Full Coverage Government

[King of the Americas]

What if we stopped paying private profit seeking companies, ALL of our insurance premiums, and instead paid 3/4 of that to government in higher taxes?

Giving government the resources and ability to respond to any loss or devastation, in a full and complete manner. We could build roads that wouldn't pothole, high speed trains with perfect safety records, police and fire officials with the ability to respond immediately.

If you have a receipt, and something of yours was lost or destroyed through no fault of your own, the government will replace it, or rather 'we' will, as premium payers do now.

Insurance is legalized gambling for the super rich, who get to lobby daily for bigger broader criteria, on which to judge or set your premium limits. Did you know that your credit score is one of the factors used to determine your premium rates for automobile insurance?

In my head, it should be more about shared risk. Everyone should pay the same 'rate' of taxation, based on covering ONLY all of last year's losses. So that the better/safer we are, the lower the following year's taxes/premiums.

Why not remove the middle man/profit seeker from 'shorting' the premium payer?

I don't think insurance companies 'provide' anything useful, that government itself couldn't. They collect and distribute funds, keeping a lot for themselves...sounds like a perfect job for government.

This would force those greedy insurance folk to become 'producers', rather than the societal vampires they are now.

 

[BeMyIvyLegion]

You seem to be going on the assertion that everyone has insurance coverage. What about all of the people that are lacking various forms of insurance? These people, most likely, do not have coverage because they cannot afford it, if they can't afford the insurance then how are they going to afford a higher tax? If they have no current premium then what dollar amount is available to shift over to the government?

Also, will the tax rate be based on income as it is now or will there be other parameters?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

You see "great idea."

I see "here's another slush fund like Social Security where government takes in more than it hands out, for a while, and then runs into funding problems because the 'trust fund' has been looted for general spending."

 

[King of the Americas]

You seem to be going on the assertion that everyone has insurance coverage. What about all of the people that are lacking various forms of insurance? These people, most likely, do not have coverage because they cannot afford it, if they can't afford the insurance then how are they going to afford a higher tax? If they have no current premium then what dollar amount is available to shift over to the government?

Also, will the tax rate be based on income as it is now or will there be other parameters?

Well, it'd be like I said, everyone would have the same rate of taxes, based on the property you own. If you have a car and drive it you are FORCED to have insurance on it or suffer a stiff penalty.

If you couldn't afford the taxes on something, then I suppose you have to sell or park it...

 

[King of the Americas]

You see "great idea."

I see "here's another slush fund like Social Security where government takes in more than it hands out, for a while, and then runs into funding problems because the 'trust fund' has been looted for general spending."

Except that NOW they'll have the ability and responsibility of dolling out cash to those in need.

 

[King of the Americas]

You seem to be going on the assertion that everyone has insurance coverage. What about all of the people that are lacking various forms of insurance? These people, most likely, do not have coverage because they cannot afford it, if they can't afford the insurance then how are they going to afford a higher tax? If they have no current premium then what dollar amount is available to shift over to the government?

Also, will the tax rate be based on income as it is now or will there be other parameters?

You'd tax 'property'...

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Except that NOW they'll have the ability and responsibility of dolling out cash to those in need.

See? Just like Social Security.

 

[BeMyIvyLegion]

Well, it'd be like I said, everyone would have the same rate of taxes, based on the property you own. If you have a car and drive it you are FORCED to have insurance on it or suffer a stiff penalty.

If you couldn't afford the taxes on something, then I suppose you have to sell or park it...

I used to live in New Hampshire where auto insurance is not currently required. There are lots of people who currently drive cars who do not have insurance coverage.

So someone who cannot afford to pay the government mandated tax, which, may or may NOT be a reasonable amount, must now park or sell their cars as a result? How will these people be able to maintain employment going forward for example? Public transportation is not prevalent everywhere.

You'd tax 'property'...

That is far too loose a term. What will be taxed? Cars and houses I suppose are givens, but what else? What if someone lives in rented housing and doesn't own a car? Please give some specific examples of what you expect to be taxed.

 

[King of the Americas]

See? Just like Social Security.

Only much more capable.

 

[King of the Americas]

I used to live in New Hampshire where auto insurance is not currently required. There are lots of people who currently drive cars who do not have insurance coverage.

So someone who cannot afford to pay the government mandated tax, which, may or may NOT be a reasonable amount, must now park or sell their cars as a result? How will these people be able to maintain employment going forward for example? Public transportation is not prevalent everywhere.



That is far too loose a term. What will be taxed? Cars and houses I suppose are givens, but what else? What if someone lives in rented housing and doesn't own a car? Please give some specific examples of what you expect to be taxed.

If you get caught in Texas w/o automobile insurance you are looking at a $500 fine, or more depending on which county you land in.

I've seen people with a car that wasn't worth $1000, with bad credit, get charged more than they could afford to pay, and go without insurance NOW... If you get caught and don't pay the ticket, you go to jail.

The point would be to LOWER the insurance rates, by allowing a non-profit seeker to hold and distribute the money.

You be 'taxed' on whatever you were afraid of losing... A car, boat, your house, kids, whatever you'd put insurance on now.

 

[BeMyIvyLegion]

If you get caught in Texas w/o automobile insurance you are looking at a $500 fine, or more depending on which county you land in.

I've seen people with a car that wasn't worth $1000, with bad credit, get charged more than they could afford to pay, and go without insurance NOW... If you get caught and don't pay the ticket, you go to jail.

The point would be to LOWER the insurance rates, by allowing a non-profit seeker to hold and distribute the money.

You be 'taxed' on whatever you were afraid of losing... A car, boat, your house, kids, whatever you'd put insurance on now.

The issue is that there is not currently a standard for insurance, in terms of what is required to be covered, it's up to the individual state to determine what precedence is set and it's different all over the place. The same goes for insurance rates, different rates apply to different locations. A good example is car insurance, again, I lived in New Hampshire and I have lived in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts my car insurance was over $2,000 annually for full collision on my vehicle alone, when I lived in New Hampshire it was around $1000, with full collision. You say that the idea is to have a lower rate than what people are currently paying, but how do you ensure this? I don't see how this could apply to everyone.

 

[King of the Americas]

... You say that the idea is to have a lower rate than what people are currently paying, but how do you ensure this? I don't see how this could apply to everyone.

By eliminating the 'profit motive'...

If you don't have to pay Insurance CEO's, and other high paid management, you could save money.

 

[BeMyIvyLegion]

By eliminating the 'profit motive'...

If you don't have to pay Insurance CEO's, and other high paid management, you could save money.

I don't think that it's as simple as that though. I don't think that taking out the Insurance CEO's and other management is going to completely solve the problem, we are still going to have to have people administer the program and government employees can make some serious money as well. You may alleviate some of the bloated costs but certainly not all of them.

There is also still the issue of locality. I don't see how it would be feasible to standardize the tax rate in terms of what it would be as an insurance cost. Why should someone who lives in a very safe area, relatively free of crime, for example, have to pay the same amount as someone who lives in a very volatile and unsafe area? Will those factors come into play under your plan?

 

[King of the Americas]

I don't think that it's as simple as that though. I don't think that taking out the Insurance CEO's and other management is going to completely solve the problem, we are still going to have to have people administer the program and government employees can make some serious money as well. You may alleviate some of the bloated costs but certainly not all of them.

There is also still the issue of locality. I don't see how it would be feasible to standardize the tax rate in terms of what it would be as an insurance cost. Why should someone who lives in a very safe area, relatively free of crime, for example, have to pay the same amount as someone who lives in a very volatile and unsafe area? Will those factors come into play under your plan?

You could regionalize, rates...

I know that right now, my sister pays higher rates, just from living inside the metroplex.

Rural vs. Urban rates? Sure, throw everything in.

They do already...

But we can LOWER the rates we pay, if we eliminate "profit" from the equation.

 

[BeMyIvyLegion]

Rural vs. Urban rates? Sure, throw everything in.

They do already...

But we can LOWER the rates we pay, if we eliminate "profit" from the equation.

Maybe the overall average will be lowered but I don't see how everyone who currently pays for insurance will be ensured a lower premium in the form of a tax. I am really only seeing a decrease for the people who are currently paying large insurance premiums, it seems like people living in rural areas or lower risk areas will get the raw end of the deal in this plan.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

But we can LOWER the rates we pay, if we eliminate "profit" from the equation.

Well if this is the logic, why don't we turn over everything to the government?? We'd pay less for computers, food, iPods, coffeemakers, lamps, greeting cards, video games, hotels, cars... EVERYTHING!

Imagine the possibilities...

 

[BeMyIvyLegion]

Well if this is the logic, why don't we turn over everything to the government?? We'd pay less for computers, food, iPods, coffeemakers, lamps, greeting cards, video games, hotels, cars... EVERYTHING!

Imagine the possibilities...

This post just made my day.

We all know how efficient and financially responsible the government is

 

[Grizzly Adams]

And hey, since the feds can deficit spend, it should be even cheaper than non-profit!!

 

[King of the Americas]

Well if this is the logic, why don't we turn over everything to the government?? We'd pay less for computers, food, iPods, coffeemakers, lamps, greeting cards, video games, hotels, cars... EVERYTHING!

Imagine the possibilities...

Not ALL sectors, silly. Just the ones where companies get to engage in legalized gambling for the super rich, wherein they get to stack the deck.

I don't want government to 'produce' anything, but I would like it to protect my property.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Not ALL sectors, silly. Just the ones where companies get to engage in legalized gambling for the super rich, wherein they get to stack the deck.

I don't want government to 'produce' anything, but I would like it to protect my property.

So the only people who have insurace are "the super-rich"? Funny, I don't remember being able to afford a Bentley or a lavish home in Malibu.

And "stack the deck?" What, do they set fire to the homes of their customers? Cut brake lines? Smash kneecaps?