Healthcare: More regulation or less?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Some of this is straight out of a looney-left playbook.

You believe insurance premiums are rising mostly to fund executive compensation? Intuitively, I already doubt it. 1) Show me the proof. 2) Show me an understanding of the forces at work and consideration for the consequences (intended and unintended) of manipulating them.

Wouldn't capping e the grappy government-run systems. Don't drag everyone's quality down and premiums up.

Some of this is straight out of a looney-left playbook.

I don't own a looney left playbook. I used it for firewood during the last major snowstorm.

You believe insurance premiums are rising mostly to fund executive compensation? Intuitively, I already doubt it. 1) Show me the proof. 2) Show me an understanding of the forces at work and consideration for the consequences (intended and unintended) of manipulating them.

Money is fungible. Tracing of funds from one source to another is unnecessary and irrelevant. If a company makes money and spends money, the money it makes goes to fund the money it spends. I'll grant that executive compensation is probable not nearly enough to spend all the money these companies make by raising premiums. So, okay, instead it goes to fund executive compensation and enormous dividends paid to large scale shareholders. Whatever.

Wouldn't capping executive pay hinder quality results at companies where the caps are in place?

Probably not. It it were industry-wide, there would not be a decrease in quality of leadership. What are the disaffected poor executives only making $5,000,000 instead of $25,000,000 going to do? Go work at McDonald's instead?

Wouldn't making insurers cover MORE actually INCREASE premiums?

Absolutely! That's why I'm for deregulation and allowing companies to offer lesser products alongside their regular products. But, reasonable rules preventing things like retroactive cancellation based on unknown pre-existing conditions are immoral, unfair and devastating. Other things can be done to offset premium raises. Also, absent a public option, you can't deny coverage to all the people the insurance companies would not like to cover. It would be a societal disaster.

Wouldn't capping premiums decrease supply and coverage of insurance?

Probably not; if the cap were reasonable based on market conditions. Nobody can convince me that the 100% premium rise over the past few years has been necessitated to provide the same services that had been previously provided.

Wouldn't opening up tort exposure raises costs and partially be offset through premium hikes and/or decreased coverage?

I have nothing against limitations on punitive damages and the like to hold costs down. But immunizing insurance companies for gross negligence in denying claims for no reason other than to save money is unconscionable.

Wouldn't that be counterproductive of any tort reform?

It would be a limitation on tort reform. But, we rely on the justice system to keep all industries honest. To immunize one industry from the legal system just to keep costs down makes no sense. That being said, I am in favor of some level of tort reform.

Is this a hodgepodge with countervailing themes? Absolutely. That was the whole point of my OP. It's simplistic and tempting to argue one way or the other- more regulation or less. But the best answer is sometimes a complex combination of policies.

Lol, what about the Swedish volunteer SS divisions

They were, as you say, volunteers. There were also Swedish volunteers who fought and the other side, and went to join the resistance in Norway. Your argument is like saying that the participation of British volunteers in the Spanish Civil War makes Britain itself a participant in that war.

or the sale of Swedish raw materials, iron ore etc to the Nazis?

The Swedes also leased part of their merchant navy to Britain.

If they continued to trade with both sides, that sounds like a pretty good definition of neutral to me. I don't approve of that neutrality, but that's a different matter.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
[b] Lol, what about the Swedish volunteer SS divisions

They were, as you say, volunteers. There were also Swedish volunteers who fought and the other side, and went to join the resistance in Norway. Your argument is like saying that the participation of British volunteers in the Spanish Civil War makes Britain itself a participant in that war.

[ ...[text shortened]... efinition of neutral to me. I don't approve of that neutrality, but that's a different matter.[/b]

Sweden trading Germany the iron it needed to fight the war is hardly neutral. Was the United States truly neutral in the summer of 1941? I didn't think so. In any case, Sweden was the only Scandinavian country that was "neutral" by any possible definition. Scandinavia was not neutral in WWII. Norway and Denmark were on the Allied side (by virtue of having been invaded by Germany, yes, but the same argument could be made for Poland and even the USSR). Finland was a full fledged member of the Axis until it capitulated in 1944. Sweden was, at best, a friendly "neutral" to Germany.

Originally posted by sh76
First, I'm going to make a big concession right off the bat. Something has to be done. I was watching the Lauer report this morning and the astounding rate at which premiums have risen recently, mostly to fuel larger and larger bonuses for insurance company executives, is disturbing. I have no problem with big executive bonuses per se; but when it comes at the t, but fighting over that is not really what I'm looking to do with this thread.

In addition to this - is there something we can do to encourage the creation of more non-profit insurance companies?

it seems like the health insurance industry is overwhelmingly dominated by for-profit companies. Is there something preventing non-profits from being more of a presence?

All those people who don't like big gummint solutions could voluntarily get together and create a large pool of money to fund and maintain these non-profit efforts. If enough of this was happening, maybe there would be coverage available for everyone without requiring government to get involved.

But this hasn't been happening.

sh76, I'm actually with you on one general idea. Having a public option along side a less regulated private insurance industry.

BUT, it would have to be a comprehensive public option that covers everything (within reason) and is affordable by everyone. This would of course mean rates would be largely based on the ability to pay.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
(But you don't mind a federal government run bank account?)

I'm not selling anything. I'm actually willing to compromise with people of good will. Those who lie and obstruct and name-call are not people of good will. Your idea might be a valid piece of an compromise but it is far from being a solution. If your side did negociate in good faith they mig ...[text shortened]... r - and boy could I tell stories about what a joke malpractice really is in this country!)

Its hard to know what is in thousands of peices of legislation that is not meant for lay people to understand. All I know is that they are peddling a larger entitlement package and, at the same time, saying its affordable and will not deminish current coverage. So if they can't articulate in laymans terms how they are going to do this then they can all go jump off a bridge somewhere. Why on earth would I want to compromise with a bunch of politicians who say that Medicare/Medicaid is going bankrupt, so lets make it bigger and better?

I realize that many on the left don't have a care in the world regarding the debt that is being incurred. They insist that social security is OK and all other entitlements are OK, except for medicare/medicaid which need to be made bigger and better. In fact, they don't have a care about any spending.....except for defense. THen they all of a sudden have a tizzy. Of course, nothing is done by those on the left about it do they? In fact, the last time I checked the US was still in the Middle East, only, with more troops!!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It does not prove causality. But if high taxes are so bad for an economy it does beg the question why they are doing so well. They have been doing this for like 50 years now, so if it really was so terrible you would expect their economies to be in bad shape, too.

Europe has a lot of growth potential, still, particularly in Eastern Europe, and the re ...[text shortened]... nd. After they joined the EU the unemployment rate plummeted from 20% to 9% in just a few years.

Free trade is good, but high taxes are bad. They may not always and everywhere cause immediate decline, but they are usually and in most places a net drag. It depends on what it gets spent on. Social security and medicare are drags on growth.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Free trade is good, but high taxes are bad. They may not always and everywhere cause immediate decline, but they are usually and in most places a net drag. It depends on what it gets spent on. Social security and medicare are drags on growth.

If I"m not mistaken, KM thinks that taxes do the exact opposite.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Much of Scandinavia? Norway and Denmark were occupied by the Nazis. Finland (if we count it as Scandinavian; strictly, it's Nordic) was an Axis power, of sorts. So one Scandinavian country, Sweden, successfully stayed neutral during World War II.

But Norway and Denmark wanted neutrality, the fact that the Nazis were willing to occupy them regardless of their neutrality does not mean that they were allied nations.

Norway followed a Doctrine of Neutrality during both World Wars, and various parties sought to keep their budgets in line or sought pacifism. It chose a policy of neutrality and it was in fact neutral when it was free to be neutral.

Denmark did not even declare war on Germany officially as it did not have time to. Initially they were not anti-German, but over the course of the occupation, increasinly resisted them. Germany during the early occupation purported to respect their neutrality.

What was your point, that much of Scandinavia was NOT neutral?

Originally posted by FMF
You need to read up on WW II.

You seem to be giving me the unintended impression that you are bitter, when in reality you are just wrong.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
What was your point, that much of Scandinavia was NOT neutral?

Norway joined the Allies. Officially Denmark joined the Axis. Only Sweden was neutral during World War Two. Finland got attacked by both sides but isn't Scandinavia anyway.

Originally posted by sh76
[b]Some of this is straight out of a looney-left playbook.

I don't own a looney left playbook. I used it for firewood during the last major snowstorm.

You believe insurance premiums are rising mostly to fund executive compensation? Intuitively, I already doubt it. 1) Show me the proof. 2) Show me an understanding of the forces at work and consid ...[text shortened]... ulation or less. But the best answer is sometimes a complex combination of policies.

Maybe US Army Paratrooper or FMF can lend you their's.

Your adjusted statement is truer, it does not make sense to say it is executive compensation. However, it is also not shareholder dividents where premium increases go. Medical costs are rising, so to be able to afford to insure people, higher premiums are necessary. Same is true for a government or nonprofit that steps in. What would be needed would be money.


Educated and effective American executives do have more options than just the medical insurance industry, and no, it's not McDonald's. Try other insurance or other financial services first, they try executives at other major US coorporations in other industries.

It is not immoral to offer to cover thing A only and not thing B, and then to actually go ahead with the contract that the parties agreed to and cover thing A only and not thing B. In fact, such tough love is good because it allows the existence of more insurances. If there were no contract law or enforcement, there would be less services and exchanges in existence.

Capping premiums would decrease supply and coverage of insurance because of rising costs from technology and an aging population.

There are heavy regulations within the insurance industry subject to courts and laws and judges, but you are likely family with the sick game that some litigants and lawyers play with shaking down companies and ambulence chasing. May a pretty petty are spent on litigation alone, let alone adverse judgements that are out of proportion to any reasonable compensation for a loss. There is such a thing as too much litigation, too much emotion, and too little proportion and logic.

I will grant you that it is worth looking at these countervailing things if you have countervailing goals, but it seems obvious to me that costs are rising astronomically and so costs are the bigger priority right now. However, if you wanted to add another concern like covering more things that are not covered currently along with controlling costs, then you still have to do a whole lot to control costs and then some more cost controls on top to afford the new coverages that are put into law.

Originally posted by whodey
If I"m not mistaken, KM thinks that taxes do the exact opposite.

I think that he's under that mistaken impression, and you are not, correct? What is your view on the optimal level of taxation?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Free trade is good, but high taxes are bad. They may not always and everywhere cause immediate decline, but they are usually and in most places a net drag. It depends on what it gets spent on. Social security and medicare are drags on growth.

Can you back this up with facts?

Let's start with logic since even that is missing so far from the debate.

You take more of all people's money away that they use to invest for their retirement, then you spend it on consumption such as to keep elderly people's hospital bills paid for and to give out checks for the elderly to use for subsistence-level consumption.

what do you think will happen?

Now I'm not saying that every tax dollar spent by government is anti-growth, just most, because most money goes to entitltment programs like social security, medicar, and the military, as opposed to R&D/education/investments.

You like corrolations, right? Over the great span of history, it is low taxation that corrolates with accelerated and sustained growth, not 50%+ taxation.

Look at the US, the Roman Empire, and even Europe before socialism slowed them down.

One of the reforms that many slow-growth governments use to grow is often cutting the tax rates, such as did Ireland.

Taxation is not in general corrolated with higher levels of growth.