patrick.net

jjmcdonald says

Bankruptcy is a part of capitalism and there is no "too big to fail company". And if it is truly "too big to fail" so that it requires a bailout then it is too big and should be broken up.

Amen. "Too big to fail" = socialism

jjmcdonald says

This limit will eliminate any new insurance companies with innovative ideas from being formed as their profit cannot be higher than big established companies.

Well, since when do insurance companies "innovate"? All they do is take your money, and (maybe) give some of it back when disaster strikes.

Other than that, your points are well taken.

that is what I was suggesting above with my "make insurance companies prevent fires" post. kinda.

wthrfrk80 says

Well, since when do insurance companies "innovate"?

They think of new ways to rip you off?

Innovation takes place in many forms in insurance.

1. There are process innovations such as improved data processing through better software, support for on-line diagnosis, faster over-the-counter qualifications, support for out-patient care, noticing duplicate prescriptions and dangerous overlapping treatment plans. Insurance companies drive a lot of innovation in the medical industry by pushing doctors toward new lower cost effective treatments after they were proven out in one location. Going forward, innovations like these will not be profit effective for the insurance companies.

These types of innovation are acknowledged by the Obama admin but instead of encouraging the private sector with tax cuts, etc. Obama has directly thrown billions at medical records updates. Far more money than the entire insurance industry makes in a year in vain attempt to save money. Obama truly believes that government folks can drive innovation better than private industry - thus this medical record fiasco and green energy fiascos.

2. There are coverage innovations like coming up with different plans to meet the needs of various groups. Think car insurance - safe driver discounts, good grade discounts, bundling discounts, etc. All of this is done away with in Obamacare - so you are essentially going to have to pay for those that make poor lifestyle choices of pre-existing folks. I suspect as the cost of coverage skyrockets once all the pre-existing folks are finally covered ... the government will start to introduce additional penalties and coverage limits, etc.

3. Insurance companies are very tough on doctor's and their billing practices. There will far less incentive for the insurance companies to be tough on doctors as their profit is no longer directly tied to expense reduction. Innovation in terms of financial arrangements like HMOs were at one time, or groups of doctor's getting together to provide care, etc. will be extremely difficult to start because there is no additional profit incentive for investors to invest in various schemes.

I'm not saying that Obamacare is the end of the US healthcare system, but over time our healthcare system will lose the massive innovation edge we hold today, wait times will grow, and treatments become more scarce, medical tourism will increase. It will happen slowly, just as Medicare is getting worse every year now.

Cheers

Bap33 says

don't try to limit your search to just EPA's actions.

The EPA represent environmental interests of the people. They get in the way of corporate interests, who are the providers of all the anti-EPA propaganda.

You're a good ol boy bap, but on a gullibility scale of 1 to 10, your a 12.

You've got nothin.

Any legitimate claim that logging companies can make against EPA regulations would force a change in policy because they have big bucks lobbyists behind them. Plus after 8 yeas of Bush undoing a lot of the good CLinton did in the name of conservation (a conservative cause if there ever was one), I haven't heard of Obama doing much. The commie pinko homosexual nazi propaganda that all the dim bulb racist lap up is too strong for Obama to get behind hardly any near center issues (I'm not even talking left - that's WAY off the table).

jjmcdonald says

I'm not saying that Obamacare is the end of the US healthcare system, but over time our healthcare system will lose the massive innovation edge we hold today

None of those "innovations" are precluded by ACA.

1. Ridiculous. Insurance companies don't give 2 figs about cutting costs in specific areas, only HMO finance people do.

2. Ridiculous. ACA doesn't discourage differing coverage plans.

3. Ridiculous. Insurance companies need to "financially innovate" like we all need a hole in the head. If they were "tough on doctors" we wouldn't be seeing medical costs inflate faster than inflation for years as has been happening under the existing system.

Let's drop the "Obamacare" since we are moving forward with it. Your 3 points all seem to involve a lot of micro-management of healthcare by the insurance companies. It's always bad when government does it, but always good when a bunch of guys with actuarial tables do it? Strange.

The "intelligent Republicans" will mewl and cry for Federal aid when disaster strikes. Oh and some tax handouts too for good measure. They only need help with their bootstrap purchase of course, otherwise they want government to not even exist. They won't talk about this of course, it's SHAMEFUL. They prefer to spend all their time resurrecting Reagan's corpse and the mythical Welfare Queen who hoovers up money faster than the Pentagon.

Yeah that's the thing. "Tax and spend" is more responsible than "borrow and spend." Sure, we'd all like to see less spending until it's OUR pet cause that gets cut.

The theory is that if you spend and spend, without ever paying for it, then the federal government will be under such financial pressure that all of the safety nets brought about by FDR and Johnson can be undone, and we can go back to the wonderful gilded age. Cheap labor and infinite riches for the 1% (maybe some spillover to the top 15 or 20%.) of course this doesn't take in to consideration our consumption driven economy. Details.

See "starve the beast."

I wonder whether we will get through this election cycle without democrats trying to explain how much of current deficit spending was initiated under Bush.

I think they figure the people won't understand, and so they'll let Obama be painted as a big spender.

marcus says

The EPA represent environmental interests of the people. They get in the way of corporate interests, who are the providers of all the anti-EPA propaganda

The RED paint on the Golden Gate Bridge, like many other bridges, is lead based.. but we do scrape it off and it falls into the bay... yep lots of toxic lead floating in the Bay!

Alright TomWong, that's the last straw. That's just ridiculous far-right trolling.

Yes I've heard about "starve the beast." A totally insane strategy.

wthrfrk80 says

Alright TomWong, that's the last straw. That's just ridiculous far-right trolling.

So we have a price to pay!marcus says

The EPA represent environmental interests of the people. They get in the way of corporate interests, who are the providers of all the anti-EPA propaganda

Could we back in the early years with the current EPA establish something like Silicon valley which produced lots of Semi products which was the engine of the tech revolution... yes we used lots of toxics chemicals and acids in our production years which seeped into the ground water wells..

I got news for you... there wouldnt be a Silicon Valley today and we would not had any boom in the economy. That same reason exists why Libs in govt and media dont want mfg in the USA. For them the environment far exceeds the needs of the economy and any benefits to the people. thats why they say.. those jobs are gone!

thomas.wong1986 says

Even my local city/county firehouse ISNT equipped to handle a forest fires. We dont have fleets of air tankers, team of firefighter or support crew or a air strip ready to dump water...

Nor should it be. My question said nothing about requiring local fire stations or police depts to be responsible for federal land, only that they are equipped and able to handle their city's needs, and if these services are reduced is it proper that they then depend on federal support? Why do I have to keep spelling this out as if I were talking to a child?

And bringing in this business about the EPA and controlled burns, and why this may have happened etc etc, is just total BS in this context. It has zilch to do with the question at hand and everything to do with avoiding the issue and attempting to obscure the point and create another soapbox issue to play the "lib v con" game.

You guys love this game, I get it. And thats why you keep trying to drag us back to it. But situations like this, where people's homes and lives are burning and its horrific and the reasons are evident, doesn't it just for a second or two make you stop and realize it's not a game? There are consequences to choices?

thomas.wong1986 says

That same reason exists why Libs in govt and media dont want mfg in the USA. For them the environment far exceeds the needs of the economy and any benefits to the people. thats why they say.. those jobs are gone!

WTF? First off, this is totally off topic and I'm going to ask you to get back on topic - you can spout this on other threads or create one dedicated to your ideas of libs and how they just want to screw trees - but dude, are you insane? Is that your problem? Statements like that are just so beyond reality, they're honestly delusional.

thomas.wong1986 says

The RED paint on the Golden Gate Bridge, like many other bridges, is lead based.. but we do scrape it off and it falls into the bay... yep lots of toxic lead floating in the Bay!

can you please stay on the topic of this thread? If you have nothing to say to the issue of the thread, and so far you have not, then please just stop making noise and obscuring the content. Christ, you're like a ten year old.

Hi Vincente,

Thanks for the feedback.

1. Yes, insurance companies do care about cost control. 85% of your insurance premiums already go to medical care cost. That is why the Obama administration picked 15% as the max profit allowed. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had to compete so if they wanted a greater market share by offering lower premiums they had to contain their costs through deals with "approved" doctors - in-system vs. not-in-system care, co-pays, avoiding certain pre-condition patients that were very expensive, etc.

After Obamacare many of the traditional avenues to contain costs have been removed and even worse the incentive to contain costs has been dramatically reduced. The incentive is to merge with other insurance companies.

2. The ACA removes the pre-existing condition for coverage and sets max premium payments. This greatly limits variability or flexibility that insurance companies have in determining how they want to offer coverage. Analogy time, you are not going to get a Ferrari if all you are allowed to pay is $10,000. Thus if someone wants a really premium plan they cannot get it as the government won't let them pay for it. This was a friction point with some unions.

3. The reason healthcare costs have skyrocketed is for many reasons - while the D's love to blame insurance companies, insurance companies did not create this mess. Remember medical insurance companies only keep 15% of every medical dollar. Obama has already wasted far more money on gov-run healthcare than the entire profit of the private insurance industry.

Reason healthcare cost are skyrocketing:
a. aging population
b. new innovative medical treatments that are extremely expensive
c. FDA regulations require massive costs in bringing drugs and devices to market
d. obesity problem in America
e. all kinds of federal, state, and local mandates that dictate quality of care, what is covered, record keeping, new privacy laws, etc.

Medical insurance companies are not and were not the problem. In fact, if anything they were buffering the full extent of the financial problem by being real cost control pains and aggravating a lot of high medical users. Now that Obamacare is in the process of removing their cost control function - it will be interesting to see how fast the D's have to move to re-institute mandatory price controls, care limitations. They are going to have to, it is only a matter of time.

Of course, the D's may just blame their gov-mandated and controlled insurance companies to take the heat for them and then say that the government must take over everything to get to a single payer government program. We'll see.

Cheers

jjmcdonald says

Yes, insurance companies do care about cost control.

Horseshit.

No disrespect, but they are bean-counters who care about the black box.

Let's put it in FIRE terms, since this thread is about FIRE, not about your obsession with ACA.

Do you think insurance companies go around policing the fire departments?

They care about their payout rates. There are a lot of factors in that, which they may look at. But they are used to determine the rates they charge, and the language of the terms under which they will actually pay off. I stretch the analogy a bit for you, since fire departments are not (currently) paid off by the insurance companies. But if they were, it still wouldn't change the calculus. Insurance companies look for ways to wiggle and not pay off your policy when your house burns, the same as they want to not pay when you have a pre-existing condition or your hernia is "too expensive" for them. Insurance is a huge con game where they want to do their best to get your money, and not give it back.

Hi Vicente,

I agree with you that insurance companies often are more focused on how not to payoff. Title insurance is the worst, Fire is pretty bad as you state, Life insurance is also not good. Car and Medical are actually among the best, if you define best as dollars in vs. dollars out on claims. It has been my experience that an insurance industry is better when the claim frequency is higher and for less money vs. when the claims are large and rare. In fact, with title insurance it seems you are doing nothing more than hiring lawyers to oppose you with your insurance.

I've never had a problem with medical insurance not paying up. I also think it is appropriate for an insurance company to challenge expenses -- if they did not then fraud would be easy and rates would go through the roof. There is a balance. Now will less incentive to challenge expenses under ACA, I expect that costs will increase even faster - until the gov steps in with cost controls and rationing.

Cheers

kentm says

You guys love this game, I get it. And thats why you keep trying to drag us back to it. But situations like this, where people's homes and lives are burning and its horrific and the reasons are evident, doesn't it just for a second or two make you stop and realize it's not a game? There are consequences to choices?

But "us vs. them" games are so much fun. Why do you think college and professional sports make so much money? And why else would people sign up en-masse for military service to kill those "goddam foreigners"?

jjmcdonald says

I've never had a problem with medical insurance not paying up.

It gets more complicated when it's an HMO though right? The doctors and insurance guys working hand in hand should ideal according to some. However my brother gets a hernia and has what looks like an alien coming out his abdomen, what happens? He goes in and is told "yeah we can schedule to do something about that in .... maybe 6 weeks". Because they ration the healthcare and tightly schedule availability of surgery rooms. Only persistent pressure and threats to come sit in their offices with his condition evident, sped up the process. Can you just "switch providers" in free market idealism while you are in the middle of a medical problem that makes you realize your provider is crap? No. And when you do switch, you won't know if they are any less a bunch of dimwits than the last guys until another emergency crops up.

jjmcdonald says

Of course, the D's may just blame their gov-mandated and controlled insurance companies to take the heat for them and then say that the government must take over everything to get to a single payer government program. We'll see.

It sounds like a great Machiavellian strategy. When the whole system goes tits-up, politicians can just blame the evil insurance companies.

kentm says

If you have nothing to say to the issue of the thread, and so far you have not, then please just stop making noise and obscuring the content. Christ, you're like a ten year old.

The ignore function is a beautiful thing.

kentm says

And bringing in this business about the EPA and controlled burns, and why this may have happened etc etc, is just total BS in this context. It has zilch to do with the question at hand and everything to do with avoiding the issue and attempting to obscure the point and create another soapbox issue to play the "lib v con" game.

I disagree. The actions of anti-logging have created the problem. Logging interests create jobs that built many of the towns that are now in danger. I am for clean air, clean water, and AMerican manufactuing. The loggers know more about tending to trees than greeny freaks do. Just like farmers know more about farming than the greeny freaks that will not allow more retention dams (and their power) in California. Just like power suppliers know more than greeny freaks about Nuke power. THe list goes on .... man made climate chage is false, but greeny freaks keep beating the drum ... not using DDT to kill mosquitos kills people, thanks to greeny freaks.

Now, to stay on topic I should just say, I disagree with you. I disagree with you.

Bap33 says

Now, to stay on topic I should just say, I disagree with you. I disagree with you.

The same intelligence he uses to form his totally unbiased beliefs is the same intelligence he used to get up to college level MAthematics when he was in the 9th grade, and in competing with all the other kids to get in to MIT at the age of 17, and he already had a PHD from harvard at the age of 23.

Geniuses like Bap, who proved through totally objective unbiased means their ability to do research and reason logically, competing with all of the best minds in the U.S. and winning, should not be argued with.

It should be obvious that man needs no protection from himself. If you just leave men to their own devices, they will take care of their bodies, their planet and each other. No way will they ever do harm to others in the interest of providing for themselves and their families. That's just not part of human nature. And with 7 billion people on the planet, all looking out for the best interest of the environment, it's pretty fucked up to think that the government need to involve itself in that. The government can only get in the way.

That's why all ideologies based on the idea that "humans are basically good" are doomed to fail. Often with body counts.

thomas.wong1986 says

The RED paint on the Golden Gate Bridge, like many other bridges, is lead based.. but we do scrape it off and it falls into the bay... yep lots of toxic lead floating in the Bay!

That's almost poetic.

Here's an example of the greeny fags lobbying for something that nobody should bother with. As if getting away from lead bullets is a worthwhile cause.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/index.html

jjmcdonald says

Title insurance is the worst, Fire is pretty bad as you state, Life insurance is also not good. Car and Medical are actually among the best, if you define best as dollars in vs. dollars out on claims. It has been my experience that an insurance industry is better when the claim frequency is higher and for less money vs. when the claims are large and rare. In fact, with title insurance it seems you are doing nothing more than hiring lawyers to oppose you with your insurance.

I've never had a problem with medical insurance not paying up.

From your comments I am assuming that you have never had medical expenses that amounted to much.

Yes, I have had no problem with medical insurance when the claims have been small and "normal". However, that is not what I need medical insurance for. Believe it or not some people do end up with large medical bills and it is not all that rare. When faced with a large bill medical insurance companies have been the worst I have ever dealt with. Probably the worst thing (of many constant hassles) that they did to me was when I had two kids in the hospital they twice, without one word to me, scheduled their insurance for cancellation. The only way I knew that my kids insurance was scheduled for cancellation was because the hospital found out a couple days before the cancellation was due to be in effect and the hospital informed me. Apparently there was some form that needed to be filed in order for the kids insurance to remain active (I guess kind of like the button in Lost that needed be pressed or the world would blow up). Also, one of the times they "lost" the form that I had sent in. I was only aware of this because I did a followup call the next day. I had to fill it out and fax it in or my kids insurance would have been canceled the next day. I did keep them on the phone while I faxed it in to make sure that they got it.

Another thing that many people don't realize is that our current medical system is in no way, shape, or form a "free market".

some people want a nanny state, some dont.
some people want to take money from the person who earned it and hand it over to the person they deem worthy, some don't.

marcus, how much simpler can I say that I disagree? I guess I missed your point.

BAp, I don't see the world as either or. IT's as if you think the world is either a bs fantasy version of liberal policy (THERE ARE ALMOST ZERO LIBERALS IN CONRESS). Or it's the righteous version of yours that is also fantasy.

Everything is so fucking polarized that it's not even possibly to talk about solutions. The real policies that matter, the ones that the government needs to address soon, don't pertain to abortion, or guns, or gays.

THey are first and foremost about taxes.

You've heard my argument 10 times, and possibly even comprehended it. We should pay our bills. Then and only then will we ever get spending under control.

Unfortunately, the borrow and spend republicans have already taken us to the brink.

Bap33 says

some people want a nanny state, some dont.
some people want to take money from the person who earned it and hand it over to the person they deem worthy, some don't.

So there's only two choices. All or nothing. Outright communism or the gilded age ?

I'll talk to you after the election Bap, otherwise, I'm just going to want to tell you how clueless you are.

Ok, longwinded and overly dramatic finish from me: I give up. Its been days and no "conservative" on this site has had the courage to directly accept or defend the issue of CO Springs, hell i think not one of them has actually even dared mentioned the name of the town in any of thier posts.

Of the usual gang only bap & thomas wong have dared to answer... but Bap has been talking around and around in circles on things that DO NOT MATTER to the core question, and thomas made a brief stab at talking about... something?... Lead paint on a bridge?... But other than that, nothing. Here was your chance to sing, boys, but nothing. Gutless wonders. Paper tigers.

One person made a nice attempt though again it was aimed at a broader philosophical point, but as usual it's all been either complete silence or distractions and endless prevaricating & dithering about the hypothetical "causes" of this or that and of course the blame for simply everything is heaped completely on the "greens" and "libs"... The intention in this context I suppose being to insinuate that the "greens" and "libs" are somehow even responsible for the results of this latest disaterous example of the results of the conservative policies.

I think it's because deep down, behind all the righteous indignation you guys KNOW that these policies are actually worthless, based on personal greed, that they sound nice on a personal level but have no place in a broader society, and are disasterous, as has been shown again by CO Springs.

Disaster response is a form of "national defense" I think. I don't see why some conservatives seem to oppose it.

Mabye because disaster response doesn't benefit defense contractors or secure foreign resources for our corporations.

And god forbid we help black people recover from a disaster.

marcus says

We should pay our bills

FIRST we need to close the border and send home invaders and their spawn - to save money.
THEN we should make less bills that are from any form of welfare - to save money
THEN ask me about taking more from workers in the form of tax - to raise money. I may agree.

I am for a flat tax though, not this screw-the-wealthy tax system we have been using. It is wrong.

despite what kent keeps hoping, the cancer of liberalism is behind most every disaster in America.

one more thing, there are very few conservatives who bother posting on here any more. Almost none. Leaving the voice up to me is laughable. But, only an idiot would equate what goes on here to anything out in the real world.

Bap33 says

FIRST we need to close the border and send home invaders and their spawn - to save money.

Maybe we should throw the employers hiring the illegals to boost their profits at the expense of us workers in jail and take their assets as ill gotten gains. No one would employ illegals then. If there are no jobs for illegals and they will go home themselves. Then we don't have to spend trillions setting up our own berlin wall and we can add trillions in fines/seizures of assets from the exploiters to the budget to pay off the debt. Simple practical solution.

Funny how the right wingnuts leaders (beck/rush/etc.) who are up to their eyeballs in corporate cash never suggest this approach to their sheeple followers.

Would you be in favor of this Bap or do you only believe what you are told by the fat blimp?

I think Limbaugh's motto is something like: "don't try to fix stupidity...profit from it!"