You make a lot of good points peter. I'm curious as an alternative what would be the free market solution to people who are disqualified for pre-existing conditions? Would it be easier to get if there was more competition?
This man was born into a wealthy Jewish family. He went to private school, and then college, never worrying about money. He was born rich, and is rich now. He's never had to scrape up enough cash to not be able to afford Health care. He's never tried to file a large claim. He's never gotten in a bad accident and watched two different insurance companies pointing their fingers at each other while he doesn't get treated. He's never had a claim denied.
On a recentl local talk show (very very liberal), the guest was owner of an independent bookstore (very very successful, because she has readers clubs, gets all of the latest published authors for signing events, etc.) She went to China with others in same business At round table with CHINESE independent bookstore owners, the question was: what is your biggest headache? The Chinese owners said: "competition" from the GOVERNMENT bookstores who don't have to make a profit and under price!
The 25 Points of the NSDAP. 13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts). 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises. 17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. * and so on.
I disagree with Peter on one thing......... The guys in the Senate are not clueless, they know the enormous profits the government will make once this bill passes.
@Pangora2 What about for pre-existing conditions your born with? Or what about conditions that occur when you have insurance but then you need to report when you renew insurance? So basically your saying a high risk insurance company would emerge and target a untapped pool of customers that are left on the side lines? I don't think anyone should be forced at gunpoint to pay for someone else care. I was just wondering what the free market perspective is on approaching pre-existing problems.
You are in my prayers Peter, America needs you more then ever. We are collapsing and they keep chopping away at our legs. I have to wonder are they doing all this on purpose? Peter Schiff for Senate 2010! Rand Paul for Senate 2010! Ron Paul for President 2012!
Oh yes, the evil income tax. I apologize, but WITHOUT the income tax, I wouldn't have clean water to drink, roads to drive on, a military to protect me, countless medical advances made with federal grants, an education, electricity, or much of the technology I use today that was invented under grants. Of course, getting rid of the income tax would solve EVERYTHING. How could I be so stupid?
If Congress didn't do anything and stayed out of it, premiums would be so low that there wouldn't be anywhere near 37 million uninsured Americans. What many people just don't get when they repeat this number is that many of these people purposely choose not to have insurance.
What could the government do if those of us that are opposed to this kind of legislation refused to comply with it? Refuse to pay their penalties for not having insurance?
By the way, it's 'foresight'. I don't need to explain to you why people that don't become addicts should bear the financial burden of paying for someone else, that's just the way the private sector-ran health care system currently works. If it wasn't like that then the entire insurance structure would collapse.
Peter, if you got into the Senate and everyone looked to you for a plan, what would you propose? You say our government will be running health care if this bill passes but gov is already deeply involved in it. So, how do we reform the system? What would be a better method than this terrible bill? Do you believe the government should not be involved at all? Even local government? Do you see a minimal involvement? And in either case, how do we get there?
Because of that aid, their taxes are lower. If that aid stopped tomorrow, their government would have a choice on their hands: stop buying those supplies or raise taxes.
I've read all of Peter's books...boy do we need this truth-teller in the Senate! Ron Paul/Peter Schiff in 2012. End the Fed and take America back from the criminal bankster.
I am talking about non-cooperation, not resisting. If you resists, you will die. If you non-cooperate, you will be thrown in jail, at worst. So again, if those of us that are opposed to this legislation non-cooperate with it, what could the government do? It can barely afford to incarcerate less than 1% of the population, who are generally the poorest of the population. What could it do if even 5% of the population stopped cooperating if it passed this legislation?
Pre-existing conditions? He talked about that in this video. If your car is wrecked or your house burns down, and you don't already have insurance and try to buy it to cover those disasters, those are pre-existing conditions. If the government allowed you to shop around there might be a company willing to take the risk on someone like that. And because the private insurance won't cover someone for such a condition everyone has to be forced at gunpoint to do so?
As a human being, if you care so much, you are free to buy your next door neighbor a health insurance policy. Also, as a human being, why don't you care if your neighbor's house burns down? That's not too compassionate of you
But the fact that Hong Kong is technically not a country is IRRELEVANT. The fact that the USA has more people than Hong Kong is IRRELEVANT. The principle is still the same: Hong Kong has demonstrated that privately run health care is superior to socialized medicine. The point is that Hong Kongs free market system has contributed to their higher life expectancy scores.
CNN notes that there are 5 freedoms youd lose in health care reform as promoted by the Obama Administration: the freedom to choose your doctors, the freedom to choose whats in your plan, the freedom to keep your existing plan, the freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, and the freedom to choose high-deductible coverage.
Hong Kong has total private insurance and its citizen life expectancy is 82.3 that's higher than France, Canada, Britain, Spain, germany, ireland, Sweden, denmark, and Norway.
So what is it that makes your insurers in Poland fulfill their contractual obligations, and what is it that makes you feel that the ones in CA would not? I was interested in your insight into this.
"I know that there is some middle ground between private and public" - what is the meaning of this statement? I inferred from it that you believe some sort of a compromise/hybrid solution is better than either one of these two. Again, any empirical data to back that up? Or is that a belief, a general feeling?
Hahaha, oh my God, Obongo care will completely destroy private health care insurance! LOL It'll all be ruined! Thanks, Peter, for explaining this in such clear terms. I'm ever more thankful that I didn't vote for the men's bathroom attendant in chief.
The government budget of Israel is about 70 billion and the US gives Israel around 5 billion every year. Seven percent of Israel's government is subsidized by the US. Take that away and let's see how long your socialized medical insurance lasts.
The very FACT that we have laws against illegal drugs (ie regulation) destroys the very notion of your argument that the the black market for illegal drugs is a free market. They're running things because the government of Mexico is one of the most corrupt in the world. The prohibition of drugs is what makes it lucrative for criminal organizations. In fact the founder of the Mexican Gulf Cartel got his start bootlegging alcohol to the US during the prohibition days.
A single payer system negates insurance, which would lead to many problems, not just limited to what Peter brought up in this video. It will lead to rationing, higher costs, and longer waiting times for medical care like the rest of the developed world with single payer systems. There is no panacea, but the reason the free market solution (the best that can be expected) is no longer in use is because of government interference. Peter is greatly needed in Washington!
So I guess they'll eventually raise the penalty for not having insurance so that everyone will be forced to get the government insurance. What a great time to be a 20 year old.
Actually...yes, exactly. Classical liberals were people like Mises, Rothbard & Hayek. New liberals are people like Obama, Pelosi, & Frank. They really couldnt be much more opposite.
A single payer system (whether it is from the gov or a contracted insurance company) would significantly drive down the cost of care, create better access to care, and significantly reduce the "middle man" which has been the big insurance companies making huge profits. Health care should be a right not a commodity. Think of it as education. Every child has a right to be educated in public schools. They should have a right to care.
Peter, And what we have now is better because............................why? Government bailed out the banks who were being wreckless with the countries financial health. Why should'nt government pay for a guy who can't stop eating cheetos and drinking 48 oz. cokes for breakfast?
I already said that I have nothing against those born into a rich family, but my point is that this man has no idea WHY the legislation is being passed. As to the freedoms and liberties being taken by the evil government, I'd like you to look at two things for that. A, conservatives have passed more legislation that limits personal freedoms and have more stances to limit personal freedoms than liberals do. A tax is not a limit on personal freedoms and liberties.
guys, the point of this is talking about why this change to insurance wont work. Its stupid to pay for insurance until you are sick. socialized medicine would make more sense than this health care plan.
No I disagree, it doesnt start with government lack of understanding, it starts with government hatred of free markets, and governments need for more power
Well, saying "greed is a problem" is like blaming a plane crash on gravity. Greed is ubiquitous; however, in a free market greed is checked by the competition and the necessity to satisfy customers' needs. When the gov't steps in, it creates perverse incentives that distort the market and diminish people's freedom to vote with their dollars, which eliminates checks on greed and leads to quasi-monopolies. So blaming greed is pointless. People are people and will pursue their self interest.
I was actually using "you" in a hypothetical sense. The thing is, Federal and State laws in the United States have been designed to protect insurance companies from competition. Government created Barriers to entry and pro-trust statutes have allowed the insurance industry to get away with all sorts of shenanigans. Now, the pendulum is swinging the other way, and insurance companies will easily be destroyed by the current bills in congress. Why can't we just bring back the free market?
- healthy people need to buy the insurance to pay for the unhealthy people, but most healthy people would rather take the fine that the government will impose instead of paying astronomical costs for health care they don't feel they need. I know this for a fact because I currently have no health insurance, and I'm very lucky to be healthy, and I guarantee you it will be cheaper to take the fine than health care. And if you think I'm stupid to not have health care -
Preventative care is definately something we do not have here in the US. The average time a patient spends with their doctor per visit is only 8 minutes. And people wonder why doctor's malpractice insurance costs are so high?
There is nothing wrong with being pro-capitalism on most issues today. The reason why it seems so repetitive is that free-market economists do not assume a certain solution to a problem. The only thing they know for sure is that the most cost effective solution will be generated or else business will go bankrupt. Government does not have to worry about going bankrupt that is why its always inefficient.
Just imagine if we were to give free GOV health care to poor people who can't afford it they may actually want to live and that will cost even more money. Howard Stern
Peter doesn't like the current system. Just because someone doesn't want the government running healthcare(though they already control 65% of it), doesn't mean we like what we currently have at all. It's too expensive already, precisely because government is in it too much already. We don't have a 'free market' healthcare system...there is no such thing in America. Peter also was the most outspoken critic of the bank bailouts, saying to this day that none of them should've happened.
The current population of Hong Kong is 38,482,919. That is more than the population of Ireland, more than the population of New Zealand, more than the population of Finland, more than the population of Iceland, and more than the population of Denmark.
Because the ones here in Poland fulfill their contractual obligations. The one's back in CA did whatever they could to weasel out of doing their duties. I was also denied coverage in CA for a non-serious pre-existing condition (one I was born with). I feel comfortable with my private insurer here in Poland. Back in CA I always felt like I was one bad accident away from bankruptcy/ becoming a liability to my family (insurance is supposed to insure against this.)
But we're on the road to having both socialized medicine and being the world's police force. It's not sustainable. And Ron Paul and I would rather have neither.
I live in Denmark in Europe. We also hear about the whole social health care reform. Honestly we have a really hard time understanding why some people are against the health care reform. In our eyes it looks like it's the medical business who are afraid of loosing more money. The reason for that is simply, that alot of countries in Europe has a social health care reform, and the truth is that it works really really good. It's not without a reason we are ranked as the happiest people in the....
Hardly a serious argument. Here's what makes pretty good sense to me: forced indirect contributions (taxes)+layers of gov't bureaucracy+gov't's track record of overspending and underdelivering=worse results. Makes sense, no? Name 1 gov't program that delivered better results than private sector. Hell, name ONE program that actually delivered the promised results and stayed EVEN REMOTELY within projected budget!! Medicare, Medicaid, public education, war on poverty: all EPIC FAILS. Stay empirical
"As a human being, if you care so much, you are free to buy your next door neighbor a health insurance policy." Dont pretend that isnt condescending. And I do voluntary work. Im an organ donor. I donate blood. And Im willing to pay 50% in taxes so that ppl I dont know can get a place to stay and food.
There is plenty of European firms who produce medicine. The issue here is primarily how long a patent should last (that is, how long the firm should hold monopoly) and how much you can invent around a patent (that is, how "broad" should the monopoly be). And if you invent a x-ray machine thats cheaper to operate then you will sell them anyway (but you have a point too...). And definitions of words are actually pretty important. Otherwise you will end up arguing about different things.
If they add nothing then why do people buy it? Nobody has to buy insurance. You could just save your money and pay directly out of pocket, but then you're taking a risk. That's what insurance adds...protection from risk.
What do you think makes the private insurance companies where you live excellent, and the private insurance companies in California "scum"? Both are private. Why do you think there is such a huge difference?
Thats one thing you got right. This IS pathetic. I pay my taxes, I donate blood and I spend time with voluntary work. So this doesnt magically coincide with 50% now does it? We´ve been through this... Neither do I support lower taxes so that less fortunate can mind their business elsewhere.
Says here Medibank Private.. government owned private insurer.. became non-profit this year. BTW the American people didn't bend over backward for them, it was the government who did so and forced them on us. Get your history straight.
If you're willing to part with 50% of your income, BUT ARE NOT DOING IT, what's stopping you? Without action, "willingness" is just a declarative statement (intended to demonstrate moral superiority?) that's worth zero Paying taxes is no moral feat: it's not something you do, it's something that's done to you. Only a voluntary act can be moral. It's what you do with your money voluntarily that matters. Hey, I'm WILLING to pay 100% in taxes - because I care!!! I won't do it but I'm willing :)
Contrary to some comments in this thread, what really happens is that consumers pick their insurance and thus real competition is in place to force the insurance companies to be competitive. Unfortunately for those with pre-existing conditions they will pay a higher premium, just like people with a lot of accidents, DWIs, or speeding tickets pay higher premiums. Insurance is supposed to be based on risk, high risk, high premium because it's more likely you'll collect. It's only fair.
Yes, everyone is covered! If they die while on a government waiting list that's unfortunate, but they are covered! If they can't afford a trip to the US to have the procedure done in time that's unfortunate, but they are covered! If they can't get the drug because the company won't sell it because they can't match their costs and it won't be available generically for years, so sad, but they are covered! It must be nice for the surviving family members to know that the deceased was covered.
I thought that suicide bombings, the occasional shelling, and being surrounded by nations that would prefer you didn't exist would be a bit stressful... I could be wrong..I don't live there.
Have you noticed that Gold has soared to record highs lately? That is inflation. But if you notice the exchange rates, they haven't changed nearly as much. That is because other countries currencies are also dropping. Because nearly all, Euro countries are running large deficits. Not as large as US, but still very large deficits. Running in the red is not a long term solution to health care. It just makes poor people poorer, and poor people have a tough time making healthy choices with no money
The point is not what we pay now in taxes, it is what we will have to pay in the future. Enjoy your sliding scales and mandatory military service, we will remain free.
When special privileges are granted by gov't and things such as regulatory barriers to entries are constructed it should be no surprise that prices get out of hand.
it already does! hospitals are not allowed to turn away someone at the emergency room regardless of whether or not they have insurance, therefore if an "illegal or bum" goes to the emergency room today they will rack up a bill that will go unpaid so the insurance companies need to raise premiums on people who do pay for insurance so hospitals can make up those costs
Loved watching this in 2018 seeing him DEAD on the money
I love when Peter starts off with "just when you thought the Senate couldn't do anything stupider..."
"...no one in there has a brain!" I love you, Peter Schiff! That made my day, thanks!
Do you have any data to support that argument? Or is that more of a general feeling?
You make a lot of good points peter.
I'm curious as an alternative what would be the free market solution to people who are disqualified for pre-existing conditions? Would it be easier to get if there was more competition?
This man was born into a wealthy Jewish family. He went to private school, and then college, never worrying about money. He was born rich, and is rich now. He's never had to scrape up enough cash to not be able to afford Health care. He's never tried to file a large claim. He's never gotten in a bad accident and watched two different insurance companies pointing their fingers at each other while he doesn't get treated. He's never had a claim denied.
On a recentl local talk show (very very liberal), the guest was owner of an independent bookstore (very very successful, because she has readers clubs, gets all of the latest published authors for signing events, etc.)
She went to China with others in same business
At round table with CHINESE independent bookstore owners, the question was: what is your biggest headache?
The Chinese owners said: "competition" from the GOVERNMENT bookstores who don't have to make a profit and under price!
I love listening to this guy speak, no bullshit, I love it.
Go Peter!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 25 Points of the NSDAP.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *
and so on.
@xander1980 If you are not from the USA then why did you make a grammar mistake that only native speakers from the USA make?
Peter Schiff Rules!!!!
I disagree with Peter on one thing......... The guys in the Senate are not clueless, they know the enormous profits the government will make once this bill passes.
My god...I really hope Peter gets in the Senate.
Yes!!!! Thank you for saying that. When will people understand that what we have in the US is NOT insurance?!?
"Can the senators really be this stupid as Peter has outlined?"
No they're worse.
Where are the insurance companies?!?
@Pangora2
What about for pre-existing conditions your born with? Or what about conditions that occur when you have insurance but then you need to report when you renew insurance?
So basically your saying a high risk insurance company would emerge and target a untapped pool of customers that are left on the side lines?
I don't think anyone should be forced at gunpoint to pay for someone else care. I was just wondering what the free market perspective is on approaching pre-existing problems.
You are in my prayers Peter, America needs you more then ever.
We are collapsing and they keep chopping away at our legs.
I have to wonder are they doing all this on purpose?
Peter Schiff for Senate 2010!
Rand Paul for Senate 2010!
Ron Paul for President 2012!
@dweber73609 so do you think think insurance companies will start failing in 2014?
Oh yes, the evil income tax. I apologize, but WITHOUT the income tax, I wouldn't have clean water to drink, roads to drive on, a military to protect me, countless medical advances made with federal grants, an education, electricity, or much of the technology I use today that was invented under grants.
Of course, getting rid of the income tax would solve EVERYTHING. How could I be so stupid?
So what could the government do to those of us that are opposed to this legislation if we refused to cooperate with the legislation?
If Congress didn't do anything and stayed out of it, premiums would be so low that there wouldn't be anywhere near 37 million uninsured Americans.
What many people just don't get when they repeat this number is that many of these people purposely choose not to have insurance.
What could the government do if those of us that are opposed to this kind of legislation refused to comply with it? Refuse to pay their penalties for not having insurance?
By the way, it's 'foresight'. I don't need to explain to you why people that don't become addicts should bear the financial burden of paying for someone else, that's just the way the private sector-ran health care system currently works. If it wasn't like that then the entire insurance structure would collapse.
I greatly appreciate you taking the time to make these videos. Thanks Peter.
Peter, if you got into the Senate and everyone looked to you for a plan, what would you propose? You say our government will be running health care if this bill passes but gov is already deeply involved in it. So, how do we reform the system? What would be a better method than this terrible bill? Do you believe the government should not be involved at all? Even local government? Do you see a minimal involvement? And in either case, how do we get there?
Because of that aid, their taxes are lower.
If that aid stopped tomorrow, their government would have a choice on their hands: stop buying those supplies or raise taxes.
I've read all of Peter's books...boy do we need this truth-teller in the Senate! Ron Paul/Peter Schiff in 2012. End the Fed and take America back from the criminal bankster.
I am talking about non-cooperation, not resisting. If you resists, you will die. If you non-cooperate, you will be thrown in jail, at worst. So again, if those of us that are opposed to this legislation non-cooperate with it, what could the government do? It can barely afford to incarcerate less than 1% of the population, who are generally the poorest of the population. What could it do if even 5% of the population stopped cooperating if it passed this legislation?
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin
Pre-existing conditions? He talked about that in this video. If your car is wrecked or your house burns down, and you don't already have insurance and try to buy it to cover those disasters, those are pre-existing conditions.
If the government allowed you to shop around there might be a company willing to take the risk on someone like that. And because the private insurance won't cover someone for such a condition everyone has to be forced at gunpoint to do so?
Schiff for President!
As a human being, if you care so much, you are free to buy your next door neighbor a health insurance policy.
Also, as a human being, why don't you care if your neighbor's house burns down? That's not too compassionate of you
But the fact that Hong Kong is technically not a country is IRRELEVANT. The fact that the USA has more people than Hong Kong is IRRELEVANT. The principle is still the same: Hong Kong has demonstrated that privately run health care is superior to socialized medicine. The point is that Hong Kongs free market system has contributed to their higher life expectancy scores.
It's funny how the Senate debate isn't getting any MSM news coverage.
In what way do you mean "influence"? Type of treatment or the political process?
CNN notes that there are 5 freedoms youd lose in health care reform as promoted by the Obama Administration: the freedom to choose your doctors, the freedom to choose whats in your plan, the freedom to keep your existing plan, the freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, and the freedom to choose high-deductible coverage.
Hong Kong has total private insurance and its citizen life expectancy is 82.3
that's higher than France, Canada, Britain, Spain, germany, ireland, Sweden, denmark, and Norway.
So what is it that makes your insurers in Poland fulfill their contractual obligations, and what is it that makes you feel that the ones in CA would not? I was interested in your insight into this.
"I know that there is some middle ground between private and public" - what is the meaning of this statement? I inferred from it that you believe some sort of a compromise/hybrid solution is better than either one of these two. Again, any empirical data to back that up? Or is that a belief, a general feeling?
It's ok to spend billions on war but as soon as they wanna help people with their health care it becomes something worth fighting against!!
Hahaha, oh my God, Obongo care will completely destroy private health care insurance! LOL It'll all be ruined!
Thanks, Peter, for explaining this in such clear terms. I'm ever more thankful that I didn't vote for the men's bathroom attendant in chief.
Peter Schiff 2010! -- Ron Paul 2012!--Rand Paul 2010!
This is absolutely hysterical. You should put this in writing somewhere.
The government budget of Israel is about 70 billion and the US gives Israel around 5 billion every year. Seven percent of Israel's government is subsidized by the US. Take that away and let's see how long your socialized medical insurance lasts.
How long is an average doctor visit in the UK?
If you have a national health cover, you do not need medical insurance.
The very FACT that we have laws against illegal drugs (ie regulation) destroys the very notion of your argument that the the black market for illegal drugs is a free market. They're running things because the government of Mexico is one of the most corrupt in the world. The prohibition of drugs is what makes it lucrative for criminal organizations. In fact the founder of the Mexican Gulf Cartel got his start bootlegging alcohol to the US during the prohibition days.
A single payer system negates insurance, which would lead to many problems, not just limited to what Peter brought up in this video. It will lead to rationing, higher costs, and longer waiting times for medical care like the rest of the developed world with single payer systems. There is no panacea, but the reason the free market solution (the best that can be expected) is no longer in use is because of government interference. Peter is greatly needed in Washington!
So I guess they'll eventually raise the penalty for not having insurance so that everyone will be forced to get the government insurance.
What a great time to be a 20 year old.
Actually...yes, exactly. Classical liberals were people like Mises, Rothbard & Hayek. New liberals are people like Obama, Pelosi, & Frank. They really couldnt be much more opposite.
A single payer system (whether it is from the gov or a contracted insurance company) would significantly drive down the cost of care, create better access to care, and significantly reduce the "middle man" which has been the big insurance companies making huge profits.
Health care should be a right not a commodity. Think of it as education. Every child has a right to be educated in public schools. They should have a right to care.
thanks Mr. Schiff
wanna definetly ruin health care? vote for the reform. sheep!
Peter,
And what we have now is better because............................why?
Government bailed out the banks who were being wreckless with the countries financial health.
Why should'nt government pay for a guy who can't stop eating cheetos and drinking 48 oz. cokes for breakfast?
many parts of the bill went into effect immediately and before 2014, has it effected the industry negatively?
I already said that I have nothing against those born into a rich family, but my point is that this man has no idea WHY the legislation is being passed.
As to the freedoms and liberties being taken by the evil government, I'd like you to look at two things for that. A, conservatives have passed more legislation that limits personal freedoms and have more stances to limit personal freedoms than liberals do. A tax is not a limit on personal freedoms and liberties.
You sure sound it...Govt single payer health care will be a nightmare of poor quality, dead innovation, rationing, exploding cost, on and on.
Never underestimate stupid people doing even more stupid things. There is no end to stupid. It's a virus.
guys, the point of this is talking about why this change to insurance wont work. Its stupid to pay for insurance until you are sick. socialized medicine would make more sense than this health care plan.
No I disagree, it doesnt start with government lack of understanding, it starts with government hatred of free markets, and governments need for more power
Well, saying "greed is a problem" is like blaming a plane crash on gravity. Greed is ubiquitous; however, in a free market greed is checked by the competition and the necessity to satisfy customers' needs. When the gov't steps in, it creates perverse incentives that distort the market and diminish people's freedom to vote with their dollars, which eliminates checks on greed and leads to quasi-monopolies.
So blaming greed is pointless. People are people and will pursue their self interest.
I was actually using "you" in a hypothetical sense.
The thing is, Federal and State laws in the United States have been designed to protect insurance companies from competition. Government created Barriers to entry and pro-trust statutes have allowed the insurance industry to get away with all sorts of shenanigans.
Now, the pendulum is swinging the other way, and insurance companies will easily be destroyed by the current bills in congress.
Why can't we just bring back the free market?
This analysis should have been all over the news!
- healthy people need to buy the insurance to pay for the unhealthy people, but most healthy people would rather take the fine that the government will impose instead of paying astronomical costs for health care they don't feel they need. I know this for a fact because I currently have no health insurance, and I'm very lucky to be healthy, and I guarantee you it will be cheaper to take the fine than health care. And if you think I'm stupid to not have health care -
Preventative care is definately something we do not have here in the US. The average time a patient spends with their doctor per visit is only 8 minutes.
And people wonder why doctor's malpractice insurance costs are so high?
There is nothing wrong with being pro-capitalism on most issues today. The reason why it seems so repetitive is that free-market economists do not assume a certain solution to a problem. The only thing they know for sure is that the most cost effective solution will be generated or else business will go bankrupt. Government does not have to worry about going bankrupt that is why its always inefficient.
fahimh, you are 100% correct and let me add that Paul Volker who raised interest rates to combat inflation was appointed by Jimmy Carter not Reagan
I agree we need to put an end to Government stupidity!
Just imagine if we were to give free GOV health care to poor people who can't afford it they may actually want to live and that will cost even more money.
Howard Stern
Commie cowards will be defeated for this. Barrell of a gun socialism has never worked. Thanks for the great comments.
Peter doesn't like the current system. Just because someone doesn't want the government running healthcare(though they already control 65% of it), doesn't mean we like what we currently have at all.
It's too expensive already, precisely because government is in it too much already. We don't have a 'free market' healthcare system...there is no such thing in America.
Peter also was the most outspoken critic of the bank bailouts, saying to this day that none of them should've happened.
The current population of Hong Kong is 38,482,919. That is more than the population of Ireland, more than the population of New Zealand, more than the population of Finland, more than the population of Iceland, and more than the population of Denmark.
Because the ones here in Poland fulfill their contractual obligations. The one's back in CA did whatever they could to weasel out of doing their duties. I was also denied coverage in CA for a non-serious pre-existing condition (one I was born with).
I feel comfortable with my private insurer here in Poland. Back in CA I always felt like I was one bad accident away from bankruptcy/ becoming a liability to my family (insurance is supposed to insure against this.)
I agree. When qualified by highly regulated markets, then, yes.
However, the free market is most definitely preferred!
The last thing liberalism stands for is liberation. It stands for govt control. Power to the govt.
But we're on the road to having both socialized medicine and being the world's police force.
It's not sustainable.
And Ron Paul and I would rather have neither.
I live in Denmark in Europe. We also hear about the whole social health care reform. Honestly we have a really hard time understanding why some people are against the health care reform. In our eyes it looks like it's the medical business who are afraid of loosing more money. The reason for that is simply, that alot of countries in Europe has a social health care reform, and the truth is that it works really really good. It's not without a reason we are ranked as the happiest people in the....
You don't "care" when it's the government forcing you. Only a free action is moral.
if there is a way to stop doctors from getting sued so much, maybe their prices will come down and we wont need insurance at all.
Hardly a serious argument. Here's what makes pretty good sense to me: forced indirect contributions (taxes)+layers of gov't bureaucracy+gov't's track record of overspending and underdelivering=worse results. Makes sense, no?
Name 1 gov't program that delivered better results than private sector. Hell, name ONE program that actually delivered the promised results and stayed EVEN REMOTELY within projected budget!! Medicare, Medicaid, public education, war on poverty: all EPIC FAILS. Stay empirical
"As a human being, if you care so much, you are free to buy your next door neighbor a health insurance policy." Dont pretend that isnt condescending.
And I do voluntary work. Im an organ donor. I donate blood. And Im willing to pay 50% in taxes so that ppl I dont know can get a place to stay and food.
There is plenty of European firms who produce medicine. The issue here is primarily how long a patent should last (that is, how long the firm should hold monopoly) and how much you can invent around a patent (that is, how "broad" should the monopoly be).
And if you invent a x-ray machine thats cheaper to operate then you will sell them anyway (but you have a point too...).
And definitions of words are actually pretty important. Otherwise you will end up arguing about different things.
If they add nothing then why do people buy it? Nobody has to buy insurance. You could just save your money and pay directly out of pocket, but then you're taking a risk. That's what insurance adds...protection from risk.
What do you think makes the private insurance companies where you live excellent, and the private insurance companies in California "scum"? Both are private. Why do you think there is such a huge difference?
Thats one thing you got right. This IS pathetic. I pay my taxes, I donate blood and I spend time with voluntary work. So this doesnt magically coincide with 50% now does it? We´ve been through this... Neither do I support lower taxes so that less fortunate can mind their business elsewhere.
He'll actually be making less money when he goes to the Senate.
Says here Medibank Private.. government owned private insurer.. became non-profit this year. BTW the American people didn't bend over backward for them, it was the government who did so and forced them on us. Get your history straight.
I understand what you are talking about now. I agree.
should we short blue shield?
If you're willing to part with 50% of your income, BUT ARE NOT DOING IT, what's stopping you? Without action, "willingness" is just a declarative statement (intended to demonstrate moral superiority?) that's worth zero
Paying taxes is no moral feat: it's not something you do, it's something that's done to you. Only a voluntary act can be moral. It's what you do with your money voluntarily that matters.
Hey, I'm WILLING to pay 100% in taxes - because I care!!! I won't do it but I'm willing :)
Contrary to some comments in this thread, what really happens is that consumers pick their insurance and thus real competition is in place to force the insurance companies to be competitive. Unfortunately for those with pre-existing conditions they will pay a higher premium, just like people with a lot of accidents, DWIs, or speeding tickets pay higher premiums. Insurance is supposed to be based on risk, high risk, high premium because it's more likely you'll collect. It's only fair.
the solution is to let insurance companies sell their coverage across state lines. that will increase competition immensely and drive costs down.
Yes, everyone is covered! If they die while on a government waiting list that's unfortunate, but they are covered! If they can't afford a trip to the US to have the procedure done in time that's unfortunate, but they are covered! If they can't get the drug because the company won't sell it because they can't match their costs and it won't be available generically for years, so sad, but they are covered!
It must be nice for the surviving family members to know that the deceased was covered.
I thought that suicide bombings, the occasional shelling, and being surrounded by nations that would prefer you didn't exist would be a bit stressful...
I could be wrong..I don't live there.
Have you noticed that Gold has soared to record highs lately? That is inflation. But if you notice the exchange rates, they haven't changed nearly as much. That is because other countries currencies are also dropping. Because nearly all, Euro countries are running large deficits. Not as large as US, but still very large deficits. Running in the red is not a long term solution to health care. It just makes poor people poorer, and poor people have a tough time making healthy choices with no money
The point is not what we pay now in taxes, it is what we will have to pay in the future. Enjoy your sliding scales and mandatory military service, we will remain free.
When special privileges are granted by gov't and things such as regulatory barriers to entries are constructed it should be no surprise that prices get out of hand.
it already does! hospitals are not allowed to turn away someone at the emergency room regardless of whether or not they have insurance, therefore if an "illegal or bum" goes to the emergency room today they will rack up a bill that will go unpaid so the insurance companies need to raise premiums on people who do pay for insurance so hospitals can make up those costs