AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

What members? Private insurance is private insurance. The insurance collects a fee (premium) in return for assuming an agreed portion of risk rather than the policy holder having to assume that risk himself. What I pay the insurance company becomes the insurance company's money. If I have no losses, it is theirs to do whatever they wish with it. If I do have a loss, the insurance company is obligated to pay whatever the agreed portion of that loss is even though it will far exceed the amount of premium paid.

If the insurance company 'demands' more premium than I feel is worth it to be relieved of whatever risk, I don't buy the insurance. So, the insurance company has to keep the premium low enough to be affordable and 'worth it' to the policy holder, and more especially low enough to compete with other insurance companies who also want my premium dollars. It is the dual factor of the maximum amount the market will bear and the competition between competing interests that keeps insurance as affordable as it is. If insurance became truly unaffordable, no insurance company could afford to offer it.

Also, if the government had stayed out of it altogether other than to implement practical tort reform to help insurance companies keep their risks manageable, insurance would be a far sight less costly than it is.

There is zero evidence that more government involvement in healthcare will be more cost effective overall.

Further, in order to stay in business, the insurance company has to hold a certain amount of premium money in reserve so that it will be available to pay out in the inevitable losses that will occur.

The government has shown no such discipline, but spends the money as fast as it comes in plus billions--currently trillions--more. If the insurance company is financially irresponsible it goes belly up. If the government is financially irresponsible it just demands more money from the people or goes further and further into debt which will handicap Americans for generations to come.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If the insurance company loses enough money, it goes bankrupt.
So does the government, but the government doesn't lose its own money. It loses ours, and has the power to demand more and more of it just the same.

I should think that insurance companies don't loose their own money but that of their members. And when they do so, they demand more and more ...

Not only that, but insurance companies also have another factor to consider - portfolios. When they use their cash reserves to invest, and then lose money on those investments... your premiums go up to cover the difference.

Great point, Walter.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, insurance companies do invest their reserves and, when the market is good, they do make a lot of money that way which means they have to charge their policy holders a whole lot less than they otherwise would. During market bubbles, we in business reap wonderful dividends in lowered insurance premiums--insurance companies become even more competitive to attract premium money to invest. When the market is down, insurance premiums have to rise to compensate.

The free market generally does work quite effectively, and a free market also translates to more freedom for the people to structure their lives in the way that is most beneficial and satisfying for them.

Quote:

If the insurance company 'demands' more premium than I feel is worth it to be relieved of whatever risk, I don't buy the insurance. So, the insurance company has to keep the premium low enough to be affordable and 'worth it' to the policy holder, and more especially low enough to compete with other insurance companies who also want my premium dollars. It is the dual factor of the maximum amount the market will bear and the competition between competing interests that keeps insurance as affordable as it is. If insurance became truly unaffordable, no insurance company could afford to offer it.

This is a little farcical, b/c it relies on the premise that people can just go out and shop for whatever insurance they like, at the drop of a hat. This simply isn't the case. Most of us who get our insurance through our employers can only change once a year, and most of the options presented are roughly the same price. Getting insurance outside of your employer is almost always much more expensive.

So, when the insurance companies continue to jack the rates up on clients, people don't just drop their insurance. What you describe isn't realistically reflected in people's lives. Instead, they pay the higher rates, out of fear of not having health insurance, and lack of options.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, people do drop the insurance when they can no longer afford it. Some years ago we were in the market for an E&O policy and, because we were new and small, nobody wanted to write us. We finally found a policy that gave us half the coverage we needed at an exhorbitant price. We couldn't afford to go bare, however, as our clients (insurance companies) required us to have the insurance. We kept looking though, and finally found a company that would give us the full coverage we needed at half the rate of that other company. It was a new company hungry for business and who were willing to judge us by our reputation rather than just our balance sheet.

That's the benefit inherent in private enterprise and how the free market almost always works to almost everybody's advantage. Put the government in charge, however, and it becomes a one-size-fits-all package with no profit motive and therefore no incentive to be either cost effective or efficient.

The free market generally does work quite effectively, and a free market also translates to more freedom for the people to structure their lives in the way that is most beneficial and satisfying for them.

That's the benefit inherent in private enterprise and how the free market almost always works to almost everybody's advantage. Put the government in charge, however, and it becomes a one-size-fits-all package with no profit motive and therefore no incentive to be either cost effective or efficient.

Publics auto insurance is a government owned and operated system of automobile insurance operated in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. According to studies by the Consumers' Association of Canada, rates charged for auto insurance in these four provinces are lower than in provinces that use a private auto insurance system.[1]

Achieve a 2/3rds majority in the House? Are you smoking crack cocaine? They would have to win 100+ seats away from the Dems to do that, and that my friend is as ludicrous as any projection anyone has ever made in American politics, period.

It's been a respectable money-maker for the provinces, while keeping costs down for consumers.

Quote:

Yes, insurance companies do invest their reserves and, when the market is good, they do make a lot of money that way which means they have to charge their policy holders a whole lot less than they otherwise would. During market bubbles, we in business reap wonderful dividends in lowered insurance premiums--insurance companies become even more competitive to attract premium money to invest. When the market is down, insurance premiums have to rise to compensate.

The free market generally does work quite effectively, and a free market also translates to more freedom for the people to structure their lives in the way that is most beneficial and satisfying for them.

Is that how you would describe the last decade of rising insurance costs? As 'more freedom' for people to structure their lives?

Cycloptichorn

4) A society that has become more and more litigious which is a huge portion of the rising costs of healthcare both in unrealistic use of 'defensive medicine' and high costs of malpractice insurance. In none of the five healthcare outlines currently being debated is there any suggeston of tort reform which could help us out enormously.

That's the benefit inherent in private enterprise and how the free market almost always works to almost everybody's advantage. Put the government in charge, however, and it becomes a one-size-fits-all package with no profit motive and therefore no incentive to be either cost effective or efficient.

Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent. Canada's private insurers had higher overhead (13.2 percent) than U.S. insurers (11.7 percent) did. Overhead of U.S. insurers was higher than that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Overall, public (Medicare and Medicaid) and private insurance overhead in the United States totaled $72 billion, 5.9 percent of total U.S. health spending, $259 per capita. Insurance overhead in Canada was 1.9 percent of health spending, $47 per capita.

July 31, 2009
Americans on Healthcare Reform: Top 10 Takeaways
Key findings from Gallup surveys
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- A review of public opinion research on healthcare reform reveals that Americans may have hit the slowdown button. One primary cause for this appears to be public concerns about cost, but there are a number of additional elements involved. The bottom line is a sense that, while Americans apparently favor some type of healthcare reform in the long term, they are in no hurry to see healthcare reform legislation passed in the short-term on a rushed schedule.

Herewith is a summary of 10 key elements of American public opinion on
healthcare reform, based on a review of the latest survey research as of the week of July 27-31.

1. Most Americans do not believe that the U.S. healthcare system is in a state of crisis. The economy outweighs healthcare as the most pressing problem facing the country and in Americans' personal lives.

• Although the majority of Americans believe the U.S. healthcare system has major problems, less than 20% perceive that the U.S. healthcare system is in a state of crisis. This has not shifted significantly in 15 years.

• More Americans now mention healthcare as the nation's most important problem than was the case a few months ago. It is unlikely that the quality of healthcare deteriorated in four months, but rather that its salience has increased for the average American with the increased focus on the topic from politicians and the news media. This follows the pattern seen in 1993 and 1994; concern about healthcare shot up as the problem was being addressed in Washington, D.C., but dropped thereafter. The current percentage of Americans naming healthcare as the country's biggest problem is significantly lower than in 1994.

• At this point, almost 7 out of 10 Americans say economic-related issues are the nation's top problem; 16% say healthcare is the top problem.

• One in 10 Americans say healthcare is the most important financial problem facing their family.

2. Americans are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them personally. This is, in part, because most Americans are satisfied with their current medical care and access to healthcare. Seniors in particular are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them.

• Most Americans do not see a direct personal benefit for themselves if healthcare legislation is passed.

• Eighty-four percent of Americans are insured and most say they are satisfied with their insurance and healthcare.

• Americans are more likely to be convinced that new healthcare legislation will have a negative effect personally rather than a positive one, although a substantial minority falls in the middle, saying it will have no effect on them either way.

• Most Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive and their healthcare coverage as excellent or good. These views have been stable in recent years.

• While younger adults (those 18 to 49) are as likely to believe reform could help them as say it could hurt them, older Americans, particularly those 65 years and older, are far less likely to perceive that their medical care or access to healthcare would improve under new healthcare legislation.

3. Americans agree that healthcare costs are a major problem for the country. Americans do not, however, believe that healthcare reform would lessen costs -- neither for the system as a whole nor for individuals.

• An overwhelming 79% of Americans say that they are dissatisfied with the total cost of healthcare in this country.

• Forty-five percent say that healthcare costs would increase overall with a new healthcare reform law, compared to 30% who say they would decrease.

• Personally, 34% say their healthcare costs would increase under a new law; 18% say they would be reduced.

4. The push for healthcare reform is occurring in an environment characterized by high levels of concern about fiscal responsibility, government spending, and the growing federal deficit. Americans are being asked to approve major new healthcare expenditures at a time when they are not yet convinced that the last massive outlay of government money -- the stimulus -- has made an impact.

• Americans are worried about their country's budget deficit.

• President Obama gets his lowest marks on handling the federal deficit.

• Those who disapprove of Obama's job performance are most likely to say it is because of the high levels of spending introduced in his administration.

• A Pew Research poll released this week shows that those who are worried about new healthcare legislation are most likely to say it is because it involves too much spending and would increase the deficit.

• Less than a third of Americans perceive that the stimulus plan has made the U.S. economy better, although about half hold out hope that it will eventually.

• Americans, on balance, perceive that the stimulus plan has, thus far, had no effect or made their own financial situation worse (64% and 22%, respectively). Looking ahead, Americans are just as likely to say the stimulus' long-term effect will make their situation worse as make it better.

5. Americans have relatively little confidence in Congress and thus, by inference, little confidence that Congress can effectively and efficiently reform the country's massive healthcare system.

• Two-thirds of Americans say members of Congress do not have a good understanding of the issues involved in healthcare reform.

• Just 17% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress, near the bottom of a list of institutions Gallup measures each year.

6. Americans continue to have more confidence in President Obama on healthcare issues than in either the Democrats or Republicans in Congress. Obama's political capital, however, is waning. This leads to a circularity in which Obama's hard push for healthcare reform may hurt his approval ratings, and his falling approval ratings may hurt his credibility on healthcare reform. One inevitable byproduct of Obama's strong push on reform is the politicalization of healthcare. Most Democrats support it, Republicans oppose it, and independents are in the middle.

• President Obama's job approval rating has fallen from an average of 66% in early May to 56% for the week of July 20-26.

• Given a list of sources for recommendations for healthcare guidance, Americans say they are more confident in Obama than in either Democratic or Republican leaders in Congress -- although doctors, researchers, and hospitals are rated higher than Obama.

• Twenty-two percent of Republicans want a new healthcare law passed this year, compared to 63% of Democrats.

7. Americans have mixed or ambivalent views of the role government should have in healthcare. They favor some government involvement, but not a government-run healthcare system.

• Less than half of Americans favor replacing the current system with a government-run healthcare system.

• Americans responding to questions asked by various polling organizations in recent weeks indicate that they do favor a public option plan (run by the government) that would compete with private plans.

• Americans believe that it is the government's role to help see that all Americans have access to healthcare, although this sentiment was waning as of November 2008.

8. On a case-by-case basis, Americans favor many specific proposals that have been put forth as ways of reforming healthcare.

• Polls from several polling organizations released this week show that Americans favor a public option government plan to compete with employer plans, requiring insurance companies to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, tax credits to help some people pay for health insurance, and expansion of government plans to cover low-income Americans.

• Americans also appear to agree with a number of different ways of paying for healthcare reform, including taxes on the rich and requiring employers to pay a fee if they don't provide health insurance.

9. Despite positive views of many specific reform proposals, Americans appear ambivalent at this juncture on the overall merits of passing a broad healthcare plan.

• In mid-July a majority of Americans favored passing a major healthcare reform bill (described without reference to who is supporting it).

• By later in July, several organizations' surveys show a plurality of Americans opposed to passage of plans variously labeled as Obama's plan, the plan proposed by President Obama and the Congressional Democrats, healthcare proposals being discussed in Congress, or healthcare reform legislation being considered right now.

• Other recent poll questions, which describe the plan in great detail, continue to show plurality of majority support.

• A plurality, but not a majority, of Americans say that a new healthcare plan would improve the overall level of medical care and improve access to healthcare in the U.S.

10. All in all, while the majority of Americans ultimately favor passage of healthcare reform, many are willing to wait until next year to see it happen.
Bottom Line

Taken together, these findings underscore the conclusion that Americans' views on the push for healthcare reform are in a state of flux, perhaps mirroring the back and forth debate in Congress on this contentious issue.

Two keys for the average American appear to be cost and urgency. The data suggest a continuing need to convince Americans of the return on investment of any proposed major investment in healthcare reform. Americans also appear dubious about the benefits of what they perceive to be less-than-fully-informed representatives in Washington rushing into a new healthcare reform law when the need for such legislation is not the highest on the public's agenda.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121997/americans-healthcare-reform-top-takeaways.aspx

54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan
Saturday, August 15, 2009

Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.

This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care reform. But it does highlight the level of concern about the specific proposals that Congressional Democrats have approved in a series of Committees. To this point, there has been no Republican support for the legislative effort although the Senate Finance Committee is still attempting to seek a bi-partisan solution.

Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this issue. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say passing the legislation in Congress would be the best course of action. However, 80% of Republicans take the opposite view. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 23% would like the Congressional reform to pass while 66% would rather the legislators take no action.

Voters who earn less than $20,000 a year are evenly divided but a majority of all other voters would prefer no action. Middle income voters, those who earn from $40,000 to $75,000 a year, are most strongly in favor of taking no action.

A plurality of voters under 30 say passage of the Congressional legislation is better. A majority of adults over 30 take the opposite view. Full demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/54_say_passing_no_healthcare_reform_better_than_passing_congressional_plan

Foxfyre wrote:

That's the benefit inherent in private enterprise and how the free market almost always works to almost everybody's advantage. Put the government in charge, however, and it becomes a one-size-fits-all package with no profit motive and therefore no incentive to be either cost effective or efficient.

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/036617.htm

Quote:

Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent. Canada's private insurers had higher overhead (13.2 percent) than U.S. insurers (11.7 percent) did. Overhead of U.S. insurers was higher than that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Overall, public (Medicare and Medicaid) and private insurance overhead in the United States totaled $72 billion, 5.9 percent of total U.S. health spending, $259 per capita. Insurance overhead in Canada was 1.9 percent of health spending, $47 per capita.