Slippery Slopes

About: Wikipedia on Sisyphus

~Like Sisyphus' dilemma all slippery slopes lead to the bottom of the hill. Roe v Wade was one that led to abortion on demand in almost all situations including a perfectly healthy baby about to be born & goverment paying for it in some cases. Obamacare will lead to completely socialized medicine & a broken economy despite the protestations of the Obami who will point out that that's not in the bill. It will be there in a few presidential elections later. The idea with the power elete is that if you can't get the whole thing done now you can at least get a toe hold & some small part through the gate & expand it all later. Hillarycare paved the way even though it failed. Somehow the exposure made it acceptable in some of the minds of the pre-Obami.

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan

Government programs rarely shrink

only tax cuts.

Comments

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-08-18 11:02:10 12409

source: MR above
I suggested that people who want to get coverage for existing conditions could band together & pay for the insurance with government help

No plan can make coverage of pre-existing conditions affordable without vastly expanding the pool of those covered.

Your assertion has no backing! In California with every fire insurance policy you are required to buy a separate policy from the state - a California Earthquake policy for a few bucks.

Seth says

MR 2009-08-17 18:35:28 12409

seth 2009-08-17 17:12:55 12409

source: MR above
You fairly well don't understand insurance if at all! You should go to school and learn something about it.

Like i said, the assumptions need to be changed - that you refuse to change your assumptions and and insult me as not understanding insurance just proves my point. What if a fire insurance policy allowed the company to deny paying off, if after a fire they found a fire hazard in the building. But that is one of the things that is going on with health insurance - people pay into their policy for years and then when the get sick the company finds some trumped up reason to cancel the policy. Apparently you're the one who should go to insurance school ( incidentally i got my certificate years ago). Btw, perhaps you should save your insults for the last sentences - leading with them kind of pre-conditions your reader to barf.

Well, yes of course, but then the administrators would have been breaking the law, because they are restrained by the bill to set the premiums in order to be self sustaining. Medicare's problems are unrelated to the actuarial tables.

In any case that is unrelated and un-responsive to my example above of the ethical assumptions that need to be changed. There i'm talking about rescission and exclusion of preexisting conditions. The insurance industry has gone before Congress and catagorically stated that they have no intention of changing their policies unless they are forced to by legislation.

[ending insult omitted]

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-08-17 17:12:55 12409

source: MR above
You fairly well don't understand insurance if at all! You should go to school and learn something about it.

Well, you proved you didn't learn anything in school. It's all about statistics & actuarial tables. If Obamacare covers more than what statistics show that a reasonable premium will ensure can be paid off then Obamacare will go broke eventually, similarly to Social Security & Medicare. Obamacare is a stupid investment. If you go in the other direction and remove health care from the monetary sphere then incentives will settle down to where those who need care will get it by people who are dedicated to the care of the human body & not just big payoffs in the economic domain. That's the only rational way to handle the matter. That I don't accept your assumptions is rational. That I don't demonize the people who brought you health insurance is rational. That I do demonize lawyers who drive up the cost of health care for their own profit is rational. There are ways to handle the transition from $-based medicine to economic-free medicine, but if you can't see the simplicity of the above then it's a waste of time to discuss it further. Strangely we both have the same goal to provide medicine & health care to all that need it. The Obami & their leaders want to demonize & build Big Government structures - control & direct lives. I just want to get the medicine to those who need it in the most direct way.

Mark de LA says

You missed the part back there where I suggested that people who want to get coverage for existing conditions could band together & pay for the insurance with government help similar to earthquake insurance.

That's why it is worthless to discuss things with you. I have brought up many suggestions & many arguments & at best you only come back with Obamapologies & talking points of the Obami. I can almost guarantee that you will ignore items which do not touch Obama & conversely no matter what is being said elsewhere in an item if Obama is mentioned in a less than praisworthy light you will get back rather immediately & that's all you will talk about for several comments.

joined at the hip S & O:

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-08-17 14:57:43 12409

source: MR asks
What exactly are the ethical assumptions you think need changing? by whom, government?, health industry? or insurance industry?

That would be the assumption that only those who can afford the high cost of medical care should get it. Also the assumption that it is a legitimate right for a insurance company to deny benefits to increase its profits or to cherry pick customers because covering them would subtract from the bottom line. In summary it is the assumption that making a profit in the health care industry is more important than providing health care. Obviously the insurance industry will not change that assumption on its own and will do everything it can to obstruct it. There are some helth care clinics which have changed that assumption; but changing it for all of America must be left to the government. I guess, if you are ideologically opposed to anything the administration does, then you will also be opposed to changeing this assumption too. But I think these assumptions not only suck big time, but also have created the situation where, as one of the richest industrial countries, we have one of the poorest and most expensive health care systems.

You fairly well don't understand insurance if at all! You should go to school and learn something about it. Your assumptions are just talking points from daily KOS or Obami internet sites. I'm not going to explain it to you since I have already done so & you are still dumb about it. If the government wants to pick up the tab for all those things it wants to cover which are not included in the private plans then I think it ought to take the cost from those of you who want to do that - perhaps make it a pool much like earthquake insurance in California. It would still cost less than Obamacare. You still live in the Robin Hood delusion that the guys that sell you a plan are the bad guys & you can rob them with impunity. Here is a liberal wet-dream (see picture) : suppose all the insurance companies vanished over night who would step in with something better?

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-08-17 15:01:27 12409

MR 2009-08-17 14:57:04 12409

Please explain to me the ethics of a government that taxes you & your business to go into business against you.
It is sort of like the Chinese government that when it executes a prisoner it then charges the family of the prisoner for the cost of the bullet.

Try stating that without the erroneous embedded assumptions and maybe it will elicit a explanation.

Try not holding on to your usual position & you may begin to understand.

P.S. You are not the horse.

Mark de LA says

Seth says

source: MR asks
What exactly are the ethical assumptions you think need changing? by whom, government?, health industry? or insurance industry?

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-08-17 12:04:14 12409

source: MR above
The least fear I have is of Big Government doing something right or efficient!

Then why don't you reject the argument that a public option will drive out private insurance?

The president stepped on his own dick in the post office argument example. For the same reason, betting that the government would be inefficient & bad is not much of an argument for the government doing something; even if it is so bad that it will not compete with private insurance. I describe that as heat-up-the-arse argumentation.

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-08-17 12:52:01 12409

-snip- (no use re-repeating head up the arse argumentation ad nauseum)

Despite ideological claims to the contrary, there are problems which the market place does not solve - especially those involving changing ethical assumptions. If you think about it, this reform is really all about America changing its ethical assumptions about delivering health care. Conservatives refuse to consider those changes necessary and want to preserve the free market status quo which has priced many out of being responsible for their own medical needs. Progressives recognize that the status quo is not working for people and want to change it.

What exactly are the ethical assumptions you think need changing? by whom, government?, health industry? or insurance industry? I think your statement about conservatives is false. Just because conservatives don't want a Big Government, Big Expense solution doesn't mean they don't want some kind of change. Getting rid of mal-practice lottery would be one. How come nobody on the left wants to do that or even talks about it. What about the ethics of lawyers who make huge sums of money preying upon the misery of others - sometimes much more than the client with the problem? Remove taxes from those industries you want to grow bigger & serve more people. Create special cadeuceus dollars which can only be spent to further a healthy population & tend to the sick. People will invest in industries which are not taxed. Abundance will drive out scarcity every time it is tried. Unfortunately, the Obami & it's leader only know one kind of abundance from the illusion of spending the taxpayer credit card not only from this generation but from the next several.

Seth says

MR 2009-08-17 12:14:14 12409

seth 2009-08-17 12:04:14 12409

source: MR above
The least fear I have is of Big Government doing something right or efficient!

Then why don't you reject the argument that a public option will drive out private insurance?

Obviously he is not "betting that the government would be inefficient" he is just refuting the insurance companies argument. My augment was different ... i point to where the government is doing a good job of delivering small packages ... not an arena in which the private sector has chosen to compete. There are a few clinics which have chosen to deliver affordable health care, but by and large there are no insurance companies taking on that objective, their misleading advertisements not withstanding. Despite ideological claims to the contrary, there are problems which the market place does not solve - especially those involving changing ethical assumptions. If you think about it, this reform is really all about America changing its ethical assumptions about delivering health care. Conservitives refuse to consider those changes necessary and want to preserve the free market status quo which has priced many out of being responsible for their own medical needs. Progressives recognize that the status quo is not working for people and want to change it.

Seth says

MR 2009-08-17 11:52:10 12409

seth 2009-08-17 11:08:50 12409

Eliminating competition is not the free enterprise way. I'm glad that we have the post office to compete with fedx and UPS. If we didn't i would need to raise my shipping rates on small packages drastically reducing my sales. Fear of the government doing something right is not an argument against doing it. It is just political confusion.

Strange how Obama got it in a speech he gave recently"

Source: ... "My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining…then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

...

right .. it's the Post Office that is the government run program !

Come on, are you telling me that you can't follow the president's reasoning here as a rebuttal to the insurance companies argument about being run out of business?

Mark de LA says

~too bad the rationals lost the election!

Seth says

source: MR above
The least fear I have is of Big Government doing something right or efficient!

Then why don't you reject the argument that a public option will drive out private insurance?

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-08-18 12:09:10 12409

MR 2009-08-18 11:52:37 12409

seth 2009-08-18 11:02:10 12409

source: MR above
I suggested that people who want to get coverage for existing conditions could band together & pay for the insurance with government help

No plan can make coverage of pre-existing conditions affordable without vastly expanding the pool of those covered.

Your assertion has no backing! In California with every fire insurance policy you are required to buy a separate policy from the state - a California Earthquake policy for a few bucks.

Earthquake protection is just a straight forward added risk and can be costed out with actuarial statistics. Pre-existing conditions are quite a different matter. I had an excellent example of pre-existing conditions when i was riding around LosAngeles writing auto insurance policies for Power Insurance. When i went down to the garage to take a picture of this guy's truck, he goes:
...

"Well it looks like this one ... mine got stolen yesterday".

Your anecdotal story is amusing, but irrelevant. Somebody must have a pool of people who have pre-existing conditions like the insurance companies already. I also suspect that they know how much they would have to pay out to cover those conditions. That's all the data you need to price out that pool of people. It shouldn't take more than a month to crisp it up into rules & a standard government policy.

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-08-18 13:15:29 12409

MR 2009-08-18 12:24:04 12409

seth 2009-08-18 12:09:10 12409

MR 2009-08-18 11:52:37 12409

seth 2009-08-18 11:02:10 12409

source: MR above
I suggested that people who want to get coverage for existing conditions could band together & pay for the insurance with government help

No plan can make coverage of pre-existing conditions affordable without vastly expanding the pool of those covered.

Your assertion has no backing! In California with every fire insurance policy you are required to buy a separate policy from the state - a California Earthquake policy for a few bucks.

"Well it looks like this one ... mine got stolen yesterday".

The point your analysis ignores is that you need a giant pool where healthy people balance the sick ones to make the coverage affordable. Its not a matter of being able to cost it out, that is the easy part ... its a matter of creating a large enough pool of healthy people. The encouragements and mandates in the Obama plan do that. You have not suggested a solution to the real problem.

You are assuming your desired outcome with faulty statistics & without any thought. I'm sure that insurance companys know to a diagnostic how much pre-existing conditions would cost them to cover. They may not want to unconceal them to the public, but given the propensity for this administration to demonize industries it wants to take over they yet cut them loose. As a matter of fact it should sum to the number of claims refused for that cause times some factor for those were refused policies for such cause. I suggest asking that question to an intelligent official if you can find one in the government or the insurance industry.

Slippery Slopes

About: Wikipedia on Sisyphus

Tags

Comments

See Also