An alternative to Obamacare, starting with advice from Whole Foods

First, let's consider the source - "Robert White Jr., president of Jacksonville-based First Professionals Insurance Co. (FPCI), Florida's largest medical malpractice insurer"

Now, let's see exactly what the illustrious Mr. White has to say about it

No date on the article, but the content makes it sound like it was written in 2008, very early 2009 at the latest.

Scratch that. Put my glasses on and I see it was March 2009....

 

I never stated an opinion on the article or its content with regard to an inclination of agreeing or disagreeing with it. I merely stated I found it interesting.

The reality appears to be that insurance companies historically tend to raise their rates when they are seeking ways to make up for declining interest rates on market-based investment losses.

In the case of the market, our economy and "interest rates", I would gather that this appears to be the most likely reason for the shift in the price of premiums.

When they start making a higher rate of return on their investments, premiums will likely fall, or at the very least remain constant.

 

Been a long, long time since I have seen rates on anything, particularly insurance premiums, fall.

But, to the more salient point - insurance rates correlate to market returns far more than they do to claims. This, of course, circles back around to tort reform and what the actual savings might be were they implemented.

 

Really?

My car insurance went down this year.
My home owners remained the same.
Liability on my commercial property remained the same.
Life insurance, of course remained the same.
My Collector car insurance decreased.
My health insurance decreased by 54%

Auto is directly related to a number of factors, the likes of which surround age, good driver status, etc.
As for health? I shopped around. Saved myself 1/2.
Same with liability.

Everything goes up/down. Pays to shop around. Imagine just how much easier it would be to shop around and SAVE, if you could actually cross state lines?

Imagine if you had to shop at the same grocery or dept store for everything ALL THE TIME. Imagine if there were only one?

Now imagine being able to choose from several.

Too bad we have and idiot in the White House and Morons in the House/Senate.

November can't come soon enough!

The rates are dictated by multiple factors, the majority of which are designed by actuaries and based on a multitude of statistics, age groups, demographics, the market, and of course CLAIMS.

 

My car insurance went up - addition of a teenage driver, so we won't count that.
Homeowners went up, slightly.
Flood insurance went up - substantially
Business insurance - stayed level
Life insurance - level
Health insurance - level, but with increase in co-pays (both drugs and office visits)

The health insurance raises an intersting point. It is not possible to discuss rates without including coverage. I could, for instance lower my auto insurance by dropping comprehensive coverage on the truck (which is paid off) and/or going with minimum coverage as defined by our State laws ($20k, I think, which these days wouldn't pay off a used VW, let alone something like a Beemer.) I could drop a rider here or there to lower rates on home and business.

And, I could cut my health insurance in half by moving to a major medical plan with something like a $7k annual deductible - a viable option if I was single, but not so much with a family (and one kid still living at home).

Regarding the idea of insurance rates falling...



While only through 2002, that gives a look at auto insurance outpacing CPI or body work.

It looks an awful lot like this...



Which shows health insurance compared to inflation and wages.

Insurance companies, as an industry, are, in my opinion, evil little beasts worthy of massive regulation. They are no longer about "shared risk" (if they ever were).

Being able to shop across State lines will do nothing to solve the underlying problem. Instead, the insurance industry will move to those areas with the least regulation where they will then be able to do the biggest screw job on the consumer.

If you get what you want, I hope you invest in Johnson & Johnson stock. You might get a cut on the KY Jelly you will need, because I assure you the insurance industry will not provide any when they bend you over the table and let you have it.

 

Willy. Just to be clear. I lowered my premiums on my "out of pocket" health care (which I PAY taxes on BTW), yet increased my coverage, and lowered my copay, all while lowering the deductible.

In a free market, typically competition allows things like this to happen.

In a socialistic system like the Democrats hope to achieve in their utopian wet dream, costs rise and benefits decrease.

I simply shopped around for a new provider. I found one that cost less, gave me better coverage and guaranteed my rates for 2 YEARS.

When that pool is infected, I'll likely look for a new one again. If they want to keep my business they'll find a way to do it like the rest of us out here in the real world.

2 things need be done to solve problems in the health care industry none of which has anything to do with the health care industry.

INSURANCE

1. Open up competition 100%. Allow me to shop from any number of providers nationwide and abroad. Just like I do for every other consumable and or service.

2. Tort reform.

As for the health industry itself? 1 major thing needs to occur.

Lobbying on behalf of, and or associating either directly or indirectly with lobbyists for the medical/pharmaceutical industry by the powers that be in Washington (Mrs. Pelosi.. ehem) should be a federal crime and felony punishable by public flogging.

Don't kid yourself, but the cruxt of this health care bill will generously line the pockets of a great many people in DC.

 

Add the insurance and finance industries in their as well, and I think we are getting pretty close to a deal.

The lack of meaningful regulation of the insurance industry is the achilles heel of the current bill. Can't say as I like or support many parts of it. That said, given the choice between what is on the table or no changes whatsoever ("Let's just wait a few more years/decades and see what we can come up with...") I'll take what's on the table as a starting point. As the Stones sang it, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you just might find, you get what you need..."

 

And here I thought the achilles heel had something to do with the misleading trillion dollar price tag (reality is closer to three trillion). I considered the Achilles heel could also have something to do with its complete failure to address any of the forces driving higher medical costs, not just higher insurance prices. I had also considered it's Achilles heel might have something to do with the higher taxes being levied on individuals and small businesses to pay the trillion dollar price tag, which won't even accomplish that goal. Another Achilles heel could be the unconstitutional federal mandate requiring individuals to buy an insurance product (I'm sure you didn't read that listed in the constitution under rights specifically granted to the federal government). Yet another Achilles heel would be the means by which the bill may be made into law. People like Ben Nelson got this bill through the senate based on clauses that will be removed from the final legislation. At every step, the bill was presented in a form that was required to get it through that vote, then reversed and reformatted to get it through the next vote. It is also quite likely that the "Deem and Pass" procedure being used in the house to get the bill through will meet constitutional challenge this time, even though it has been used in the past.

I'm usually pretty skeptical when referring to the memory of the voting public, but I am cautiously optimistic that the result of this boondoggle will be a blood bath for the Democratic party in this years election cycle, based solely on creating enough votes to repeal this legislation quickly. Running on blocking this bill certainly worked for the new Senator of liberal Mass. If it works in Mass, how much better is it going to work in Colorado.

 

So, what is new in that thought that isn't just special for conservatives? The filibuster is unique and has served well in securing minority rights that either side will miss if suspended but for major legislation the bottom line is that 59 votes should not be held hostage by 41 - the old rule was a majority of 67 to override.

Just passing the legislation will be a victory for the Democrats that would be easier to defend than if it fails. Trying to defend their position after a failed vote would certainly fracture the Democratic coalition and lead to the election calamity the conservatives are praying for......Far from ideal legislation, passage will bring the foundation to build a truly national health care system for the public well being than relying on private sponsorship for the enrichment of a few.

 

California also has a 2/3 majority requirement for most major legislation, especially if it entails tax increases. The idea that a simple majority should be sufficient to raise our taxes used to be something abhorrent to both major political parties. You do make an interesting argument for "More of the Same" though. The use of words "held hostage" in application to the Consitutional requirement of a Super Majority sounds like the same political BS that has been fed to us by both parties for a long time.

So pass it at whatever cost for the preservation of the 2010 election results? What happened to passing it by the rules and on it's merits?

You are delusional. Trial attorneys love this legislation. So do the insurance companies. 35 million new clients brought to them by federal mandate (gun point). Government subsidies to help pay for the lower income. The insurance companies will tack that right onto their bottom line and your rates will still go up. This pathetic piece of legislation isn't even effective health insurance reform, never mind health care reform. The only people from the "public" who will like this legislation are those who pay no taxes, have no job, and have no insurance. Those with no insurance who have a job will find it would have been cheaper to go buy insurance in today's market than to suffer the financial impact this legislation will have on their bottom line.

 

California is perilously close to being a "failed State" - largely due to the fact that the supermajority requirements have frozen the Govt's ability to function. Even the Republicans have conceded as much...

And here I thought you were arguing that this was NOT the weakest part of the legislation. Go figure...

 

Just what I was about to say - minority rule is even more diabolical than majority....maybe just the executive branch alone would work.

Whatever passes will have followed rules whatever they may be - the merit is what conservatives fear the most with passage.

As previously stated, passage will be far easier to defend short run, than failure for the coming midterm elections and the Democrats are seeing the light, indeed of self preservation, avoiding the oncoming train....to be continued, All hail the liberals.

 

Source? You could not have packed more incorrect information into a single post. California is nowhere near close to being a failed state. California's budgetary crisis mirrors our Federal govt.'s budgetary crisis with the exception that California cannot just print more money. California has two big fiscal problems. 1) A large part of it's tax revenue stream was based on property taxes in what used to be a very hot real estate market. That market is still falling in value, which means any budget set on estimated revenues from that tax base will continually meet shortfalls. 2) We have unfunded long term liabilities(I'm sure you've heard of the federal version of this) primarily in the form of absurd pensions granted to CA govt. employees when both the dot com and real estate markets were blowing up. California made commitments to it's employees based on the idea that those markets would rise forever, much like homeowners who took mortgages based on the idea property values would never fall. Those pensions now far outweigh California's ability to pay them, and California has no escape hatch constitutionally speaking, under either state or federal law, that would allow it to go BK on those debts. This means any cuts the state government makes are coming directly off of immediate operational expenses. In essence, the state employees who through their unions, negotiated these pensions are laughing while the state is literally closing schools, closing DMVs and shutting down services to meet it's budget short falls. In the mean time, the ACLU is suing the state for every state employee/teacher laid off from an "underprivileged" neighborhood.

You could say the 2/3 majority requirement which is preventing the state from raising taxes to solve this problem is to blame. You would also have to take into consideration that California is already at the head of the pack amongst states who tax the living crap out of their businesses and residences to feed our many very liberal social programs. You would have to take into consideration the fact that business is fleeing California like Jews from a Muslim state. Then you would realize the Supermajority is not the cause of the crisis. The spending is the cause of the crisis, and without the hard limits placed on our state government which make the crisis real, the spending would continue, taxes would increase, and the behavior would never change.

If anything, California is a poster child of the reasons the US Congressional rules should not be bypassed or jimmy rigged to get a brand new, multi trillion dollar spending and entitlement bill through. At some point, in the very near future, printing more money is not going to work for our federal govt, and the days of US financial leadership and hegemony will be over. In fact, we may already be past the point of no return on that street.

Like I said, so many weak points in this legislation, I suspect the only strong point is the spending.

I bet you would have loved that under George W.. That is what we call tyranny. You need to study up on the most basic principals of the system of checks and balances our government uses. Those checks and balances are there to prevent the government from making radical changes, and they are all being bypassed. It reminds me of Chernobyl. The engineers had to literally disable almost every redundant safety system in the plant so they could perform a test. The end result was a nuclear melt down.

More crack smoking. You are just polishing the brass on the Titanic.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/california-failing-state-debt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/17/california-failed-state-economy
http://www.newsweek.com/id/232575
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/california_a_failed_state.html

I didn't want to list the hundreds of more sources, since you could have turned them yourself with a simple search. California is perilously close to being a failed State. It pays its bills with IOU's, there are thousands of refugees fleeing its borders every day, there is class warfare, police brutality, large areas that function on the fringes of the "rule of law", etc., etc.

 

Willy, you always crack me up. You should be a 911 truther. I could Google "George Bush Racist", or "Barack Obama Muslim" and get a variety of links as well. I just wouldn't waste my time posting them here, or putting out the factless vomit you put out. At least the Newsweek link you posted wasn't a commentary piece by some idiot trying to sensationalize his opinion. It was a legitimate debate, where they first define the topic, that being the definition of "Failed State".

Regarding your comments, California does not pay its bills with IOUs, though it did recently. It also paid it's bills with IOUs in the past, prior to the dot com and property bubbles. Did that make it a failed state then?

Refugees fleeing the borders? I wish. People still illegally immigrate TO Californa by the millions. They are like moles, literally tunneling their way in underneath the California Mexico border. They come here and normally take up construction jobs, the hardest hit industry in California. They now collect unemployment benefits and free health care, after buying a "two pack"(a drivers license and a social security card). You would think with the absence of construction work they would go home to lovely Guatamala, or El Salvador, or Nicaragua, or Mexico, but they don't. Why? Why stay in this "Failed State"? Please.

What flees the California borders are entrepreneurs and business, but it has more to do with California's unsustainable business/tax climate and social programs than it does with the idea of a "Failed State".

Ooo... I saw that movie.... "Escape from LA", Snake Pliskin? Or are we talking about "Beyond Thunderdome". Two men enter, one man leaves. Wait, I think you are talking about "The Postman", right? Kevin Costner? I guess they did make all those movies here in this "Failed State". I got news for you. Those movies aren't reality. I think the state you are referring to in your above description is Louisiana, right? Then again, you could be talking about Florida.

 

- Whatever passes will have followed rules whatever they may be - the merit is what conservatives fear the most with passage.

@Obamanation - Whatever does "conservative" mean that by using juvenile language they believe is an appropriate response for meaningful dialog - and especially the religious type conservatives in this forum that regularly employ foul language whenever their point of view is questioned?.....fill us in on your secret.

 

Glad to hear you are a mind reader who can't read a poll. It is the Democrats who can't even unite behind this crap ass legislation.

I love it. For lack of a legitimate argument in favor of your beloved progressive socialization of the USA, you resort to tangential issues not directly related to the debate. Its just funny you would choose foul language, which is a morality issue. Normally, morality is an issue championed by the religious right, but you seem to think it suits your purposes, so you'll embrace it. That, my friend, is called hypocrisy. Of course attacking free speech has practically become standard fare for progressives these days, which really makes me wonder how they mentally separate themselves from the fascists.

Use of the phrase "crack smoking" is neither profane nor juvenile. If you don't understand what it means, google the word "delusional". I bolded some profane and juvenile language I put into this post for your edification, and no, I honestly don't care whether or not it offends you.

Regarding the choice word directed at John Lewis by some random idiot, I have no need to apologize for that person either. Aside from the fact that most conservatives do not share his views on race, those views are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Democrats are more than happy to embrace Bill Ayer's, despite his part in, and lack of apology for orchestrating the bombing US govt buildings.

 

This is a key fear monger point, and it's BS.

If you are an American and have a scheduled doctors appointment, then YOU are also on a waiting list. Yes, it's that simple. The anti-healthcare crowd twists it just like that. They use the term "waiting list" like it's a really bad thing. As if you can have a heart attack and go on a two week waiting list.

Don't fall for it.

 

Then why don't you, rather than asking for sources that you full well know exist.

If you had bothered, you would have seen I provided a nice mixture of sources from left, right and middle.

Now, if you could break free from dogma and actually open that vise on you mind, you might find this interesting - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19brooks.html

Suggests that perhaps things are not as black and white as you would like to believe...

 

Did you even read the words I typed between the quotes. Bush is no more a racist than Obama is a muslim, yet the commentary articles from credible sources will appear in the Google search results, because commentators write about all kinds of bullshit. Do you really believe what you put to print?