Breast Cancer Victims Dumped By Insurance Co
TYT on Facebook: www.facebook.com Special Promotion: www.netflix.com TYT’s New Movie Review Channel: www.youtube.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com Check Out TYT Interviews www.youtube.com Watch more at www.theyoungturks.com
Tags: Breast, breast cancer victims, facebook
Related posts:
America is an awful awful place
in saw 6 the story line was baed on insurance compaies dumping the people for any flaws
@twk373 One final point. I suggest you read some of what Stiglitz has written on Wall Street incentives. Draw your own conclusions based on that.
@twk373 Don’t be disingenuous.
Greenspan’s already stated that his belief in the efficiency of the market is what prevented the Fed from intervening.
On whether Freddie and Fannie gobbling up toxic assets precipitated the crisis, this is instructive:
nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html
“Also, they didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t”
Anyway, I’m done discussing this.
@twk373 Sure! But most of the debate centers around who the beneficiaries of such regulations are and who bears the cost – therein lies the rub.
@twk373 Sans regulation, I don’t see it working in this instance. There are situations where markets self-regulate worse than others. I think this falls into that category. Relying solely on self-regulation is like expecting the efficient market hypothesis to hold – we all saw the consequences of that.
@twk373 Without any explicit statement from me on this, I don’t see how you can draw any conclusion. For the record, I’m opposed to both these policies. To reiterate, I do think sensible regulations are a must, not that the free-market system ought to be dismantled.
@raotejas
Your comment about Wall Street is childish. What, exactly, pray tell, was “laissez-faire” about the situation preceding the financial collapse? If it was laissez-faire, there wouldn’t have been a Fed keeping interest rates ultra-low, and there wouldn’t have been government-guaranteed Freddie and Fannie gobbling up toxic assets. Oh, they repealed Glass Steagall, you say? Uh-huh. Yeah, that single action means you guys get to pin EVERYTHING on free markets. Like I said, childish.
@raotejas
Yes, that would make sense. It would also make sense if consumers could pick and choose insurance providers. But I suppose you think the latter would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the insurance market or the behavior of insurance companies.
@raotejas
Look, if legislators want to make a case for a specific piece of regulation, that’s fine and dandy by me. I am not opposed to regulation out of hand. The trouble is that if (and when!) these regulations are found to either 1) have an effect other than what was intended, or 2) actually have a negative effect, nobody ever talks about repealing them. Why is that? Are you even open to the possibility that a specific regulation might be unnecessary or even harmful?
@raotejas
Your comment about panaceas is a red herring. This issue is not whether competition and consumer choice will solve all problems in the insurance market without any regulation whatsoever. But it will solve *many* of them, because it is a critical component of market self-regulation. Currently there is *no* consumer choice in the market. Thus, an excellent first step would be to repeal the ridiculous, destructive regulations that I’ve already mentioned. How can you possibly disagree?
@raotejas
You also never claimed to be against employer-based health insurance, or against preventing insurance from being sold across state lines. If you support these failed policies, then you are indeed opposed to competition.
@twk37 If insurance firms were prevented, through regulation, from declaring 100% profits on repudiated claims till the expiry of a 3/5 year time window, that would make sense. Sensible pro-active regulation often works, and laissez-faire capitalism doesn’t always. A case in point: nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20nocera.html
Most Wall-Streeters fit your definition of scammers. The reality: markets don’t self-regulate efficiently. Most Chicago School economists agree now.
@twk373
I never claimed to be against competition. I don’t believe it’s a panacea to all the ills in the market.
You’ve not even addressed the second point I make – that there’s a significant time-lag between the time claims are repudiated on baseless grounds and information about such claims coming to the fore (if at all).
It is unlikely that competition will per se clean up the insurance sector without government regulations being put in place.
@raotejas
You think consumer choice is bad for the markets, that businesses don’t care about their image or the value of their product? Yet you babble about economic literacy? Um, yeah. Have at, it hoss. Anyway, back in reality, “businessmen” with questionable ethics and a short term plan are called scammers.
@raotejas
Regarding your two questions, have you ever heard of Consumer Reports? Good Housekeeping? The Better Business Bureau? Rating agencies? If consumers could shop for health insurance (like we do for everything else), there would be services to independently evaluate health insurance products (like there are for everything else). What about this is difficult to understand? Consumers want to make informed decisions, but in the case of health insurance, there are no decisions to be made.
@twk373
b) That with protracted legal cases such information comes to the fore before tons of people are screwed over.
@twk373 If you were a little more economically literate you’d not spew your semi-literate garbage.
The incentives for profiting from a clean image in the market are long term as opposed those for profiting by screwing policy holders over. No free market system solves that with their quarterly financial disclosures – sensible government regulations do. Are you stupid enough to believe that:
a) Most customers really know the claims settlement record of competitors ?
@raotejas
The bottom line is that when consumers are free to choose, companies have an incentive to screw them less. And since progressives have created a system where health insurance consumers have no choice whatsoever, it is not surprising that corruption is rampant in the industry. Solution? Remove the tax incentives for employer-based coverage and the rule that it can’t be sold across state lines. If consumers shop for the best value, providers are incentivized to give them the best value.
@raotejas
Pay attention, retard. If you were going to buy health insurance, would you choose company A, known for screwing its policy holders a lot, or company B, known for screwing its policy holders only a little? Obviously B. However, thanks to enlightened progressivism, you don’t get a choice in the matter: either company B isn’t legally allowed to sell you a policy, or your employer (who buys your insurance for you) doesn’t give a shit and goes with A.
@twk373 That’s pretty retarded. Incentives in *every* insurance company are aligned with screwing policy holders over. This *is* a successul insurance company that we’re talking about : a profitable market-leader with a good name. Take your Randian vision of the noble capitalist elsewhere. Capitalism is the best system, but capitalists are as fallible as anyone else.
@BrimstoneVomit “”Two things off the bat: How to keep company officers from pilfering, and looking credible to hospitals/physicians”"
The same way the US teacher’ s pension fund is operated as a non-government, non-profit. One of the biggest funds in the world, and survived the recession well. Non-profits can work, and a non-profit insurnce company is the answer to the US health system.
If liberals really cared about victims of insurance companies, they would stop punishing competition in the insurance industry. Liberals, for example, love that you can’t sell insurance across state lines. Because that would introduce competition! Liberals love that you can only get insurance through your employer. Less competition! Etc. Obviously there is a market for decent insurance companies, but liberals refuse to allow them to compete. Shrug.
WTF is wrong with people in America, look to Europe as an example ffs and get public healthcare and lean torwards socialism. It’s better for everyone.
Hold On Those Battling Cancer Never Give Up Hope!