mises.org www.youtube.com
Related Insurance Quote Posts
- Why A Health Insurance Mandate Is Terrible
- CNN Michael Steele Interview - He Doesn’t Know What His Own Insurance Is!
- Obama Refuses to Rule Out Jail Time for People Who Don’t Buy Health Insurance.
- Insurance Co. Targets HIV Victims
- Pelosi Says Buy Health Insurance Or Go To Jail 2009
- The Health Insurance CARTEL!
- Why Are Some Insurance Companies Ecstatic About Health Care Reform?
- Levene Says Lloyd’s Expects `Tough’ Year for Insurance
- Rep. Weiner - Republican Party Owned By Insurance Industry
- Barack Obama: I Want Universal Health Care, Not Private Insurance (2007) [Naked Emperor News]
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
LOL, great point!
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
<Health Insurance, since it is required to get treatment, is not “insurance” at all, but “care.”
Obviously you have no idea what health insurance actually is, or how it works. Or insurance, for that matter. What a dumb statement.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
this was a great article mr. batey
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
News flash: Homeowner’s insurance companies refuse to take on policies for houses that have burned down. They’re obviously just evil profit-seekers, and should be nationalized to keep their greed from destroying teh economeez. Itz for teh childrunz!
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Would it help your comprehension if I pointed out, again, that requiring insurers to cover people for something that happened before they bought insurance defeats the whole point of insurance? No, of course it won’t, because you’ll just as quickly respond “You hate sick people!” because you’re incapable of making a reasoned argument and thus must rely on emotive arguments to make your points.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Health insurance should not, by the nature of the business, be very profitable. Like a grocery store or other “normal” financial type services, that in a properly functioning market, need to have a certain transaction rate to make a profit, since the margin/transaction is “normally” very slim (and not easily controlled due to competition and relative ease of the business, unlike Ipods, software, etc where margins are a lot fatter). CS is accurately pointing out how Ins Cos increase the margins.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Is there a point to this conjecture?
Putting addictives in food? Seriously?
How could no one tell? Is it magic?
Free society will have regulators, food safety groups exist today. That, and someone in the industry will likely whistleblow, and that company will lose business, gain bad PR, etc.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
4. “We” did not invade anyone. The state did. They did it for special interests, and like any state they need ideological support, but the problem is the STATE not the people.
5. Public systems suck
/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ
The NHS in the UK has a cap on spending. You know, for people’s health.
6. Health care market is economically perverted by the state.
Why HC is expensive in the States, 1 of 2
/watch?v=Nt0tKl0J-S4
US health care is not a “free market”
/watch?v=gDxpwD-cK9Y
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
1. Regulations are often lobbied for by the industries they are supposed to regulate, to secure their hegemony/oligopoly in the market
2. State medical services make medical services appear cheaper, increasing demand, but don’t increase the supply of services, merely change ownership of them. This creates overuse of the system, so you get rationing. Google “Barbara Wagner”
3. Firms like the Mayo Clinic, are disincentivized, through state programs/regulations/taxes
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Anton writes for mises now? Kick ass.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
greed+special interest groups+Lloyd’s of London +politicians with good intentions=American health care
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
They’re most likely producing food and distributing it in order to sustain their own needs, yes. It is mutual. Who knows they then may become corrupt and put highly addictive substances into their products in order to hook the consumer. Of course, no one can tell they are doing this. Profound health defects result of this, but no one knows why…It’s funny because this openly happens in America and nothing is done.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
I’m skeptical about the claims of “record insurance profits” I hear often. Health insurance continually ranks very low relative to other industry’s profit margins, with low single digit margins. High insurance costs can all be explained by these regulations, rather than excessive “greed”.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Medicare is just a public insurance option you can’t opt out of paying.
Besides, notice the number of doctors that don’t bulk bill anymore?
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Really? Do we really have to do this? Greed? Profits are evil? Amazing that there are people still saying this. Remember the grocery store, people don’t sell you food because they like you. You get to eat because others are greedy and want to make a buck off of you.
watch?v=ZSI3-kyUhSc
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
regulation to cover all comers is not needed unless profit is the only aim. public systems avoid greed. simple difference. here in australia we have medicare for all. i am completely surprised there is stonage countries that let people die while they invade other countries
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Excellent stuff.
I can imagine the economic illiterates responding to this with: “Ya’ll just hates teh poor peoplez!”
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Peter Schiff explains how to make healthcare more affordable in this video:
watch?v=Rm-nrDMjZzs
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
“It is generally considered…” By whom? On what premises? Define “generally”.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
I’m pretty sure it is.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Saying health insurance is required to get “treatment” is too broad. It is a good idea to carry health insurance to cover catastrophic treatment. But the current system forces companies to combine routine treatment that people would get anyway with catastrophic care, which defeats the whole purpose of “insurance”. If the two were separated, with people paying out of pocket for routine stuff and insurance covering major events (cancer, heart attacks, etc), the system would be far more logical.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
States kick ass!
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
And for more elaboration on the feasibility of voluntary welfare services, see my video on that, the second part.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Whenever you worry about a specific service, the best answer is never to pervert the structure of production, but to simply have medium of exchange transfers to be spent on the open market. Remember, the reason insurance is so expensive is precisely because the structure of production is perverted in the way outlined in this video and that you apparently see as necessary.
See my playlist on healthcare if you want more elaboration.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:24 am
Please respect the structure of production. If a person is in need of X and cannot afford X, that is an issue of welfare. Thus your objection can be subsumed under the general issue of “welfare”.
So lets rephrase your objection:
“How do people get things they ‘need’ when they cannot afford them in a society without compelled welfare services”
Answer:
Through voluntary welfare services.
And if insurance companies can charge proper rates, that will keep young and healthy people in the pool.