| Subject: Does the free market always work great? No. Does the government do insurance better than evil private industry with an evil profit incentive? HECK NO!!! |
Author:
Mr. X
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Wed, February 20, 2008 12:00:15
In reply to:
James M
's message, "When people say 'free healthcare' they refer to healthcare that is free at the point of service." on Tue, February 19, 2008 11:47:23
For those of you that would be concerned with paying additional taxes towards such a health system, do you not already pay sums greater than that currently for your health coverage?
If I can choose my own healthcare coverage, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, it would be less than Nanny Government protecting me with coverage for things like ob-gyn, alzheimers, etc. I can choose things more efficiently for myself than government can. Same applies to everyone with an IQ above a box of rocks.
Employer health coverage is not free, it has to be paid for. An employers wages bill will take that into account and would be in a position to pay its employees more in absence of having to foot private health policies.
Yes. Agreed. Same can be said about government healthcare, too. Employer healthcare is more efficient than government, if it allows a wide choice of plans, and group economies of scale.
The cost of healthcare is so expensive in the US because so much costs are involved in the administration of policies, salesmen and dividends paid out to those who have invested in the industry that benefits off the sick.
That is A cost, but not THE cost, there are MANY greater costs.
With economy of scale, no profits to be made, no teams of salesmen to be accommodated, the overall cost would come down.
Ah, the mantra of dogmatic socialists. The mantra does indeed make sense, if you don't think about it too hard, and don't know the real world, and consequences of actions. We DO have government insurance in the US. A LOT of it. Funny how it almost always is a costly, innefficient fiasco. I've mentioned this before. Federal flood insurance. S & L's. Sallie Mae (student loans). Freddie Mac. Veterans Hospitals. Medicare.
If you take away the profit incentive, you take away the efficiency incentive. Just hand out policies, who cares if they are not actuarily sound. It's those salesmen and administrators who help keep things acturarily sound. The overall cost may go down temporarily, but it would bleed massive amounts of red ink, that have to be made up somewhere, usually in taxes or fees. Let's take a look, shall we, at Utopian American Socialized Insurance-
1. Federal Flood Insurance- Insures people who can't get insurance from private industry. Ya think there's a reason why? Gee, funny how they get stuck with an abnormally high % of flood claims!? That's because they get an abnormally high % of people who live in flood prone areas. Government charges more for that risk, but NOT NEARLY ENOUGH. It's a taxpayer ripoff. Wanna solve the problem? Tough love- don't enable people to build in floodprone areas. If they do, THEY have to pay for floods damage. But with no profit incentive, there's no financial checks and balances. Instead, taxpayers get stuck with massive losses.
2. S & L fiasco of the 80's. Hundreds of billions of dollars lost. Rich white bankers were cast as bad guys, and there's lots of blame there. But reality is, many were acting rationally. The government offered cheap insurance. So, S & L management could invest in safe 5% treasuries with no risk, or take very risky investments, say a 50% return with a 50% risk of losing it all. BUT... if the GOVERNMENT INSURANCE covers the loss, the riskier bet is a GREAT bet. In my business, we call it a high variance freeroll. How could the government offer such an exploitable policy? NO PROFIT INCENTIVE!!!!! Cost to taxpayers? Hundreds of billions, but buried in government red ink, out of sight, out of mind, no outrage.
3. Sallie Mae - I had one for $1500 for one year in college. Sure, no salesmen. No need to make a profit. And really, really bad customer service, automatic approval even if I was extremely unlikely to pay it back, no actuarial risk/reward payments, I was amazed at how vulnerable they were. Why? NO PROFIT INCENTIVE!!! That leads inevitably to innefficiency. Check recent news for Sallie Mae/Freddie Mac financial catastrophes and chaos. Yep, good old government insurance. Makes sense, if you just fell off a turnip truck.
4. Medicare. Not a bad idea, up to a point. But, typically, it's a government insurance policy that's grown humongously, way out of control, and is horrifically innefficient. Your friend Moore loves it, and I like it too, so far. Saves my family a ton. But bottom line is...IT'S A PONZI SCHEME!!! It is horribly underfunded, to the tune of, I believe, trillions of dollars. Why? No need to be worried about red ink. No profit incentive. Psssst- medicare is NOT free.
5. V.A. Hospitals Very low cost. No profit incentive. Very poor care. No need to worry about satisfied customers. For Americans who want socialized medicine, we have it. Check out V.A. Hospitals. This is your future.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 