Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by UncleBob See, when a private company screws up - I can take my money elsewhere. Clerk at Walmart was a jerk? Shop at Kmart.

So what happens when Kmart says, "We see you've returned items in the past. Sorry, but your not profitable." That's what is happening right now to lots of people in the country. Shouldn't they have the right to choose too?

i absolutely hate that ignorant morons have all but killed the public option in the dem proposal.. ing morons.. we've now little help of a public option, which wasn't nearly far enough but at least it was a tiny step in the right direction, and it was killed by american ignorance. it's neither one party or the other, it's just ignorant morons of all shapes sizes and political allegiance.. morons morons morons i hate you all.

It wasn't ignorance so much (reform is wildly popular in polls) as it is politicians are blatantly bought and paid off.

lobbying efforts dont work when the people are unified, representatives dont risk their job for the sweet lobbyist butter, lobbying is most effective when the people are divided

voters want reform but the public option has been controversial.. or, rather, was, past tense, was controversial.. pretty much dead now because of dumbass reps painting it as socialism and dumbass dems buying into it.. very easy for a representative to be bought off when his people are split

Originally Posted by Koggit lobbying efforts dont work when the people are unified, representatives dont risk their job for the sweet lobbyist butter, lobbying is most effective when the people are divided voters want reform but the public option has been controversial.. or, rather, was, past tense, was controversial.. pretty much dead now because of dumbass reps painting it as socialism and dumbass dems buying into it.. very easy for a representative to be bought off when his people are split

Representatives are always bought off. Do you think many people actually supported the bailouts?

i think a large number of people did, including top economists, yes.

legislation has consistently been passed against the wishes of the most powerful lobbies (tobacco, alcohol, energy, pharma, and insurance).. but it's only when the people overwhelmingly support it. if the people are divided, the lobbyists win.

Originally Posted by ninju D So what happens when Kmart says, "We see you've returned items in the past. Sorry, but your not profitable." That's what is happening right now to lots of people in the country. Shouldn't they have the right to choose too?

They should have the right to choose from those who wish to provide them service. Otherwise, it's like saying I should have the right to choose where I want to eat dinner at - even if my neighbor's don't want me over.

And if no one wants to feed me dinner, then I'm free to go fix my own dinner.

Originally Posted by UncleBob They should have the right to choose from those who wish to provide them service. Otherwise, it's like saying I should have the right to choose where I want to eat dinner at - even if my neighbor's don't want me over. And if no one wants to feed me dinner, then I'm free to go fix my own dinner.

People keep making these ridiculous comparisons to healthcare as food or just another consumer good. It isn't , there are states where the vast majority of health insurance is provided by one or two companies at a time when the price of premiums has risen several times wage increases.

Choices are few and far between and it is a fact the "market" has failed.

Msut: Do tell, why do you think so many areas have "one or two companies" that provide health insurance, yet my crappy little town of about 5,000 people has four different fast food restaurants?

dude, everyone hates ominous game-players.. like.. just state your point. if this were a chat room i guess that'd be an alright sort of probing question to ask, but repeatedly resorting to that sort of thing on a forum is just a lame way of saying "i don't have a point, or am unable to articulate it"

but i'll bite: because noncompete market agreements are made, exactly like the telecom industry.. as a double whammy its cheaper for the HMOs to concentrate their efforts due to differing state statutes (similar to the challenge tech companies face when looking to expand internationally - every country has diff FCC-esque requirements)

that's actually part of why my sis lost her insurance -- she was on Cigna (group health) when diagnosed but Cigna doesn't offer personal coverage in Louisiana, they only offer group health.. if Cigna did offer personal coverage in Louisiana and not only group health (which is surely due to either to state-level healthcare regulation or a noncompete agreement with another HMO) then state statutes would've forced them to offer us single-family coverage..

Probing questions are better, as it gives you an idea of someone's understanding of the situation.

I don't think "non compete" agreements are as big of a deal as you think. Just because company one and two sign an agreement, nothing is stopping company three and four from coming in.

State regulations, however, probably play a much larger role in the limitation of health care offerings.

It's rather unfair to put all the blame on the free market when state regulations are preventing players from entering it.

probing questions are what you do when you don't have an argument but dont wanna admit you're wrong.. you seem to use them all too often


your current argument is terrible, btw. deregulation is the problem. to call state regulations the problem is to imply the solution is either (a) regulation at the fed level, taking away state's rights to regulate health care or (b) deregulate health care by limiting state's rights without imposing fed regulation to replace it. (a) is obviously the more logical of the two, but the vast vast vast majority of free market capitalists support states' rights to govern interstate commerce, and if done it leaves quite a few problems... if you honestly think it'd open the competitive floodgates, fine, it's nothing but rhetoric but fine... still doesn't solve all the problems we get as a result of profit-driven health care, no amount of competition ever would. problems that have already been discussed in great detail so i won't revisit.

You, yourself, offer State Regulations as a reason for so little competition in the market. Then, you tell me I'm wrong for agreeing with you?

i listed the primary reason as noncompetes

same reason i can't get verizon fios but the microsoft yuppies 5 miles away in Bellevue can

"you get this area, we get that area, and we both make way more money. deal."

A.) A Non-compete agreement is not a barrier to entry for a new company.
B.) How come it's so horribly wrong when I make comparisons between health insurance and other commodities, but it's perfectly okay for you to do so?
C.) Health Insurance requires some paper (to sign agreements) and some money (to pay for insurance/medical procedures). Internet service is limited by equipment and land requirements - and thus has more barriers to prevent market place entry. For example, in a world without government intervention, you could easily start up your own insurance company with some cash and some paper. To start an internet service provider, you'd need land to install equipment, and, in cases like FIOS, expensive installation of cables on public and private properties, etc., etc. This prevents smart guy with money from starting up a competitive internet provider on a whim. What prevents smart guy with money from starting a competitive health insurance provider?

i -- i never objected to your analogies, i didn't even really read them, some other ppl objected, their objections may or may not be valid, i wasn't following all that closely. the current system is analogous to many other industries and that is a huge part of the problem (that is, being a middleman between doctor & patient is currently lucrative business, it shouldn't be and profit maximization causes both economic and health problems).

ii -- i tried googling for market info regarding HMOs but couldn't find anything recent, then thought, wait, wtf am i doing, i could not care less why there are just a few giant HMOs, you're still asking questions instead of making statements and your questions don't even seem to lead anywhere because . . .

iii -- even if there were more competition it wouldn't solve the most problematic aspects of profit-driven care (as i stated in post #212)

Originally Posted by UncleBob why do you think so many areas have "one or two companies" that provide health insurance, yet my crappy little town of about 5,000 people has four different fast food restaurants?

How can I tell you are asking questions like that because you cannot face facts?

Probing questions are better, as it gives you an idea of someone's understanding of the situation.

My "understanding of the situation" is not in doubt. Your understanding? Yes.

B.) How come it's so horribly wrong when I make comparisons between health insurance and other commodities, but it's perfectly okay for you to do so?

Because your comparisons are invariably terrible.

Your assertion that "some" cash is all that is needed to start your own insurance company (especially medical insurance) is mind boggling.

Originally Posted by Msut77 My "understanding of the situation" is not in doubt. Your understanding? Yes.

If you are so convinced that your opinion of the situation is the only correct one, then I don't even understand why you're in this thread to begin with.

Because your comparisons are invariably terrible.

I can see how compairing health insurance to automobile insurance is a worse comparison than health insurance to internet service.

Your assertion that "some" cash is all that is needed to start your own insurance company (especially medical insurance) is mind boggling.

What? You think someone would need considerably more cash than "some" to start and maintain a health insurance company? Please, do elaborate.

Originally Posted by UncleBob If you are so convinced that your opinion of the situation is the only correct one, then I don't even understand why you're in this thread to begin with.

While I am certain my position is the correct one that would still be quite different from saying I cannot be convinced otherwise. Notice I use the word position instead of "opinion" which is incredibly abused.

You think someone would need considerably more cash than "some" to start and maintain a health insurance company?

Well I would dare you to define "some" to start with.

I would also expect someone entertaining the idea (again with medical insurance) to have a lot of education and years of experience and even then how much clout do you think such a company would have?

UncleBob is just leading this discussion farther and farther down the toilet. None of it has to do with healthcare and everything to do with him somehow "winning" this discussion. Remember, he only has to come up with BS probing questions in answer to questions and then ask you to elaborate when he doesn't get the answer.