and it needs to be looked at," said Dr. Jim Rohack, an AMA trustee and physician in Temple, Texas. "The choices that patients have now are more difficult."

The AMA study cited a Justice Department benchmark in citing antitrust concerns, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, or HHI. A score above 1,000 shows "moderate" concentration. Those scoring above 1,800 yield a "high" concentration.

Figures show that 95% of the 294 HMO/PPO metropolitan markets studied were above 1,800. Raise that HHI bar even higher to 3,000 and yet more than half, or 67%, rise above it.

The AMA study is the latest piece of evidence -- and most comprehensive to date -- showing the market power of a few companies, and a large number of regional non-profit Blue Cross operations, is formidable and growing. And it comes at a time when premiums continue to grow at near double-digit rates.

Critics say that carriers are not only creating monopolies and oligopolies in many regions, they also control the other side of the equation in what is known as monopsony power. That means in addition to having the most enrollees, they're also the biggest purchasers of health care and can dictate prices and coverage terms.
Study confirms health monopoly fears - MarketWatch

Okay healthcare reform wasn't in big letters on the chalkboard prior to 2006 because we were still mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, and after 2006, the GOP was no longer in control in Congress and healthcare reform was still not a priority concern.

But now that it IS considered THE priority concern for this President and this Congress, why hasn't the issue of state monopolies one of the cornerstones out there for reform? And yet it isn't even in the legislation in the House or Senate. Nor is tort reform which is another major brick that ought to be in the process.

I think if you'll follow the money, those DEALS that the President cut with the insurance companies to get them agreeing to his healthcare reform included some very heavy rewards for those insurance companies. And one was probably that the monopolies would not be addressed.

However it is going down it stinks to high heaven. And I think we better start making a lot more noise about that.