Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee | Main | Links With Your Coffee »

Protect Insurance Companies PSA

tip to Josh


 

Comments

Just think of the insurance companies! They're struggling too!

It's really hard to get paid for doing nothing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance companies pitched in to make this ad. When Obama begins to fine people and throw them in jail for not buying health insurance, that is when you know the insurance companies are really getting paid for doing nothing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance companies pitched in to make this ad.

Wow! You live on a completely different planet of understanding than anyone I know. I am fascinated by your interpretation of what people say and of satire and everything else...

It is pretty simple logic actually. If someone starts to fine and throw people into jail for not supporting your business then, you will get more customers and you can charge high prices. It is like having the mob support your business. It is not too difficult to understand. Except maybe for you..

Oi - can you explain your take on the video itself?

Your comment seems to be based on your assumptions about Obama's health care plan and not about this video.

hint: when the guy said he wasn't being sarcastic, he was being facetious.

About the video? The word 'Propaganda' comes into mind. Which is not to say it is all lies. Propaganda is communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. The cause or position here being Obamacare. An idea that I am opposed to. And maybe you are not. I do not hear the insurance companies making too much noise about it though.

I once asked this question to some people - would you write a novel in which you where the villain who gets killed in the end, if you knew that writing it that way will sell more copies? Most people answered yes.

So I got thinking would insurance companies make an ad that makes them look like villains if that would help consolidate their hold over American public? Which is why I gave that comment. I know it sounds a bit conspiratorial, but it stands to reason.

When Obama begins to fine people and throw them in jail for not buying health insurance, that is when you know the insurance companies are really getting paid for doing nothing.

This comment seems directed toward the mandate.

As for the video: pretty tongue in cheek. These actors don't need $ from the insurance companies, and moveon.org came up with the video.

So, get on the conspiracy bandwagon all you want. Heck, lots of folks will be there with you.

I got news for you. Actors don't become rich by not charging for their appearance. And even if they did not charge for this particular one directly, it can help increase their exposure and thus enhance their market value.

Conspiracy aside, here is a dose of reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgkQzeOF7-0

I think Abhilash may be right, but posting this comment in the wrong place. The mandate aspect of obamacare is quite a give-away to insurance companies, and it was one of the incentives apparently used to get them on board. The insurance companies tried to look like they were playing nice, and that got them concessions, but ultimately they are playing quite nasty. And that is presumably because they do not like the ideas of public option, ban on pre-existing condition clauses etc. So, on balance, the big insurance companies are clearly opposed to obamacare, but will try to get the best deal out of it for them if something is gonna pass.

So, Abhilar, hold onto your "getting paid for doing nothing" comment. When a thread arises here describing the mandate that everyone get insurance, you can copy & paste.

I'll reply here to keep the columns from getting too narrow.

I got news for you. Actors don't become rich by not charging for their appearance. And even if they did not charge for this particular one directly, it can help increase their exposure and thus enhance their market value.

Abhilash, I make my living in the arts; I get how the system works. Part of my political awareness comes from knowing that if the country is run poorly and the economy tanks, my ability to make a living also tanks. I'm gonna speculate that these actors did this particular video because 1) They are tired of the BS that is put out there against universal health care 2) They don't mind the exposure for future work, although I don't think this cast is hurting for employment. Since neither of us can know for sure, I won't make a claim of "news" to you.

Conspiracy aside, here is a dose of reality:

Interesting spot. Part of it actually sounded in support of a mandate (something I am wary of, just in case you wondered). People with little to no health problems pull out of the system because they feel they are supporting people who are more sick, so the cost of insurance then rises to care for those requiring more care. Think about this:

  1. If the pool included more healthy people, then the cost would be shared by more, thus lower. When someone contracts a medical condition via illness or accident, they can cash in on their share put in.

  2. Actually, I think this is part of the issue, just not well-defined. People feel that they pay in are are denied coverage, so wtf? Why bother paying in to begin with? This is where the insurance companies cash in! That has nothing to do with government regulation over the system.

  3. I don't know where your confederal socialist gets his information, but in terms of pre-existing conditions, his claims are really extreme. Some people are denied care due to pre-existing conditions they weren't even aware they had. They didn't state the condition up front, so the insurance company decided the patient must be committing fraud! Zeus forbid you, Abilash, are some carrier of a disease and show no symptoms; this could come back to bite you in the ass. I've never met anyone who gamed the system by getting sick and then suddenly picking up insurance; perhaps you do. If the insurance pool were spread more widely via mandate (which again, I'm not sure I could have afforded in my doctorate-pursuing days), then the cost would be less per person. People would be much more likely to carry insurance if it were a) affordable and b) didn't try to deny care in the name of the almighty dollar.

Thus, I don't feel that this video is a good showing to support your cause. I'm more in line with bugjah: you should be fleshing out these sentiments somewhere besides the thread for a tongue-in-cheek video. there's even more to that link to go after; I'm merely hitting the things that pertain to this discussion. So I'd also suggest that you consult a few more sources to make sure that your argument is better supported.

Well gypsy sister, your argument basically boils down is that people who are healthy must pay for people who sick, so that they do not have to pay more while the healthy one does. What this does of course is create moral hazard. Which is one of the reason why Europeans tend to smoke much more than Americans. Why try living a healthy life when someone else will help you with your consulting fees?

About pre-existing conditions. You are right, lot of times people do not know they exist when they get insurance. Pre-existing condition is nothing revolutionary. When you get car insurance, the insurance firm documents all damages before giving you insurance. Existing damages are discovered and not covered. Except in the case of health insurance, there is a myriad of laws intended to 'protect privacy'. It is a challenge when it comes to asking the right kind of questions and performing the right sort of diagnostics before providing insurance, especially with disease like AIDS.

But there is more of course. Because insurance companies are mandated by law to cover certain conditions regardless, they try to make up by denying genuine claims that they otherwise would have covered. They are not the heros here.

Here is a criticism of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ9Te1XP8RM

And of course the Mises institute has consolidated their links to the analysis of the health care system in one page, for those interested:

http://mises.org/story/3737

I'm with you on most of this, except for

Well gypsy sister, your argument basically boils down is that people who are healthy must pay for people who sick, so that they do not have to pay more while the healthy one does. What this does of course is create moral hazard.

No; people who are healthy may get sick, although they are less likely to do so than someone who already has some medical condition. You pay more up front, with the expectation that if you do get sick or injured, you'll be covered until you get healthy again, then you'll be on the receiving end in your later years. Or, you pay more up front, and if you get a terminal illness or a non-treatable disability, you'll finally benefit from the system. Right now, you can be healthy, pay plenty, and get zip or next to zip if something goes wrong. Having more people in the pool does spread the wealth around as much as it spreads the payment around. Since I am employed in a decent paying job, I wouldn't mind helping out the system. I've paid my dues working several jobs making ends meet until I could reach the larger goal. Undoubtedly, this is the largest place where our philosophy clashes.

For those who pay for their own insurance (no employer benefits, not on medicare) - they had better be rich enough to get zero deductible policy, because catastrophic is around a $5000 deductible now. Currently, many on private insurance pay though the nose for less than adequate care, and if they're injured but not severely, they've not only thrown money down an insurance hole, they have to fork over $5000 or more before the insurance will help them out. This is a big reason people go uninsured, health-wise, right next to the fact that it's not in the budget for those trying to make house payments and feed the family.

Which is one of the reason why Europeans tend to smoke much more than Americans. Why try living a healthy life when someone else will help you with your consulting fees?

This reasoning is bo-o-o-o-ogus. Puh-leez.

gypsy sister,

The system you described is called health insurance. For it to work all people in a pool must face the same type of health risk. If you put people of different risks in the same pool, then what would happen is that the healthy individuals in the pool will end up draining their pockets for the sick ones. They can do it if they want, but that is an act of charity, not insurance and must be considered separate from it and managed separately.

Right now health insurance does not work the way you described. The government places several constraints on the insurance firms when it comes to pooling risks efficiently and mandates them to cover risks that are not insurable. The only way to do it is to charge everyone more and deny payment for genuine needs to cover the ones that they are mandated to by law.

In other words keep taxing the people who are usually healthy. What happens then is people who are really healthy take their chances outside the system. This stresses the system even further, resulting in more denied claims. So people are pissed.

So what is Obama’s solution? Penalize people who want to opt out. Which means money that this people had used before to live a healthy lifestyle must now be diverted to funding a broken system. Meaning more sick people, more people to pay for, less people who can pay. It will only stress the system further. No it will break it. Do you see a pattern here? People who are promising to dig you out of a hole are helping you dig yourself deeper in it.

After a while I am just repeating myself in different ways. I cannot wake someone pretending to sleep.

Wow, what a stretch. You really think that.

  1. People opt out of the healthcare system because they don't like the healthcare. It's more like they can't afford it

  2. Uninsured people would cut their running shoes budget and gym memberships if they had to get insured. Most are healthy not because of lifestyle but because of their age.

  3. that healthy and unhealthy people are seperate groups?

The whole idea is that we don't know who will get sick and who will have the costs. We all pay into one system and take according to our needs. the very idea of pooled resources is that the healthy pay for the sick, so when the sick get better they can pay for when others get sick. There are and should be ways for healthy living to be subsidized as part of health care premiums.

You may believe no one here understands you, but that simply highlights your ignorance. You're a libertarian, we understand. You value personal freedom over taking care of your fellow man. But most of us believe, and the evidence is quite clear, that it benefits all of society when healthcare is universal, just as if benefits society when education is universal. We value some things over some absolute personal freedom.

I don't have any illusion that anything anyone says here will change your mind. We all understand that you believe you have a monopoly on "truth." You said it well, "you cannot wake someone pretending to sleep."

You're welcome to comment here, but the repetition is getting tiresome. I understand, you're passionate about your beliefs. But you need to give it a rest.

other than the "white tiger and pygmy horses" joke (which was funny enough to make me laugh out loud), I'm wondering whether extended sarcasm like this vid is actually effective at changing anyones' mind.

Yes, it is. People don't like to be the only one that thinks jokes are funny.

Imagine all your friends laughing at your commedy star and you have to say, "What about the free market? They deserve those little horses!"

Medicare coverage for all Americans. Sounds incredibly simple to me. I'm not sure that I will ever be able to afford to return to the USA from Europe if we don't radically fix our completely fucked-up system. I would take Spain's health care over ours any day of the week. But keep believing what retards like Rush and Glen Beck say about the evils of socialized medicine. That's certainly easier than thinking on your own.

2 pm CST the news said the finance committee voted down a public option, so they must have been swayed by this ad, no?

arrrrrgh!

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives