Full Coverage Government

[King of the Americas]

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?

No no no...

INSURANCE companies are the super rich, who get to lobby for broader criteria on which to judge us.

We are forced to carry automobile insurance, and depending on not only your driving history, someone else can hedge their be their you are gonna require an insurance claim this year...

 

[Ziggurat]

No no no...

INSURANCE companies are the super rich, who get to lobby for broader criteria on which to judge us.

Health insurance profit margins aren't really any better than other businesses. And other businesses lobby government all the time too. You haven't made the case here for why health insurance is different.

We are forced to carry automobile insurance

No we aren't. Having minimum insurance (and you're allowed to self-insure) is a prerequisite for driving a car on public roads, but you aren't forced to do that. That is a privilege, not a right.

and depending on not only your driving history, someone else can hedge their be their you are gonna require an insurance claim this year...

Try writing in comprehensible English next time, King.

 

[BeMyIvyLegion]

We are forced to carry automobile insurance, and depending on not only your driving history, someone else can hedge their be their you are gonna require an insurance claim this year...

I already explained that this is not true at all, and gave a specific example of a place where it is not required. It may be highly recommended that car owners carry auto insurance, but it is surely NOT required everywhere.

 

[King of the Americas]

Health insurance profit margins aren't really any better than other businesses. And other businesses lobby government all the time too. You haven't made the case here for why health insurance is different.



No we aren't. Having minimum insurance (and you're allowed to self-insure) is a prerequisite for driving a car on public roads, but you aren't forced to do that. That is a privilege, not a right.



Try writing in comprehensible English next time, King.

I want government to co-opt ALL insurance policies that protect life, limb, or property.

The point my mumbling was trying to make is that automobile insurance companies shouldn't get to check my credit history to decide my premium rate. How many driving tickets I've gotten? Sure. These insurance companies are betting that I won't make a claim, this year. They get to hedge their bet, by charging more likely claimers, a higher premium.

At the end of the year, insurance companies at present, have to pay for their workers, managers, supervisors, CEO, and Board...AND make a profit.

Eliminate all the upper management costs, profit, and advertising, and you can cut costs.

 

[King of the Americas]

I already explained that this is not true at all, and gave a specific example of a place where it is not required. It may be highly recommended that car owners carry auto insurance, but it is surely NOT required everywhere.

And in my scenario it wouldn't be either.

You can get government provided non-profit protection on whatever you want, or not.

 

[Ziggurat]

I want government to co-opt ALL insurance policies that protect life, limb, or property.

Why the hell do you want to do that? What's wrong with the car insurance market, for example? Or the home insurance market?

The point my mumbling was trying to make is that automobile insurance companies shouldn't get to check my credit history to decide my premium rate.

Assuming you're not just objecting to the existence of commercial credit histories, that problem can be solved easily enough with regulations. You don't need government to actually take over the market to achieve that aim.

How many driving tickets I've gotten? Sure. These insurance companies are betting that I won't make a claim, this year. They get to hedge their bet, by charging more likely claimers, a higher premium.

But people with bad credit histories ARE more likely claimers. That's why they look at your credit history. If it made no difference, they wouldn't care. So your argument falls flat on its face.

At the end of the year, insurance companies at present, have to pay for their workers, managers, supervisors, CEO, and Board...AND make a profit.

Eliminate all the upper management costs, profit, and advertising, and you can cut costs.

Eliminate the incentives to improve efficiencies and introduce incentives to put more workers on the payroll, and you can make your costs spiral out of control. Government isn't cheaper.

 

[Francesca R]

Here is the OP's previous attempt to argue that private insurance should be criminalised:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162405

 

[sopclod]

The argument for nationalized/public car insurance would be similar for the arguments put forth for public health insurance, i.e.

- maximizing the size of the insurance pool
- one across the board set of rules, reducing administrative overhead
- funding the system through our current progressive tax system effectively causes wealthier taxpayers to subsidize poorer ones (for those arguing about poor people currently not paying for insurance being able to afford it).

I think a bigger question regarding auto insurance would be how you handle those with Pintos vs those with Bugattis.

 

[King of the Americas]

Why the hell do you want to do that? What's wrong with the car insurance market, for example? Or the home insurance market?



Assuming you're not just objecting to the existence of commercial credit histories, that problem can be solved easily enough with regulations. You don't need government to actually take over the market to achieve that aim.



But people with bad credit histories ARE more likely claimers. That's why they look at your credit history. If it made no difference, they wouldn't care. So your argument falls flat on its face.



Eliminate the incentives to improve efficiencies and introduce incentives to put more workers on the payroll, and you can make your costs spiral out of control. Government isn't cheaper.

The problem is cost.

Insurance companies lobby TO GET to use broader criteria on which to judge a participant.

The look at credit histories because they CAN. IF they found at that blondes are worse drivers than brunettes, would it be okay to charge them more?

I think a non-profit government provided insurance agency could give you more bang for your buck, than a for-profit company. No one has yet demonstrated otherwise.

 

[King of the Americas]

Here is the OP's previous attempt to argue that private insurance should be criminalised:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162405

Great find, I forgot about that one...

This notion goes further.

 

[BeMyIvyLegion]

The problem is cost.

Insurance companies lobby TO GET to use broader criteria on which to judge a participant.

The look at credit histories because they CAN. IF they found at that blondes are worse drivers than brunettes, would it be okay to charge them more?

I think a non-profit government provided insurance agency could give you more bang for your buck, than a for-profit company. No one has yet demonstrated otherwise.

And you haven't demonstrated that a non profit will give more bang for your buck either. All you have asserted is the possibility of lowered costs, but even that is a little iffy, in my opinion.

And yes, if a group is found to be a greater risk driver then they should be charged more. Why should I, as a good driver, have to absorb the cost of a terrible driver? I deserve a lower premium than someone with a terrible driving record.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem is cost.

Insurance companies lobby TO GET to use broader criteria on which to judge a participant.

The look at credit histories because they CAN. IF they found at that blondes are worse drivers than brunettes, would it be okay to charge them more?

You tell me. You apparently find it fair to charge more for people who have traffic tickets. What makes your credit score fundamentally different? Why do you accept some forms of discrimination from auto insurance and not other forms?

I think a non-profit government provided insurance agency could give you more bang for your buck, than a for-profit company. No one has yet demonstrated otherwise.

And you haven't demonstrated that government could. Since government hasn't actually taken over car or auto insurance, all we have in either direction is speculation. Why is your speculation better than mine? Your arguments certainly aren't. In fact, the entire premise of your argument is self-contradictory. You want to limit the ways in which insurance can discriminate. But the more you do that, the more you force good drivers to subsidize bad drivers. That will not save money. Whatever merits it might have in terms of fairness (and you haven't actually made that argument), you cannot reasonably justify government control of auto insurance based on overall cost.

 

[King of the Americas]

If an insurance provider doesn't have to make a profit, advertise, pay a Board or a CEO...you don't think that's an argument that would result in savings???

---

There should be a limit as to what criteria can be used to adjust someone premium payment...

 

[deepatrax]

If an insurance provider doesn't have to make a profit, advertise, pay a Board or a CEO...you don't think that's an argument that would result in savings???

---

There should be a limit as to what criteria can be used to adjust someone premium payment...

How many people who work in the various insurance industries would your brilliant plan put out of work?

Or would they all get tax payer funded government jobs?

higher wages perhaps?

they get to retire at 50 with full pensions?

dude, you're on your way to solving all the World's problems!!

 

[King of the Americas]

How many people who work in the various insurance industries would your brilliant plan put out of work?

Or would they all get tax payer funded government jobs?

higher wages perhaps?

they get to retire at 50 with full pensions?

dude, you're on your way to solving all the World's problems!!

Insurance 'workers' could be government employees. The upper management will have to work in the 'producing industry'...

End gambling for the super rich, wherein they get to stack the deck will be the beginning of solving some of our problems.

 

[Ziggurat]

If an insurance provider doesn't have to make a profit, advertise, pay a Board or a CEO...you don't think that's an argument that would result in savings???

But they would have to pay a board and a CEO, they'd just be called something different. As for turning a profit, well, the margins aren't that large. Government inefficiency can easily swallow that margin and more. So no, I don't accept it as a given that having government take it over would result in savings. Other government enterprises (the post office, Amtrack, etc) don't operate profitably or efficiently. Why would you expect government insurance to do so?

There should be a limit as to what criteria can be used to adjust someone premium payment...

You keep saying that, and yet you can't actually describe what the limit should be, or why the limit you prefer is the right limit.

 

[deepatrax]

Insurance 'workers' could be government employees. The upper management will have to work in the 'producing industry'...

End gambling for the super rich, wherein they get to stack the deck will be the beginning of solving some of our problems.

so there will be nobody managing this new Government Insurance Agency??

It's just a free for all with thousands of Government Insurance workers roaming the countryside!

wow!!

like I said, you're well on your way to solving all the World's problems!

 

[Francesca R]

Great find, I forgot about that one...

This notion goes further.

No, it doesn't. You are re-hashing the same broken theory which derives from what is now known as the Marxian "labour theory of value". All this was shown in the linked thread.

If an insurance provider doesn't have to make a profit, advertise, pay a Board or a CEO...you don't think that's an argument that would result in savings???

Not at all. Again, explained already.

By removing those entities you do remove their ability to defraud or make mistakes, but that's not what you are arguing, which is that by removing their ability to add value you are somehow reaping savings. And that's wrong.

Your line of thinking is built on the (flawed) premise that there is only so much "value" to go around, that production and services are a tit-for-tat competition, and that prosperity is a zero-sum game. All completely incorrect.

 

[King of the Americas]

And you guys are ignoring the costs associated with a for-profit business.

Geico spent almost a half a billion last year on advertising, granted they were the sector leader, but individually others still spent hundreds of millions.

This represents just ONE aspect in savings.

Comparing Insurance Agencies to Amtrak isn't a comparison at all. Amtrak isn't accessible to all of America, so even if I wanted to employ them for my travel needs I couldn't do so.

Insurance companies don't 'labor' or 'produce' anything, they collect and distribute funds, while keeping a large portion for themselves BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT.

A government ran agency wouldn't have to pay for advertising or make a profit.

If you don't agree that these two factors represent real savings, your calculator is broken or you simply don't understand how math works.

 

[Francesca R]

Please refer to posts 27 and 38.