steve

They don't "compete." They "conform."

They have to conform to the regulations of each State. States require all manner of things that I have no desire to buy. Should everyone have to buy "cadillac" coverage?

Perhaps you are unaware that every business in every sector "conforms" to laws and regulations. Governments set those laws and regulations in order to provide order and protections to citizens. Companies that provide life insurance, car insurance or house insurance have to conform to the state laws and requirements for all of those forms of insurance. Why should it be different for health care insurance?
As for why your choice of insurance affects other people...well its similar to the mandate for minimum levels of insurance for drivers. it protects not only the driver, but the entire driving public from the consequences of a calamity. Same with health insurance. The difference is that you can choose NOT to drive. But you can't currently choose NOT to be treated in the emergency room after an accident...

I agree with you that the idea of forcing people to buy insurance is a difficult concept. But until those who don't pay insurance are compelled to sign waivers removing liability from anyone, including the government, who refuses to provide health care of any kind if the signatory cannot show ability to pay in advance ....then you have a problem.
And that problem is free loaders. people unwilling to pay their share of the health care burden until and unless they actually need the care.
As long as you live in a society that is unwilling to let people die on the emergency room door step, you have this problem. In countries where health care is considered a right but one that comes with responsibility, mostly the health care premium is from taxation. What your country seems burdened with is that health care, at least when people become threatened by death, is a right, but a lot of people want to avoid paying their share of that burden... (See Rays comment above and the "cherry picking" that his respondent wants to do..."

Ricky:

Medicare Part D was designed to make users more responsible for costs and it was expected that as a result the costs would diminish. They went up the same as the rest of Medicare, as already noted and linked to in this thread...
That's hard evidence Ray, as opposed to your theory...

I'm under the impression that you cannot negotiate prescription drug prices under Part D. In fact, you've even quoted that at times. Would that skew your results?

My opinion is based on my experience living in Mass and America and being an employer, an employee, and a user, and having several doctor friends, and being on the Board of a health related charity, and what I've read in both the liberal and conservative press.

What is your opinion based on whilst living in Canada?

Ray Jay wrote:My opinion is based on my experience living in Mass and America and being an employer, an employee, and a user, and having several doctor friends, and being on the Board of a health related charity, and what I've read in both the liberal and conservative press.

Do you get it Ray. You don't accept the information ricky provides as the one and only truth so you must be an anti-science, fact ignoring, bible thumpin' Amurkin, ignorant redneck, dumbass.

Thanks ... and in real life I've always been the kind of guy that dumbass rednecks like to beat up. Now they're my buddies.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:There is a difference between trade, generally, and the dependency we've developed on China. What do you suppose would happen if China simply said, "We're done loaning you money"?

You'd say "we're done buying your stuff", I guess. The USA does have other means to borrow (a lot of them being domestic: public debt = private investment)

If we stop buying their stuff, how would that work, exactly? US goes protectionist?

Businesses will go for the low-cost "stuff." That comes from China.

On the other hand, they are buying a good percentage of our debt. If they stopped, we would have to pay more to borrow. In essence, they could break our economy.

If we could somehow break theirs, so what? We're still broke and they do what they have done historically: kill a few hundred thousand peasants to restore order.

You want to know what Obama can do? Cut spending. Propose a plan to get our economy on a path to stabilization. Stop his demagogic nonsense.

In short: act like he's the President of the US, instead of an insipid, third-rate party hack.

And that will stop China from growing faster than you? I was asking about policy to China. We already know your opinion on domestic fiscal policy (oddly, since you hardly ever mention it more than five times per thread, we also know that you think Obama's a demagogue)

What can he do? Apparently nothing. He can't even summon the courage to call out our "ally" (Pakistan) who protects our enemies (OBL, Al Qaida, the Taliban) or a country that has for years killed Americans via proxies (Iran).

Obama is far more comfortable bowing and scraping, just like the nitwits.

rickyp wrote:steve

They don't "compete." They "conform."

They have to conform to the regulations of each State. States require all manner of things that I have no desire to buy. Should everyone have to buy "cadillac" coverage?

Perhaps you are unaware that every business in every sector "conforms" to laws and regulations.

Right, gee, never heard of it.

This undercuts your constant assertion that there is some kind of competitive force alive and well in the medical insurance market.

Maybe you don't understand how the marketplace works. See, in order for there to be competition, one or more companies have to be able to find some advantage to lower their costs in order to provide a better price to consumers. So, a company looks to control overhead, production costs, risk, etc.

Since medical insurance is a service, there are some factors that are not applicable (e.g. production costs). Since a company in Mississippi cannot operate in NY, there is little opportunity for reducing overhead (office costs, salaries, etc.). As the States set mandatory levels of insurance, there is very little for the companies to compete with. What are they supposed to do? Operate at a loss? Use cheaper paper?

Governments set those laws and regulations in order to provide order and protections to citizens.

Sometimes. However, there are occasions in which things are done for purely political reasons. For example, look at Obamacare: why the mandate to cover 26 year-olds living at home? At that age, they can buy alcohol, drive cars, buy guns, get married, etc.--inow, they are not dependents in any sense. Yet, for medical insurance, they are? That was a pure political stunt.

Requiring absurd levels of coverage for younger people was also political--drive up the money they had to pay to allow older folks to pay less. It was "protection" all right--protection money, as in the sort of thing a mob does.

In any event, legislation could be crafted to provide consumer information and to allow a broader choice of insurance coverage, based on age, risk factors, etc. That would happen if the goal was to lower the cost of insurance. However, that is not the goal of liberals at the State or Federal level. Their goal is to force us away from the market and toward government-run healthcare. They just won't be as up front as you are.

Companies that provide life insurance, car insurance or house insurance have to conform to the state laws and requirements for all of those forms of insurance. Why should it be different for health care insurance?

This is funny. Very few States pay more for car insurance than MA. Many companies won't sell in MA. The same principles apply.

You are actually proving my point--States can make insurance unaffordable by "helping" the consumer right out of a competitive market.

I agree with you that the idea of forcing people to buy insurance is a difficult concept. But until those who don't pay insurance are compelled to sign waivers removing liability from anyone, including the government, who refuses to provide health care of any kind if the signatory cannot show ability to pay in advance ....then you have a problem.

Well said,

And, if the Supreme Court agrees with you, our country will have been fundamentally transformed by fiat. "Forcing" people to do something is antithetical to the Constitution. This is not a tax; it is a service. No matter how elastic some see the Constitution as being, this is beyond the bounds of reason.

And that problem is free loaders. people unwilling to pay their share of the health care burden until and unless they actually need the care.

No, the problem is letting free-loaders off the hook. For example, if someone chooses not to have health insurance, a law could be passed prohibiting them from seeking bankruptcy for relief, public assistance, etc. In other words, anyone who has a driver's license, registers to vote, or migrates here legally, would sign such an acknowledgement. NB: I am not crafting said legislation in this paragraph, just pointing out that one could "corner" people into buying instead of "forcing" them. One could also "induce" it by making it such a tax deduction that no one could say "no." For the poor, it could be added to EIC. For illegal aliens, free treatment--and a ticket home.

As long as you live in a society that is unwilling to let people die on the emergency room door step, you have this problem. In countries where health care is considered a right but one that comes with responsibility, mostly the health care premium is from taxation.

After Obamacare passed, Democrats boasted healthcare is now "a right." How about amending the Constitution? Until then, it's not a right. If it's a "right," then how much more is housing, food, and clothing? We will have been transformed to a socialist state without a shot being fired or a vote being taken.

Man, this thread is done. Stick a fork in it guys. Ricky done killed it ages ago.

What is your opinion based on whilst living in Canada?

Not my opinion... You didn't like my earlier source? Here's another:
http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/InfoByT ... Rising.htm
excerpt

Contrary to the repeated claim of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that Part D will drive down the prices of prescription drugs, these reports demonstrate that the prices of drugs under Part D are higher than prices available elsewhere and getting even higher. These reports also demonstrate that competition and the marketplace are less successful in reducing drug prices than direct negotiations by the government.

Very interesting chart on this report that ilustrates the differences.
Part D was designed so that consumers would go and shop for the best price..... didn't work to keep prices down.

And danivon, you don't have to follow steve around in every forum. If you don't like the discussion ignore it.

rickyp wrote:

What is your opinion based on whilst living in Canada?

Not my opinion... You didn't like my earlier source? Here's another:
http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/InfoByT ... Rising.htm
excerpt

Contrary to the repeated claim of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that Part D will drive down the prices of prescription drugs, these reports demonstrate that the prices of drugs under Part D are higher than prices available elsewhere and getting even higher. These reports also demonstrate that competition and the marketplace are less successful in reducing drug prices than direct negotiations by the government.

Very interesting chart on this report that ilustrates the differences.
Part D was designed so that consumers would go and shop for the best price..... didn't work to keep prices down.

Ricky, are you joking? A program is enacted in 2005 ... two reports are completed by two different House Democratic Party Committees. One compares prices from Dec. 2005 and Feb. 2006 and you conclude that as substantive evidence for a program enacted in 2005 which has been running for 6 years? The other just looked at the Chicago area. Ricky, these are partisan reports of the Democratic Party. They are each over 5 years old. Is this all that you could find?

But Ray, Ricky's proof is the one and only truth. Don't you understand that yet.

Ricky, read my post again. It wasn't about Steve.

danivon wrote:Ricky, read my post again. It wasn't about Steve.

For a change, I'll defend Danivon. It wasn't about me.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky, are you joking? A program is enacted in 2005 ... two reports are completed by two different House Democratic Party Committees. One compares prices from Dec. 2005 and Feb. 2006 and you conclude that as substantive evidence for a program enacted in 2005 which has been running for 6 years? The other just looked at the Chicago area. Ricky, these are partisan reports of the Democratic Party. They are each over 5 years old. Is this all that you could find?

You didn't highlight the part that made me, literally, laugh out loud. From Richard's source:

In the first seven weeks of the Medicare Part D drug program . . .

7 weeks? That is hysterical!

Suppose we attempted to measure the effectiveness of Obamacare on the basis of the first 7 weeks after its passage? The Stimulus? Medicare itself?

In any event, if the program were a financial debacle, would Republicans, who are willing to throw GWB under the bus on many issues, be loathe to point out governmental failure? I think not.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Ricky, read my post again. It wasn't about Steve.

For a change, I'll defend Danivon. It wasn't about me.

cheers, doc. You may be wrong 98% of the time, but you are at least able to recognise your own name.

Ricky, please, please, please, stop. You are killing your argument on so many levels it's painful. Healey's rule of holes applies.