Obamacare cost...

[Goatnapper'96]

My wallet is close to $200 lighter each month because of Obamacare. You can piss in my ear and tell me it's raining but most likely I'll think you've lost your argument before it began. Also I may want to visit violence upon you.

I liked the article Ted linked where the author bluntly spoke about the option Obamacare presented in which when using the realistic financial impacts was thus: we can increase insurance coverage to all, or at least to significantly more than are currently have viable insurance options, but the overwhelming majority of people will experience disruptions to their insurance plans and increased costs but the social benefit of increasing coverage will be worth it. However, that adult conversation that Cali promised me would be coming because that is how President Obama operates did not materialize. I saw a lot politicians promising that folks could keep their coverage and that everybody would see a decrease in their costs. It wasn't popular then, I think because people knew they were being lied to, and it still isn't, I think that despite Cali and some Californian bureaucrats arguments about prices dropping folks know they are still being lied to. Hardcore partisans like Cali want it to be successful and are so convinced if it is only given a chance that it will be successful that they are unable to approach the issue honestly. It isn't that hard to go back the what the real argument is...cost is not the concern, increasing coverage is the ultimate and only acceptable goal.

[Katy Lied]

There were basically two paths Congress could have followed to increase competition. The first, which you describe above, would have been to allow purchases of insurance across state lines. The obvious problem with that approach is that it leads to the proverbial race to the bottom. Just as has occurred with credit card companies and many other industries, it wouldn't be long before a state or group of states would effectively remove all consumer protections in order to draw the insurance companies to set up business in their state. Once the insurance companies all relocate, even though consumers are technically capable of purchasing insurance products within their state, they would find no such insurance companies would actually exist or meaningfully be able to compete with the insurance companies in the nonregulation states.

Hehe.

Here is your argument:

1. Govt allows insurance purchases across state lines.
2. Aggressive state offers incentives, less regulation (Say, Delaware)
3. All companies move to Delaware
4. Problem: No one can find local state insurance supply.

Answer: #1.
You purchase insurance across state lines. Buy from a company in Delaware.

[byu71]

Yes, the bottom line is how much lighter your wallet is going to be at the end of the month. It seems that you young men, those 39 (or even 49) and younger, are going to get screwed given you will be subsidizing '71's, PAC's and apparently women's health insurance costs...


[ATTACH=CONFIG]2321[/ATTACH]

I know you mean well, but pointing the finger at me as a net negative is pure HORSE SHIT.

I will pay into the Medicare System at least $3,000 this year. I don't want to bother to figure out how much I have paid into it over my life, but it is probably a pretty good number.

My insurance premiums this year with the company will probably be about $3,500. Of course that doesn't count the money that is paid by the company for me.

My private or company insurance pays for everything. I don't get a stinking dime from medicare, medicaid or whatever. I am a net payer. I am subsidizing things that make me ill, like birth control pills for women. Give me a break.

It irks me to see that little bitch who got all the publicity out advocating and being subsidized by me and others she despises.

[Uncle Ted]

I know you mean well, but pointing the finger at me as a net negative is pure HORSE SHIT.

Oops... sorry. We don't want to piss off the baby boomers and all their votes.

I will pay into the Medicare System at least $3,000 this year. I don't want to bother to figure out how much I have paid into it over my life, but it is probably a pretty good number.

My insurance premiums this year with the company will probably be about $3,500. Of course that doesn't count the money that is paid by the company for me.

My private or company insurance pays for everything. I don't get a stinking dime from medicare, medicaid or whatever. I am a net payer. I am subsidizing things that make me ill, like birth control pills for women. Give me a break.

It irks me to see that little bitch who got all the publicity out advocating and being subsidized by me and others she despises.

And all those women who voted against Rmoney.

Now, we can see why that chart is the way it is.

[byu71]

Oops... sorry. We don't want to piss off the baby boomers and all their votes.

The baby boomers as a group are bona fide idiots. They were the war protestors, free sex, free drugs generation. They produced a lot of the idiot liberal commentators on TV and radio. They are the "you owe me something" folks. The AARP fourishes with their ilk.

However, the very productive folks from that group are not the takers, that was my point.

[calicoug]

Hehe.

Here is your argument:

1. Govt allows insurance purchases across state lines.
2. Aggressive state offers incentives, less regulation (Say, Delaware)
3. All companies move to Delaware
4. Problem: No one can find local state insurance supply.

Answer: #1.
You purchase insurance across state lines. Buy from a company in Delaware.

Why should Delaware set the rules for the country? Just because they are willing to eliminate all consumer protections in exchange for additional tax revenue from insurance companies? And I thought conservatives liked federalism.

This isn't just theoretical, either. Check your credit cards. They are almost certainly issued in Delaware, South Dakota or Nevada or Ohio. Utah is working hard to join that group too.

[Mormon Red Death]

Why should Delaware set the rules for the country? Just because they are willing to eliminate all consumer protections in exchange for additional tax revenue from insurance companies? And I thought conservatives liked federalism.

This isn't just theoretical, either. Check your credit cards. They are almost certainly issued in Delaware, South Dakota or Nevada or Ohio. Utah is working hard to join that group too.

A lot of companies incorporate there due to the rules being so much easier to deal with.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[Pheidippides]

Why should Delaware set the rules for the country? Just because they are willing to eliminate all consumer protections in exchange for additional tax revenue from insurance companies? And I thought conservatives liked federalism.

This isn't just theoretical, either. Check your credit cards. They are almost certainly issued in Delaware, South Dakota or Nevada or Ohio. Utah is working hard to join that group too.

Lol. You really don't know the answer to this?

[calicoug]

Lol. You really don't know the answer to this?

Yes. The answer is "they shouldn't."

[calicoug]

A lot of companies incorporate there due to the rules being so much easier to deal with.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I'm not talking about incorporating. I'm talking about consumer protections. Although Delaware also fits the mold in the race for the bottom when it comes to shareholder protections (that's how Delaware attracted corporations in the first place). And now today, most large companies are incorporated in Delaware irrespective of where the company maintains its physical headquarters. So yeah- another example of why allowing this for insurance would certainly lead to no meaningful consumer protections.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I'm not talking about incorporating. I'm talking about consumer protections. Although Delaware also fits the mold in the race for the bottom when it comes to shareholder protections (that's how Delaware attracted corporations in the first place). And now today, most large companies are incorporated in Delaware irrespective of where the company maintains its physical headquarters. So yeah- another example of why allowing this for insurance would certainly lead to no meaningful consumer protections.

cali, you're losing me here. Are you suggesting that by incorporating in Delaware (or any other state) a credit card company (or any other business) that operates in California doesn't have to comply with CA's consumer protection laws?

[calicoug]

cali, you're losing me here. Are you suggesting that by incorporating in Delaware (or any other state) a credit card company (or any other business) that operates in California doesn't have to comply with CA's consumer protection laws?

Historically, yes. South Dakota was amongst the first states to eliminate Usery laws. As a consequence, credit card companies immediately began relocating to South Dakota in order to be able to charge any amount of interest to holders of the credit cards. The credit card agreements established South Dakota law as the governing law and also said that any disputes pertaining to the credit cards would have to be resolved within South Dakota. California is one of the very few states which has been aggressive in passing legislation designed to combat precisely these types of efforts by credit card companies. Eventually, the federal government stepped in to establish basic consumer protection laws that would apply nationwide.

As I said above however, this regulatory race to the bottom is certainly not unique to credit cards. Delaware is an outstanding example of a state limiting shareholder rights in favor of management rights and there is very little that shareholders can do about it other than buy stock in non-Delaware companies- Something that is becoming increasingly difficult to do, at least with respect to large companies.

[calicoug]

cali, you're losing me here. Are you suggesting that by incorporating in Delaware (or any other state) a credit card company (or any other business) that operates in California doesn't have to comply with CA's consumer protection laws?

By the way, if you are interested in this issue, you should read the Supreme Court decision from a 1978 case called Marquette National Bank v First Omaha Service. That ruling established the precedent that a credit card company can charge whatever interest-rate it wants as long as the interest-rate is permitted in the credit card issuers home state. It is free to ignore the usury laws of the state in which the consumer resides and leaves those matters to contract law. Anyone who thinks something similar would not occur with respect to insurance and health care is kidding themselves.

[Mormon Red Death]

Historically, yes. South Dakota was amongst the first states to eliminate Usery laws. As a consequence, credit card companies immediately began relocating to South Dakota in order to be able to charge any amount of interest to holders of the credit cards. The credit card agreements established South Dakota law as the governing law and also said that any disputes pertaining to the credit cards would have to be resolved within South Dakota. California is one of the very few states which has been aggressive in passing legislation designed to combat precisely these types of efforts by credit card companies. Eventually, the federal government stepped in to establish basic consumer protection laws that would apply nationwide.

As I said above however, this regulatory race to the bottom is certainly not unique to credit cards. Delaware is an outstanding example of a state limiting shareholder rights in favor of management rights and there is very little that shareholders can do about it other than buy stock in non-Delaware companies- Something that is becoming increasingly difficult to do, at least with respect to large companies.

The one thing you are missing with health ins companies is that they have to be somewhat local to negotiate with providers. Health insurance comp make their Money on discouraging utilization and paying less when they have to.

Unless obamacare mandates everyone pay the same prices you won't see everyone moving to delewsre
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[calicoug]

The one thing you are missing with health ins companies is that they have to be somewhat local to negotiate with providers. Health insurance comp make their Money on discouraging utilization and paying less when they have to.

Unless obamacare mandates everyone pay the same prices you won't see everyone moving to delewsre
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I don't see why that's true at all. Just because they negotiate locally today doesn't mean they still would if insurance could be bought across state lines. And while Obamacare isn't mandating that everyone pay the same prices, you are already starting to see master charge sheets being disclosed by Medicare which is leading to greater transparency and correspondingly less variation in pricing amongst hospitals in the same areas.