Health Care and Insurance Industries Mobilize to Kill ‘Medicare for All’

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
#41
Is all of Texas electricity deregulated? What about other utilities?

Are you saying that the government is 100% responsible for the increase in healthcare costs?
Electricity is all that is deregulated.

I'm saying when the government gets involved in pretty much anything, they screw it up and it costs more than it would otherwise. By definition, you can't have money being exchanged that many times without it costing more. If you notice, there are several health clinics opening up that refuse to accept insurance of any kind. You walk in, get medical care, you pay them, and you leave. It's that simple and therefore less costly. That's the way business was generally done prior to Medicare.
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
#42
We already have this in Texas. I can buy electricity from probably 80 different companies. I shop around to find the best rate for my situation.

I'm curious what you think we did prior to Medicare? Most people I know paid out of pocket and had what was called a Major Medical insurance plan that paid for the big stuff such as surgeries and hospital stays. Total healthcare costs as a percentage of income was much less than we pay today. Of course, that was before the government got into the healthcare business.
And let me just say that I don’t care who gets healthcare/drug costs down, makes good insurance affordable, increases competition and protects pre existing conditions & life time max limits (even if that plan costs the consumer more). And healthcare decisions should be in the hands of the patient as directed/approved by the provider.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#43
They = Feds.

Are you for a complete deregulation of utilities where supply and demand and corporate profits determine what you pay and utilities can send “product” to highest paying cities/neighborhoods?

Are you for uninsured motorists and transportation companies dropping insurance?
you lost me.... those are State issues not Federal programs.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#44
You are right, discussion is supposed to be a give and take. No discussion with you has ever been a give and take. You just think you are all knowing and give. I have never ever seen you give a point to anyone. Even when it is so obvious you are wrong that people are laughing at you.

I've posted multiple times in the past exactly why it is true. I'm not repeating for you because you would argue with anything I say in some insane manner anyway now that you decided to disagree. If someone that actually wants to learn and not just act like he knows everything wants to know, I'll repeat myself. For you, not a chance.
figures, you got nothing.... look around... everyone is laughing at you again.

see how that works...

you never have anything to back up your allegations...... do I need to ask you again, or can you respond?

I asked for evidence ---- you've got nothing.... just a bashing of me because I had the gall to ask you to back up your outlandish accusations.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#45
And let me just say that I don’t care who gets healthcare/drug costs down, makes good insurance affordable, increases competition and protects pre existing conditions & life time max limits (even if that plan costs the consumer more). And healthcare decisions should be in the hands of the patient as directed/approved by the provider.
well, clearly you don't advocate for medicare then...
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#47
No they are not exclusively state issues. Fed is involved in regulating.
I have no idea what you're talking about.... the feds have some projects that they were involved with like Hoover dam and TVA, but mostly they are not involved outside of safety for nuclear power, etc.

The feds do subsidize green power and choose winners and losers, but they should not be involved with those initiatives.

beyond that (i.e., regulation) they do have some Constitutional role in interstate commerce.

The Federal government should not be involved in the running of any business (VA, medicare insurance, retirement plans, etc.) Those functions should be privatized and those agencies reduced to only oversight functions.
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
#48
I have no idea what you're talking about.... the feds have some projects that they were involved with like Hoover dam and TVA, but mostly they are not involved outside of safety for nuclear power, etc.

The feds do subsidize green power and choose winners and losers, but they should not be involved with those initiatives.

beyond that (i.e., regulation) they do have some Constitutional role in interstate commerce.

The Federal government should not be involved in the running of any business (VA, medicare insurance, retirement plans, etc.) Those functions should be privatized and those agencies reduced to only oversight functions.
They are heavily involved. It’s a little thing called the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Feds are involved way more than the average person realizes reviewing projects, rate cases, types of service and rules regarding capacity among other items in NatGas alone. And the Federal Government has been involved in “subsidies” way before green power. I’m very partial to the fossil fuel industry but it’s dishonest at best to think that only liberal projects like green power receive government help. That’s just another rabbit hole conservative pundits like to lead people down.
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
#49
I have no idea what you're talking about.... the feds have some projects that they were involved with like Hoover dam and TVA, but mostly they are not involved outside of safety for nuclear power, etc.

The feds do subsidize green power and choose winners and losers, but they should not be involved with those initiatives.

beyond that (i.e., regulation) they do have some Constitutional role in interstate commerce.

The Federal government should not be involved in the running of any business (VA, medicare insurance, retirement plans, etc.) Those functions should be privatized and those agencies reduced to only oversight functions.
But also back to topic I agree that the federal government should not be in the health insurance business. Our vets should be able to chose the provider that they feel gives them the best path to health (there have to be limits to that). I also would like to see Medicare turned into more of the Medicare Advantage model where a private insurance company plays the main role. But we also have to do away with lifetime maxes, protect pre existing conditions & private insurance companies have to be removed from health care decisions within reason. We can’t advocate for getting lawyers out of insurance lawsuits, limiting damages or removing government oversight if insurance companies refuse to operate in good faith.
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,800
24,058
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#51
They = Feds.

Are you for a complete deregulation of utilities where supply and demand and corporate profits determine what you pay and utilities can send “product” to highest paying cities/neighborhoods?

Are you for uninsured motorists and transportation companies dropping insurance?
This is a complete straw man. Republicans and conservatives have made it clear that they are not anarchists. Government is necessary in many areas, but it should be limited and it should be local. Regulations are important and needed but we could do the job as intended at probably 25% (or less) of how many we have today. But to answer your questions, yes I do want a system where companies have to compete with each other for profits.....that has been proven time and again, to give me the cheapest price for those goods and services. If one corporation gets a monopoly, then that's one of those things government can address.

Are you happy with the silicon valley monopoly letting corporate profits determine what you pay for a cell phone and service? Are you happy that facebook lets corporate profits drive their selling of personal information? Funny, I've never seen you advocate for the government to take over that industry.
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
#52
This is a complete straw man. Republicans and conservatives have made it clear that they are not anarchists. Government is necessary in many areas, but it should be limited and it should be local. Regulations are important and needed but we could do the job as intended at probably 25% (or less) of how many we have today. But to answer your questions, yes I do want a system where companies have to compete with each other for profits.....that has been proven time and again, to give me the cheapest price for those goods and services. If one corporation gets a monopoly, then that's one of those things government can address.

Are you happy with the silicon valley monopoly letting corporate profits determine what you pay for a cell phone and service? Are you happy that facebook lets corporate profits drive their selling of personal information? Funny, I've never seen you advocate for the government to take over that industry.
I don’t advocate a government takeover of any industry. And I’m so happy with Facebook that I don’t even have an account.

I’m guess I’m not conveying very well. Competition and profitability are foundational. I come from a career in private corporate world where we competed every day to make as much money for our company as possible. Damn proud of what we did & it’s put me in the position I am today. Wouldn’t redo any of it except try to make more money. And we did it the right way.

What I am trying to say is that we have a balance in this country when it comes to companies, like utilities, where government regulation is a good thing. We have seen first hand what happens in the NatGas & electricity trading markets when the government steps out. Greed takes over and companies/individuals “outsmart” the system & put making $ ahead of the needs of the public. And this is not a bash on anyone or any company/industry. And rightfully so some of those individuals and companies were exposed and punished. In some cases a quasi deregulated sector worked like it is supposed to.

We have lived with regulation in utilities where a public need is met. We have lived with regulations and laws in auto insurance and transportation. Right or wrong I believe we have seen the bad of both government health insurance & private insurance where we need to move to a private insurance system with governmental oversight & regulations similar to what we see in utilities. I don’t trust a corporation to make the best decision for me or my family in terms of healthcare whose sole aim is to increase shareholder value and drive bonuses to the employees who make those calls. And no I don’t trust the government to make those calls either.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#53
We have lived with regulation in utilities where a public need is met. We have lived with regulations and laws in auto insurance and transportation. Right or wrong I believe we have seen the bad of both government health insurance & private insurance where we need to move to a private insurance system with governmental oversight & regulations similar to what we see in utilities. I don’t trust a corporation to make the best decision for me or my family in terms of healthcare whose sole aim is to increase shareholder value and drive bonuses to the employees who make those calls. And no I don’t trust the government to make those calls either.
I was with you until you got to here..... no, we do not need government involvement in any of it.

Some government regulation to "protect the consumer" is sometimes needed, but even that should be minimal (do we really still need "do not remove" tags on our mattresses)?

monopolization by utility companies has extended past it's end-life, and needs to be deregulated to a large extent. I use to be forced to buy cable TV from the sole provided who won the contract with my city (that's how it worked)... now we have options that include multiple cable providers, as well as satellite competition, and more recently cord cutters opting for TV programming via the Internet.

AT&T split up the phone monopoly years ago, to the obvious benefit of everybody.

There is absolutely no reason why electricity or water need to be monopolized industries.

We're free to get whatever auto insurance we want, we should be free to get whatever health insurance fits our needs. It has nothing to do with government.
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
#54
I was with you until you got to here..... no, we do not need government involvement in any of it.

Some government regulation to "protect the consumer" is sometimes needed, but even that should be minimal (do we really still need "do not remove" tags on our mattresses)?

monopolization by utility companies has extended past it's end-life, and needs to be deregulated to a large extent. I use to be forced to buy cable TV from the sole provided who won the contract with my city (that's how it worked)... now we have options that include multiple cable providers, as well as satellite competition, and more recently cord cutters opting for TV programming via the Internet.

AT&T split up the phone monopoly years ago, to the obvious benefit of everybody.

There is absolutely no reason why electricity or water need to be monopolized industries.

We're free to get whatever auto insurance we want, we should be free to get whatever health insurance fits our needs. It has nothing to do with government.
You are not free to get whatever insurance you want. 1st you are required to have auto insurance (except a few states where you have to agree to financial responsibility). 2nd it has to have some minimum amount of personal & property liability. I realize these are state issues but Interstate transportation is subject to federal requirements. You do get to pick your provider & can scale coverage & deductibles.

Insurance commissioners approve rates, ensure insurance companies are acting in good faith & make sure insurance companies maintain solvency.

We may not agree but health insurance is a little more important than property or auto insurance. I’m ok with drivers being required to have insurance. I’m also ok with the government mandating a minimum amount of health insurance that includes no restrictions on pre existing conditions or lifetime maxes.

As far as utilities go and your analogy with phone and cable, I guess I would differentiate phone & tv wants vs NatGas & water needs. And I’m good with the government regulating rates and protecting schools & hospitals in the event of shortages or curtailments. Just like they should with health insurance. I don’t trust insurance execs to put my or my families health above their bonus. And the threat of a lawsuit remedy doesn’t work when the result of that decision is death.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,800
24,058
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#55
Right or wrong I believe we have seen the bad of both government health insurance & private insurance where we need to move to a private insurance system with governmental oversight & regulations similar to what we see in utilities.
We've already moved beyond that. With the passage of the ACA we have a private insurance industry in name only. The federal government has 100% control over what kind of coverage they can offer. They are private only in the fact that their employees aren't government employees but when it comes to the service they sell, it might as well come with Uncle Sam stamped on the front of every policy because that's who's in charge. That's not regulation, that is take over.....so any of the "bad we've seen" the past 5 years should be placed at the feet of government, not private industry. Heck, even before the ACA we had a crap ton of government oversight and regulations in the health care and health insurance industry. How can we know if true free market private insurance would be bad, we've never seen it. My bet is that if the free market can drop the price of a TV by several hundred percent, it can do the same for a cholesterol test or an x-ray of a broken bone.

I don’t trust a corporation to make the best decision for me or my family in terms of healthcare whose sole aim is to increase shareholder value and drive bonuses to the employees who make those calls. And no I don’t trust the government to make those calls either.
The difference between the two of course is that with a corporation, you can choose to go with a competitor or not buy the product at all...and if they want to increase shareholder value, they have to find some way to entice you to buy the product, either by making it better or lowering the price. With the government, they are the only game in town and you have no say in the matter. If you try to not buy the product from them, they come to your door with guns and arrest you......and they have zero incentive to lower the cost or improve the product. I'll take my chances with the corporation every single day of the week. And please note, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be government regulation and oversight in the health care industry, just that we passed the point of what's needed a long time ago...and that over regulation is a major contributing factor to the problems we see now.
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#56
You are not free to get whatever insurance you want. 1st you are required to have auto insurance (except a few states where you have to agree to financial responsibility). 2nd it has to have some minimum amount of personal & property liability. I realize these are state issues but Interstate transportation is subject to federal requirements. You do get to pick your provider & can scale coverage & deductibles.

Insurance commissioners approve rates, ensure insurance companies are acting in good faith & make sure insurance companies maintain solvency.

We may not agree but health insurance is a little more important than property or auto insurance. I’m ok with drivers being required to have insurance. I’m also ok with the government mandating a minimum amount of health insurance that includes no restrictions on pre existing conditions or lifetime maxes.

As far as utilities go and your analogy with phone and cable, I guess I would differentiate phone & tv wants vs NatGas & water needs. And I’m good with the government regulating rates and protecting schools & hospitals in the event of shortages or curtailments. Just like they should with health insurance. I don’t trust insurance execs to put my or my families health above their bonus. And the threat of a lawsuit remedy doesn’t work when the result of that decision is death.
more absolute BS.... 1) I do not even have to drive, so no, I do not have to buy auto insurance, and 2) people are only required to buy LIABILITY insurance, incase I hurt somebody or damage their property with my vehicle.

There is no medical equivalent insurance for auto liability. Auto and Medical insurance are polar opposites. Auto insurance is for catastrophic coverage, not preventative maintenance. My auto insurance does not cover my oil change even though an oil change might extend the life of my auto.

Medical insurance is for (mostly) preventative maintenance, not catastrophic care. (although it can be for both). I do not have to have medical insurance in case I accidentally injure my neighbor. (liability)

I am OK with the government making auto liability insurance mandatory as a prelude to the privilege of driving in case you hurt somebody else (consumer protection).

I am not okay with the government telling me I have to have insurance for the right to live and be free.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,364
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#57
As far as utilities go and your analogy with phone and cable, I guess I would differentiate phone & tv wants vs NatGas & water needs. And I’m good with the government regulating rates and protecting schools & hospitals in the event of shortages or curtailments. Just like they should with health insurance. I don’t trust insurance execs to put my or my families health above their bonus. And the threat of a lawsuit remedy doesn’t work when the result of that decision is death.
as far as government goes, I don't trust the government to provide water (or gas, or electricity) because they put my family at risk.

We have a law mandating that water consumption be reduced to 55 gal/person per day - which is absolutely impossible. The government won't develop more water retention facilities, no matter how much I pay. When we had a drought they forced us to cut back by putting bricks in the toilet and not watering the lawn... we saved so much water that they raised our rates because they could not operate fiscally on that amount of water savings.

We have rolling brown-outs because the government won't let the utilities expand facilities (coal or nuke) and force them to invest in stupid crap like solar, wind and geothermal. Since they won't produce enough electricity for us to use, they give us the "privilege" of signing up to have our electricity TURNED OFF at the discretion of the utility (normally during peak demand - i.e., 110 freaking degrees outside). Otherwise we get to pay peak demand rates (my electric bill can exceed $450/mo during the summer).

I want competition, not government monopolies.
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
#58
more absolute BS.... 1) I do not even have to drive, so no, I do not have to buy auto insurance, and 2) people are only required to buy LIABILITY insurance, incase I hurt somebody or damage their property with my vehicle.

There is no medical equivalent insurance for auto liability. Auto and Medical insurance are polar opposites. Auto insurance is for catastrophic coverage, not preventative maintenance. My auto insurance does not cover my oil change even though an oil change might extend the life of my auto.

Medical insurance is for (mostly) preventative maintenance, not catastrophic care. (although it can be for both). I do not have to have medical insurance in case I accidentally injure my neighbor. (liability)

I am OK with the government making auto liability insurance mandatory as a prelude to the privilege of driving in case you hurt somebody else (consumer protection).

I am not okay with the government telling me I have to have insurance for the right to live and be free.
Again you take what I say make it your argument and scream “absolute bs”. It’s good you have moved on from “FAIL...”. Look at my #2 above. That is in response to you saying “we’re free to buy whatever auto insurance you want.” That is wrong. You are free to choose to drive but once you make that choice you are required to buy at a minimum (and in most states) liability. And what in the hell do you think is going to happen to medical costs when millions of people opt out of insurance but their health needs don’t change and as you imply no longer show up for “maintenance” but instead now show up for more costly services for which they don’t have insurance. And also since insurance in and of itself is a form of socialism what happens to premiums when the risk pool is spread among fewer people? Sure we will see competition across state lines and maybe more companies offering more product but I still go back to health insurance & health care are different animals than picking out a tv or mobile phone plan. How many people do you know that price shop prescription medications or negotiate knee replacement surgery with their dr. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do those things but you have to be honest about that and he fact that health care costs might go down with insurance companies negotiating on your behalf but they weren’t going down from he 1970’s up until the ACA was put into effect.

One final point prior to ACA mandating minimum policy requirements you could purchase “car wreck & cancer” policies that were just for catastrophic events.