Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

What Does That Mean Anyway?

Recs

10

August 21, 2010 – Comments (58)

BTW devoish, you can call me Chris, you've earned it.

You really want to fix things?

Lower costs.

Allow tort reform and open up competition across state lines. -ChrisGraley

What does that mean - open up competition across State lines? Does it mean to make every State allow insurers to make the rules the insurers have to abide by? Does it mean to take away the right of the citizens of Alabama to make their own laws regarding healthcare? Does it mean that Alabama must live with California's healthcare laws or Deleware's as the insurance company dictates?

Ok Chris, please explain, what does open up competition across State lines mean as applied to health insurance. It sounds so wonderfull and freemarketee.

58 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 22, 2010 at 12:17 AM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

Oh wow!  Someone has been snookered (not devoish I am sure).  Open up health insurance to interstate competition without federal regulation and you will have a race to the bottom.  The states with the weakest regulations and the weakest insurance commissioners will become the HQ of all insurance companies.  And the poor policyholders will find out that their rates will go up when they get sick.  It sort of works that way now with some individual policies, but it would be even worse.  The federal health care reform will prevent this nonsense.  "Free markets" for health insurance is exactly the same sort of "freedom" as the freedom of the fox in a chicken coop.  Just between us chickens, I don't like the idea at all.  Another little piece of idiocy, courtesy of the pawns of big business who call themselves "Republicans" but who could also be called "plutocrats."

Report this comment
#2) On August 22, 2010 at 1:27 AM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information.

I'll give you an example...

State A decides that all Healthcare companies selling insurance in the state must provide totally free breast care screenings. A couple of gay males, (not that there's any wrong with that) now pay a higher health insurance premium for something that will most likely never benefit them.

Mass has the most control over health insurance of any state and has the most expensive health insurance as well. They also have the most control over Auto insurance and the most expensive auto insurance. 

I work in the insurance industry and although I deal with Auto. I get to see what all of that government leads to. I get grown men calling in crying because of the DMV. In your own happy state of NY, I get men crying because they had an accident 6 months ago. Their car was totaled and  6 months later they get a letter from the DMV. The problem is that even though the car was scrapped 6 months ago, they didn't know that they needed to turn the license plates in. They didn't know because the government only informs them of this when they send the letter. The letter also informs them that they are being fined $7 a day for 180 plus days ($1260). New York knows normally within 7 days when someone drops their insurance. I wonder why it takes them 6 months to send out that letter? They live by the same principles as most people. Go ahead and do what you can get away with. Since they can decide what is fair, they can get away with quite a lot.

I'd be very surprised if it costs your local cable company more than $3 a month to stream all that TV content to you, but most of you are paying $60 to $180 dollars because it is a government allowed monopoly. You can argue that the content makers have driven up the price, but I can argue that they drove up the price only after they saw the huge mark-up the cable companies enjoyed.

You live off of the government being able to tell companies what to do. I think the consumer would be better off if government only told consumers what the company did and let them make their own choices.

Let them all compete, but give consumers the information to make a decent choice.

Have you ever been to a doctor and talked to the doctor about the cost of care ahead of time? No you didn't. One of the reasons that you didn't is because the government doesn't really care about the cost of care.

When I get my car fixed, I can get an estimate. When I get my knee fixed, nobody talks to me about price because someone else is paying for it. It's all government supported and they pay medical coders to make sure the code it in a way to squeeze out maximum dollars.

Ever show up in the emergency room with something that needs immediate help? Good luck seeing a doctor before you fill out those insurance forms.

Instead of trying to control the health insurance companies, government would be better off allowing all of them compete and exposing what they did wrong.

They don't even have to enforce a penalty! The consumer will enforce the penalty. Just show what they charge, what they promise to give and the quality of what they actually gave.

The truth is that the government will screw this up as well, because they can't even do this without bias from the party in charge, but it's a lot better than the party in charge dictating to you what your only choice is.

It's the same comparison over and over again devoish.

You need government to be your daddy and I don't.

Chris 

 

 

Report this comment
#3) On August 22, 2010 at 1:58 AM, XMFConnor (97.84) wrote:

As usual, great post Chris.

Report this comment
#4) On August 22, 2010 at 8:31 AM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

Chris,

The assumption that gay males - "not that there's anything wrong with that" - do not benefit by having helped their mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends at work and school have pre-paid for breast cancer screening escapes me.

The implied assumption that the benefit is different between gay males and heterosexual males also escapes me.

The assumption that your policy costs more to cover you for breast cancer screenings also escapes me. Your insurer is going to pay just as much to cover women whether they cover you for screenings or not. How are you assured that that cost of screening women is not spread out to you anyway, just because you don't get the benefit?

How much do you expect to save on your policy by refusing the benefit of having your breasts screened? Walk us throught the wise choice process.

As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information.

 No, I do not. The insurers - who spend all day weighing odds of payouts and their full time lawyers who write the contracts between insurers and auto mechanics, who spend all day at different tasks, know this.

I was a mechanic. I need help, because I am not up to the task of reading and understanding insurance contracts and the legalise that denies me the benefits (breast cancer screenings for men) the insurance salesman implied, and may actually believe, I am getting.

Although I think I read and understood your post a little better than XMFConner did.

Ever show up in the emergency room with something that needs immediate help? Good luck seeing a doctor before you fill out those insurance forms.

We'll save the Q&A on how "competition" - by which you seem to mean having more unregulated policys available for a Hospital lawyer to read through to determine what coverage I have before I could be treated, when I cut my thumb in half or got dirt blown into my eye, - might help or hurt the speed of my care in the hospital for another post. In the meantime the answer is yes, I have been to the Hospital and taken others.

You have told me that you read all your contracts before you sign them. In a Hopelessly post you replied : In all 4 states, I worked for the same company and they had a hell of an HR person that got a much better deal for us than we should have got for a company our size. She got the best deal in every state and I was the same person applying every time.

Having read all four of the contracts for you, your HR person is your daddy? Kidding aside, are you certain he/she is getting you the best deal and not getting your employer the least expensive with no regard to your benefits and additional cost to you?

What company and policy do you currently hold?

I think you are kidding us and yourself.

You have earned the right to call me,

The Grand High Exalted Mystic Who Knows His Limits King Devoish :-)

Or just Devoish or Steven for short.

Report this comment
#5) On August 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

We don't want health insurance to be like auto insurance.  With auto we do want people to pay more for their bad skills and past records because that incentivizes them to control their bad behavior.  But with health insurance (assuming we have some compassion) we recognize that  most significant health risks cannot be controlled and we want to spreads those risks.  The insurer does not want to spread those risks--it wants to avoid them and avoid paying claims.

Report this comment
#6) On August 22, 2010 at 3:26 PM, starbucks4ever (98.96) wrote:

#1-5,

Let me summarize the discussion above. The good regulator will encourage competition and crack down on fraud. The regulators that we have now encourage fraud and crack down on competition. In this situation, some of you are saying that we must leave the current regulators in place because there is fraud, and some others are saying we must fire all regulators because there is lack of competition. I hope it's clear enough where I stand on this contentious issue :)

Report this comment
#7) On August 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

zloi   "Competition" does not really work in many sorts of insurance.  And it is not just an issue of "fraud," it is an issue of unequal knowledge and bargaining power.   In addition, we want insurance as a means of spreading risk and improving the quality of life for all, but the markets don't value the spread of risk in and of itself.  Social Security and Medicare are essentially types of insurance or risk spreading that markets (even regulated ones) simply would not provide.  (Unless you are willing to extend regulation to requiring mandatory investments of capital in particular businesses.)  Individual health insurance (except to the young and healthy) is another area where markets will not provide what is socially desireable and the collapse of the individual health insurance market was a primary reason for the health care reform that we thankfully got.

We Americans always assume that a "competitive" "free" market will always yield socially desireable results.  But that's just not true, as almost every other modern developed country has figured out.

Report this comment
#8) On August 22, 2010 at 6:07 PM, starbucks4ever (98.96) wrote:

#7,

I am of the same opinion. Ideally, I would want one state-run, not-for-profit insurance company with only one simple, easy to understand insurance product like we did in the USSR. Of course, there should be freedom to set up private insurance companies - just in case the government agency mishandles its job or simply you feel you can find a niche market for yourself. We did not have that freedom, and it's too bad we didn't. But unless the government puts a saboteur in charge of the insurance agency, it will have no trouble winning 99% of the business because of the natural competitive advantage of this business model.

But I don't need to explain to you that this is impossible in this country for ideological reasons. In that case I must prefer having a hundred of competing insurance providers over a cabal of 8-10 colluding monopolies. And that despite the fact that I am well aware of the overhead costs that gobble up a fifth or a quarter of the revenue in any such model. 

Report this comment
#9) On August 22, 2010 at 6:28 PM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

zloj  Very funny.  Your model might work for auto or life insurance but not for health insurance.  And you are right about how overhead (viz. insurance companies spending lost of money figuring out how to deny coverage) eats up a lot.

The model you describe if applied to health insurance results in "adverse selection."  The private companies only insure the healthy and the public company becomes the insurer of last resort and gets all the losses.  The public insurer will get way more than 1% but probably way less than 1% of all healthy people.  Our individual health insurance market is already broken--it is heavily exploited by health insurers and focused on insuring only the healthy.  Just look at how the companies market their product.  "Thrive" Or "Healthy Families" are their mottos.  If you are not in a corporate group plan they put you in a "group," close enrollment in the group, and then over time raise the rates but let healthy people into new groups.  In effect your health insurance only covers you as long as you "thrive" or if there is an accident--because the insurer cannot predict that.  But in the meantime they watch your visits and your diagnoses and that of everyone in your "group" and figure out how to earn a profit.  And because regulation of health insurers is fairly weak they can get away with it--I have seen it personally.

Health insurers also deny policies to particular professions.  In my case as a lawyer there are many insurers who will not insure me.  They don't want anyone who is more likely to read the policy and understand his rights.

We can have private health insurance (even totally private with no public option) but it needs to be regulated to eliminate competition on the front end.  Otherwise all private insurers must cherry pick.  Obama was the first politician at a presidential level to understand the problem with cherrypicking.  Competition in the delivery of health care can serve a valuable purpose. Competition at the front end does not because it is the antithesis of spreading risk.

 

Report this comment
#10) On August 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

Ooops--the public health insurance company would get way more than 1% of the unhealthy people and way less than 1% of the healthy.  I left out a few words.

Report this comment
#11) On August 22, 2010 at 6:37 PM, starbucks4ever (98.96) wrote:

 tomlongrpv,

The government agency will have no trouble dealing with the adverse selection problem. If you're young, sure, go ahead and opt out and try your luck with a cheap private insurer, but then, when you're old, don't ask us for the cheap lifetime rate that we're offering you now. With this consideration, the majority will choose the simplicity and security of a public system. 

Report this comment
#12) On August 22, 2010 at 8:11 PM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

zloj

That's one way to do it.  Another is to simply not allow private insurers to exclude people on account of pre-existing conditions.  Notice how that was a key point of the existing reforms.

And as logical as your argument is, many people would choose cheap insurance today and risk their security tomorrow.  And would we really leave them uninsured and without good health care later on?

Report this comment
#13) On August 22, 2010 at 8:30 PM, starbucks4ever (98.96) wrote:

#12,

If you ask my opinion, the optimal healthcare system is the one we had in the Soviet Union in 1985-1992. Not one before 1985 because everything was state-owned then. Translation: you could not start a private practice even if you could offer better treatment than your own state-run clinic. And not one after 1992 because then the state-run system began to disappear due to underfunding and lack of administrative oversight. But the 7 years in the interim were the optimum. The state offered free healthcare, for which you qualified simply by virtue of holding your Soviet passport. And then if you wanted better service and had some rubles to spend, you could explore a variety of private practices. When the local state clinic did a lousy job, these practices could always pick up the slack. And if these practices became too greedy or too incompetent, consumers would go back to the free state clinic. So the two systems kept each other in good shape and we had both peace of mind and a decent freedom of choice, coupled with reasonably low prices, and essentially zero overhead.     

Report this comment
#14) On August 22, 2010 at 9:15 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

OK, first of all devoish, you are absolutely right if that gay male couple has a mother or daughter that is a dependent on their policy. Then it benefits them if they choose to go with a healthcare company that offers free breast exams provided that all other things are equal. On the other hand, if they have no female dependents, then it might be a wiser choice to go with a company that offers free prostate exams. The point is that they get a choice of how to spend their own money however they damn well please and subsidizing care for someone that they never met doesn't put food on the table.

The only reason that the implied assumption is different is because it was only implied by you. I was going for the angle of a lack of breasts in the family. You could have at least given me credit for assuming same sex benefits. (Which makes economic sense btw) 

OK I'll try another approach from a mechanics perspective. Is it efficient for you to replace all of your wrenches in your toolbox with a couple of adjustable wrenches?

You may get the person's car fixed, but I'm willing to bet it would take more time, which would cost you more money. That's the same problem when you have a government mandated "one size fits all" health insurance plan. Everyone is paying for a bunch of stuff that they statistically will never need instead of targeting the specific things that they need. As soon as this gets implemented, you'll have politicians bribing voters with their own money by making everything free in healthcare. 

Yes I read all 4 contracts. I read the 4th one even after I knew she did a good job on the other 3, because it was in my best interest. I also shopped on my own a few times as well. You see when you read the contracts you can figure out whether or not you are getting a good deal. It's a better plan than signing them without reading them and assuming that you have a bad deal.

I currently have a high deductible plan from Aetna and a health savings account. I work for a different company now than I did then.

tom,

I believe that cure is more painful than the disease. If you look at any state that has a high amount of insurance regulation, you always find a state that has very high insurance premiums and high fraud.

If, rather than regulation, the state offered decent reporting about the percentage of denied claims, profit margins, advertising costs, patient surveys etc...  , they would do a lot better job for the consumer in a market where the consumer has ample choices than by dictating a "one size fits all" choice that they can use to coerce voters later.

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#15) On August 22, 2010 at 9:42 PM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

No Chris you are wrong.  The highest degree of health insurance regulation is in countries in Europe that have socialized medicine and/or single payor systems.  They have  less fraud, spend less than we do, and get better results. You are simply missing my point that "consumer choice" won't result in risk spreading that is essential for health insurance to work.

Now things like life insurance and auto insurance may well work out OK with less regulation as long as there is proper disclosure.  But the concept behind those types of insurances is very different than health insurance or disability insurance as examples.

Keep in mind, though, that even if you read the policies and get disclosures you cannot really protect yourself that well.  The insurance companies are very creative.  I have spent decades litigating against many of them for various clients of my firm.  You may think you know what "sudden" means or "disabled" when those words appear in an insurance policy, but I can tell you that you don't really know and you can't really find out either. 

Report this comment
#16) On August 22, 2010 at 9:46 PM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

zloj #13

You may well be right.  The concept of a public plan that provides a basic minimum is a good idea as long as it is properly funded.  Banning private providers does not seem necessary or desireable to me.  I am still not convinced that we even need a public option, though, if we properly regulate private providers through a single payor system and focus their competitive energy on providing healthcare.

Report this comment
#17) On August 22, 2010 at 10:32 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

Chris,

Her breast exam does not cost you any different whether you choose a policy that covers having your breast examination or not.

So... how much does having a plan that does not cover breast exams save you? And does the plan cover you in the event you get breast cancer? Except for the cost of finding out of course, which obviously you will not be covered for.

So lets say the cost of treating breast cancer in the USA is  between $3.5 and 7 billion. (Nobody really knows due to a lack of government involvement so this is already harder than you make it sound) 1-2%, call it 1% is for treating men.

Aproximately half the population of the USA is men, 150 million men. Of them .01% will get breast cancer.

How much should a policy that opts you out of having breast cancer treatment save you?

As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information. - ChrisGraley

Walk us through the wise choice.

Report this comment
#18) On August 22, 2010 at 11:00 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

If, rather than regulation, the state offered decent reporting about the percentage of denied claims, profit margins, advertising costs, patient surveys etc...  , they would do a lot better job for the consumer in a market where the consumer has ample choices than by dictating a "one size fits all" choice that they can use to coerce voters later. - ChrisGraley

California is the only State that collects that data. Texas does not. Explain again what you mean by "open up competition across state lines". I'm betting you don't mean increasing reporting regulations in Texas and coincidentally increasing the cost of doing business for Texas based insurance companys.

http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/ 

Report this comment
#19) On August 22, 2010 at 11:24 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

If, rather than regulation, the state offered decent reporting about the percentage of denied claims, profit margins, advertising costs, patient surveys etc...  , they would do a lot better job for the consumer in a market where the consumer has ample choices than by dictating a "one size fits all" choice that they can use to coerce voters later. - ChrisGraley

Who apparently believes it ok to for insurers to deny the coverage that they paid for to millions of people so the rest of us can find out which insurers will screw us.

At the risk of it being suggested that I am paid to write pro Government propaganda I will also point out that, at least in theory. Obamacare ended the practice of rescissions.

In the individual healthcare market this should have the effect that when you need the insurance you have been paying for, you will get it.

In the group health insurance market this should have the effect of raising costs as savings from rescissions in the individual market will no longer be able to help subsidize lower group insurance costs for large companys.

 

Report this comment
#20) On August 23, 2010 at 2:21 AM, starbucks4ever (98.96) wrote:

#14,

Chris, you should know better than that. Your gay male couple can opt out of breast cancer insurance, the gay female couple can opt out of something else, and a straight couple - of some other form of insurance, but all this maneuvering is merely an attempt to save a buck at the expense of each other. As a group, these patients can't win anything in this way. They can only win as a group by dismantling the insurance industry entirely, or at least by making life harder for the insurers by spoiling their combined ratio.

Report this comment
#21) On August 23, 2010 at 8:19 AM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

You are not opting out of anything. This is a breast exam. Not breast cancer treatment.

Which brings me to another point. You should be paying for the exam yourself anyway! The whole point of healthcare is to protect you from life altering expenses. Not to pay every little health care expense that you have.

Are you planning on getting a breast exam? You aren't saving a buck at each other's expense, because people needing that coverage won't be covered with the same provider. They will be covered by the provider that gives them what they want.

This is where competition comes into play. If you only have 5 or 6 choices you, are likely have more of a "one size fits all" plan than if you have 1300 choices.

Actually devoish, I do mean increasing reporting regulations nationwide, but I want the reporting to go directly to the consumer. Let the consumer take action with his/her healthcare dollar.

Tom,

I think that you are being sold a bill of goods for the lack of fraud in the socialised system. In our own system, the Medicare fraud is much greater than the fraud in the private sector. If you get a chance, check out the EHFCN and look at the problems that they have to deal with. When you factor in the tax rate into the European sytem and the debt involved the cost of the European sytem is much higher in the long run.

 

Report this comment
#22) On August 23, 2010 at 6:38 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

Actually devoish, I do mean increasing reporting regulations nationwide, but I want the reporting to go directly to the consumer. - ChrisGraley

When you say that you want to "open up competition across state lines" what exactly do you mean? Am i correct in understanding that you want the insurance company to only be held to the laws in the State in which it is incorporated rather than being held to the laws of the State in which it is selling policies?

Would you open up competition before getting the reporting? I would not.

And are you able to walk us through wise choice concerning breast cancer coverage and put a dollar value on it?

Report this comment
#23) On August 23, 2010 at 8:47 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

I'd rather the states not set the standard at all. Of course the state may grade insurance companies based on reports and present that to the consumer, but I'd like the customer to police the healthcare provider with their own healthcare dollar.

I would open up reporting before competition so the consumer has a chance to know what he's getting.

It's not all that wise, but common sense for the above example. If I'm comparing 2 otherwise equal healthcare companies and I'm a single male with no dependents, a company giving free prostate exams is a better choice than a company giving me free breast exams.

For myself and my family in particular, Neither would entice me because I can handle the small stuff with my health savings account. I'm more concerned about catastrophic care.

 

Report this comment
#24) On August 24, 2010 at 12:56 AM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

zloj is right on the money with comment #20.  I agree completely. 

Report this comment
#25) On August 24, 2010 at 6:09 AM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

It's not all that wise, but common sense for the above example. If I'm comparing 2 otherwise equal healthcare companies and I'm a single male with no dependents, a company giving free prostate exams is a better choice than a company giving me free breast exams. - ChrisGraley

Nice, easy, imaginary example. As you point out, in the real world, a policy that includes the cost of breast exams has more value than one that does not. For a single male with no dependents, a policy that includes prostrate exams has more value than one that includes the cost of a breast exam. How much more value? In the real world the policy that covers prostrate exams for a single male with no dependents will likely cost a little more than one that does not. The policy that includes breast exams for a single male with no dependents will likely cost a little more than one that does not. Men do get breast cancer, and occasionally will need a breast exam to determine that diagnosis. How much less expensive should the policy you chose be, because you decided you do not need breast exams included?

Your "open competition across State lines" healthcare policy depends for its success upon  the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information".

I would open up reporting before competition so the consumer has a chance to know what he's getting. - ChrisGraley

After you succeed in increasing reporting regulations Nationwide get back to me. Because while I have read what seems like thousands of posts asking for "open competition" I have somehow missed every one that asks for increased reporting regulations from the same groups. I find that to be a major flaw in the leadership of the groups asking for open competition".

As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information. - ChrisGraley

Twenty replies later, we still have not seen this "consumers ability to make a wise choice" demonstrated.

Report this comment
#26) On August 24, 2010 at 8:22 AM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

I didn't expect less tom, you saw what you wanted to see. Unless everyone is under the same provider, (and if that ever happens, God help us all) what one provider decides to cover does not effect the costs of another provider.

Devoish, see my reply to Tom. You also see what you want to see. Trying to somehow show that my choices with health plan A somehow hurts the costs for my mother who's on health plan B is absolutely wrong. That kind of thinking only works in a national socialized plan.

Your imaginary Healthcare, that covers everything under the sun, is entirely free, and doesn't have trade-offs, does not exist nor will it ever exist.

I did show you an example of a wise choice, you just continue to choose to ignore it.

As far as what you've read in other posts from other people about competition, I'm not other posters. I've made it known in the past that I'm in favor of a certain amount of consumerism.

You want to paint me with the same brush as everyone else that you oppose. It may make you feel more connected to your party, but it doesn't bring you closer to any real solutions.

To reiterate, you did see an example of a wise choice, you chose to belittle it for political reasons. I don't think I can teach someone that signs contracts that he doesn't read how to make a wise choice. You're too dependent on the government to make it for you.

I'll ask you again. Are you planning on getting a breast exam?

To take it a step farther, Would it destroy you financially if you had to pay for it yourself?

Should Healthcare pay for your vitamins?

Protein Shakes?

Organic Pizza?

Where does the line get drawn and if your answer is that it shouldn't be drawn are you prepared for the Canadian system, where you have long wait times for even the most serious care?

Report this comment
#27) On August 24, 2010 at 11:34 AM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

State A decides that all Healthcare companies selling insurance in the state must provide totally free breast care screenings. A couple of gay males, (not that there's any wrong with that) now pay a higher health insurance premium for something that will most likely never benefit them. - ChrisGraley

How much cheaper should your policy be if it does not include breast exams, as compared to one that does?

Report this comment
#28) On August 24, 2010 at 2:49 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

How much will all the bureaucratic mandates totalled together cost devoish?

If we show no restraint in mandates the system is doomed before it starts because once the mandates start there is political motivation to keep increasing them.

I'll ask you again. Are you planning on getting a breast exam?

To take it a step farther, Would it destroy you financially if you had to pay for it yourself?

Should Healthcare pay for your vitamins?

Protein Shakes?

Organic Pizza?

Where does the line get drawn and if your answer is that it shouldn't be drawn are you prepared for the Canadian system, where you have long wait times for even the most serious care?

Report this comment
#29) On August 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

 As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information. - ChrisGraley

Twenty - now 26 - replies later, we still have not seen this "consumers ability to make a wise choice" demonstrated.

How much cheaper should your policy be if it does not include breast exams, as compared to one that does?

Report this comment
#30) On August 24, 2010 at 3:59 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

It was actually in my first post. I just needed to repeat it that many times for it to sink in.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

 

Report this comment
#31) On August 24, 2010 at 6:03 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

 As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information. - ChrisGraley

Twenty - now 28 - replies later, we still have not seen this "consumers ability to make a wise choice" demonstrated.

How much cheaper should your policy be if it does not include breast exams, as compared to one that does?

 

Report this comment
#32) On August 24, 2010 at 9:17 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

Oh I see! You want to avoid the was example made in post #1 . (which is don't pay for something that you'll never use btw), and want me to answer the question of ....

 How much cheaper should your policy be if it does not include breast exams, as compared to one that does?

Somehow the answer to this question will show a wise decision! The answer for someone that will never use it is 1 cent. The answer varies above that in proportion of the chance of use. I could probably call up Lloyds of London right now and buy insurance in case I got hit by a Sherman tank 50 feet from my house for pretty cheap, but would it be smart for me to buy such insurance?

In my insurance plan it's a moot point. I choose a much cheaper high deductible plan because I can protect myself and my family from what is serious at a much lower rate. I also take advantage of an HSA. I get to enjoy pre-tax compound interest on money accumulated that I can invest in the market. I get to keep accumulating a nest-egg for future healthcare expenses. So even if I go on Medicare, (yeah fat chance of it being around then.) I can pay for medical care not covered tax free until the account is exhausted.

And I can pay for things not included in most health care plans. You know what? I' can even pay out of my HSA for my man-boob exam tax-free! Heck I could use the money to buy aspirin and band-aids if I wanted too, but since I can compound my money tax free, I tend to not use it at all and let it accumulate for the future. 

At this point I can pay the maximum yearly deductible for my healthcare plan for the next 11 years if needed, all the while I pay less out of my income for health insurance that will be there when I need it most.

Now I've asked you a few questions myself over and over again that you don't even seem to even acknowledge.

I'm not sure why? They seem to be more relevant than how much is a man-boob exam worth.

I'll ask you again. Are you planning on getting a breast exam?

To take it a step farther, Would it destroy you financially if you had to pay for it yourself?

Should Healthcare pay for your vitamins?

Protein Shakes?

Organic Pizza?

Where does the line get drawn and if your answer is that it shouldn't be drawn are you prepared for the Canadian system, where you have long wait times for even the most serious care?

Since I did show you a wise decision in the first post and answered your dubious question even when you avoided relevant ones from me, you could at least do me the service of answering those questions now.

You did create the post as an attack on me and I have been jumping through hoops for you up until this point. You can at least do me the service of showing some structure of the perfect devoish healthcare plan. If you are going to attack my ideas you should at least put forth your own, which I have a feeling will be carbon copies of your political party's ideas, but I do hold out a little hope for independent thought.

So tell me devoish, what are your ideas and how do the benefit the public as a whole? 

Protein Shakes?

Organic Pizza?

btw, my HSA does cover the protein shakes, but not organic pizza. 

I'm anxiously awaiting the details of your plan or at least a couple of sarcastic answers to the questions posted above.

 

Report this comment
#33) On August 24, 2010 at 10:57 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

Please do not take it personally that I do not agree with you and wish to determine if I really am underestimating the consumers ability to make a wise choice. I believe you are ridiculously optomistic and any idea dependent upon such a blunder, such as opening competition across State lines is doomed to fail unless its goal is to legalize collecting money without delivering a service. It is only with great respect that I ask you to show me that it is my extraordinary weakness compared to consumers that I cannot make the wise choice, by demonstrating how you and other consumers can sift through information and make the wise choice concerning the value of the cost of breast exam coverage which was an example you chose to give in your effort to tell what you meant by the phrase allowiing competition across State lines. Having read four policys in the last few years in order to make just this sort of value judgement and choosing breast exams as your example I really thought you would be able to easily tell us the risk of getting breast cancer, the potential to save your life if you got the exam and caught it early, the cost of paying for an exam, etc, and what dollar value you placed upon that in order to decide if you received better value from an insurance policy by including exams if they were cheap enough.

And that completely leaves aside the secondary issue that your insurance  probably doesn't cost you even one penny more to include breast exams because no Dr recommends them for men so your insurer is not expecting to pay for to get one.

It also leaves aside the issue of why you think having a tax advantaged HSA to pay for breast exams is better than having a tax advantaged health insurance policy that pays for them, especially in the first years before you have built up that HSA.

The whole idea also suggests to me that you really just want to screw your fellow American floor sweeper that you wanted to pay less than minimum wage to out of basic care, unless you can show me the budget that allows him to have an HSA that gets him all the neccessary checkups and diagnostics he is likely to need.

The whole idea suggests to me you want to just screw your American neighbors because you are on and on about competition but not about the increased reporting regulation needed first. Seems to me if you really believed in this idea, you would have been lobbying for first things first.

As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information. - ChrisGraley

Twenty - now 28 - replies later, we still have not seen this "consumers ability to make a wise choice" demonstrated.

How much cheaper should your policy be if it does not include breast exams, as compared to one that does?

It is clear you are unable to do the value judgement you suggest the rest of us should do and I no longer want you to. In an effort to make the point that the suggestion -  As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information. - is unrealistic I was not going to challenge the quality of your value judgement, I was merely going to point out the need to sift through the neccessary information to make the same value judgement for the 16,000 other diseases listed by the WHO, since you think we should pick and choose each disease we are to be covered for.

Plus including injurys, ambulance rides, outpatient care, payout limits per year and per injury and per sickness and so on and so on and so on.

For certain you are correct. I need a strong Government to represent me in the real world beyond simplistic examples. I do not need a Government that throws its support behind corporate interests.

Thank you for representing your position as well as you can.

Report this comment
#34) On August 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

devoish, I did do a value judgement in post #1. You didn't see it. Quite frankly I don't think you can see it..

I know that your side is weak macroeconomically, but I didn't think your side was this weak with personal economics.

The answer was in post one and the fact that you can't see it is very telling.

Virtually nothing and nothing are not the same thing and a whole lot of virtually nothings piled on top of each other can get pretty expensive.

You are right, it was a simplistic example. I was that way on purpose so you can see it. Apparently it was not simplistic enough.

And that completely leaves aside the secondary issue that your insurance  probably doesn't cost you even one penny more to include breast exams because no Dr recommends them for men so your insurer is not expecting to pay for to get one.

Really? The insurance companies have zero costs for handing out free breast exams? Or maybe your point is that since my odds of having one myself is low, the insurance company wouldn't off-set costs from a female customer by extending those costs to a male customer. Or maybe you believe in the healthcare fairy?

It is clear above that I can do a value judgement and you are so inept at doing one that you can't even recognize it when it's done for you.

The only thing that is clear from this thread is that even though I've jumped through multiple hoops and answered all of your questions over and over again, you definately aren't going to put forward any plan or anything of substance.

I was merely going to point out the need to sift through the neccessary information to make the same value judgement for the 16,000 other diseases listed by the WHO, since you think we should pick and choose each disease we are to be covered for.

That is one way to go about it devoish, or you could concentrate your attention on what is actually important to you. I can see now that you were hoping for me to pose some complex equation for the value of something that you would never use so you would show the futility of doing that equation over and over again for every possible thing that one could think of. The fact that the value of something that you would never use is zero never crossed your mind. I can understand why, because if you have a platform of free handouts, you are not going to be popular unless those handouts have value.

Are you or are you not going to answer any of my questions above?

Where is the line drawn devoish?

Enlighten me about the world where something can have value, but not cost.

Tell me why paying for something that you will never use is a good thing?

Tell me why someone else making my decisions for me will have my best interest in mind.

Put forth some kind of reason, any reason, why sitting back and letting the government do anything for you is a good plan.

You've pumped me to say the same thing over and over again for about 30 threads now. Could you at least answer the mechanic's question that I put forth?

I know that you have the ability to at least answer that one!

Is it efficient for you to replace all of your wrenches in your toolbox with a couple of adjustable wrenches?

Can you add something?

Any content at all?

Buehler?

Anyone?

 

 

 

Report this comment
#35) On August 25, 2010 at 11:25 AM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

Chris

A single payor system does not mean no consumer choice.  What I favor is single payor (at least initially to see if it solved the problems.)  Single payor allows many providors and differences in waht is provided as consumer choice.  It just doesn't allow underwriting for pre-existing conditions if done properly.

Report this comment
#36) On August 25, 2010 at 12:42 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

tom, in a single payor plan, the single payor dictates what it will pay for and what it won't. Once those mandates are imposed on the providers, the path to erosion of choice is created and that path ends in no choice at all.

If you don't want underwriting for pre-existing conditions, you would be better off imposing that mandate as a separate entity. At least then, you would need additional legislation for more mandates in the future.

Report this comment
#37) On August 25, 2010 at 12:46 PM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

Chris,

Medicare is a single payor system and different providers use differet benefit sctructures to offer choices.  So your assumption that all single payor plans involve dictating what benefits are provided is just that--an assumption--typically by people who are unable to see any distinction between socialized medicine and single payor.

Report this comment
#38) On August 25, 2010 at 1:31 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

tom, I assume that you are talking about Medicare Part C where other providers can offer plans to fill in the gaps of Medicare, so to speak. Medicare still dictates cuts. (Like the current reduction of payments to doctors by 21%) While other providers can add additional choices, total choice cannot be achieved if Medicare is still chosen as an option. The fact that you have the choice of a private option outside of Medicare is the only way you can get total choice. If we moved totally to a single payer system, that option disappears because the payer will dictate what it pays for.

If we get a single payer option, the first thing to go will be payments for abortions.

 

Report this comment
#39) On August 25, 2010 at 2:01 PM, dargus (86.24) wrote:

Chris,

Don't you think the clear incentive here will be for the insurers to move to the state with the weakest laws. Don't you think what you are really calling for is deregulation? Why not call it that instead?

Report this comment
#40) On August 25, 2010 at 2:30 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

dargus, I'm not advocating State mandates at all. There won't be any weak States vs strong States. I'd be OK with a National mandate, but I'm strongly against that as well.

I just want detailed State reporting that goes directly to the consumer. Let the consumer make their own decision.

If the State wants to advocate one company over another based on that reporting, that would be fine, but let the customer make their own decision.

Report this comment
#41) On August 25, 2010 at 2:31 PM, tomlongrpv (82.10) wrote:

Chris,

#39 has it right.

Also even in a multiple payor system the payor dictates what it pays for.  Your assumption that fully privatized insurance with the least possible regulation provides the most choices isn't really accurate.  It may provide the most choices for healthy people as long as they remain healthy.  But God help you if you have any sort of problem (pre-existing or not).  Without regulation you will be destroyed.

It seems Chris that you have always been part of a group health insurance plan and don't know what life is like for those on individual plans.  But it is individual plans where the most problems are.  With respect you have a great deal to learn about health insurance and you are not being served well by your quasi-religious faith in deregulation. 

Report this comment
#42) On August 25, 2010 at 2:45 PM, dargus (86.24) wrote:

Chris,

So I am right when I say you are advocating deregulation? Why not say you are for deregulation instead of "selling across state lines"? Selling across state lines implies regulation by the states, but only where the company is headquartered. You say this isn't what you want, so why obfuscate your position? Sorry, I know you didn't start this blog, just asking.

My problem with deregulation is that I won't know how my insurer behaves until I need to make a claim. Now, you want reporting, which is good, but with the small number of insurers available why wouldn't I expect them all to behave badly? I have to wonder if it would cost a company more to pay for my cancer treatment or overwhelm me with legal costs. 

We've talked about this before, and I'm with you on the insurance is insurance, not medical prepayment, and I love HSA's, but I'm always wary of any industry with a few big players who aren't being watched. I know regulation is no cure-all, and governments are corruptible too, but I wonder if no regulation is really the best route to go. I would have liked the option to go with a public plan, assuming it would be required to be a self-sustaining program off the balance sheet of the federal budget. If the assumption is true that administrative costs would be lower, this should be a reasonable plan.

Report this comment
#43) On August 25, 2010 at 2:58 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

tom, I totally agree that individual and small group plans are where most of the problems are and that's why I would live with a national mandate instead of state mandates.

dargus, you are right that if there are only a few companies, collusion and other dirty tricks would occur, that's why I want more competitors across state lines.

With state reporting, you can at least see how a company behaves before you buy their insurance.

Report this comment
#44) On August 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

also Tom while in a multiple payor sytem, although the multiple payors dictate what they pay, I am free to choose between them and therefore I have influence.

Report this comment
#45) On August 25, 2010 at 4:53 PM, dargus (86.24) wrote:

Chris, do you not want to answer my question about why you don't call for deregulation instead of “selling across state lines”? 

Do you honestly think allowing insurers to sell across state lines without state regulation would increase the number of insurers? Insurers gain advantage by getting bigger pools of people, and excluding customers who require medical care from those pools. This suggests to me that barriers to entry are very high and even if we had a lot of choices to begin with, which I don't think we do, the end result, in my opinion, would be consolidation to a small number of huge insurers.

Report this comment
#46) On August 25, 2010 at 5:03 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

Well I'm not calling it deregulation, because technically I'm allowing  the option of National regulation (although I hope it's minimal)

Yes, I do think it opens up competition. In the previous post that devoish referenced Dave had posted a video where a small business owner stated that there were 1300 companies that sell health insurance, but the state only allowed her to choose between 6.

Would there be some consolidation? Maybe. Would there definately be a lot more competition? Yes.

Report this comment
#47) On August 25, 2010 at 7:06 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

Yes, I do think it opens up competition. In the previous post that devoish referenced Dave had posted a video where a small business owner stated that there were 1300 companies that sell health insurance, but the state only allowed her to choose between 6.

1294 health insurers cannot compete in a some specific state because that State requires insurers to cover breast exams, and like some bloggers, they cannot value the cost of adding breast exams to their policys.

I just don't believe it.

I think there are only six in the state and the others will not go in because they will not have a large enough pool of customers to compete on low price without also being able to offer a lower quality product.

Report this comment
#48) On August 25, 2010 at 7:36 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

devoish, I believe the onus is on you to answer a question or 2 from above.

Why can't you believe it?

Don't you think that if it was possible for more companies to make money in CA, they would be selling insurance there?

That is a huge market that companies are choosing to ignore. They are choosing to ignore it for a reason.

Report this comment
#49) On August 25, 2010 at 10:09 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

They are ignoring California as a markett because they are not big enough to get into a fight with WellPoint or UNH.

Not because of anything California does.

Report this comment
#50) On August 25, 2010 at 10:45 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

Really? I wonder why they can't even find a niche market to compete in?

I mean especially since the rates for those two particular companies are slated to increase at least 14% this year. You would think that would provide enough of a cushion for others to jump in unless health insurance prices weren't sustainable to begin with.

Speaking of ignoring something, given the amount of hounding that you did to me for about 30 posts, do you think could answer any of the questions that I asked earlier?

It would be just ducky if you could just answer the question "Where do you draw the line?"

Any of the other questions would just be gravy. 

Report this comment
#51) On August 26, 2010 at 5:22 AM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

 As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information. - ChrisGraley

Twenty - now 48 - replies later, we still have not seen this "consumers ability to make a wise choice" demonstrated.

How much cheaper should your policy be if it does not include breast exams, as compared to one that does?

Report this comment
#52) On August 26, 2010 at 11:21 AM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

I answered that in post #32 and I definately demonstrated a wise choice in post #2.

Is there a reason that you're afraid to answer my questions?

Report this comment
#53) On August 26, 2010 at 8:23 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

Ouch. Chris I am very sorry. I completely missed your answer in post #32. Granted it was not the well thought out answer that I had hoped you could offer, but it was an answer and I apolgize that I missed it. When you said "I answered the question" I thought you were referring to reply #2 as you were before #32.

It pisses me off to no end when people make claims they refuse to back up, but in this case I really apologise for my badgering between posts #33 and #52 as it was undeserved. Obviously i had hoped for a little more detailed thought, but you did answer.

Ok

I'm not sure why? They seem to be more relevant than how much is a man-boob exam worth.

I'll ask you again. Are you planning on getting a breast exam?

No, at this time Drs do not recommend them for men.

To take it a step farther, Would it destroy you financially if you had to pay for it yourself?

No, but it is probably already paid for. Where you have an HSA, I have a policy that includes check-ups and diagnostics.

Should Healthcare pay for your vitamins?

Should healthcare or health insurance pay? I have not really thought about this one. Vitamins might be considered healthcare. In my "socialized system" I would be at the mercy of a panel of Drs to decide this question. Presumably a private insurer would do a study to determine if taking vitamins reduced healthcare costs and if so they may gladly cover them, if not, then not. Has one been done to base an answer on?

Protein Shakes?

The same answer I gave above applies here, unless you or someone can point out a critical difference.

Organic Pizza?

The same answer applies here also.

Where does the line get drawn and if your answer is that it shouldn't be drawn are you prepared for the Canadian system, where you have long wait times for even the most serious care?

Yes, I prefer the Canadian system to what we had two years ago and I prefer it to Obamacare. There are stories about long wait times in the USA system also. So long the care was never received. Before Obamacare the difference was that in Canada, the answer was "wait", but in the USA the answer was "no".

I suppose you are correct, without an HSA, it is pretty obvious that for a single man, gay or otherwise,  it makes much more sense to have coverage for checkups for penis cancer than breast cancer.

Report this comment
#54) On August 26, 2010 at 9:55 PM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

Apology accepted devoish, but I would think that if you are going to call me out in a thread, that the coversation would be a little more give and take.

You badgered me since post #2 where I said a breast exam for a man was worthless to begin with and you tried to the point that I was against breast cancer treatment and then that I was doing a disservice to my mother and then I was overlooking that men can get breast cancer even though they still won't ever get a breast exam.

I showed you a wise decision in post 2. Something that you will never use has no value, but usually still has a cost.

Any system that tries to be everything  for everyone is doomed to fail before it statrts.

Some good came out of this though. You are the first liberal I've ran into that admits that there are long waits for care in Canada. Maybe that's why some of Canada's politicians cross the border for serious care. Yes there are a few stories of long waits in the US, but they have more to do with over-burdened hospitals than a lack of free medical care, and we are not waiting for absolutely everything like they are in Canada.

So, let me make sure, since you didn't directly say it. You would prefer no line to be drawn at all then?

Boy I'm really glad that I didn't bring up my plan to tie health insurance to life insurance, investing, and patient behavior, or this thread would be about 200 posts long. I was tempted to, when tom mentioned that health insurance differed from auto insurance because auto insurance is designed to discourage bad behaivor, but that is a kettle of fish I'll save for another post.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#55) On August 27, 2010 at 1:49 AM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

You badgered me since post #2 where I said a breast exam for a man was worthless to begin with and you tried to the point that I was against breast cancer treatment and then that I was doing a disservice to my mother and then I was overlooking that men can get breast cancer even though they still won't ever get a breast exam.

I don't think that is entirely accurate. I badgered you since post #32. I also accepted an answer $.01 that shows most consumers are unable to do the work, not able too, as you did not really do any work. Let's face it, your example was a lame imaginary, not real world example as the two policys you describe do not exist. And the real world is much more difficult than your imaginary one. In all honesty I do not think you can really do the work that you suggested when you said: As usual devoish, you underestimate the consumers ability to make a wise choice if given all the information. Breast cancer in men is on the rise, and you may decide you want that exam covered in your insurance policy if you have no HSA. It might be nice to catch that cancer before it spreads to your lymph nodes and kills you. That might be worth more than $.01/year, or $.75 over your lifetime. It might not be worth the premium that your insurer charges you for it, but you don't know what that premium is. You might be much better off having your insurer cover the breast exam and being sure you can use that HSA money in your retirement than risk losing the cost of a breast exam. But once again, you don't know if you made the "wise choice".

As far as the "give and take" I'll give if you are ever correct. You aren't.

You did not show a wise descision in post #2. In post #2 you whined about being part of a pool that pays for breast exams because you think you will not need one. You imagineered a descision in post #14 which is not the same as doing so in the real world. I can dream up simple scenarios where it is easy to look smart, but that does not mean you can do it in the much more complex real world. And to date, you have not.

It is a disservice to women, including your mother, to attempt to be removed from the pool of people who help defray their healthcare costs. There was a time when men were more protective toward women, even ones they did not know personally. I guess even then there were men like you also.

There were longer waits in America than in Canada for healthcare. It was off the point so I ignored it.

I still apologize for missing the answer in #32, but you are still wrong on every point.

An HSA is simply another tax evasion for higher earners. $5800 pretax dollars per year, compunded tax free until age 62 when you no longer have to spend it on healthcare. Like a 401k, this money should never be spent until retirement. Pay the Dr out of taxed monies and let those who cannot put $5800 away each year make up the taxes you duck.

Good night.

Report this comment
#56) On August 27, 2010 at 9:09 AM, ChrisGraley (30.26) wrote:

devoish, you were so busy badgering me you missed post #32.

I also accepted an answer $.01 that shows most consumers are unable to do the work, not able too, as you did not really do any work.

It's funny how the correct answer didn't require any work. If you aren't going to get an exam, the offer of a free exam is exactly zero. I asked you if you were planning on getting an exam, and you admitted that you weren't as well.

Look above devoish, this is your thread and you added no content to it other than attacks on me. (it was the point of the post to begin with) tom and dargus added content. They put forth their ideas on what healthcare should be like. I put forth my own ideas, you didn't like them, but I added content. You added nothing other than repeating that I was wrong over and over again and dictating to me what hoops I could jump through to demonstrate that I was right in your eyes. When I jumped through the last hoop, you were so busy attacking me that you didn't see it. When you did finally see it, you dismissed it because the solution seemed too easy. It's the correct answer! if you don't get an exam the value is exactly zero.

It is a disservice to women, including your mother, to attempt to be removed from the pool of people who help defray their healthcare costs. There was a time when men were more protective toward women, even ones they did not know personally. I guess even then there were men like you also.

devoish, I hate to break this to you, but the socialized system that you hope for doesn't exist yet. In the real world, my choices in my healthcare plan don't affect mom's healthcare plan. Let's just call a spade a spade here. What you really want is for me to pay for you in a system where you get everything totally free. You can justify it, because I'm one of those evil people that make money and keep the economy moving. Just like those unions that you love so much, you'll suck more and more out of me until I can't sustain the cost anymore. Then just like the big corporations, I'll decide to move away or go bankrupt. Either way, by that time you'll be dependent on your free ride. When I go down, you'll go down with me.

I still apologize for missing the answer in #32, but you are still wrong on every point.

There was only one point. "something that you'll never use isn't worth anything." that point is still correct.

An HSA is simply another tax evasion for higher earners. $5800 pretax dollars per year, compunded tax free until age 62 when you no longer have to spend it on healthcare. Like a 401k, this money should never be spent until retirement. Pay the Dr out of taxed monies and let those who cannot put $5800 away each year make up the taxes you duck.

How evil of me to pay for my own healthcare when I could just hand the money over to the government! After all, think of all the bridges to nowhere that they could build! If they could save up $1.2 billion dollars in CA they could build 3 schools! Or we could overpay for turtle tunnels, or rebuild new sidewalks with no frontage that lead to ditches. I am truly sorry for your tax bill devoish. I'm sorry for my own as well, but our taxes wouldn't be so high if you didn't demand everything for free. Free stuff tends to be pretty expensive.

The amount of your hate for me is impressive given that none of your party's plans, (healthcare, cap and trade, tax and spend) can exist without me. You may hate me, but you seem to love my money. You spend more of my money than I do.

What a weird relationship! You hate me, but you need me. My plans usually start out with personal responsibility, so I don't have the same need for you. In fact, your plans make you a permanent burden for me.

I can see why you like your plans though devoish. You can get more free stuff if you spend both your money and mine.

For me though, it's hard to put my fate in the hands of people that spend more than they can afford and sign contracts that they don't read.

Report this comment
#57) On August 27, 2010 at 9:17 AM, catoismymotor (37.53) wrote:

Chris,

Don't feed the Devoish.

Cato

Report this comment
#58) On August 28, 2010 at 5:48 PM, devoish (99.06) wrote:

Chris,

I don't think you should trust yourself then.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement