tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.comments2014-09-24T12:54:34.986-07:00The Boolean ContinuumBooleanContinuumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05881056337735948235noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-82126242088567978252014-09-24T12:54:34.986-07:002014-09-24T12:54:34.986-07:00I don't see removing the EITC and increasing t...I don't see removing the EITC and increasing the minimum wage as necessarily disruptive if done in stages. On the other hand, the problem with putting all your eggs in the minimum wage basket is that what one congress gives another might take away. So I'm not sure that getting rid of the EITC is necessarily the best thing to do (sometime we have to let the 1% take their pint of blood). But I disagree strongly with people that say that we don't need a minimum wage because we have the EITC. I think the EITC can be a fall back that helps families - especially when minimum wage gets eroded by inflation or by a retrograde congress.BooleanContinuumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881056337735948235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-25632093849891012182014-09-18T08:37:21.718-07:002014-09-18T08:37:21.718-07:00In truth the EITC is a direct payment to the 1% th...In truth the EITC is a direct payment to the 1% that allows them to pay less than a minimum wage. So what would you recommend? Would an elimination of the EITC in combination with a large raise in the of the minimum wage that is linked to the CPI be too disruptive to the economy? The Wandering Soldierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260643333579471449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-74104947765903369822011-06-28T16:01:22.273-07:002011-06-28T16:01:22.273-07:00Love it!Love it!Em Mansonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-15160889249759721392011-06-06T14:53:16.665-07:002011-06-06T14:53:16.665-07:00I guess they got the mad scientist right.... : -)I guess they got the mad scientist right.... : -)The Wandering Soldierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260643333579471449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-89760180261874218982011-05-19T06:44:42.107-07:002011-05-19T06:44:42.107-07:00UPDATE:
Some criticism (in another venue) of my an...UPDATE:<br />Some criticism (in another venue) of my analysis was that the foreign income income tax credit is available to everyone, so why not Exxon? The criticism would be valid if Exxon were only able to use its foreign tax credits to offset income earned in a foreign country. That is, if I earn money in the UK and pay taxes in the UK, I can only take the tax credit against the US income tax I would owe <i> on the income earned in the UK </i>. However, Exxon gets to take its Saudi tax credit against revenue earned in the US. So by paying royalties to the Saudi government, Exxon isn't taxed on the profit it earns from selling gas to you and me. <br /><br />Does anyone really think that Exxon earns enough money selling gas to Saudi Arabians such that the taxes offset all the profit they earn from the US consumer?BooleanContinuumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881056337735948235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-12640148996282613682011-05-17T07:39:06.335-07:002011-05-17T07:39:06.335-07:001. The CO2 is not going into plants. If it were, t...1. The CO2 is not going into plants. If it were, then CO2 levels in the atmosphere would not be rising. Your friend may be confusing CO2 intake by plants with carbon burial - a common point of confusion (or disinformation) Plants consume CO2 when alive, but release it both through respiration when alive and when dead through microbial decay. The difference between the consumption and release is the net burial of carbon. To remove CO2 from the atmosphere requires either increasing live carbon storage (in acreage of live plants) or increasing carbon burial rates. Neither of these are happening. Ask your friend if he's got any links to news on the increasing worldwide rain forest acreage or massive oceanic algae blooms, which would pretty much be required for his argument to be supportable.<br /><br />2. The science of infrared trapping by CO2 is measurable in the laboratory and in the atmosphere. To say otherwise indicates profound ignorance of basic physics and chemistry. <br /><br />3. That CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere is a fact.<br /><br />4. My claiming that skeptics claiming CO2 levels are not rising would be laughed at is not "sophistry." It might be an ad hominem - but I prefer to think of it as speculation on how such ignorance would be received.<br /><br />5. Indeed, as your friend points out, CO2 levels have previously risen and fallen - but he neglected to mention that the changes were very gradual over long periods of time. The present increase is unprecedented in its rapidity and magnitude. I think that to say this is evidence that there is "something else at work" really does meet the definition of sophistry. <br /><br />The climate science that shows man-made CO2 is changing the climate is not a matter of "consensus" - it is simply a matter of the overwhelming weight of evidence. Some people, whether scientists or not, will refuse to admit facts that shake their world view. Twenty years ago, the skeptics were saying "you can't prove the world is warming". Now that arctic sea ice is melting they're saying "you can't prove man caused it". Before too long, it will become generally accepted what climate scientists know - the main cause for global climate change is the increasing CO2 levels caused by fossil fuels. But you know what will happen at that point - write this one down because its sure to come true - the skeptics of the future will say "But you can't prove we can fix it".BooleanContinuumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881056337735948235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-64130894563092040792011-05-16T13:14:18.292-07:002011-05-16T13:14:18.292-07:00Ben, I had some comment on this....from a conserva...Ben, I had some comment on this....from a conservative friend of mine...<br /><br />I'll answer his very simple question. CO2 is consumed by all kinds of living organisms the biggest consumer being plant life. That's where all of the CO2 is going. He is making some big mistakes in his "logic".<br />He explains the "science" is based on CO2 levels rising and that CO2 traps infared thermal energy. Until you prove this relationship you've got nothing but a theory. That is the definition of science. "Any skeptic who tries to claim C02 levels are not rising will be laughed out of any debate." That is pure sophestry. Science is not based on cencensus it is based on facts that are repeatable. Again, C02 levels have risen and fallen many times over the earth's history. This has been verified and proven. The times of rise and fall were prior to the industrial revolution. This is evidence that there may be something else at work causing the fluctuation. NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF BUT STRONG EVIDENCE.The Wandering Soldierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260643333579471449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-4110346772643094332010-09-22T13:19:32.397-07:002010-09-22T13:19:32.397-07:00We have benefits given directly to the people that...We have benefits given directly to the people that are called socialist programs. So instead we give the money to corporations/companies to give us a much lower amount of the money, while they take their cut and send it to the Cayman Island? Sounds like the healthcare bill. This just means that the corporations/companies control the socialist programs instead of the government.<br /><br />Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911, pointed out how Bush ran every company he owned into the ground. It was also evident that the money to start these companies was not his own money. When he ran out of financial backers, he ran for President and used the taxpayer’s money and ran their company into the ground, the United States of America.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-27782251232545859302010-08-28T11:02:05.913-07:002010-08-28T11:02:05.913-07:00Actually given the entire site is meant to and sho...Actually given the entire site is meant to and should be a memorial to all those innocent people slain in such circumstances shouldn't the entire place just be ringed by houses of worship of every denomination? Or better yet how about a non-denominational multi-level chapel that is multi-storied with a Mousque on one level and other houses of worship on others? <br /><br />I continue to be stunned that the site is being reused by a quasi-governmental agency (PA NY/NJ) without more of of being set aside as a memorial and a gathering place for peace loving folks of all kind/denominations....Mark Bonatuccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04028759195766716450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-34606542604801651522010-03-25T10:47:25.176-07:002010-03-25T10:47:25.176-07:00Spencer - I'll try to answer more fully as I h...Spencer - I'll try to answer more fully as I have time. However, a few comments for the moment - I think you mistake the objective in the blog post. I wasn't trying to justify all of the bill or all of health insurance reform - I was merely trying to point out that 1) the "mandate" is not unprecedented, and 2) the present ability to "opt out" of buying insurance is not a sign of independence but leads to the insured picking up the tab for the uninsured (de facto socialism). <br /><br />I'm not sure that I get what you are trying to say about responsibility. Is it that only responsible people should have health care and the irresponsible should just curl up and die? Do you have a way to make people responsible that doesn't require coercive government intervention? There will always be irresponsible people.<br /><br />What if the emergency room last year said you had a chronic disease that is easily manageable, but requires $10,000 every month for treatment? They tell you that you could live another 30 years with treatment. But there is no way they can set up payment terms because the costs are not one-time, they will never stop. Once you have been diagnosed with this disease, an insurance company would be foolish to insure you. Someone else might say that you were irresponsible to not have insurance.BooleanContinuumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881056337735948235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-64525563268453886862010-03-18T22:08:31.211-07:002010-03-18T22:08:31.211-07:00Hey Ben,
I must say that I truly appreciate being...Hey Ben,<br /><br />I must say that I truly appreciate being able see articulated what I so vehemently dissagree with. You honestly do a great job of discribing what your position is, not many of your political persuasion can... <br />Having said that, you've got the mandate all wrong. People who are RESPONSIBLE (you'll note the all caps) and do not carry insurance would pay for whatever emergency room care they recieved if they did not have insurance. Last year, I was one of those people. I went to the emergency room (I should have gone to the Urgent Care, but that's another story) I was unemployed at the time, so repayment wasn't easy. I set up payment terms and paid the fee over time. That my friend, is what we call RESPONSIBILITY. What you are saying (I think) is that people generally will not pay for thier emergency care and thus we all need to pay more insurance (see taxes) to cover them. <br />Here's where that arguement get's turned on it's head. The people who weren't paying for the emergency room before will still not be paying for the emergency room when this **&%% bill passes. They still won't have money, and having insurance won't help thier behavior. Massachussets, the Presidents favorite example, since the enactment of it's universal health care, have the same number of people going to the emergency room when they could have seen a primary care physician. It's a white elephant Ben(I think I'm using that metaphor right...) There is no there there. We're still going to be paying the same amount for the emergency rooms, the payments are just going to get funneled through your least favorite industry.. Insurance Providers. <br />I dunno Ben, I just really really don't get it. There truly are free market solutions to this mess that don't involve the gov't take over of health care. Increase the number of providers. Offer grants and incentives for people to become doctors. It's simple supply and demand. If there were more doctors competing, they would be forced to lower thier prices to something reasonable. Make the insurance companies compete by letting them sell across state lines. The whole premise behind this thing is to impose controls that WILL lead to rationing. Do you remember the gas lines of the 70's? It WILL happen with health care under Obama's plan.<br /><br />So I have a suggestion for your next post. Why is Health Care a Right. You were talking about rights in one of your earlier posts, but you didn't talk about this one. <br /><br />I look foreward to your response.Spencer Dawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04700378601578391377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-31916431378271048532010-01-28T20:38:36.392-08:002010-01-28T20:38:36.392-08:00Ben,
This is good stuff....
CurtisBen,<br /><br />This is good stuff....<br /><br /><br />CurtisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-41404403519041789702009-12-26T20:35:40.755-08:002009-12-26T20:35:40.755-08:00Don't think this is a good idea at all.Don't think this is a good idea at all.Mark Bonatuccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04028759195766716450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-85623092708705503242009-11-21T12:23:54.254-08:002009-11-21T12:23:54.254-08:00Ben:
You missed explaining one interesting fac...Ben:<br /><br /> You missed explaining one interesting fact - the real Birthday of Christ occurs in the spring. The Catholic church moved Christmas on the Church calendar for two reasons: 1) the need to seperarte Advent from Lent and 2) to try and purge/overshadow the pagan celebrations of the Winter Solstice due to some sinful traditions that went with it (orgies, excessive consumption, etc.)<br /><br />Bizzarely after being largely successful the Christmas Holiday has become so materialistic and commercialized we now start seeing retailers trying to start the "Christmas season" shortly after Labor Day... and instead of pointing to that issue some conservative Christians have decided that saying Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas is an issue.<br /><br />A couple of questions for the far religious right:<br /><br />1) If I say "Feliz Navidad" - do I have to worry about recieving a visit from INS or is that okay, since we still don't have or need an official language in the USA?<br /><br />2) Do I have to be Jewish to either respond or initiate a greeting at this time of year with "Happy Hanukkah" or since it's really not one of the high holidays must I still use "Merry Christmas"? <br /><br />3) If I use the phrase "Merry Christmas" must I actually be "Merry" or can be faking it after all isn't that just a white lie and okay?Mark Bonatuccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04028759195766716450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-54579736884068494512009-11-03T22:28:47.726-08:002009-11-03T22:28:47.726-08:00I want to tie off on the slippery slope argument. ...I want to tie off on the slippery slope argument. The differences in gov’t between the US and Canada will not prevent the implementation of a single payer system. We have a system that would perfectly accommodate the foisting of a single payer system regardless of our desire for one. We have a hybrid free market system. It is not completely free as it is regulated by state and federal government. Those who regulate make the rules that those in the free market are governed by. Those who regulate are notorious for exempting themselves from regulation. Case in point is that congress exempts itself from the very plan it is trying to pass. They would no doubt not apply the same rules to the gov’t run health care plan that would apply to those truly in the free market. If you want more examples of this, I’ll work on finding them. This would give the gov’t plan an unfair advantage. The other unfair advantage would be that they are non-profit and could under-cut the private plans by that amount. I have no doubt that those in power would do this. See the link to the videos attached of prominent Democrats talking about how this plan is only a stepping stone to a single payer system. I’ve also attached a link to a critique of the plan before congress that substantiates the notion that this is only a stepping stone. Happy reading, look forward to your response. <br /><br />http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/03/still-not-convinced-the-public-option-is-a-trojan-horse-for-single-payer/<br /><br /><br />http://team.republicanwhip.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Pelosi_HC_Bill_Reading_Guide.pdfSpencer Dawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04700378601578391377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-83093178489165336522009-11-03T22:28:16.971-08:002009-11-03T22:28:16.971-08:00Hey Ben,sorry for the delayed response. Between st...Hey Ben,sorry for the delayed response. Between starting a new job and being sick, I've not had much of an opportunity get online.<br />I guess enumeration is one way to look at the comparison between social security growth and health care growth. Another way to look at it is to look at the similarities. Social Security was started as a rather small modest program. The public option to health care is purported to start rather small by only insuring about 6 million people. They both offer services that are hard to argue with. Social security is a public trust that we take care of our seniors. Healthcare is a public trust that we provide medical coverage for all. They both had similar missions and starting points. Looking at the social security entitlement, there is no possible way you can ever reduce or eliminate that benefit because the public has come to expect that as a “right”. It’s not, but that’s beside the point. Health care is being pushed as a “right” of all Americans. I contend that it’s not, but again that’s beside the point. Once this bill passes, it will be viewed as a right and the people will look to the federal government to ensure that it becomes a right for all through the gov’t option of insurance, massive subsidies to the those who can’t afford it and imposing huge taxes on the rich and those with “Cadillac” plans to fund it. So regardless of who is providing it, the “right” to health insurance will flow from the feds… just as the right to social security flows from the feds. The cost to insure myself and my family runs about $15-$18k per year. The cost to fund my social security runs about $6-$7K per year. I am required to pay the social security and under the Obama plan will be required to pay the health insurance. What’s missing here? Choice is what’s missing. I don’t want to pay into social security. I want to have that money to invest myself. I don’t necessarily want my employer to be dumping 18K into my health insurance, I’d rather be able to have that money to buy an HSA or another plan of my choosing. The point is Ben, that I am much more able to make decisions regarding my health and my future than the federal gov’t. The way the system is now, I can’t do either very well. The type of system I envision would be one that offered more choice, this can be done with out offering a gov’t option. <br />That was a bit of a run-on.. I’m just trying to better illustrate my philosophy on the role of gov’t in our lives. I think that they are far too involved right now and show allow people more opportunities to make choices regarding such crucial things such as health care. Those options aren’t currently available nor are they offered in the plan before congress.Spencer Dawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04700378601578391377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-51265647214924743432009-11-02T07:42:18.156-08:002009-11-02T07:42:18.156-08:00Hadn't thought about skydiving. I wonder how ...Hadn't thought about skydiving. I wonder how difficult it would be to target a small spot for landing - say the front yard of an insurance executive? Maybe land on the Lexus in the driveway?BooleanContinuumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881056337735948235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-39348227174231688542009-10-31T20:27:04.673-07:002009-10-31T20:27:04.673-07:00Spencer,
The link that you provided to the develop...Spencer,<br />The link that you provided to the development of the Canadian system appears to back up my points. They didn't begin with an unsubsidized government-run insurance company and provide voucher subsidies for the poor that could be used with any private insurance company, as is in the Democrats bill. Instead, they began with a piecemeal system of tax-subsidized operations that they eventually consolidated into a national system. Given that the Dems bill allows for the subsidies for to used directly with private companies, the only question is whether the private companies can be as efficient as a government run unsubsidized insurer. Those who claim that the government is always inefficient shouldn't be worried, because private industry should obviously out-compete the government plan. You can't both claim that the government is inefficient and it can out-compete the private companies when both will be able to compete for the same level of operating subsidies. I don't think its worth getting into the start-up subsidy that the government would require because when you look at the books of the insurers the debt service (essentially equivalent of amortizing the start-up costs) are pretty miniscule.BooleanContinuumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881056337735948235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-64130430983247776912009-10-31T20:19:09.272-07:002009-10-31T20:19:09.272-07:00Spencer,
Sorry I haven't had time to follow up...Spencer,<br />Sorry I haven't had time to follow up further. Beyond the slippery slope (addressed above) you raised a couple points.<br /><br />1. Whether the insurance companies are just like any other. In my opinion - yes and no. The problem that I have is the recision mechanism - the ability of the companies to breach their contract with you over something that wasn't fraud and didn't have anything to do with your claim (the now famous you didn't report acne treatments, so we're denying you breast cancer treatments). To me, this is unethical business conduct. Not everything that is legal is ethical. Personally I think that one law that should be passed is that you can only deny a claim when you can prove relevant fraudulent misstatement of medical history. The fact that this has to be a law rather than an obvious business practice is shocking.<br /><br />2. The comparison to auto insurance. Some people, because of their auto history, are simply uninsurable under free market conditions. Rather than deny them insurance, states have "assigned risk" pools that every insurance company must provide policies out of. The amount they can charge is strictly limited by the state. We do not have any assigned risk pool for health insurance nor do we have limitations on what insurance companies can charge. You also have to be careful with comparisons between auto and health insurance because of the strict policy limits that are a part of auto insurance. Most people have policy limits on auto that are way below policy limits on health. So the comparison can't be made directly.<br /><br />3. On HSA's consumer choice, high-deductible plans etc. To some extent, I actually agree with you here. The problem is, that these are Republican ideas. Expecting the Democrats to put forward GOP ideas and pass them is a bit unrealistic. The GOP killed the Democrats health care reform in 93 then took control of congress in 94. They then held congress until 2006. During that 12 years they never seriously attempted to institute a Republican vision of health insurance reform. Truth is, I don't understand why we don't have a fully functioning national HSA system today. Why didn't they reform the system? If the GOP could push through two major tax cuts for the wealthy to explode our deficit (and do this on reconciliation to avoid a filibuster), why couldn't they get a top-to-bottom reform of health insurance to do exactly what you propose. Furthermore, even knowing that Obama was elected with a health insurance reform vision the GOP didn't bother to put a serious plan on the table and negotiate for a Republican vision. In my mind, HSA's have failed before they ever got a chance. I can't support something that "might" be better when its main proponents can't bother to put it together when they are in control. The GOP had their chance and blew it. The people have turned over control to the Democrats. Thus, even though I think that other approaches might be better, I also know that if we kill a workable plan today for an "ideal" plan tomorrow, we will never see the ideal plan. With 40 million people uninsured, premiums climbing, and our emergency rooms swamped, we can't afford to wait. If Obama's health care plan goes down, on what basis would we expect the GOP to come forward with a new one - should we just hope or can we look at history?BooleanContinuumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881056337735948235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-55526051111837135342009-10-29T16:48:48.697-07:002009-10-29T16:48:48.697-07:00What's my plan - basically plan a) is the divo...What's my plan - basically plan a) is the divorce route and I don't feel it's inherently unethical. My wife does home health and we've seen the medically impoverished for years, if you realize and accept that option then you basically just have to bridge 6 months from when the COBRA ends and the 24 month waiting period re: ownership, etc. ends here in our state.<br /><br />plan b) Is similar to yours but I hear that free fall skydiving provides you with a really awesome sense of euphoria and I'm not into motorcycles.Mark Bonatuccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04028759195766716450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-54728552878408120752009-10-29T09:09:45.190-07:002009-10-29T09:09:45.190-07:00Quick comment on your example of social security a...Quick comment on your example of social security and medicare as evidence that government programs expand. What you are providing is an inductive argument by enumeration. Let's say that I'm completely ignorant about numbers but I have a calculator and a list of odd and even numbers. I then punch in the 1+1, 3+5, 5+7 and I observe that I always end up with even numbers. I then argue by inductive enumeration that two odd numbers added together will always be an even number. If anyone can show me this isn't true for any two odd numbers, then my argument fails. Naturally, you could push calculator buttons all day and not find a counter argument, because my induction observation was a correct guess at the underlying truths of number theory. Now lets say that instead of the above numbers, I punched in 5+5, then 15+15 then 25+25. I observe that the results always end with a zero. So I argue that any two odd numbers added to itself always equals a number ending in zero. My inductive argument fits all the facts that I've enumerated, but a single counter argument (e.g. 3+3=6) completely blows my argument away. So to counter your argument that government social programs must always expand, I give you the examples of welfare (reformed to sustainability in the 90s) school lunches, head start, student loans. Lots of social programs have not expanded. To convince me of the slippery slope, you'll need a clear mechanistic argument as to why it must be true (not examples of what might be true).BooleanContinuumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881056337735948235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-33058398816526006142009-10-28T19:48:57.018-07:002009-10-28T19:48:57.018-07:00Some good information on the evolution of the Cana...Some good information on the evolution of the Canadian Health Care System.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_CanadaSpencer Dawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04700378601578391377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-56266495418423917982009-10-27T20:19:51.542-07:002009-10-27T20:19:51.542-07:00Insurance companies are companies just like any ot...Insurance companies are companies just like any other company. No better and no worse. They are there to make a profit by providing a service or product that others deem to have value. Just like GE, Boeing or any other company. The people who work there and who run the company are no more moral or immoral than any other people running any other company. They run the gamut from outright scoundrel to altruistic philanthropist just like people at other companies do.<br /><br />So what is the difference? We don't, for example, have much problem with auto insurance companies even though they will deny coverage to bad drivers. Even if a driver is bad through no fault of their own, such as an epileptic or sight impaired person. We don't take umbrage with life insurance companies that won't insure someone that is high risk. So the problem isn't insurance in general, it's medical insurance specifically.<br />... Read More<br />The question then, is how is medical insurance different from auto or life insurance? The answer is there are dramatic differences, but I will point out the biggest two. First, auto, life and other insurances are purchased individually. The consumer can decide which company to go with and what plan he wants to purchase. The insurance company has to deal directly with him and offer a product that suits him. The insurance company also has to provide a good enough quality of service to keep the consumer from taking his business elsewhere. None of this happens with medical insurance. You get whatever your company offers. The insurance company doesn't have to deal with you at all. You are a captive customer. And, although medical insurers swear up and down that it makes no difference, they are not facing reality. Not having the consumer engaged in choosing his own plan and not forcing the insurance company to deal directly with him is a huge difference and has a whole host of negative implications.<br /><br />Second: we have become conditioned to using medical insurance to pay for nearly every single health care expense we have. This is not the way insurance is meant to be used. Look at auto, life, home, fire, flood and you will see a common theme. Insurance is a stop loss and is to be used for catastrophic events. You don't use flood insurance if your toilet backs up. You don't use auto insurance to buy new tires. But, you do use medical insurance to get a very routine test for strep throat. This type of scheme directly rewards the hypochondriac and provides no incentive at all to be frugal with medical expenses. In fact, for consumers who use a high deductible health plan coupled with a health savings account, a number of long term studies have shown that the people on those plans spend far less over all on medical expenses and are in fact healthier. That is after taking into account spending habits and health levels prior to entering the plan.<br /><br />Those are the two biggest issues with health care today and the current plan not only does absolutely nothing to address either concern, it in fact makes each problem far worse.<br /><br />I must attribute this post to my Brother, but I do agree with him.Spencer Dawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04700378601578391377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-82307631003399873792009-10-27T20:17:08.856-07:002009-10-27T20:17:08.856-07:00Here's the post on the slippery slope:
Look at...Here's the post on the slippery slope:<br />Look at the history of both social security and income tax. Both were touted as minor provisions. The social security tax rate was very low and the rules were such that very few would ever see a payout. And look what it's grown into. Same with income tax. The first rates were very low and the brackets were so high that only a very few even paid it. And again look where we are now. Government programs always expand.Spencer Dawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04700378601578391377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203467864358545058.post-41512399559218185112009-10-27T20:16:06.393-07:002009-10-27T20:16:06.393-07:00Great Post and great idea putting it in the blog. ...Great Post and great idea putting it in the blog. <br />Just reading through your blog.... I guess I could answer there. The Gov't option as planned will be subsidized with seed money to start, so.. it will be subisidized. <br /> <br />Regarding the comment about Democrats doing something insidious, I am referring the democrats in congress. But it does extend to a number of poeple I know who say that they hope that this Health Care legislation will eventually lead to a Single Payer system. <br />Regarding the comments Obama and Pelosi have made regarding the insurance companies, they have said that insurance companies make obscene profits as well as other democrats.<br /> <br />Ok ok, ad hominem attacks... granted. I'm not a great debater, but I'll work on it.<br /><br />I will go away and do some research on how the Canadian system came to be and get back. You have some great points and have give me alot of information that I previously did not have on the MLR. <br />Have they predetermined in the house bill what the MLR would be for the Gov't provided insurance? <br />Look forward to more discussion.Spencer Dawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04700378601578391377noreply@blogger.com