Brown says

[jake]

So what about regulation on the insurance side? Less or more, or is the balance right?

[Irving]

I'm struggling to come up with an example of government regulation on insurance companies that hinders the way that they do business so much that it effects the customer. I'm sure there are things that the insurance companies don't like (like in any industry) but I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Obamacare would change that however, by forcing insurance companies to cover everyone. Naturally, the insurance companies would push back and just raise rates. However, Obamacare is also trying to tax the profit out of what they call "Cadillac policies," so insurance companies would have a thin line between being forced to provide policies cheap enough for people to afford, and charging enough for those same policies without going out of business.

I can think of one example of poor laws that are supposed to have the customer in mind, and just gouges the insurance industry.

Let's say that I rear end Big Bear, total his car, and break his neck. In Colorado, what will happen is that he'll get a lawyer and sue me for his injuries. My insurance company will pay for his car, and pay for his injuries and lawyer representation. If Big Bear gets money from the attorney, then my insurance company will pay back the attorney, or pay back Big Bear, who is then responsible for paying back his attorney.

In Montana, Big Bear would lawyer up and sue me for damages to his car and his broken neck. My insurance company would pay for his car. Then, the Big Bear's lawyer would front big bear some money for his medical bills. My insurance company would then have to pay Big Bear for his injuries, then ALSO pay his lawyer back the money he fronted for those same injuries. Basically, my insurance company would end up paying for Big Bear's injuries twice. Once to the lawyer, and once to Big Bear. I've been out of claims for a few years, and I'm getting rusty, but insurance companies can be made to pay for the same accident/injuries up to three different times. Needless to say, insurance companies hate doing business in Montana, and attorneys love it because they can sit around and rake in the money. That's the one example of legislation having a serious negative affect on private business in the insurance industry. What do you think that does to rates up there?

[jake]

I'm struggling to come up with an example of government regulation on insurance companies that hinders the way that they do business so much that it effects the customer. I'm sure there are things that the insurance companies don't like (like in any industry) but I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Obamacare would change that however, by forcing insurance companies to cover everyone. Naturally, the insurance companies would push back and just raise rates.

Ok, but isn't the end result of that that we have 10-30 million Americans uninsured right now, and 20-40 thousand people dying every year because they can't afford health insurance? Or are you content with that (meant as an honest question rather than an attack on your character)?

I mean, one end result of people not having insurance is that it pushes our rates up anyway, which was one of the problems this bill was meant to address.

[Irving]

No. We don't have food insurance, but people still manage to eat right? There are a lot of reasons that people aren't insured, and most of them can't be addressed by any type of legislation. If I can't afford insurance now, I'm sure as shit not going to be able to afford it when it is mandatory and the prices go up. The only difference is that I'll turn into a subject of the government because I'll owe the gov fines because I couldn't pay for something I couldn't afford.

No one dies because they don't have health insurance. Sure, people dying is unfortunate, but nothing is ever going to change that. The human race has thrived just fine without even the concept of health insurance for who know how many millions of years. Crying about people dying because they are uninsured now is just silly.

No one has said it yet, but they are bound to at some point. The difference between requiring car insurance and health insurance is that the car insurance that is required is liability insurance to help you pay for the damages that you do to other people. Not having health insurance is never going to affect anyone but you. So your family spends a lot of money trying to keep you alive? No one made them. That is a cold, hard, black and white way to look at the issue, but it is the reality.

Again, being uninsured doesn't kill anyone and never will. If there comes a time that things are so expensive that people just can't afford treatment, more insurance and third parties still isn't going to be the answer.

[jake]

No. We don't have food insurance, but people still manage to eat right? There are a lot of reasons that people aren't insured, and most of them can't be addressed by any type of legislation. If I can't afford insurance now, I'm sure as shit not going to be able to afford it when it is mandatory and the prices go up.

Yeah, one of the misconceptions of the bill was that people were going to have to pay 'fines' if they didn't want to get health insurance. I thought it sounded counter-intuitive too until I found out what was actually proposed.

No one dies because they don't have health insurance. Sure, people dying is unfortunate, but nothing is ever going to change that. The human race has thrived just fine without even the concept of health insurance for who know how many millions of years. Crying about people dying because they are uninsured now is just silly.

Is that a semantic argument or a serious one? I mean, technically, everyone dies due to the cessation of respiration and electrical activity in the brain, but I'm not going to say no one dies of cancer or heart attacks.

So your family spends a lot of money trying to keep you alive? No one made them. That is a cold, hard, black and white way to look at the issue, but it is the reality.

I guess that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? I wonder how many of those opposed to healthcare reform would feel the same way if opponents came out and said this rather than peppering in words like 'socialism,' 'Nazi,' and 'death panel.'

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, by the way. I have health insurance. Fortunately, I have never had to test it to the extent where I would find out what it really covers or not, but I imagine eventually I will... unless healthcare reform is passed in the future, which I believe will also eventually happen for demographic and sociological reasons more than anything.

[Marlin]

Simple enough, Get goverment out of private sector bussiness.. Lower taxes, get rid of HUD, EPA and a few other letters of the alphabet.. Make welfare leeches WORK for the money, plenty of trash along the hiways,, Keep them to tired to breed. Then maybe, I might be able to spend more time working than throwing the ball for the dog..

[Irving]

What was actually proposed as far as not getting health insurance?

If the government makes health insurance mandatory, and at the same time makes it illegal for health insurance companies to deny coverage for any reason, what happens when people just don't pay?

Health insurance is the whole reason that people can't afford health care in the first place. People don't even know how much something costs, nor do they care. Why should they? They aren't paying for it.

[jake]

What was actually proposed as far as not getting health insurance?

From what I understood, it was along the lines of if you refuse to pay, then a capped amount would be garnished from your salary/savings and used to provide you with a basic level of insurance.

It's fair enough if you don't have health insurance because you decide it's a risk you're willing to take, but those people still get sick, and when they get sick they go to hospitals. The hospitals can't refuse to treat them so the costs they incur have to be made up somewhere, and they're made up via our premiums.

[Irving]

Should my car payments be higher because some people don't pay their loans back?

I've needed a car in my life 1,000 times more than I've ever needed health coverage.

[mutt]

I think the biggest problem with health care in this country is insurance. Why the hell is a fundamental service so unaffordable? Answer: Insurance.

Once people became insulated from the real costs of health care, they simply consumed without regard to the cost or need. For the privilege of not having to understand or be involved in the business aspect of your health care, you allow insurance companies to tack on a 30% fee. Hospitals and doctors in turn inflate their prices to protect their bottom lines from the encroachment of said fees. Since you don't see the bill, you don't care. Since you don't care there's no driving force prompting health care providers and insurance companies to compete on pricing. End result is ever spiraling costs.

Could you imagine how expensive food would be if you had to pay food insurance and show an insurance card every time you went grocery shopping? Those with insurance would consume everything without regard to price. Grocery stores would spiral prices ever upward and those without insurance would starve because they couldn't afford the sticker price.

While I can understand the concept of 'catastrophic' health insurance to guard against the financial burden of an expensive illness (cancer, organ transplant, etc), I see no reason why normal day to day health care needs should require insurance. This concept is no different that having insurance on your house in case it burns down. That same insurance isn't required to go to Home Depot when you need to re-paint the exterior.