Moultrie Products
Trump E.O. Blows Up Part of Obamacare
Community
Contributors to this thread:
NvaGvUp 12-Oct-17
Bowfreak 12-Oct-17
Trax 12-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 12-Oct-17
Trax 12-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 12-Oct-17
Franzen 12-Oct-17
elkmtngear 12-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 12-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 12-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 12-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 12-Oct-17
Sage Buffalo 12-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 12-Oct-17
elkmtngear 12-Oct-17
JTV 12-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 12-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 12-Oct-17
Sixby 12-Oct-17
Shuteye 12-Oct-17
elkmtngear 12-Oct-17
bad karma 12-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 12-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 13-Oct-17
gadan 13-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 13-Oct-17
JTV 13-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 13-Oct-17
Atheist 13-Oct-17
freeglee 13-Oct-17
Mike in CT 13-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 13-Oct-17
freeglee 13-Oct-17
HDE 13-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 13-Oct-17
Ryan from Boone 13-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 13-Oct-17
Ryan from Boone 13-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 13-Oct-17
Atheist 13-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 13-Oct-17
Annony Mouse 13-Oct-17
Mike in CT 13-Oct-17
Atheist 14-Oct-17
Bowbender 14-Oct-17
Mike in CT 14-Oct-17
Annony Mouse 14-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 14-Oct-17
itshot 14-Oct-17
Mike in CT 14-Oct-17
itshot 14-Oct-17
Woods Walker 15-Oct-17
HA/KS 16-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 16-Oct-17
K Cummings 16-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 16-Oct-17
Ryan from Boone 16-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 16-Oct-17
Ryan from Boone 16-Oct-17
bad karma 16-Oct-17
Annony Mouse 16-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 16-Oct-17
K Cummings 16-Oct-17
K Cummings 16-Oct-17
bad karma 16-Oct-17
Atheist 16-Oct-17
HDE 16-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 16-Oct-17
K Cummings 16-Oct-17
Woods Walker 16-Oct-17
IdyllwildArcher 17-Oct-17
HDE 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
Shuteye 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
HDE 17-Oct-17
Bowbender 17-Oct-17
HDE 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
Bowbender 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
Bowbender 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
HDE 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 17-Oct-17
HA/KS 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
itshot 17-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
K Cummings 17-Oct-17
NvaGvUp 17-Oct-17
Gray Ghost 17-Oct-17
From: NvaGvUp
12-Oct-17
Dang, ya' gotta' like this!

From CNN:

"President Trump aims to strike down parts of Obamacare with new executive order

By MERIDITH MCGRAW,. MARYALICE PARKS

Oct 12, 2017, 11:49 AM ET

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday at the White House that seeks to increase consumer options for health insurance, but could further destabilize Obamacare marketplaces.

With the “power of the pen,” Trump's executive order seeks to unravel significant parts of insurance rules under the Affordable Care Act by directing federal agencies to consider new rules. The order, through a series of rule recommendations to be carried out by Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor and the Treasury Department, aims to get those agencies to expand association health plans, short term limited duration plans and makes recommendations for changes to health reimbursement arrangements.

The president said during the signing that he is "taking the first step to providing millions of Americans with Obamacare relief."

The American people "will have so many options," he said. "This will cost the United States government virtually nothing, and people will have great, great health care. And when I say people, I mean by the millions and millions."

Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who joined the president in the Roosevelt Room for the signing, have long been proponents of expanding association health plans, which allow small employers to band together to buy health insurance.

The Trump administration says it will direct the Department of Labor to give small employers access to insurance options at lower rates in the large employer markets.

But large employer plans are not subject to some of the requirements under the Affordable Care Act. So, while people may be able to access lower cost health insurance, consumers might not be provided some essential benefits such as maternity care.

The White House stressed on an earlier briefing call with reporters that, at this time, there would not be changes to the required minimum coverage standards, but questions remain over whether or not self-employed individuals could join association health plans.

Critics have warned that these plans could potentially move large groups of young, healthy people out of insurance markets leaving sick people in high risk pools, subject to higher premiums.

Trump also said he is asking Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta to consider ways to allow association health plans to sell plans across state lines.

Currently there are provisions under the ACA that allow plans to be sold across state lines as long as they comply with consumer protection and licensing laws.

But the challenge is that insurance companies aren’t mandated to sell across state lines -— and many simply don’t want to. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners warned that consumers have not been interested in the plans calling it a ‘red herring’ that consumers would benefit.

The order could also lengthen the amount of time short-term limited duration plans can offer coverage from three months to up to a year.

Typically people who buy these plans are people between jobs, people who missed the enrollment period but want health insurance, and young people no longer covered by their parents. The plans are typically cheap, offer fewer benefits and still require people to pay the individual mandate -- a tax penalty for not being fully covered.

Experts warn that it’s unlikely Trump’s executive order will have much of an effect in the coming year as it will take time for these different rules to be put into place. But the executive order could have a big impact on the insurance marketplace, which is already unstable.

“I think undermining the ACA marketplace is a feature, rather than a bug of this order,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told ABC News.

Conservatives say the executive order is a welcome first step toward helping out individuals facing premium hikes in the individual insurance markets. Still it could receive push back from some on the right who would still like to see an Obamacare "repeal and replace" accomplished, a key campaign promise for Republicans in 2016.

“No one should think that one administrative change will resolve all of the problems that have currently affect individual and small group markets under the ACA. The ACA has severely damaged both markets and this is going to take a legislative remedy eventually,” said Bob Moffitt at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Others see the steps as incremental.

"I don't see this as having a big impact on anything, if any," said Joe Antos, health care expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Still, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the small business lobby, said they're "grateful" for Trump's work to address regulations.

"In the wake of the Senate’s failure to repeal Obamacare, we are grateful to President Trump for addressing regulations that make it harder and costlier for small business owners to provide healthcare for themselves and their employees," the organization's president, Juanita Duggan, said in a statement. "The cost of health care has been the number-one problem for small businesses for more than 30 years."

Critics contend this is the latest attempt to “sabotage” Obamacare and it could end up causing even more confusion for the public before enrollment in the ACA begins on November 1.

“Angry that Congress wouldn’t repeal the health care Americans depend on, President Trump is purposely trying to sabotage the law by creating garbage insurance which will undermine the market, raise premiums, reduce coverage and expose millions of Americans again to discrimination based on pre-existing conditions,” Brad Woodhouse, campaign director for Protect Our Care and former DNC communications director, said in a statement."

From: Bowfreak
12-Oct-17
....looks like he has a pen and a cell phone too.

From: Trax
12-Oct-17
This is a nice punch and jab, but we need so much more. I realize, it's all President Trump can do at the moment. What's really important is the conservatives who are trying to oust Rhinos like Mitch McTurtle. He knows the fix is in though. McTurtle will laugh them off and finish his nap before the cocktail hour begins.

From: Gray Ghost
12-Oct-17

Gray Ghost's Link
Have you read the EO, Kyle? Or, are you just cheerleading, again?

There's nothing to it. Just a bunch of vague instructs, like "provide greater flexibility" under the veil of "To the maximum extent permitted by law". I don't see a single specific in it.

Matt

From: Trax
12-Oct-17
Every slap in the face weakens OBOZOCARE. This order will hopefully increase competition to a degree and lessen certain requirements. No doubt, it doesn't really change anything. I wasn't a fan of the bill that they couldn't get the votes for either. We need real reform, and we need to return this monstrosity to the private sector. Reformed within the private sector with all the things we've heard about from full portability and tort reform to enhanced HSA type options etc etc

From: NvaGvUp
12-Oct-17
Matt,

This EO is not very specific but that's common. What's key is the intent behind the EO.

Moreover, the left is freaking out on this, so you know they are as upset as I am upbeat on it.

From: Franzen
12-Oct-17
GG,

January 20th? Am I confused?

From: elkmtngear
12-Oct-17
I read it. Lays the framework for Interstate Commerce in regard to Health Plans. I know my plan will be a helluva lot cheaper if I can buy it in North Carolina.

Hopefully it will be followed up and implemented soon!

January 20th, lol. CNN scores more "Fake News" points !

From: NvaGvUp
12-Oct-17
Franzen, elkmtngear,

Matt's got the WRONG EO!!!!!!

Trump did issue an EO on ObamaCare in January, but this one is in no way the same EO! This EO came out today!

From: Gray Ghost
12-Oct-17
I guess my Google skills failed me. I linked to a earlier "feel good" EO, as Franzen pointed out. My apologies.

I do like the idea of Interstate Commerce, but I have to wonder what that will do to rates for the ACA pool, if people flood to the new plans.

It seems to scratch at the scab, instead of heal it.

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
12-Oct-17
Matt,

No worries.

I saw the same things you did when I first 'Bing'd' for it. Then I noticed the January date and realized those links were for the wrong EO.

From: NvaGvUp
12-Oct-17
A. The government has NO business telling you what products you are required to purchase.

B. The government has no business in telling you who you can and who you cannot buy products from.

C. The government also has no business in telling you you MUST include features which you neither need nor want in those products!

PERIOD!

From: Sage Buffalo
12-Oct-17
NVA I agree 100%

However, he's not going to figure it out because it's too complex for him and he has no idea how to handle anything that he can't Tweet about.

From: Gray Ghost
12-Oct-17
Sage Buffalo,

Does that mean Trump has a 140 character attention span? I tend to agree.

Matt

From: elkmtngear
12-Oct-17
"A. The government has NO business telling you what products you are required to purchase.

B. The government has no business in telling you who you can and who you cannot buy products from.

C. The government also has no business in telling you you MUST include features which you neither need nor want in those products"!

Kyle, I would go as far as to substitute the words "Insurance Companies" and/or "Employers" in the place of the word "Government"...

From: JTV
12-Oct-17
Trump even has Rand Paul on board, and even he sounded enthusiastic about it today on Hannity's radio show ...

From: NvaGvUp
12-Oct-17
Jeffery,

"Kyle, I would go as far as to substitute the words "Insurance Companies" and/or "Employers" in the place of the word "Government"... "

Then you would be wrong.

More than wrong, actually.

No insurance company can REQUIRE you to purchase any of their offerings.

Employers do have control of what your health insurance plan choices may be, but they cannot require you to opt in. But a great a employer with a great plan would offer you options re. which benefits you wanted and which benefits you did not want.

Markets can and will price for those things if given the chance and seeing the demand.

From: NvaGvUp
12-Oct-17

From: Sixby
12-Oct-17
Rand Paul was in place behind Trump. That is where he has always been. He's the enforcer in the senate. If the senate will not repeal and replace then Paul kills the bill. Trump is then forced (haha ) to do it by fiat.

God bless, Steve

From: Shuteye
12-Oct-17
After Trump signed the EO he gave the pen to Rand Paul. Rand was sure bragging on Trump today.

From: elkmtngear
12-Oct-17
Kyle,

What I was driving at, was the fact that Insurance Companies have "pigeonholed" Employers and Consumers by only offering "All or nothing" coverage.

Medicare sets the stage, and Private Insurance takes their lead, and goes "above and beyond" in many cases. Same thing happens with Pharmaceuticals. As Medicare coverage amounts scale up for drugs, Big Pharma Companies bump their prices, waiting for Medicare to make another increase...vicious cycle!

What's missing is competition, and scalable Insurance plans. Like any other consumer product, there should be a multitude of choices. I want the option to buy only what I need.

I'm hoping that's where Trump/ Rand Paul et al is going with this framework. I know they have both indicated something to this effect.

From: bad karma
12-Oct-17
That's not the insurance company. The "all or nothing" is an Obamacare requirement.

Blame the Dems. That's where the problem is. Obamacare is their baby.

From: NvaGvUp
12-Oct-17
As is Medicare and Medicaid

From: Gray Ghost
13-Oct-17
I think Rand Paul has been stumping for expanded associated health plans for years, so this EO is mostly his baby. That's the reason he was so giddy.

Matt

From: gadan
13-Oct-17
This is a great move by Trump in light of congresses inactivity. There will be a court challenge or four since Trump is ceasing insurance company subsidies.

From: NvaGvUp
13-Oct-17
Wait! There's More!

Today Trump cancelled ObamaCare subsidies to Insurers, effective immediately.

From Hot Air:

"Trump On ObamaCare Insurer Subsidies: Guess What? We Checked The Budget And The Constitution, And ......

ED MORRISSEY, October 13, 2017

Surprise! It turns out that Congress didn’t fund direct subsidy payments to health insurers. Actually, it’s not much of a surprise, not even to the Trump administration, which has chosen to make those payments anyway … until now. The White House announced last night, and Donald Trump confirmed this morning, that those payments will stop immediately, which will almost immediately create even more instability in the ObamaCare exchanges:

A White House statement said based on guidance from the Justice Department, “the "Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare.”

“In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments,” the statement said.""

From: JTV
13-Oct-17
oooh, thats a kick to the Obamacare nads ...

From: NvaGvUp
13-Oct-17
Time to start the Death Watch on Obamacare.

What's the over/under on the number of days it will take until it completely implodes?

From: Atheist
13-Oct-17
So how will insurance companies make up that lost money? Care to guess? I'm going to say in everyone's insurance premiums? Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner! Oh wait, trump said everyone would have cheaper insurance. And it won't cost a thing!

From: freeglee
13-Oct-17
DING DING DING!!! WHT Atheist said!!!

You Smart boys should invest in Caskets this will not End Well!!!

From: Mike in CT
13-Oct-17
It's almost refreshing to see that when you've figured you've seen the limits of stupidity there's always someone out there to lower the bar even further......

From: NvaGvUp
13-Oct-17
What Mike in CT said, x 200!

From: freeglee
13-Oct-17
Great Answers !!!

If you are in 4 rth Grade!!!!! HAHAWAHAWHAWAAAHA!!!!!

From: HDE
13-Oct-17
Well, since the liberal left believes in population control, the extra caskets will be just what they ordered...

From: NvaGvUp
13-Oct-17
The Constitution was intended to create freedom FROM government, not dependence ON government.

If given the chance, the market will offer unlimited choices and at a far lower cost than any government designed and run plan could even dream of.

13-Oct-17
Healthcare and the free market do not mix. In a free market, goods and services are distributed through transactions based on mutual consent. No one is forced to buy from a particular supplier. No one is forced to engage in any transactions at all. In a free market, no transactions occur if a price cannot be agreed. Agree on this? If you do, then you'll understand that the medical industry exists almost entirely to serve people who have been rendered incapable of making a transaction that includes mutual consent. When one needs health services they often need them in a way that is quite different from a desire for a good quality television. As you lie unconscious under a bus, you are in no position to shop for the best provider of ambulance services at the most reasonable price. All personal volition is lost. Whatever happens next will not be a market transaction. I know, Insurance is the obvious solution. And by agreeing to a transaction for insurance coverage at a time when I am healthy, I can ,in theory, provide for my needs when I am ill. Solution? Not really. Insurance companies don’t bleed. Insurance companies don’t get cancer. Insurance companies have certain needs and interests that will never line up squarely with their customers'. you cannot represent your needs in a conflict with the insurance company when seriously ill. At the most critical moment you are at the mercy of an entity with interests at conflict with your own. As I lie under that bus in the road, what if my insurance company refuses to pay for my care? What if the insurer tried to intervene in my care to their own cost benefit instead of mine? What if the company with which I contracted for insurance services collapses and cannot pay for my medical care when I need it? See the problem?

From: NvaGvUp
13-Oct-17
First, anyone who does a cut-n-paste without bothering to edit for readability, is not credible.

Next, anyone who has ZERO understanding of free markets, which is YOU, is a blitering idiot and even less credible.

13-Oct-17
I suggest that if you have trouble reading and understanding that, you are the one with the issue sir. So while I accept your insults, you still fail to address the subject. And what I wrote is as accurate a representation of the free market, vis a vis health care as can be. Please advise me as to my 'lack of understanding of free markets"

From: NvaGvUp
13-Oct-17
PZ,

I refuse to read ANYTHING which a blithering idiot, re. YOU, sends in an unreadable form.

From: Atheist
13-Oct-17
Nva, how do people put up w you? Insufferable old fool

From: NvaGvUp
13-Oct-17
You of all people, with 40 something false registrations and hundreds of provable LIES, accuse ME of being insufferable?

What an effing a-hole you are!

From: Annony Mouse
13-Oct-17
What a pen created can easily be replaced...

It's not Trump's fault that these funds were never legally appropriated. Obama made his accomplishments as a sand castle of EOs and the tides of time are merely washing them away.

Someday, in the distant future, some little proregressive piss-ant may be in a position to do the same to Trump's EO, but in the meantime, money will not be spent inappropriately and the possibility that Congress may actually pass legislation that restores these funds.

Trump, by disassembling Obama's EOs made to prop up Obamacare has increased pressure on both the Democrats and the eGOP to actually address this issue.

BTW: far too many improperly use the term "health insurance" when talking about health care. That's another thread.

From: Mike in CT
13-Oct-17
Kyle, The really cool thing here is that the plagiarized text originated from someone that makes the plagiarizer actually sound almost intelligent; 30 years in 3 arms of the healthcare world and I can honestly say I've never seen such a laughable attempt at an argument.

Everyone go out into your respective corners of the state of your residence and let the villages know we've found their idiot.......

FYI for the general trolling public; if you want to provoke try not to be comical; it really does defeat the purpose you know........lol........

From: Atheist
14-Oct-17
Nva, how do people put up w you? Insufferable old fool

From: Bowbender
14-Oct-17
"And what I wrote is as accurate a representation of the free market, vis a vis health care as can be."

Liar. You didn't write it. Cut n Paste without attribution. You, are a L-I-A-R.

"Please advise me as to my 'lack of understanding of free markets"

I think people would have a better chance of teaching a deaf, dumb, blind monkey how to juggle chainsaws. Yeah, you're that ****ing clueless.

From: Mike in CT
14-Oct-17
Tom, To your point my personal policy when entering into honest discussions has always been to try and add to the knowledge base. As has been the case from day 1, iteration 1 there's no level of honesty in this discussion, just the inane (and utterly clueless) ramblings of another, foisted for the sole purpose of prolonging someone's adolescence it seems.

It isn't a case of being merely clueless but having an equivalent lack of character, morals and principles.

Ironically the signposts of that affliction are readily apparent; the continued sinking into irrelevance of the Democrat party......so by all means cretins, continue to display your ignorance and lack of the above at every opportunity.

From: Annony Mouse
14-Oct-17
For Athiest, freeglee, PaulieZ, et. al.:

From: NvaGvUp
14-Oct-17
Jack,

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From: itshot
14-Oct-17

itshot's Link
rights?? too damm funny, Lyin Ryan Zeidan Romano from the Boony Side of Norwalk's source at link

the audacity to change a few pronouns and adverbs to make it your own??

what steaming piles all 35 of you are

From: Mike in CT
14-Oct-17
Greg,

For some people the concept of original thought is just and only that-a concept. Original thought equates to taking a stand and that takes principles. Original thought invests a piece of oneself into the discussion; that requires courage.

When you see people with neither of those attributes you get regurgitation; no risk, no skin in the game; the coward's way out.

No surprise, just continued and complete disdain.

From: itshot
14-Oct-17
if healthcare is a right, isn't good health also a basic necessity? somebody should pay, either way, isn't that also a right, to have somebody else's toil cover your way?

i'd love to see the briarcliff schitz, the cannabis bros, the old hippie lawya, the dirty energy apologist and all the other (4) good libs on this site draw a line, set a limit, on something, anything other than that which they despise

From: Woods Walker
15-Oct-17
If they can claim that healthcare is a RIGHT and it must then be provided to all the people free of charge (even though there's no direct reference to it in any of the founding documents), then the right to keep and bear arms is DEFINITELY a right as it has it's own Amendment that spells it out specifically. Based on that, then the government should provide me with arms as it's my right.

I'll take a Ruger Red Label then, 20 gauge. After all, I have a RIGHT to it.

From: HA/KS
16-Oct-17
Food, housing, potable water?

From: NvaGvUp
16-Oct-17
That which requires action by one person on behalf of another cannot be a right!

From: K Cummings
16-Oct-17
"For some people the concept of original thought is just and only that-a concept. Original thought equates to taking a stand and that takes principles. Original thought invests a piece of oneself into the discussion; that requires courage.

When you see people with neither of those attributes you get regurgitation; no risk, no skin in the game; the coward's way out."

Mike:

I must say, this is one of the most thought provoking posts I've seen on the CF in a very long time. If reading this doesn't cause a good deal of introspection in all of us, nothing will.

Thank you,

KPC

From: NvaGvUp
16-Oct-17
Henry,

Those on the left are unable to distinguish between 'wants' and 'rights.'

They foolishly (and dangerously) believe they have a right to that which they want.

16-Oct-17
Arguing that health-care is a privilege becomes a very "slippery slope" argument. After all, if being able to seek help when one is ill is determined by your ability to pay, can anyone really claim that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a valid claim? Can you even really punish a murderer for expediting the process when thousands die every day from societal negligence? Why even bother to have firefighters or Emergency Medical Personnel, because if health-care is a privilege then why should we socialize costs for first responders when people should be paying for those services on a subscription basis?

You can even extend this to terrorism, why should the government even bother trying to protect us from terrorists or be concerned with national sovereignty? Why not have Americans take responsibility for the privilege of their own security?

From: NvaGvUp
16-Oct-17
Let's try this again.

That which requires action by one person on behalf of another cannot be a right!

Or are you saying it's OK to make another man your slave if it's for something you won't provide for yourself?

16-Oct-17
If you're home is burned to the ground, the payment made to you by your insurance company was likely the money paid by the other members of that insurance company. In other words, other peoples premiums are paying YOU for your burnt house. Are they your slaves? The payment was required by the insurance company (and by the bank that holds the mortgage) on behalf of you and your charred house. What was that quote again?

From: bad karma
16-Oct-17
Health care is not a privilege. It's an individual responsibility.

From: Annony Mouse
16-Oct-17

Annony Mouse's Link

From: NvaGvUp
16-Oct-17
Ryan with His Head Up His Azz,

You are truly dumber than anyone here could ever have imagined.

When a person buys homeowner's insurance it's a VOLUNTARY transaction wherein people VOLUNTARILY agree to share a common risk.

No one is REQUIRED to engage in that transaction.

Yes, you truly are more stupid than anyone could have imagined.

FAR more stupid!

From: K Cummings
16-Oct-17
"If you're home is burned to the ground, the payment made to you by your insurance company was likely the money paid by the other members of that insurance company. In other words, other peoples premiums are paying YOU for your burnt house. Are they your slaves?"

Do you understand the difference between voluntary and compulsory?

KPC

From: K Cummings
16-Oct-17
LOL...must have been posting at the same time Kyle.

KPC

From: bad karma
16-Oct-17
And herein is the mindset of the left: Everything they perceive to be a good idea should be made mandatory.

That's how you get stupid ideas like Big Gulp prohibition, magazine restrictions and Obamacare.

From: Atheist
16-Oct-17
I believe banks require you to have home owners insurance to protect their financial interests. So if you have a mtg, you must get insurance. On that note, do any of you actually know anyone without homeowners insurance? Didn't think so. So I'd call that compulsory.

From: HDE
16-Oct-17
You pay a premium based on a lot of things (risk, hazards, and the likelihood of a peril) along with the cost to replace in a total loss for a house. A guy with $500k valued house in an earthquake prone area will pay more than I will with a $300k home in safe little 'ol NM with low property values. But, we are both paying for what we need and want.

The premise to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are that a gov't cannot just take your life, freedom, or ability to prosper on a whim like they did back in the old days, nor should they ever have been able to.

The right to acquire healthcare exists, never has been a debate. The confusion exists because some believe they have the right to good healthcare at someone else's expense. I would love for someone to pay 2/3 the price of a decked out 3/4 ton diesel for me.

You want affordable healthcare, decrease the price of meds and ridiculous lawsuits that cause high malpractice premiums...

From: NvaGvUp
16-Oct-17
Sybil,

"I believe banks require you to have home owners insurance to protect their financial interests. So if you have a mtg, you must get insurance. On that note, do any of you actually know anyone without homeowners insurance? Didn't think so. So I'd call that compulsory."

If you believe that, you are just as stupid as your other alter egos are, because NO ONE is REQUIRED to take out a mortgage, you moron.

Getting a mortgage and thereby being told to obtain homeowner's insurance in order to get the mortgage is a VOLUNTARY transaction, you moron!

From: K Cummings
16-Oct-17
Gosh, while we're at it, shouldn't mortgages for home ownership be a right too?

Oh, wait. I think we might have tried that.

How'd that work out anyway?

Come to think of it, the Affordable Care Act is to the health care industry, what the Community Reinvestment Act was to the housing industry.

KPC

From: Woods Walker
16-Oct-17
"If you believe that, you are just as stupid as your other alter egos are, because NO ONE is REQUIRED to take out a mortgage, you moron.

Getting a mortgage and thereby being told to obtain homeowner's insurance in order to get the mortgage is a VOLUNTARY transaction, you moron!"

Exactly Kyle. The ACA is basically a "Breathing Tax". If you exist, then you must have it. No choice involved whatsoever. It's mandatory forced government theft of one person's money to fund someone else, which the politicians EXEMPTED themselves from. And it's just flat out WRONG.

17-Oct-17
If you own your home outright, you don't have to have home owner's insurance. If you have a mortgage, you don't own your home, the bank does and they require you to pay for insurance till you own the home. It's not a law.

From: HDE
17-Oct-17
^^^ yep, it's a condition of the loan contract you agree to.

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
"I believe banks require you to have home owners insurance to protect their financial interests. So if you have a mtg, you must get insurance. On that note, do any of you actually know anyone without homeowners insurance? Didn't think so. So I'd call that compulsory."

BZZZT...Wrong on both accounts. Home owners insurance protects the homeowner, and it's not compulsory unless you choose to have a mortgage. Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) protects the lender. And, again, it's only compulsory if you choose to have a mortgage with a high loan to value ratio.

Plenty of people choose not to have homeowners insurance. I've read that up to 4 million primary and secondary residences don't have it in the US. That may not be too smart, but it's reality.

Matt

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
For the record, Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI), and Homeowners Insurance are two completely different things.

PMI protects the lender if the barrower defaults on the loan.

Homeowners insurance protects the homeowner if there is damage done to the home by a covered risk.

KPC

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
For the record, Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI), and Homeowners Insurance are two completely different things.

PMI protects the lender if the barrower defaults on the loan.

Homeowners insurance protects the homeowner if there is damage done to the home by a covered risk.

KPC

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
There's seems to be an echo in here, Kevin. ;-)

Matt

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
Indeed.

Indeed.

Indeed.

Indeed.

:)

KPC

From: Shuteye
17-Oct-17
I have owned my house for many years. I don't have to have insurance but sure glad I do. Sure paid off when a tree fell on my house. When I bought a four wheeler my wife called the insurance company and had it insured before I left the dealership. Later it was stolen and the insurance company paid me right away. Sometimes insurance really pays off. My neighbor was very rich and the only insurance he had was required to get tags for his trucks. When his wife went into the hospital for a mastectomy I told him he should have had insurance. He said he paid cash and that I had spent more money on insurance during my life than he had paid out.

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
"He said he paid cash and that I had spent more money on insurance during my life than he had paid out."

And he's probably correct. There's a reason insurance companies are some of the most profitable companies out there. Just like a casino, the odds are stacked in their favor. If a person has the means to self-insure, in most cases he'll wind up paying out less than he would have paid in premiums over his lifetime.

Think about this. The average price paid for comprehensive car insurance is around $150 per year, depending on the type of vehicle. So, over a 70 year driving period, the average person pays $10,500 worth of premiums for one car. Now, multiple that by say 3 cars in a average household, and add to that the cost of deductibles for claims.

How many of you can say you've received more in claims than you've paid in premiums? I certainly haven't.

Matt

From: HDE
17-Oct-17
But most are not disciplined enough to save the premium in an interest bearing acct. Besides, the insurance can help offset the claims awarded in a civil suit against you.

There are other reasons to get an insurance policy besides the immediate total loss value...

From: Bowbender
17-Oct-17
GG,

The average healthcare premium for a family (at least the plans I have had exposure to) are running around $18K per year, not including deductibles. At my previous company he was paying around $12K per year. Using that as an average over the last eighteen years, is $216K. Even with three kids, two were c-sections, a few emergency room visits, check ups, the usual stuff, I'll bet we didn't touch $50K-$60K.

Wonder if we went back to major medical health coverage, you know, where you health insurance covers "major medical" stuff and you are responsible for doctor visits, etc. if costs would drop?

From: HDE
17-Oct-17
You can certainly get just major medical if you want, and you will pay around $1k per month, or $12k per year. And yes, over an adult lifetime, that is $720k in total cost assuming a flat premium, until you need that amount covered in yr 5 of a 60 yr adult lifespan...

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
"There are other reasons to get an insurance policy besides the immediate total loss value..."

That's true. That's why I was careful to use comprehensive car insurance in my example. Liability insurance is another matter. God forbid, you cause an accident that kills someone, then the cost of liability insurance suddenly doesn't look too bad.

Bowbender, your example is even better than mine.

Matt

From: Bowbender
17-Oct-17
HDE,

"You can certainly get just major medical if you want,..."

See that's the thing. Everybody wants every sniffle, bruise, ache and pain covered. Not enough people are enrolled in the MM programs, so the costs are high. I think if folks had to pay the full amount every time they ran their kids to the doctors for sniffles, things might change. Slowly, but surely.

Our current insurance contribution thru my wife's work is just shy of $200 for a really good plan. There is still a large deductible to be met, the number escapes me right now. But folks look at insurance and say "My co-pay for an office visit is $15". No wonder they run to the doctors for every ailment. Doctor office visit runs about $135-160 in my area and of course participating doctors accept assignment which might be 70% of the bill.

I sure don't have the answers to fix the health insurance (not health care, insurance). JMO, but a large part of it could be solved by getting the government out of it. I can craft a homeowners policy to cover my home, firearms, jewelry and what not. What can't I do the same with healthcare? And why is it my employers responsibility to provide it? And NO, that's not me asking for a single payer system!

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
"If a person has the means to self-insure, in most cases he'll wind up paying out less than he would have paid in premiums over his lifetime."

That's easy to say, and probably true...in retrospect. Unfortunately we don't live our lives in retrospect. Very few people start out with the ability to self insure. Some people are fortunate and they eventually get to that point. Some people are unfortunate at a young age and it takes a lifetime to dig out...if ever.

Pure insurance based on risk is relatively inexpensive. Unfortunately somewhere along the way, medical insurance morphed into comprehensive health care, the government got involved, the lawyers got involved, and we went from insuring a maybe to simply financing an eventuality.

KPC

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
"Very few people start out with the ability to self insure."

That's why I qualified my statement with "If a person has the means....".

But you don't have to be born a Trump to self-insure. And you don't have to self-insure everything. I stopped financing vehicles and began avoiding comprehensive car coverage in my 20s. Yes, I've had to pay out-of-pocket a few times, which always stings a little, but I'm still ahead in the long run.

I think my Father instilled the discipline to save money in me. He grew up thru the Great Depression and was very frugal with the modest money he made. Some might say he was a "tight wad", but I never would. ;-)

Matt

From: Bowbender
17-Oct-17
KP,

"...and we went from insuring a maybe to simply financing an eventuality."

Exactly. Major Medical covered the "maybes".

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
Again, I agree with what you are saying GG...for the most part.

I'm a diligent saver and investor also. However, anyone's ability to self insure is completely dependent on never having a claim for more than you've saved...so far.

Most people won't really know if it worked until the end.

KPC

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
"Most people won't really know if it worked until the end."

Can't the same thing be said about buying insurance?

It's a gamble either way, but the odds are better for insurance companies, hence their high profits.

Matt

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
"Can't the same thing be said about buying insurance?

Not really. When I pay an insurance premium, whether it's the first one or the 71st one, if I have a loss I will be covered to the maximum of the policy. So, if I only paid a thousand dollar premium and have a million dollar claim, I'm still covered.

With self insurance, you are always only "covered" up to the amount you've saved. So, if I saved my first thousand dollar premium and have a million dollar claim...I'm screwed.

With self insurance, I simply won't know until I die, whether I've saved enough.

As to the "odds" being in favor of the insurance company. I certainly hope so. If I'm relying on them for protection, I don't want the odds to be in every policy holder's favor.

As to the notion of "high profits," the health insurance industry actually ranks near the bottom compared to other industries in terms of net profit margin. Depending on the source, that margin is reported to be somewhere between 3-8%.

KPC

From: NvaGvUp
17-Oct-17
My brother-in-law died in 2015 from brain cancer which he battled for many years.

His insurance company paid out something like $2,000,000 in helping him fight it.

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
Kevin,

At the risk of getting too far off topic. Allow me to explain my position further. I would never advocate self-insuring anything unless you already have enough saved to cover the potential loss.

That's one reason why I used comprehensive car insurance as an example. If you purchase a $5K car, just make sure to set aside $5K for a total loss. That's very doable for a disciplined saver, IMO. Not so much for other forms of insurance, depending on the risk. Liability insurance, for example, where the risk can be millions, self-insuring isn't an option for most.

As a saver gets older and develops a larger nest egg, he can expand on the things he self-insures. Hurricane, flood, wind, or hail damage insurance for a secondary home, for example, may be worth self-insuring, depending on the value of the home and the cost of the insurance.

As for not knowing whether it worked until the end, I think it's exactly the same with paying for insurance. Per your example, if you have a million dollar claim after only paying $1000 in premiums, what do you think will happen to your premiums afterwards? I know folks whose homeowners premiums DOUBLED after filing claims in successive years. They won't know until the end whether that worked, or not.

I should have used return on equity rather than profits, earlier. The last ROE numbers I saw for health insurance was over 16%, which is quite high compared to other sectors.

Matt

From: HDE
17-Oct-17
Unless you started young and made wise investments or at the right place and time to start, grow, and run a very successful business, you will never have enough to be self insured as life is lived and gets in the way of finances.

For those of us that live in the real world, obamacare has muffed up healthcare as we know it beyond words. Normal, hardworking families that put those stupid SOB's in office to help this country for the better are hurting bad if they don't have good group insurance offered through an employer.

Damn you obama, pelosi, et al.

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
"As for not knowing whether it worked until the end, I think it's exactly the same with paying for insurance. Per your example, if you have a million claim after only paying $1000 in premiums, what do think will happen to your premiums afterwards? I know folks whose homeowners premiums DOUBLED after filing large claims in successive years. They won't know until the end whether that worked, or not."

I was referring to health insurance GG. Health insurers can't raise rates on an individual basis do to a claim.

KPC

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
By the way, even if you went with the 16% as a net profit, I bet you wouldn't be particularly happy with that in your business.

KPC

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
As I said, profit margins wasn't a particularly good choice of words due to the nature of the insurance business. Basically, people hand them $100 bills, and they pay out $96. Yeah, that's not a great profit, but based on the amount of work they do and value they add, it's not too shabby. I'd take that deal any day.

Matt

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
Not so quick GG. The "value" they ad is that sometimes people hand them hundred dollar bills and they hand out thousands...or tens of thousands...or hundreds of thousands.

You see, actuarially, the insurance company pretty much knows what the checks are going to total...they just don't know how big each one is going to be, and who's name is going to be on them. Could be you, could be me, could be anyone that handed them a hundred dollar bill. Whoever it ends up being, I bet they think it's a pretty big value added.

KPC

From: NvaGvUp
17-Oct-17
I have insurance on my home, my autos and my life, plus Medicare, which is unavoidable.

Until a few years ago, I also had a large disability income insurance policy. I dropped that at the point I no longer needed it.

Other than that, I do not buy insurance as it's significantly better to self-insure for those things you can afford to cover yourself. Insurers have significant costs they incur above and beyond paying claims. I had a lot of group health and dental policies for private companies on the books for a long time. Their insurers could handle 'loss ratios' of up to 70% of premiums before they had to adjust their rates over-and-above inflation.

That means they pay out ~ seventy cents for every dollar they take in in premiums. Self-insuring means you are willing to cover your losses out of your own pocket, but it also means your pay-out = 100% of your 'premiums,' not 70%.

As a result, I do not have dental insurance, never buy trip insurance, etc.

From: HA/KS
17-Oct-17
Over the past quite a few years, insurance companies have averaged paying over $85,000 in medical bills for us. We have averaged paying about $15,000.

We do not carry comprehensive or collision on our older cars, but sometimes insurance is a good policy (pun intended).

"You can certainly get just major medical if you want,..." Not like the good old days because obamacare made it practically illegal.

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
"but it also means your pay-out = 100% of your 'premiums,'..."

Or 100 TIMES your premium. You just never know.

KPC

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
Kevin,

Let's say you offered me $100 to insure an item worth $5000. And statistics showed I'm likely to only pay you back $96 over the term of our agreement. Meanwhile, I'm free to invest your $100 any way I choose and reap the rewards. I'd take that offer any day and twice on Sundays.

That's basically what insurance companies do, only they manage their risk by getting hundreds, thousands, even millions of people to do the same deal, thereby reducing their risk even further.

I'm glad to see a seasoned money manager like Kyle agrees with me on self-insuring certain things, if you can afford to do so.

Matt

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
"Let's say you offered me $100 to insure an item worth $5000. And statistics showed I'm likely to only pay you back $96 over the term of our agreement. Meanwhile, I'm free to invest your $100 any way I choose and reap the rewards, I'd take that offer any day and twice on Sundays."

And I bet Kyle would agree with me that you'd be a fool to take that on an individual basis.

It's only because they take the same deal from hundreds, thousand, or millions of individuals, that makes it viable...and sometimes even then it isn't.

Statistical probability doesn't mean much with one "insured."

KPC

From: itshot
17-Oct-17
great stuff zeidan, great stuff

From: NvaGvUp
17-Oct-17
Matt,

We agree on the self-insurance issue, but you've missed an important item in your insurance example.

If you take in $100 and pay out $96 in claims, you are guaranteed to LOSE money, a LOT of money, because you have to cover marketing costs, overhead, commissions, legal and actuarial costs, ad nauseum, in addition to the amount of the claim.

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
Kevin,

Note, I said that our agreement was based on "statistics." That's plural.

If a reasonable sample of statistics showed that our one-man agreement would pay me a statistically probable 4% and a possible 100%, plus investment profits, I'd take it.

Matt

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
I'll tell you what GG. If you decide to get into the insurance business, I wish you luck.

:)

KPC

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
Shall we test my deal?

You pick the $5000 item you want me to insure, and the timeframe. I'll decide the cost of the premium.

Maybe this will be the launch of a new venture for me. ;-)

Matt

From: K Cummings
17-Oct-17
You already said it was a hundred bucks.

No thanks GG. You've moved the goal posts so many times during this discussion, I'd be leery to enter into a contract with you.

:)

KPC

From: NvaGvUp
17-Oct-17
Matt,

Let me know when your new venture goes public.

Because if you base your pricing on taking in $100 in premiums, paying out $96 in claims without factoring in all the other costs you will incur, I will 'short' your stock and make millions doing so!

From: Gray Ghost
17-Oct-17
Kyle,

My overhead in Kevin's deal would amount to about the same time and $$ that it costs me to down a favorite cocktail, which isn't long. ;-)

How much would like to invest?

Matt

  • Sitka Gear