Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

What's the point of even having insurance?

This post has 30 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 Posted: Mon, Mar 22 2010 10:39 AM

So, according to this bill, people who do not comply with the individual mandate will be forced to pay like 685 a year in penalties.  BUT, since insurance companies can no longer deny coverage, and since most people's total insurance premiums are more than 700 dollars a year, why should anyone have insurance until they get sick/need it?  I mean  I pay like 1200 dollars a year in premiums, it would be cheaper for me to drop my insurance and then just pay the fine each year.  If I get sick, I file for insurance.  The only flaw is that I have dental, eye and other benefits that I use monthly, but in terms of catastrophic coverage, I have no reason to hold any kind of coverage unless I get sick.

Thoughts?

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 10:53 AM

bloomj31:
Thoughts?

I think you're missing a zero on all of your figures.

I guess you have to read through the thousands of pages to see where the catch is. If there is one.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 10:55 AM

O is it 7k a year?  Hmm yes, that would change things.  But I thought it was 700?  Perhaps I misread o well.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Giant_Joe replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 10:57 AM

bloomj31:

So, according to this bill, people who do not comply with the individual mandate will be forced to pay like 685 a year in penalties.  BUT, since insurance companies can no longer deny coverage, and since most people's total insurance premiums are more than 700 dollars a year, why should anyone have insurance until they get sick/need it?  I mean  I pay like 1200 dollars a year in premiums, it would be cheaper for me to drop my insurance and then just pay the fine each year.  If I get sick, I file for insurance.  The only flaw is that I have dental, eye and other benefits that I use monthly, but in terms of catastrophic coverage, I have no reason to hold any kind of coverage unless I get sick.

Thoughts?

That's exactly the point of this bill. To drive insurance out of business and to realize a fully socialized health care system. As soon as the health insurance industry is destroyed, it will be shown that "capitalism has destroyed itself" and then we can live in a communist utopia.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:19 PM

Giant_Joe:
That's exactly the point of this bill. To drive insurance out of business and to realize a fully socialized health care system

This is incorrect.  They have already completely driven out insurance with this bill.  In fact, they have already begun to drive out the insurance industry decades ago, by gradually transforming it into a privatized welfare system enforced by government command and control regulations.

What they are now striving for is to drive out profit.  That is their goal.  To drive out profit.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Giant_Joe replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:47 PM

Nah, I'm pretty sure there's still health insurance firms out there. ;) Either way, this is just semantics.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:51 PM

Giant_Joe:

Nah, I'm pretty sure there's still health insurance firms out there. ;) Either way, this is just semantics.

name one.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Giant_Joe replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:53 PM

Here's one I found on a google search:

http://www.empireblue.com/

Are you suggesting that people can't buy health insurance?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 1:03 PM

Giant_Joe:

Here's one I found on a google search:

http://www.empireblue.com/

That's not an insurance company.  It is a welfare company that redistributes wealth from one group of people to another group of people in a manner that is predictable ahead of time.  

Giant_Joe:
Are you suggesting that people can't buy health insurance?

Yes.  And it is a big part of why healthcare is so expensive.

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 694
Points 11,400
Joe replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 1:06 PM

why even pay the fine?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 1:12 PM

Joe:

why even pay the fine?

I don't know, the government will probably take action against anyone who doesn't pay.  But I mean I'm only speculating, I don't know what they'd do.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 694
Points 11,400
Joe replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 1:15 PM

bloomj31:

Joe:

why even pay the fine?

I don't know, the government will probably take action against anyone who doesn't pay.  But I mean I'm only speculating, I don't know what they'd do.

I am sure that some (hopefully a bunch of) liberty activist(s) is(are) not going to pay. Would be interesting to see what happens at their court cases

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 342
Points 7,875

Giant_Joe:

Here's one I found on a google search:

http://www.empireblue.com/

Are you suggesting that people can't buy health insurance?

 

I think DD5 is trying to say that because of all the regulation, there's pretty much no true or real insurance companies out there doing what they were actually intended for.

In terms of regulation see the 1945 McCarrian-Ferguson Act and Republican legislation during the 1970s. I'm sure there is much more, but those are big ones.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 1:17 PM

bloomj31:

Joe:

why even pay the fine?

I don't know, the government will probably take action against anyone who doesn't pay.  But I mean I'm only speculating, I don't know what they'd do.

17,000 new IRS workers should be enough to track you down and send the Gestapo to your house.

 

Gestapo officers

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 165
Points 1,730
cret replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 1:24 PM

if the bill is true and one would end up paying less for heealthcare (somehow) than with private insurance many might be exceited about that.

the govt already mandates its health care payment at 70 years of age.

many drug companies give drugs away to low income individuals already.

 

i dont know about the semantics claim.  while the health care industry is regulated like many others i know that insurance companies still compete for small business accounts...i have seen it happen.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 1:30 PM

Alright, so after having done some more research on this, I think I've determined that the cost of not complying is 750 the first year but it goes up every year after that.  So DD5 was right.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 358
Points 8,245

LvMIenthusiast:

Giant_Joe:

Here's one I found on a google search:

http://www.empireblue.com/

Are you suggesting that people can't buy health insurance?

 

I think DD5 is trying to say that because of all the regulation, there's pretty much no true or real insurance companies out there doing what they were actually intended for.

In terms of regulation see the 1945 McCarrian-Ferguson Act and Republican legislation during the 1970s. I'm sure there is much more, but those are big ones.

 

Can you go more into the impact of the McCarran–Ferguson Act? From what I read on wiki, it exempted insurance companies from federal regulation.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

You are paying premiums for the highest risks.  Which is why it has to be mandatory.  It's essentially a privately collected tax.  They've tricked masses of people who are made net payers into supporting it by using arguments portaying any alternative as being universally disadvantageous.

There are two reasons to buy insurance.  Gambling.  Flattening out payments over time.  You can just save up money instead of  buying insurance, except that you won't be covered up to a point.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Stranger replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 9:18 PM

Caley McKibbin:
You are paying premiums for the highest risks.  Which is why it has to be mandatory.  It's essentially a privately collected tax.  They've tricked masses of people who are made net payers into supporting it by using arguments portaying any alternative as being universally disadvantageous.

Tax farming is back.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 300
Points 5,325

No the penalty is 750 and Stossel is reporting that it won't even be enforced at all.

But in your OP you said your premiums are like 1200. That seems WAY LOW.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 10:08 PM

NewLiberty:

No the penalty is 750 and Stossel is reporting that it won't even be enforced at all.

But in your OP you said your premiums are like 1200. That seems WAY LOW.

100/month.  maybe 110ish I'd have to check, they do auto payment.  I actually read that the penalty goes up over time though.  Dunno if that's correct.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 17
Points 245
Joseph F replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 11:33 PM

To Joe's question as to why to even pay the fine:

 

You won't have a choice.   The fine and tax penalties will all be administered by the IRS.  So, if you don't pay, they can just freeze your accounts or seize your property.  

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 12:38 AM

If the plan is cheaper than private insurance all that means is:

  1. Taxes will go up and/or
  2. Monetization will continue to rise at a greater rate

These two points don't take into consideration the stifling of entrepeneurial activity, new capital investment, and the determent of new innovation that will result as an unseen cost to the bill.

In addition to ALL of this, I doubt the bill addresses any of the original existing problems we had in healthcare. In fact most people who were upset at high cost of healthcare never even stopped to ask why the prices were high in the first place.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 17
Points 245
Joseph F replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 12:47 AM

Ah, yes.  As Hazlitt said, they are missing the forest for the trees. 

 

I think that it is important to state that the CBO estimates did not include the bureaucracy that must be put in place in order to administrate this plan.  Obviously, we already know that it will require at least 16,500 new IRS agents to administrate the tax provisions of the plan.  One can only imagine how many other bureaucrats will be hired to administrate the actual plan itself.  I shiver at the very thought.  

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 165
Points 1,730
cret replied on Thu, May 20 2010 2:45 AM

go without insurance if you dont already.  if you find that you like being without insurance then there is your point. 
 

you just dont like havign insurance.    are you really so confused about why many would choose insurance???

 

ask some policy holders...maybe those inyour familiy or some friends  maybe you can get your questionas answered that way.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 345
Points 7,035
Jesse replied on Thu, May 20 2010 4:15 AM

No the penalty is 750 and Stossel is reporting that it won't even be enforced at all.

Did Stossel do a special on this? Recently?

I Samuel 8

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 15
Points 225
pjose replied on Thu, May 20 2010 11:04 AM

"but in terms of catastrophic coverage, I have no reason to hold any kind of coverage unless I get sick."

 

Good luck trying to buy a ticket for the winning horse after the race is over.

Insurance and risk management doesn't quite work that way.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 47
Points 1,450
fourthand1 replied on Thu, May 20 2010 11:11 AM

That's not an insurance company.  It is a welfare company that redistributes wealth from one group of people to another group of people in a manner that is predictable ahead of time. 

 

Could you point me to some more information on this?

Thanks.

Live free or die
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Thu, May 20 2010 11:18 AM

"Good luck trying to buy a ticket for the winning horse after the race is over.

Insurance and risk management doesn't quite work that way."

It does when the government is running it.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 39
Points 475

Read this blog post by David Henderson at EconLog. 

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/03/obama_and_kucin.html

It's a fictional conversation between Obama and Kucinich, illustrating why those who want socialization should be pleased with ObamaCare.  And bloomj31's rationale is exactly what is going to fuel the rising insurance costs (healthy people will drop out and pay the fines, premiums will rise when the healthiest are removed from the insurance pool, the next healthiest people will drop out, premiums rise again, and so on).

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,649
Points 28,420

What they are now striving for is to drive out profit.  That is their goal.  To drive out profit.

Yep. One mandate limits administrative costs (what the insurance company pays itself and the producers who sell the stuff) to 20%. The recent legislation is awful but it isn't really anything new. My company stopped marketing health insurance years ago because it just isn't worth it. We'll sell it if an existing client needs it or as part of new business, but otherwise it is a huge waste of time to involve ourselves with it. Once the talons of the last bill strike and things become more like Medicare we'll reevaluate.

Before the bill even passed an Office of National Insurance was already in the works. link

If you want to torture yourself with the details of the even more devastating legislation in the pipeline, which you probably won't hear nearly as much about in the media, read this.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (31 items) | RSS