Trump Tweets (no more)

[Key Board]

Planned Parenthood has done much to help
What has the GOP done besides suppress birth control and tell people to be celibate

[Ithekro]

Well I suppose from a certain point of view the GOP is worried about lower birth rates for the white population due to things like PP, reducing their usually voting base as the number of other races increase for other reasons. The Latinos, at least those that are more traditional, tend to have larger families, partially because they are Catholic. Other groups? Could be any number of things. Some suggest Welfare invites large families in some poor areas as a source of income, but that is again one of those things that is certain point of view.

[Reckoner]

Ithekro that viewpoint is better known as white nationalism.

Frivolity, it wasn't just the Freedom caucus that sunk the bill. It was the house of cards upon which the GOP built their lies surrounding health care. Obama has effectively ended the philosophical debate around health care, most Americans believe that everyone should get coverage that is affordable. As a result GOP lawmakers kept talking about the shortcomings of Obamacare to their base and promising the moon to them with a magical fix. The problem? Obamacare was the moderate compromise on health care to retain the private insurance industry. Removing things like essential health benefits is only going to alienate the moderate republican who were equally responsible for sinking the GOP bill.

The voters who got Trump elected don't believe in your patient centered healthcare system lies. If they want to fix the shortcomings of Obamacare they have noted all these years they have to do things like increase subsidies or you know lower the Medicare age to 55 to take out the most costly patients in the system. Then and only then can you actually lower costs for the adverse citizen. That is if you wish to retain a private insurance market.

Alternatively, the Republican Party can start running in the platform that they don't believe government should be involved at all in trying to provide health care to its citizens. I imagine that isn't so popular if an idea which is why their spin doctors have been doing overtime lately. Nice way to dupe many voters though.

[Jaden]

Trump used to be all for socialized healthcare, now has to pretend otherwise since he's wearing the republican mask and promised not to raise taxes. Sad!

To me, it would just make sense. If you agree on the ideal of universal coverage...what's the purpose of the insurance industry? They're just middle-men and don't seem to be saving anyone money, in comparison to what the socialized system would look like.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It wouldn't be the first time. Last time we kept half the territory and 1% of the population.

You do realize that the only thing dumber than chasing your tail is bitting it? After 23 years of NAFTA, Mexico is part of the production chain of the USA, and a war would be a self-deprecating effort. Not to mention how the iraq war turned a mostly peaceful country into a violence shithole that has spilt into neighbouring countries, you do not want that in your own border.

But alas, I can't rule out trump sending the national guard to force states to comply with his ICE agenda, so anything (dumb) is possible with this president too old to learn anything at all.

Originally Posted by Jaden

To me, it would just make sense. If you agree on the ideal of universal coverage...what's the purpose of the insurance industry? They're just middle-men and don't seem to be saving anyone money, in comparison to what the socialized system would look like.

The thing is that insurance companies will still be a viable business, they have not been wiped out of canada or europe, they would just no longer be able to siphon money out of the pocket of anyone sick.

But hey, why stop with health care? maybe Trump will privatize security (aka the cops) as seen in robocop movies. Before you say that is a impossible, remember that the penitentiary system has already been privatized.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Trump used to be all for socialized healthcare, now has to pretend otherwise since he's wearing the republican mask and promised not to raise taxes. Sad!

To me, it would just make sense. If you agree on the ideal of universal coverage...what's the purpose of the insurance industry? They're just middle-men and don't seem to be saving anyone money, in comparison to what the socialized system would look like.

Your first mistake was thinking that the republican party wants to save the average citizen any money. That privilege is reserved for the rich.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Planned Parenthood has done much to help
What has the GOP done besides suppress birth control and tell people to be celibate

Planned Parenthood does a small amount of good and a large amount of bad. States now have the option of only funding the good without funding the bad. It's their choice now, and that's what I like about the bill that was passed.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Frivolity, it wasn't just the Freedom caucus that sunk the bill. It was the house of cards upon which the GOP built their lies surrounding health care. Obama has effectively ended the philosophical debate around health care, most Americans believe that everyone should get coverage that is affordable. As a result GOP lawmakers kept talking about the shortcomings of Obamacare to their base and promising the moon to them with a magical fix. The problem? Obamacare was the moderate compromise on health care to retain the private insurance industry. Removing things like essential health benefits is only going to alienate the moderate republican who were equally responsible for sinking the GOP bill.

The voters who got Trump elected don't believe in your patient centered healthcare system lies. If they want to fix the shortcomings of Obamacare they have noted all these years they have to do things like increase subsidies or you know lower the Medicare age to 55 to take out the most costly patients in the system. Then and only then can you actually lower costs for the adverse citizen. That is if you wish to retain a private insurance market.

Alternatively, the Republican Party can start running in the platform that they don't believe government should be involved at all in trying to provide health care to its citizens. I imagine that isn't so popular if an idea which is why their spin doctors have been doing overtime lately. Nice way to dupe many voters though.

First things first, my post was about why I'm happy with the current state of events. As I said, Ryancare solves no problems, and would have made things even worse. Without the House Freedom Caucus, Ryancare would definitely have passed. So yes, the reason why Ryancare didn't go through is indeed because of the HFC.

The HFC is now effectively the minority party of a coalition. This gives them a great deal of influence since the rest of the GOP Congress can't pass laws without the HFC, and they definitely won't cross the line to the Democrats, irrespective of whatever Trump has been threatening.

Moving on to the political aspect that you talked about, I'm not so sure that majority of Americans do believe that everyone should be able to get coverage that's affordable, in the broad form as you so claim. Many of them may believe in certain variations of it, but even if your claim is taken at face value, it's ignoring the important other side of the equation, which is the issue of what Americans are actually willing to give up for it. I don't believe that the majority of Americans are willing to pay the level of tax rates needed to have universal coverage that's sustainable.

Nobody said anything about completely removing essential health benefits from private insurance, which even I would disagree with. However, there's nothing wrong with allowing insurers to offer cheaper plans that don't cover essential health benefits and let individuals decide how much cover they want.

Increasing subsidies and changing the medicare age isn't going to lower costs for the average citizen, who will still end up paying for it through their taxes. There is only one way to reduce costs in the long run, and that is by increasing supply. This would entail policies such as reform of the malpractice framework in order to lower the cost of insuring a medical practice, but that's a whole different topic altogether.

[Key Board]

And what large amount of bad is this?

Most people of who hate PP are
- anti vaccination people
- believe that PP does organ trade
- believes that PP provides "abortions at all ages"
- hate Obamacare
none of those are valid

There is no equivalent GOP solution to PP, just like there is no GOP equivalent to Obamacare
The GOP are hurting people by doing this

[GDB]

Originally Posted by frivolity

However, there's nothing wrong with allowing insurers to offer cheaper plans that don't cover essential health benefits and let individuals decide how much cover they want.

You seem to be confusing "want" with "can afford without dying". And "essential" with "pretty much any". I mean, who wouldn't want to spend 25% of the cost for 1% of the coverage? It's not like corporations are greedy or anything. They clearly want to give you a good deal that helps you.

And that's assuming the coverage you can afford is even accepted by any respectable doctor. And let's not get into the absurd prices (and lack of coverage therein) of dental and vision insurance.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by frivolity

First things first, my post was about why I'm happy with the current state of events. As I said, Ryancare solves no problems, and would have made things even worse. Without the House Freedom Caucus, Ryancare would definitely have passed. So yes, the reason why Ryancare didn't go through is indeed because of the HFC.

The HFC is now effectively the minority party of a coalition. This gives them a great deal of influence since the rest of the GOP Congress can't pass laws without the HFC, and they definitely won't cross the line to the Democrats, irrespective of whatever Trump has been threatening.

Moving on to the political aspect that you talked about, I'm not so sure that majority of Americans do believe that everyone should be able to get coverage that's affordable, in the broad form as you so claim. Many of them may believe in certain variations of it, but even if your claim is taken at face value, it's ignoring the important other side of the equation, which is the issue of what Americans are actually willing to give up for it. I don't believe that the majority of Americans are willing to pay the level of tax rates needed to have universal coverage that's sustainable.

Nobody said anything about completely removing essential health benefits from private insurance, which even I would disagree with. However, there's nothing wrong with allowing insurers to offer cheaper plans that don't cover essential health benefits and let individuals decide how much cover they want.

Increasing subsidies and changing the medicare age isn't going to lower costs for the average citizen, who will still end up paying for it through their taxes. There is only one way to reduce costs in the long run, and that is by increasing supply. This would entail policies such as reform of the malpractice framework in order to lower the cost of insuring a medical practice, but that's a whole different topic altogether.

The Freedom caucus and the Tuesday Group are fundamentally at odds. The HFC has been holding the nation hostage for awhile with their extreme ideological purity. It's easy to be in opposition but that is not a governing strategy. Trumpcare was an awful piece of legislation no matter how you sliced it though.

See the thing is nobody "wants" insurance until they get sick, but anyone can get sick. And when you have a serious problem you better hope you have a healthcare plan that can help you. One of the most popular provisions in Obamacare is covering preexisting conditions, you cannot deny coverage for that. But guess what? That is tied fundamentally to the least popular provision which is the mandate. Healthcare is a complicated thing but at the end of the day it is something that you have to have a honest philosophical discussion about. Do you believe government should help to provide access to healthcare to everyone at an affordable cost? And yes the HFC wants to get rid of essential health benefits so I have no idea why would you say that.

Trump promised his base that everyone would get cheaper, better healthcare than Obamacare. You're not going to achieve that giving tax breaks to the rich or going back to the old system where people had garbage healthcare plans sold to them that did nothing. Either you get more subsidiaries and expand Medicare, or we just go full public option. That's the real way to fix healthcare if your intention to get everyone coverage. It'll cost us more in taxes, particularly the rich but nothing is for free.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Several Americans, particularly those of a nationalist bent, would rather the United States get out of the World Policing duties and return the majority of our Armies and Air Forces to North America. The Navy can still patrol out around the world, because they are good at that.

Having a conflict with Mexico would not be exactly what the nationalist would want, but if they can think they can "end the tide" of illegal immigrants by making their country part of the United States, than they might support the idea. Mexico's southern border is far shorter than its northern border, and that would be 31 states to add to the US flag eventually after they get reorganized and passive after the war ends.

The funny thing is that if we took over Mexico, and I still haven't done it succesfully in that Civ game I was playing, there would still be something south still....

It'd really be the same thing, only worse. Not to mention the trouble we've had pacifying a large population. It's a fool's errand that never ends. Though I guess perpetual conflict is the lifeblood of politics.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by GDB

You seem to be confusing "want" with "can afford without dying". And "essential" with "pretty much any". I mean, who wouldn't want to spend 25% of the cost for 1% of the coverage? It's not like corporations are greedy or anything. They clearly want to give you a good deal that helps you.

And that's assuming the coverage you can afford is even accepted by any respectable doctor. And let's not get into the absurd prices (and lack of coverage therein) of dental and vision insurance.

Nope, I was very careful with my choice of words in that particular paragraph, so there was no confusion on my part. Healthcare and health insurance are commodities, so consumers choose how much coverage they "want", and how much they are willing to pay. It's no different from food or accommodation. Each individual weighs the extent of their risk aversion against how much they are willing to pay.

Obama himself said pretty much the same thing, that individuals choose how much of their budget to prioritise on health insurance:

I guess what I would say is if you looked at that person's budget, and you looked at their cable bill, their telephone, their cell phone bill, other things that they're spending on, it may turn out that it's just they haven't prioritized healthcare because right now everyone's healthy. Nobody actually wants to spend money on health insurance until they get sick. And then once they're sick, the cost of not having health insurance are a lot worse than the cost of having health insurance.

Images

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Corporations in a competitive market have every incentive to give consumers good deals, otherwise a competitor will swoop in with better deals and take away all the business. That's the entire basis of the actuarial profession. When the quantity of claims significantly exceeds the actuarial forecasts, the actuaries will be unhappy. And I can tell you as well from sources I'm very familiar with that when the number of claims significantly undershoots the forecasts, the actuaries will also not be happy, since it means that they had lost potential clients from uncompetitive policies.

The problem of course, is that competition in the insurance market is being artificially constrained by not allowing insurers to compete across state lines. That is a key restriction that needs to be removed.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

The Freedom caucus and the Tuesday Group are fundamentally at odds. The HFC has been holding the nation hostage for awhile with their extreme ideological purity. It's easy to be in opposition but that is not a governing strategy. Trumpcare was an awful piece of legislation no matter how you sliced it though.

See the thing is nobody "wants" insurance until they get sick, but anyone can get sick. And when you have a serious problem you better hope you have a healthcare plan that can help you. One of the most popular provisions in Obamacare is covering preexisting conditions, you cannot deny coverage for that. But guess what? That is tied fundamentally to the least popular provision which is the mandate. Healthcare is a complicated thing but at the end of the day it is something that you have to have a honest philosophical discussion about. Do you believe government should help to provide access to healthcare to everyone at an affordable cost? And yes the HFC wants to get rid of essential health benefits so I have no idea why would you say that.

Trump promised his base that everyone would get cheaper, better healthcare than Obamacare. You're not going to achieve that giving tax breaks to the rich or going back to the old system where people had garbage healthcare plans sold to them that did nothing. Either you get more subsidiaries and expand Medicare, or we just go full public option. That's the real way to fix healthcare if your intention to get everyone coverage. It'll cost us more in taxes, particularly the rich but nothing is for free.

Trumpcare was indeed a terrible piece of legislation. The Tuesday group voted for it, the HFC voted against it, and we're both happy that it was blocked. So what exactly is your contention against what I said in my original post, which is that I'm happy the HFC blocked it?

The whole point of insurance is that you have to buy it before a claimable event occurs, and not after. By doing this, the insurer uses premiums to spread the risk across all the policyholders. An application for new insurance cannot be accepted from an applicant for whom the claimable event has already occurred, since the risk has crystallised into an actual loss that cannot be insured ex ante. Insurance cover can be granted before the insurance event has occurred, but not after.

You can't buy housing insurance after your house has already burnt down and expect to get paid out - you have to buy it while your house is intact. You can't buy car insurance after your car was completely wrecked and expect to be paid - you have to buy it before anything happens. Imagine what would happen if everyone could buy housing insurance after something happens. Everyone would simply not buy housing insurance until something happens and then lodge their claim. That would no longer be insurance since it's not a spreading of risk. There is no way to insure such a system since the payouts will always exceed the total premiums collected, which causes the whole system to collapse.

In the same way, there cannot be a health insurance system in which people are allowed to buy insurance after a pre-existing condition has shown up. Anyone familiar with the economics of insurance would easily have predicted its eventual failure. When pre-existing conditions are covered, more and more high-risk people with pre-existing conditions that make them more costly to insure will sign up, causing prices to go up for the healthy individuals, some of whom decide that the insurance is no longer worth it for them and drop their coverage, causing prices to go up even higher, causing even more healthy people to drop out, and repeat ad infinitum.

Again, nobody is saying that essential health services should be completely removed from health insurance. What the HFC wants is to allow insurers to offer different plans. Policies that cover the essential health services will still continue to exist, and policies that don't cover them can also be offered. Consumers choose whether or not they want coverage of the essential health services.

The philosophical discussion at the end of the day is no different than for every other economic issue that pertains to government intervention as opposed to market outcomes: Do you believe that the knowledge of a select few is superior to the knowledge held by society at large?

Does the government really know more about how much risk individuals should accept than the individuals themselves do, when individuals in a diverse society have different risk preferences? Can government really have the knowledge and ability to decide individual priorities in a manner that trumps the individuals' own choices, when people in a diverse society have a wide range of priorities? And can government really be nimble enough to respond to people's preferences as compared to having individual independent firms innovating to capture market niches? This is not even considering the fact that there are innumerable examples showing that government departments are much more interested in preserving their own influence and funding than in meeting the interests of the people that they serve.

Bear in mind that socialised healthcare invariably ends up as an inter-generational transfer of wealth, where the taxes of the young people are being used to pay for the healthcare of the elderly. This occurs because from a public finance perspective, if one generation cannot pay for healthcare costs over its lifetime, then the shortfall must be made up from other generations, which reduces the wealth of the latter. This may be fine in the beginning when the population pyramid is expansive, but it inevitably collapses when the population pyramid becomes stationary, or worse, constrictive. This is why the NHS is tearing at the seams - the UK government failed to retain sufficient healthcare surpluses to accommodate the future healthcare needs of the greying population and ended up overspending on earlier generations. As a result, the last few cohorts of elderly people have received a very good bargain on healthcare, but the current batch of young workers are going to get a very raw deal when they themselves grow old.

Anyone who is young and healthy but supports a full public healthcare system had better hope that the next generation of young workers is foolish enough to carry on participating in this Ponzi scheme.

Edit: Forgot to mention, the real way to fix healthcare ultimately lies on the supply side, which both parties conveniently ignore since reform in this area is much harder to achieve.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Do you believe that the knowledge of a select few is superior to the knowledge held by society at large?

This question is so unbelievably loaded but the answer is Yes.

There needs to be a common ground for everyone. Obviously not everyone is going to profit from every single point but then again why should they? Health care in a nut shell is a system in which everyone pays a comparatively small amount in order to have everyone covered. It does not work by paying for yourself only which is what you mean by not having all of the essentials covered.

Originally Posted by frivolity

Bear in mind that socialised healthcare invariably ends up as an inter-generational transfer of wealth, where the taxes of the young people are being used to pay for the healthcare of the elderly.

That's retirement provision, not health care. Hopefully you're still far from retirement because that 'ponzi scheme' will be taking care of you then.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

This question is so unbelievably loaded but the answer is Yes.

There needs to be a common ground for everyone. Obviously not everyone is going to profit from every single point but then again why should they? Health care in a nut shell is a system in which everyone pays a comparatively small amount in order to have everyone covered. It does not work by paying for yourself only which is what you mean by not having all of the essentials covered.

Really? You believe that there is a select few somewhere out there who know better than everyone else? If so, then where exactly are you going to find these all-knowing angels who not only have such divine knowledge but can also be trusted to act in the interests of others without paying regard to building up their own political clout?

History is replete with such individuals who believed that they had such superior knowledge that they could decide what's best for others even more than those others knew for themselves, and every single example ended in terrible outcomes. Some of these were more minor though still serious, such as Herbert Hoover tinkering with the economy and inadvertently sparking off the Great Depression. The most major ones I don't have to name.

The only common ground that is needed in the context of insurance is a framework of contracts to ensure that both parties keep their promises and interpreted the contract in the same way, and at the very most some disclosure rules to ensure that fraud isn't taking place. No other common ground is required for insurance to work, and everything else can be decided by individuals.

Nobody said anything about everyone profiting from healthcare. My post specifically talked about "inter-generational transfer of wealth", where one generation benefits and another generation loses. Not every individual within each generation will profit, but what moral justification is there for allowing one generational cohort to take the wealth belonging to another generation without their consent?

Note as well that forecasts of future demographics are very unreliable. The first generation to be subjected to socialised healthcare benefited greatly because there was a large tax base of young workers to pay for the elderly's healthcare costs. But as the population pyramid begins to invert, that extremely large group of young workers began to grow older and had much less money to spend on healthcare when they themselves grew old, since the taxes they paid in their younger years were already spent on the previous generation, while the new batch of young workers are fewer in number and thus cannot pay the same amount of costs for the larger cohort. This is the basis for the argument that socialised healthcare for you eventually ends up as a tax on your children.

That's retirement provision, not health care. Hopefully you're still far from retirement because that 'ponzi scheme' will be taking care of you then.

No, it is health care and not retirement. I'm not talking about a retirement pension, but healthcare costs, since it is well-documented that healthcare cost rises with age, and the money isn't coming from nowhere. Someone has to pay for it.

As I mentioned in my previous post, from a public finance perspective, each generation must be able to pay for its own healthcare cost, otherwise you end up with a Ponzi scheme in which you transfer the wealth of future generations to the present generation, and hope that the population keeps on growing so that successive generations can pay for the previous generation's healthcare costs. That is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme.

I hold very comprehensive private health and life insurance policies even though I'm young and healthy with no major pre-existing conditions. These will compensate me more than adequately should something serious occur to me. They occupy a substantial portion of my income, but I made the choice to prioritise protecting myself against future catastrophes over other short-term pleasures that people my age are spending on, such as holidays to exotic locations, and this reflects my own level of risk aversion.

Trust me when I say that I am not so optimistic to rely on Ponzi schemes to pay for my healthcare costs when I grow old.

[monir]

Trump's been pretty active on twitter in the last 24 hours. Most of them highlights the Russia investigation.

"When will Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd and @NBCNews start talking about the Obama SURVEILLANCE SCANDAL and stop with the Fake Trump/Russia story?

It is the same Fake News Media that said there is "no path to victory for Trump" that is now pushing the phony Russia story. A total scam!

Wow, @FoxNews just reporting big news. Source: "Official behind unmasking is high up. Known Intel official is responsible. Some unmasked....

..not associated with Russia. Trump team spied on before he was nominated." If this is true, does not get much bigger. Would be sad for U.S.

He's worried about something. He also got couple of tweets on Health Care:

The failing @nytimes finally gets it - "In places where no insurance company offers plans, there will be no way for ObamaCare customers to..

...use subsidies to buy health plans." In other words, Ocare is dead. Good things will happen, however, either with Republicans or Dems.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Really? You believe that there is a select few somewhere out there who know better than everyone else? If so, then where exactly are you going to find these all-knowing angels who not only have such divine knowledge but can also be trusted to act in the interests of others without paying regard to building up their own political clout?

All-knowing angels? Divine knowledge? What are you ranting about? Let's bring this back to a serious ground.

You seem to have this notion that because you don't benefit from certain essential health benefits (EHB) that you shouldn't pay for them. Why should you as a man pay for maternity care? Why should you as a healthy person pay for mental health services and addiction treatment? Why should you as an adult pay for pediatric services? All of this stems from the argument whether we want people who have needs for services paying for the bulk of those services themselves or do we want to spread the cost of necessary services across a broader population so those services are affordable and accessible for everyone when they need them. This doesn't even take into account that by doing away with the EHB it would create a market for policies that either only covers marginal issues or are highly expensive. And let's not get started on the issue that providers could outright avoid people they judge 'non-profitable'.

I am a very strong advocate of many paying a little for everyone whereas you are the opposite.

Originally Posted by frivolity

History is replete with such individuals who believed that they had such superior knowledge that they could decide what's best for others even more than those others knew for themselves, and every single example ended in terrible outcomes. Some of these were more minor though still serious, such as Herbert Hoover tinkering with the economy and inadvertently sparking off the Great Depression. The most major ones I don't have to name.

None of these individuals are relevant to the ACA.

Originally Posted by frivolity

The only common ground that is needed in the context of insurance is a framework of contracts to ensure that both parties keep their promises and interpreted the contract in the same way, and at the very most some disclosure rules to ensure that fraud isn't taking place. No other common ground is required for insurance to work, and everything else can be decided by individuals.

That's just an illusionary utopia. Individuals don't cherry pick their own plans, they choose the options that providers offer them. If there is no common ground among providers we run into the aforementioned issue of individuals having the choice between taking the risk of massive costs when they actually have an issue or paying massive costs for issues they already have or might never get. The EHB are an important part of what balances the market and makes it affordable for everyone.

Originally Posted by frivolity

Nobody said anything about everyone profiting from healthcare. My post specifically talked about "inter-generational transfer of wealth", where one generation benefits and another generation loses. Not every individual within each generation will profit, but what moral justification is there for allowing one generational cohort to take the wealth belonging to another generation without their consent?

No, it is health care and not retirement. I'm not talking about a retirement pension, but healthcare costs, since it is well-documented that healthcare cost rises with age, and the money isn't coming from nowhere. Someone has to pay for it.

Affordable healthcare is in the interest of all generations.

Originally Posted by frivolity

As I mentioned in my previous post, from a public finance perspective, each generation must be able to pay for its own healthcare cost, otherwise you end up with a Ponzi scheme in which you transfer the wealth of future generations to the present generation, and hope that the population keeps on growing so that successive generations can pay for the previous generation's healthcare costs. That is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme.

That's some vile nonsense if I ever read one. This is proven false simply by looking at healthcare systems in Europe. Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Britain, France and ongoing all have higher health costs among older generations yet none of them is complaining about your so-called ponzi scheme. Mainly because it doesn't exist in the first place.

Originally Posted by frivolity

I hold very comprehensive private health and life insurance policies even though I'm young and healthy with no major pre-existing conditions. These will compensate me more than adequately should something serious occur to me. They occupy a substantial portion of my income, but I made the choice to prioritise protecting myself against future catastrophes over other short-term pleasures that people my age are spending on, such as holidays to exotic locations, and this reflects my own level of risk aversion.

That's nice and well but this isn't just about you. It's about everyone but as long as you refuse to acknowledge that there is no point in arguing further.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Corporations in a competitive market have every incentive to give consumers good deals, otherwise a competitor will swoop in with better deals and take away all the business. That's the entire basis of the actuarial profession. When the quantity of claims significantly exceeds the actuarial forecasts, the actuaries will be unhappy. And I can tell you as well from sources I'm very familiar with that when the number of claims significantly undershoots the forecasts, the actuaries will also not be happy, since it means that they had lost potential clients from uncompetitive policies.

The problem of course, is that competition in the insurance market is being artificially constrained by not allowing insurers to compete across state lines. That is a key restriction that needs to be removed.

So in other words, pseudo monopolies just like internet corporations. And they sure aren't trying to gouge people or anything.

Originally Posted by frivolity

This is not even considering the fact that there are innumerable examples showing that government departments are much more interested in preserving their own influence and funding than in meeting the interests of the people that they serve.

That's a completely separate issue that shouldn't have any basis in this discussion. Otherwise you can handwave any argument for anything government-based with "Government is corrupt, tear it down."

[Key Board]

What does Trump feel about Mattis beating the war drums against North Korea and Iran
He hasn't tweeted about that IIRC. Suspiciously quiet.

If there's anything I like about Trump is that he ran on an anti-war platform
but I wonder how it will play out
He seems to be intentionally irritating North Korea

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Key Board

He seems to be intentionally irritating North Korea

It look like he ad North Korea are playing a game of chicken, both side being as dumb ad irresponsible as the other.

As Trump running a anti-war platform, he also claimed to go harder on terrorist, go rough with China and to expland the military, so he contradicted himself so often than he pretty much promised to do everything.

[Sheba]

I am thankful I do live under that "ponzi-scheme" European healtcare.

Because my appendicitisis came at the worst time for me (no job, barely making ends meet with my savings), and I'd not typing here if I had not the french healthcare system to cover my surgery's costs. So, I'll gladly give away some of my income to the system to help any guy who'd experience the same misfortune as I did. And I am pretty sure that a lot of French citizens understand as much why we do that.