milkchaser

Rational Market Theory and Black Swans in Healthcare Reform

I take the author's point that those who pay cash for health care are at an unfair disadvantage, as are those who cannot afford health care insurance, but are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. I feel for those whose policies were rescinded when they most needed it, or who otherwise lost coverage and cannot now regain it due to a pre-existing condition.

But where is the evidence that a gov't program would best solve this? Why the utlimatum that if all of these problems are not immediately solved, we must accede to a plan designed and run by people with a poor track record with such things. In the light of incompletely funded gov't programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, it seems irrational to expand gov't responsibility even further.

When we feel compassion for those in need, why do some people think that there ought to be a governmental fix? What I want to ask these people is just how much they contributed to The Shriners last year? Do they leave their change for the Ronald McDonald house or pocket it? How many dimes did they send to the March of Dimes?

As we know from the aftermath of 9/11, Katrina and the 2004 tsunami, when the need is there, Americans are very generous.

Rational Market Theory and Black Swans in Healthcare Reform

It is not clear to me how we are being used by allying ourselves with FreedomWorks to oppose Obamacare. FreedomWorks did not charter the bus we are taking this Saturday to Orlando, and each of the riders will pay his way ($17 each).

It is not clear to me that AT&T and Verizon have a stake in the health care fight, nor is it clear to me that they would oppose it. They ally with FreedomWorks over a different issue (net neutrality) which is irrelevant.

Non-profit groups must raise money. AARP gets a lot of money via insurance sales, as did FreedomWorks at one time to a far lesser extent. The money FreedomWorks gained from such insurance sales (for HSA accounts, as a matter of fact) averaged $120K out of an annual $7 million budget. Every little bit helps, but FreedomWorks is largely funded by individual contributions, something that the Wikipedia article failed to mention.

The typical Obamacare protester does not know or care who is helping us organize. They are drawn by the issue.


On Aug 18 10:40 AM Bob 123 wrote:

> I believe you that you are not being paid. You are being used.<br/>Do
> you really know the "FreedomWorks" group and who controls it? <br/>Self-funded
> my ass. You are a tool being fooled into working against your own
> interest. For nothing.
>
> From Wikipedia:
> FreedomWorks has received funding from Verizon and SBC (now AT&amp;T).
> [6]Other FreedomWorks funders have included MetLife, Philip Morris
> and foundations controlled by the archconservative Scaife family,
> according to tax filings and other records. [7] It also receives
> funding through the sale of insurance policies through which policyholders
> automatically become FreedomWorks' members. [8] FreedomWorks is closely
> tied to its founder, corporate lobbyist and former Republican Congressman
> Dick Armey, whose former lobbying firm DLA Piper that he resigned
> in August 2009, represents Bristol Myers Squibb, among other pharmaceutical
> companies.

Rational Market Theory and Black Swans in Healthcare Reform

I think we are in agreement about making it illegal to rescind a policy -- after a certain standstill or probationary period during which time the accuracy of the application is reviewed. This, of course, does not require the creation of a gov't insurer.


On Aug 18 10:17 AM YoYoMama wrote:

> The "standstill" period already exists. It's called a probationary
> period, and it lasts about 3 months after the policy is in place.
>
>
> The problem is not that the insurance companies are not aware of
> pre-existing conditions. It's that it is perfectly legal to be arbitrary
> and even invent reasons for the insurance company to rescind a policy.
> It is well known that many insurers will instigate investigations
> only AFTER a an illness or accident.
>
> The only way to fix the problem is to make rescinding policies illegal.
> Period.
>

Rational Market Theory and Black Swans in Healthcare Reform

"The healthcare opponent rabble rousers already have sugar daddies."

I have yet to be paid to attend a rally. No one is subsidizing my efforts, nor any of my co-protesters. This statement is inaccurate.

It is also condescending, suggesting that we are children and that some richer person is our "daddy". This relationship almost certainly exists amongst those on the left whose organizations are sponsored by George Soros. I do not know this to be true of any of the groups who help to organize our protests against Obamacare, which are self-funded (e.g. FreedomWorks).

Condescension is not likely to persuade.

That said, I agree that we would do well to protect the cash market from paying significantly higher prices than health care insurers. That is preferable to a gov't controlled system. However, I do not agree that the disparity of prices is what dooms HSAs. My experience with this is that the health insurers who provide the high-deductible policies for HSAs also drive down the cash price paid by their insured. Since this is one of the ways such insurers compete, it is important to preserve this market aspect. If people choose to self-insure and not take advantage of HSAs, this is their own folly.

Rational Market Theory and Black Swans in Healthcare Reform

"While the opposition protesters appear far less sincere than the civil rights and antiwar movements of the past, I have never seen a President so dedicated to accomplishing his goals as Obama. This President is the most aggressive that I’ve seen in my lifetime. That is what really scares the opposition."

I don't find myself scared of Obama so much as disheartened.

I assure you, as one who has taken to the streets (and town hall meetings) to protest Obamacare, I am sincere. Anti-war and civil rights protesters may have had more on the line or have dealt with a more serious issue than opposing gov't takeover of health care, however, our opposition is not without its own moral urgency and seriousness. I do not care to bequeath to my daughters worse health care than we enjoy today. I sincerely believe Obamacare would drastically worsen health care. I don't really think you are in a position to judge our sincerity, are you?

As for Obama's dedication and aggressiveness, this can be viewed a number of ways. Sympathetically, one can admire his fortitude (if not his foresight). Antagonistically, one regrets his disdain for those who disagree with him and that he has broken the promise to transcend partisanship. I cannot think of a President, of either political party, who has gotten such sympathetic treatment.

But some are suggesting that his talent lies more in getting himself elected than in governing effectively. Part of governing effectively is getting good legislation passed on a somewhat bi-partisan basis. Part of Reagan's legacy was getting major legislation passed by a Democratic Congressional majority (e.g. tax rate cuts, tax reform, Social Security reform, 8 Federal budgets).

Rational Market Theory and Black Swans in Healthcare Reform

> As you say, the opposition needs to provide credible alternatives.

There are various proposals out there to solve the big problems with health insurance -- proposals that do not rely on a vast gov't bureaucracy, nor a single-payer solution. Below are two examples:

How to deal with pre-existing conditions:
online.wsj.com/article...
Today if one loses one's employer sponsored plan, one can become uninsurable. The crux of the proposed solution is that consumer gets to buy the right to purchase health care in the future, as is common for term life insurance today.

Rescission:
Problem described here:
tauntermedia.com/2009/.../
Proposed solution found in comments:

Rescission could easily be stopped by imposing an affirmative obligation on the insurance company to verify its information. So there would be a standstill period (30-60 days) from inception of a policy during which time each side could review and verify health information and break the policy if it didn’t work. Beyond the standstill, the carrier would be on the hook. Once admitted to a pool (eg women born in 1960 living in Boston), individual rates could not change – change one rate, change the entire pool.

Rational Market Theory and Black Swans in Healthcare Reform

"uninsurable patients, are left to go bankrupt or die."

Most likely, to go bankrupt and die (sad to say).

Obama Abandons Public Healthcare Option

"They may well ask why with absolute control of the votes the Congress and administration don’t force the issue. It’s a valid question and one that the leaders of the party will have a hard time answering."

Perhaps because some of the Democrats in Congress are also democrats (i.e. they listen to the voters).

It is amusing to hear Obama chide the critics for being “so fixated on this that they forget everything else”. When one poops in the punch bowl, one should expect a bit of "fixation" over poop-free punch. If the public option was "not essential", then why did he fight for it all this time? Why risk the ire of millions of Americans who oppose it?

This is spin. Obama wants us to believe that he was not strongly pushing a policy that came to be viewed as controversial and, by many, wrong-headed. Now he attempts to disclaim parentage. Good luck with that in light of the youtube record.