is that we have people pushing policies that are based on best-case unrealistic scenarios and who blow off anyone with any sense of realism as being too pessimistic.

Here’s a real-life example for you…. Here in Texas, auto liability insurance has been mandatory for years. We once hit an uninsured guy who had run a red light. Luckily for us, we had a rider to cover for uninsured motorists so we were only out our deductible. Our insurance company all told was out about $15,000 and never recovered a penny from this guy. The trick is that whenever people know insurance will be checked – when they renew registration or get inspections (assuming they even do those) – they get a minimal auto policy so they can get a card, go do what they need to do, and then cancel the policy. In my mind, it’s no different than if this guy had gone into an insurance office with a gun and stolen $15,000, but that’s not how the law sees it unfortunately. The cops told us this happens all the time.

If you think people won’t figure out how to “game” the system just as easily when it comes to health insurance, you’re wrong.

that isn’t gamed by its participants? And, probably also by the program administrators?

Didn’t think so.

We all game the economic system that we live in daily.

should be free to waste MY money, whether it be from higher premiums or higher taxes or higher health care costs?

It’s not a matter of individual freedom if it involves taking away someone else’s freedom or someone else’s money.

Wouldn’t LETTING individuals game the system be more inline with the individual freedoms that republicans espouse than LETTIN corporations game the system trumping individual freedoms?

The government shouldn’t be in the business of LETTING business earn a profit…or LETTING individuals game the system…Government shouldn’t be involved in the System at all…

This is something that’s bothering me the longer this debate goes on….where is the discussion about Governments proper roll in the market…WE HAVE CEDED THE ARGUEMENT…

We need to be making the following points.

1) Government has caused much of this problem with it’s Medicare and Medicaid systems by telling doctors and providers what they will pay for a product or service no matter how much the provided paid to provide the service…This has caused cost shifting to the private health insurance system and THAT is the sourse of the whole problem.

2) The Interstate Commerce Clause exists to promote commerce between the states…the whole reason it was put into the constitution was because under the Articles of Confederation…interstate commerce was hampered by tariffs in one state on another state’s goods…and there were also state instituted boycotts of another states goods…I contend the current practice of one state not allowing an insurance company to sell it’s product or service in another state is a violation of the commerce clause and the Federal Government should be tasked with enforcing the right of these companies to compete across state lines against state manufactured monopolies.

Bottom line…you’re reasoning is 180 degrees in opposition to the Constitution and the idea thet the federal government can “ALLOW” any corporation to do business in a profitable way is WRONG

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

I’ll start worrying more about corporations than the state, when corporations have police powers, can take away my land, can tax me, can fine me, can imprison me, can restrict my ability to worhsip, can censor my speech, can take away my guns, can indocrinate my kids, ….

Staight up liberal of a loony libertarian socialist, I am not sure; but that anit-corporate pap is tiresome. He who fears free “corporations” more than the state needs to get their head check.

Your meme about Republicans being the party of big business and corporate money is so 20th century.

It’s a new world out there, and if you do any “follow the money” today, big business is going with our 21st century version of Mob rule, paying protection money in the hope that their competitors will get knee-capped. Just look at the lobbyist money – and the health care behind-the-scenes payoffs – and you’ll see that its the Democrats who are for corporate dominance and the upstart conservative Republicans (like here at RedState) who are making a last stand for individual freedom.

We may have disagreement on some “social conservative” issues, but if we lose our economic freedom and descend into a leftist one-party state, history shows that personal freedoms and lifestyle issues (and sexual choices too) ALWAYS end up being controlled by the government, and lost too.

And as far as individuals “gaming” the system: get the government out and let the transactions be between individual buyers and seller – not government rigging the rules – and then your question disappears, because you can’t by definition “game” a free market – you only “game” the system when a third-party imposes rules by political dictat rather than let market forces operate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Obama got the big money folks on his campaign pretty early on. And Republicans are now, and have been for a while, the party of the little guy.

The least you could do is show up prepared, you know.

even, maybe especially, if it’s created by the gubmint…

Billionaire Peter Lewis can make a mint with Progressive Insurance (catchy name) so he can donate tens of millions each year to ‘progressive’ causes and Democratic candidates.

And UnitedHealthcare can make a hefty profit since it is AARP’s exclusive Medicare Advantage provider. Their profits went up over 150% this year. Were they an oil company, we’d be hearing that these windfall profits needed to be taxed. Their CEO’s take was $3.25M earlier this year; can’t imagine his bonuses for next year given the dough they are raking in now.

The rest of them are evil however.

you would pay the first couple of days for treatment of the heart attack (and I am not 100% sure that a heart attack is the first major medical problem that otherwise fully healthy people experience) until you had time to buy the insurance, and then your most likely low deductible insurance would kick in.

Because if they included 6 month wait times until any reimbursement coul take place that would just be outrageous profit taking by insurance companies.

Health Saving Accounts, high deductibles and cross state sales of policies with options that people choose would bring the most consumerism to the marketplace, and that would be the best system.

I could get into a one time amnesty where all pre-existing conditions have to be accepted, but after that, you better prove continuous coverage.

I also don’t support the AHIP plan with expanding employer based coverage. People should choose and own their insurance irrespective of their employer.

Transparency in price in all aspects is our friend…..

Hit the wrong button at the bottom of the list of posts. Sorry about that.

has one giant health insurer and everybody else is priced out of the market. And can you cite evidence that tort reform has not affected costs “where it has been tried”?

A doctor here on Redstate (I can’t recall who) was commenting that in Texas, his rates were as high as ever. I’ve heard and read similar comments from doctors, but I can’t recall where.

Regardless, it certainly has had no notable impact on the costs of health care in Texas. The costs here are not much improvement over any other state in the country and certainly not enough to justify it as a solution.

Here is one study that indicates it is not a major factor in costs. However, I believed before I read it that advances in medicine were the primary driver. As long as those advances continue, I believe the costs will rise. They will have to. Here is another study that reached the conclusion that tort reform is of little effect.

You’ll likely find studies showing all sorts of things, sometimes contradictory. In the end, you’ll likely find that costs are too much and are increasing too much regardless of which state one is in.

in•su•ance?Pronunciation [in-shoor-uhns, -shur-] –noun 1. the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one’s person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.

The $900/yr is an absurdly low rate for the guaranteed right to potentially ~100,000-plus annual medical treatments (e.g. some forms of cancer) for a cost of , say $9,000 additional per year.

This additional remainder is the price of a prepaid maintenance plan for the fairly predictable medical costs that a family or individual would incur. Is $9,000 a year (perhaps born somewhat by the employer) a good deal? The answer varies by family. Moreover, the party with the best information is the one making the purchasing decision, the family.

Is $9,000 a year a good deal? Now that I don’t need to worry about catastrophic risks–I have a sign-me-up-for-the-full-plan-anytime deal for $900/year, I’ll make the decision whether or not to sign-up based on whether or not I expect to incur $9,000 in covered medical costs this year.

And so the insurance companies will have to raise their prices…which means even more will drop out…which means that the insurance companies will have to raise their prices…

Until the system breaks and the Central Govt can step in with its rationing-by-fiat system.