It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All required Insurance Should Be Public.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I think it is ridiculous that the state can demand you buy a for profit service..


IMHO insurance is a scam...

It is the lottery you hope you don't win..

It is basically the same economic principle as a lottery or bingo...

Everyone pools their money and one or more people win while EVERYONE else loses..

They are businesses who's profits are predicated on selling you a service they never have to pay you for...

WHEN you get end of life sick or life altering sick. If you are lucky enough to still be covered.. They do not make a profit off you..

They lose money..

You will never have paid them the 4 million dollars it take it treat you in your final days.. or through cancer.. all of your premiums will not even remotely add up to that..

That means they make their profits off the people they do not ever have to pay out for!!!

So their entire buisness model is based on taking your money without paying for your services...

That's that was never gonna get the job done and imho is unsustainable..

I think when concerning the things we deem too important to allow to go wrong..

War, disasters , law enforcement, the medical industry, exc.. all I don't think we can afford to bungle..

Those are not decisions where profit should be the primary goal..

ESPEACIALLY when the services are required my law..

Such as with auto and health insurance..

Wouldn't it be ridiculously more efficient to remove the insurance company profits from the equation in both cases..


Why couldn't we do Auto , Home and medical insurance public on a non profit basis???

Everyone except the insurance companies CEO still has a job. We just aren't allowing some fat cat to make a profit..

We all pay for public insurance and EVERYONE is covered, but we are only haveing to break even...

We wouldn't need the fund to make a profit..


That instantly cuts prices by 30%+ day one...and that's not counting the advertising budget and other eminities needed....




posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
If I knew the government was going to fix my truck I would drive totally differently. It would be great business for the auto-repair shops who would be overloaded because everybody turned their vehicles into bumper cars with their road rage.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think insurance is less like a lottery and more like a legalised protection racket personally. Especially when you take into account the numbers of people they refuse to pay out, despite telling them they're covered initially. The fact is, you're FORCED, under penalty of imprisonment, hefty fines, criminal record etc to purchase it BUT they don't actually do anything in the vast majority of cases (non-claimants) AND refuse to pay out loads of legitimate claimants for totally bogus reasons.

Protection racket.

As to the idea of public car insurance for example; I think it's a great idea in principle. But I also think SF26 makes a great point. Whenever something is provided 'free' (paid up front public services) people take the piss and it becomes a hefty liability fast.

Over here we pay 'national insurance' which is contributions taken from your wage to fund services like the NHS. It's a wonderful idea, a fantastic service, BUT people abuse it every day (both service users and managers, consultants and people providing other goods and services to the NHS). Service users attend A&E departments with a bit of a cold, those providing goods charge extortionate prices for items that could and should be provided much cheaper and wasting money on management and consultants is rife. Unfortunately, it seems, in today's selfish, money orientated world, we just can't have nice things...



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
If I knew the government was going to fix my truck I would drive totally differently. It would be great business for the auto-repair shops who would be overloaded because everybody turned their vehicles into bumper cars with their road rage.


And how would you run a bank, or an auto company, or .... if you knew the people would 'bail you out'?

Same difference, I get your point.

Personally, I believe in a robust safety net for individuals primarily because it cuts down on fear across the board. Fear drives indidivals to do crazy dangerous ****.

Insurance is a type of safety net - for the individual and those others effected by the actions of an individual - but has become so perverted (though during it's originals is was ver perverse) that it is little more then extortion.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


I think it is ridiculous that the state can demand you buy a for profit service..


IMHO insurance is a scam...

It is the lottery you hope you don't win..

It is basically the same economic principle as a lottery or bingo...

Everyone pools their money and one or more people win while EVERYONE else loses..

They are businesses who's profits are predicated on selling you a service they never have to pay you for...

WHEN you get end of life sick or life altering sick. If you are lucky enough to still be covered.. They do not make a profit off you..

They lose money..

You will never have paid them the 4 million dollars it take it treat you in your final days.. or through cancer.. all of your premiums will not even remotely add up to that..

That means they make their profits off the people they do not ever have to pay out for!!!

So their entire buisness model is based on taking your money without paying for your services...

That's that was never gonna get the job done and imho is unsustainable..

I think when concerning the things we deem too important to allow to go wrong..

War, disasters , law enforcement, the medical industry, exc.. all I don't think we can afford to bungle..

Those are not decisions where profit should be the primary goal..

ESPEACIALLY when the services are required my law..

Such as with auto and health insurance..

Wouldn't it be ridiculously more efficient to remove the insurance company profits from the equation in both cases..


Why couldn't we do Auto , Home and medical insurance public on a non profit basis???

Everyone except the insurance companies CEO still has a job. We just aren't allowing some fat cat to make a profit..

We all pay for public insurance and EVERYONE is covered, but we are only haveing to break even...

We wouldn't need the fund to make a profit..


That instantly cuts prices by 30%+ day one...and that's not counting the advertising budget and other eminities needed....







What you omit from the equation is gov't IS a 'Corporation'. They too base on 'profits' and loss. The level of service from both auto and Health is less than a competitive market can produce.

I could see an option for both in play. Some countries offer both public and private auto and health options. Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The health insurance debate is centered on the belief that everyone needs health insurance.

Not everyone drives a car. Not everyone owns a home.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


I think it is ridiculous that the state can demand you buy a for profit service..


IMHO insurance is a scam...

It is the lottery you hope you don't win..

It is basically the same economic principle as a lottery or bingo...

Everyone pools their money and one or more people win while EVERYONE else loses..

They are businesses who's profits are predicated on selling you a service they never have to pay you for...

WHEN you get end of life sick or life altering sick. If you are lucky enough to still be covered.. They do not make a profit off you..

They lose money..

You will never have paid them the 4 million dollars it take it treat you in your final days.. or through cancer.. all of your premiums will not even remotely add up to that..

That means they make their profits off the people they do not ever have to pay out for!!!

So their entire buisness model is based on taking your money without paying for your services...

That's that was never gonna get the job done and imho is unsustainable..

I think when concerning the things we deem too important to allow to go wrong..

War, disasters , law enforcement, the medical industry, exc.. all I don't think we can afford to bungle..

Those are not decisions where profit should be the primary goal..

ESPEACIALLY when the services are required my law..

Such as with auto and health insurance..

Wouldn't it be ridiculously more efficient to remove the insurance company profits from the equation in both cases..


Why couldn't we do Auto , Home and medical insurance public on a non profit basis???

Everyone except the insurance companies CEO still has a job. We just aren't allowing some fat cat to make a profit..

We all pay for public insurance and EVERYONE is covered, but we are only haveing to break even...

We wouldn't need the fund to make a profit..


That instantly cuts prices by 30%+ day one...and that's not counting the advertising budget and other eminities needed....







What you omit from the equation is gov't IS a 'Corporation'. They too base on 'profits' and loss. The level of service from both auto and Health is less than a competitive market can produce.

I could see an option for both in play. Some countries offer both public and private auto and health options. Just a thought.

The government is a corporation, but they don't have any interest in paying their debt. They aren't for-profit so much as just want more money.
They'll raise your taxes if they think you have a shot at getting out of their system, but that isn't how they get their funding...



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SouthernForkway26

I find that a bs talking point..

Everyone is different..

Sure you may go to the hospital In a situation you wouldn't have otherwise, but that trip might save your life..

How many people go to the Dr over something frivolous and find a legit issue???


That could even be far cheaper long term as early intervention is usually a cheaper fix.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

Assuming that healthcare was public that means auto insurance only covers replacing the vehicle.. and maybe any long term disability..

All the BS Dr bills would already be covered..

That said how many people start driving crazy because insurance is paid by taxes???

No one.. at least no one who would t drive crazy anyway..

Plus we now have the ability to track every dollar and claim.. so corruption doesn't have to be there..



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Extortion that some insurance fat cats profit off of by denying services...



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

What?!?!

Kind of I guess....

Except they are just trying to break even rather than make a 30+% profit margin...

Plus The government doesn't need to make more of a profit every year to make this years investors a profit either..

The only real argument against going public is corruption, but we have the ability to track every dollar now..



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz

Everyone absolutely needs insurance.. or really coverage..

You can't choose not to get sick.. the hospital can't choose not to rest you..


We all. End up paying for it reguardless as your bill goes up to cover any losses the hospital took..





No different then when your insurance goes up because of uninsured motorists.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

They print the money...

Money not based on ANYTHING tangible..

As far as corruption goes, that could/should be a thing of the past..

We now have the tech to track every dollar spent..



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: rockintitz

Everyone absolutely needs insurance.. or really coverage..

You can't choose not to get sick.. the hospital can't choose not to rest you..


We all. End up paying for it reguardless as your bill goes up to cover any losses the hospital took..





No different then when your insurance goes up because of uninsured motorists.


IMO, *nobody* needs insurance.
They're quite literally the middleman, and without them the out of control spiral that is the cost of health care never would have happened in the first place. If health insurance didn't exist, the moment a checkup costs more than a days pay, people wouldn't go. Prices would have stayed reasonable.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: lordcomac

They print the money...

Money not based on ANYTHING tangible..

As far as corruption goes, that could/should be a thing of the past..

We now have the tech to track every dollar spent..


Yeah we do... and they're pushing for a cashless society so they can track every transaction.
Not theirs, of course, but ours. Not sure what that has to do with insurance, though...



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
If I knew the government was going to fix my truck I would drive totally differently. It would be great business for the auto-repair shops who would be overloaded because everybody turned their vehicles into bumper cars with their road rage.


That isn't actually the purpose of motor insurance.

The reasoning is to ensure that if you cause damage to someone else, there are funds available to pay them if they sue you.

Remember, in most accidents, your insurance company isn't exactly paying for the repair or replacement of your car. The other driver's insurance company is paying. Your insurance company is essentially handling the paperwork on your behalf.

All the other aspects of insurance are just there as an enticement to choose that service.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

All the BS Dr bills..

which ones are those, the one where they found my dads cancer early enough for successful treatment?

Or the ones that piled up causing bankruptcy for my sister because they could not figure out what was physically wrong with her youngest?

Or the preventive care bills?

Or we can ignore the fact that you go in for a tummy ache and end up with every test under the sun being done to you because of the sue happy nature of America. (which is what it seems like your doing to me at least)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac
If health insurance didn't exist, the moment a checkup costs more than a days pay, people wouldn't go. Prices would have stayed reasonable.


Which is exactly what people are finding with cash clinics, ie places that don't accept insurance and ask you to pay them directly. it works out cheaper and, according to reports, better quality of service.

Ideal balance for 87% of people would be catastrophic-only (because accidents do happen) and then cash-only for regular appointments. People who don't need to see a doctor don't end up spending more money than necessary. People who do need to see a doctor occasionally are still likely to spend less than their deductible for better service.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

they do not care, its been pointed out many times that there are cash doctors, and cash surgery places, everyone always circles back around to we need insurance because... well reasons I guess.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: lordcomac
If health insurance didn't exist, the moment a checkup costs more than a days pay, people wouldn't go. Prices would have stayed reasonable.


Which is exactly what people are finding with cash clinics, ie places that don't accept insurance and ask you to pay them directly. it works out cheaper and, according to reports, better quality of service.

Ideal balance for 87% of people would be catastrophic-only (because accidents do happen) and then cash-only for regular appointments. People who don't need to see a doctor don't end up spending more money than necessary. People who do need to see a doctor occasionally are still likely to spend less than their deductible for better service.


The problem is you have government interfering with the market. This has been pointed out numerous times. We see that cash works for elective surgeries. Things like Lasik and cosmetic plastic surgery have gotten cheaper over the years because by in large, insurance doesn't pay for it.

If you look at healthcare, there are several markets:

1) Maintenance/physicals/sniffles/sneezes: When people go to see their internist for a cold or just annual physical, insurance should not be involved. Post prices, people go when they need, and the market will find the appropriate price. For those who are indigent, there are plenty of free clinics and other services to cover this routine, non-emergency care.

2) Emergency Care: This is for when you break an arm or have some other more serious issue that needs immediate attention. You don't have time to shop around. For example, my wife ruptured her appendix three weeks ago. She had to go to ER for surgery. There is no shopping around, nor do we care about price. This is what catastrophic insurance is supposed to be covering and why people carry insurance. It is kind of like car insurance. Car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, but you need it in case you total your car. Or better yet, a warranty claim.

3) Catastrophic & End of Life Care: People need insurance to cover things like cancer and other major unexpected events. End of life care. You pay in all your life so you can get the treatment you need as you age. Most medical costs are incurred at end of life. Grandma has a stroke and needs rehab, etc. Major injuries from car accident, etc.

The problem with our insurnance and healthcare now is that all three have been merged. Insurance is paying for things it really shouldn't be paying for and thus has inflated the cost of basic healthcare.

In addition, we need to decouple insurance from employers. All insurance should be available on the open market and across state lines. If an employer wants to pay for it, fine, but there is no reason we don't have nationwide insurnace coverage. Also, affinity groups should be able to negotiate their own insurance rates. For example, if you are a Realtor, you should be able to get insurance through Realtor association. Churches. Etc.

Government has to get out of the way.



new topics




 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join