Walter Hinteler wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:
What difference does that make, whether there's a model for it already?
I have no idea what it is - your answer wasn't a help at all.
But thanks for to trying.
It wouldn't make any difference if there was a model.
Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:How would a taxpayer paid insurance on your POV work? Any model for such existing elswhere?
What difference does that make, whether there's a model for it already?
BECAUSE then we could look and see whether it actually does work in real life, rather than just hypothesizing about it, silly!
Cycloptichorn
Nationalized health care isn't working anyplace but that isn't stopping Uncle Teddy.
I guess that depends on your definition of 'working.' My cousin in Alberta broke her arm last year and got it all fixed up under their nationalized health care. I guess if you asked her, she'd tell you it worked for her.
Is something not working, unless it is perfect? Because, let me clue you in, non-nationalized healthcare isn't working either.
Cycloptichorn
Who in this country (citizens) are refused health care?
So the topic is health insurance - that's what POV means?
Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:How would a taxpayer paid insurance on your POV work? Any model for such existing elswhere?
What difference does that make, whether there's a model for it already?
BECAUSE then we could look and see whether it actually does work in real life, rather than just hypothesizing about it, silly!
Cycloptichorn
But that isn't the point of the question. The question is supposed to generate a debate over the comparable worthiness of a human's health and a vehicle's health.
Remember, one pissed off liberal a day...
Butrflynet wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:How would a taxpayer paid insurance on your POV work? Any model for such existing elswhere?
What difference does that make, whether there's a model for it already?
BECAUSE then we could look and see whether it actually does work in real life, rather than just hypothesizing about it, silly!
Cycloptichorn
But that isn't the point of the question. The question is supposed to generate a debate over the comparable worthiness of a human's health and a vehicle's health.
Remember, one pissed off liberal a day...
Exactly. Hey, have i started somthing new here? This hasn't happened before? I start a thread asking about one thing just to get a debate on another? Well, I'll be darned.
Well, would you rather talk about car insurance?
We can, yaknow
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Well, would you rather talk about car insurance?
We can, yaknow
Cycloptichorn
I have State Farm on my truck & car, costs a lot of $$, maybe Uncle Teddy would pay for it?
We can talk about boats too, or maybe that ski lodge in Aspen that i would like to own, maybe Uncle teddy could get that funded as well?
State Farm is for suckers.
I wonder if a gekko could win agains Cornyn in the next election cycle?
DrewDad wrote:State Farm is for suckers.
You would know about suckers, being the expert you are on suckers, maybe i should change my ins company.
No - to the state paying for insurance for cars, homes, etc out of all taxpayers dollars.
The decision to buy a car or a house is a private thing and a personal purchase. I am a taxpayer with neither a car nor a home and I would be livid if my taxes were increased and taken from me to subsidize other peoples insurances on their homes and vehicles.
The government/states don't have enough taxes for the projects that they have going now so they would have to increase taxes dramatically to do something like this. Why we won't even have enough social security money by the time I retire because the money is already being spent now!
With respect to health insurance - if someone gets ill, a disease, or is in an accident (whether a resident of this country or not) it is immoral not to treat them at a hospital so this is the main reason why ALL residents should have automatic health insurance.
If someone loses their car or house, well it's not the end of the world, they are just things and can be replaced (when the person saves enough money to do so).
Being in the insurance industry (as I am) I have often wondered why a state-run or government-run captive insurance group hasn't been tried. The state could approach a large carrier (to run the program for them) with the drivers (for auto insurance) and homeowners (for home insurance) paying a set fee into the captive pool. The actuaries calculate how much they expect to pay out in claims and then do an accounting at the end of a year, collect more annual premiums, hold any funds left in the pool for future claims, and so on and so on. This is what large firms do when they cannot get insurance in the current marketplace, either a big company will set-up a captive account (essentially funding their own insurance) or will get together with like-minded businesses and join forces to insure a particular cover with all of them sharing in the funds.
You might think this is just like setting up another insurance company, but the point of the captive is not to make a profit but to have the funds available for potential claims. Plus, at the end of a captive accounts life - any funds remaining, belong to the members of the captive and could be shared back to them. All this is a LOT of work and management and if there weren't so many other projects that need doing and other things to take care of, that it's probably not something the state or government are going to step-up and suggest they get involved in unless something drastic happens.
Did you know that, in order to facilitate the cleanup of Ground Zero in NYC, the city of New York had to set-up a captive insurance group to self-insure because no insurance company would touch that site (insurers knew that the workers would suffer lung damage and respiratory damage as a result), but that project had a time limit - not like setting up a captive to run forever (for a states auto/home insurances).
I would be livid if my tax $$ went to pay for sexually transmitted diseases, drug/alcohol addiction, a drunk drivers injuries from an auto accident. There's nobody in this country that is refused treatment for an illness.
Quote:Being in the insurance industry (as I am) I have often wondered why a state-run or government-run captive insurance group hasn't been tried. The state could approach a large carrier (to run the program for them) with the drivers (for auto insurance) and homeowners (for home insurance) paying a set fee into the captive pool. The actuaries calculate how much they expect to pay out in claims and then do an accounting at the end of a year, collect more annual premiums, hold any funds left in the pool for future claims, and so on and so on. This is what large firms do when they cannot get insurance in the current marketplace, either a big company will set-up a captive account (essentially funding their own insurance) or will get together with like-minded businesses and join forces to insure a particular cover with all of them sharing in the funds.
You might think this is just like setting up another insurance company, but the point of the captive is not to make a profit but to have the funds available for potential claims. Plus, at the end of a captive accounts life - any funds remaining, belong to the members of the captive and could be shared back to them. All this is a LOT of work and management and if there weren't so many other projects that need doing and other things to take care of, that it's probably not something the state or government are going to step-up and suggest they get involved in unless something drastic happens.
That is done now for flood insurance. Any owner of property in a designated flood zone is required to have flood insurance, either through private insurance companies or government's flood insurance.
National Flood Insurance Program
Quote:The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created by Congress in 1968. It enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal Government that states if a community will adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. The Mitigation Division within the Federal Emergency Management Agency manages the NFIP, and oversees the floodplain management and mapping components of the Program.
The intent was to reduce future flood damage through community floodplain management ordinances, and provide protection for property owners against potential losses through an insurance mechanism that requires a premium to be paid for the protection. The NFIP is meant to be self-supporting, though in 2004 Congress found that repetitive-loss properties cost the taxpayer about $200 million annually. Congress originally intended that operating expenses and flood insurance claims be paid for through premiums collected for flood insurance policies. NFIP borrows from the U.S. Treasury for times when losses are heavy, however, these loans are paid back with interest.
The program was amended by the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, with the goal of reducing "losses to properties for which repetitive flood insurance claim payments have been made."
Quote:Cricisms of NFIP:
As critics predicted, the NFIP encourages people to locate in areas more susceptible to flood damage. Prior to the NFIPs existence, insurance coverage for flood losses was not provided by any private insurance carriers. Insurance losses stemming from flood damage were largely the responsibility of the property owner, although the consequences were sometimes mitigated through provisions for disaster aid. Today, owners of property in flood plains frequently receive disaster aid and payment for insured losses, which in many ways negates the original intent of the NFIP. Consequently, these policy decisions have escalated losses stemming from floods in recent years, both in terms of property and life.
Moreover, certain provisions within the NFIP increase the likelihood that flood prone properties will be occupied by the people least likely to be in a position to recover from flood disasters, which further increases demand for aid. Some factors contributing to increased demand for aid are:
Flood insurance for properties in flood prone areas are mandatory only to secure loans, which makes it somewhat more likely that flood prone properties will be owned by seniors that have paid off their mortgage, or investors that have acquired the property for rental income. Flood insurance only covers losses for the owner of the property, and claims are subject to caps, which further increases the likelihood that the property will be occupied by renters vs the property owner.
Flood prone properties are more likely to be offered for rent because of the owner's increased risks and/or costs associated with occupying the property themselves.
Flood prone properties are more likely to be offered for rent at a discount, which attracts lower income groups, seniors, and the infirm.
We will have similar problems with a two-tiered health insurance plan. The richly insured get the richly endowed health institutions while the poorly insured get the poorly endowed health institutions.
The Health Plan is being approached totally backwards. We need a national health plan for preventative medicine, not emergency medicine. The cost savings and incentive to maintain good health would be far more beneficial to society than having people slowly rot in poverty until they are sick enough to qualify for governmental emergency care.
