Because I don;t think you are accurately relating all the costs and benefits of the two policies. The claim that individual policies are cheaper than group policies is simply not true, so you are misremembering something.
:rolleyes: Yes, I suddenly forgot the checks I write for the policy I researched and purchased. When was the last time you sat down and went page by page with an insurance agent?
Not only do I doubt you’ve ever purchased a policy I doubt you’ve read an employer purchased policy.
Unlike the clowns in Congress who can’t be bothered to read what they vote on I read what I sign my name to. I have better lifetime coverage than my former company policy and it’s cheaper. I’m not going to argue with you about what I’ve actually purchased versus your blanket fantasy statements.
The government has no constitutional basis from which to order businesses to purchase insurance. That is not the function of a business. That isn’t to say they shouldn’t be allowed to offer it as part of a pay package but it is in no way their function to do so.
And a government can provide health insurance cheaper than individual companies. Your point being?
:dubious: Government has the entirely constitutional and legitimate power to make businesses do a lot of things that are not the function of a business.
Raising the debt limit is what allows us to meet our current debt obligations. Refusing to raise it causes us to default on our current obligations. Cutting spending so we don’t run into the same situation in the future is a separate issue.
Raising the debt ceiling is obligatory and should not be intertwined with any other agendas.
And how much worse do you think their credit rating would be if defaulted on any of their debt?
no. no. no. Our current spending obligations require us to raise the debt ceiling because we don’t have enough money to cover them(again promises to pay which we have a * already* made). Cutting spending so we don’t have to do it again is a separate issue.
That’s because you are buying a different policy. Whatever policy you bought your employer could buy cheaper because they are buying it in bulk.
Ah, so you are smarter than all the actuaries for all the insurance comapnies who have had it wrong all these years. :smack:
Your premises are incorrect. The Republicans are not offering a budget that is political suicide, nor are they advocating defaulting.
You conclusion is incorrect as well. The public understands that the best thing for the country is reducing public spending and not going deeper into debt. If default occurs, it won’t be because of the Republicans’ actions - quite the opposite, actually - and the public knows that.
No, it doesn’t. And that would be your error, not the public’s.
Those are* long-term* policies. We are having* short-term* budget problems which will cost us billions and billions in bond interest if we don’t raise the debt ceiling right now.
This is just wishful thinking, which seems to be spreading among the extremist elements of the Republican Party. I hope we don’t go into default, but if we do, it will be a bit of a shock to the Tea Party when they wake up and most of the country hates them for deepening the economic chaos. We are quite possibly seeing the death throes of the modern Republican Party.
All part of being a rugged individualist you betcha.
Crunched his own tables - who is going to trust someone else’s numbers? That’s not taking Individual Responsibility for yourself.
-Joe
No, we could simply not spend more then we take in. Case in point, the President has threatened to throw old people out in the cold if we don’t have the money. It never occurred to him to threaten to cut wages but that’s the fear mongering mindset of Obama. Play to the camera.
Again, for those who can’t be bothered to read the thread, nobody is suggesting we default on our loans.
Yes, I’m buying a different policy. It’s cheaper and covers more. There is no advantage to bulk purchase. A custom policy for each employer means another layer of administration. They have to print up custom policies, negotiate prices with doctors and medical facilities, and train employees to administer the mounds of paperwork involved. On top of that, it limits the employee to doctors and facilities within the network. Each one of those doctors has to deal with the bureaucracy involved.
I have none of that with my policy. I have a deductible. That’s it. I go to who I want, when I want. I negotiate fees myself which is remarkably easy to do. Doctors LOVE cash and discount accordingly. The money I save on the policy exceeds the deductible so I always win even if I’m sick.
If you actually had to buy your own health insurance you’d understand this. You’re making a generic argument with no basis from which to argue versus my actual experience in the matter.
Actuaries don’t change between individuals or companies. The only thing that changes is the huge amount of bureaucracy trying to administer an HMO versus a personal insurance policy which has none of that.
Is this true only in the insurance market, or have centuries of free market forces suddenly been overturned?
So you are paying cash for your medical expenses? No wonder your insurance is cheaper.
I have never seen any notification anywhere in any doctor’s office that they prefer cash. I’ve not seen a sign or a note on a form. I’ve never had them even suggest it.
Maybe we’re getting closer to that chicken-based economy so many are hoping for?
-Joe
And I’ve never seen a sign or notification saying they love submitting the same paperwork 5 times to get paid. Ask any doctor how much money they spend collecting money from insurance companies with all their rules of what is covered and copays. My doctor has a whole office of people dedicated to the process. I’ve discussed it with him over the years. It’s amazing what it costs and it’s all money out of his pocket.
How can you not be aware of this? Seriously?
You can go on line and look for doctors who like cash. You can go hereand drop your zip code in to make the search easier.
OK, let’s try an exercise then…
The federal government has an estimated $306.7 billion in payment obligations for August 2011 after the 2nd of the month. The U.S. will take in $172.4 billion in revenue from August 3 to 31, 2011. So without borrowing, we’re ~$134 billion (~45%) short for August.
Given the GOP’s outrage at Obama “scaring” seniors, their fetish for the miliary, and the leash their Wall Street masters have on them, I will assume all Republicans would see the need to pay the following bills (BTW all of this billing information is up at Bloomberg; they even have a calculator that lets you play with the values):
$50 billion in Social Security benefits,
$32 billion for defense vendor payments,
$29 billion in interest on current debt,
$29 billion for Medicare,
$21 billion for Medicaid (careful, about 60% of nursing home residents are on Medicaid),
$3 billion for military payroll,
$3 billion for the VA,
That’s $167 billion–leaving you with about $5 billion. Here are the other items on the list:
$42 billion for unclassified federal spending (covers entitlement benefits, safety net payments, defense funding, and smaller programs such as agriculture, federal financing programs, and the U.S. Postal Service)
$20 billion for education (this includes pell grants, student loans, and state grants for various education programs),
$14 billion for federal payroll,
$13 billion for unemployment benefits,
$9 billion for food stamps/welfare,
$8 billion for HHS,
$7 billion for HUD,
$4 billion for IRS refunds,
…and a number of smaller, federally-managed departments like Homeland Security, the FAA, NASA, EPA, etc.–no one of these receives more the $2 billion, but collectively they cost $27 billion.
Now let’s assume the typical Tea-Partier has no problem stiffing all these–that’s their position, ain’t it?–or at least limit spending of the leftover $5 billion on worthier things like IRS refunds or tax cuts for the wealthy. That decision causes ~400,000 federal employees to be laid off and added to the unemployment total, wipes out Pell Grants to ~5 million college students, removes federal deposit insurance for all savings accounts in the US…well, you get the picture. And we haven’t even gotten to the effect on financial markets and any future borrowing, which will most definitely require the US to pay a higher interest rate (it’s happened before).
You’ll notice above that I assume Social Security could be paid in full, an apparent contradiction with Obama’s unwillingness to guarantee checks will be mailed out August 3rd. However, the government doesn’t get all the $172.4 billion it’s expecting on August 1st. By August 3rd, it’s estimated the government will have collected only about $12 billion of that total, while the social security payment due on that date will be $23 billion.
But none of this matters because the voters will just blame Obama, right? Another win for the Republicans!
I explained why it’s specific to the insurance market. this is not the purchase of a fleet of cars where a savings can be realized in purchasing a group of assets at one time.
There are added costs involved in managing group rates. HMO’s trade the cost of daily visits over deductibles and the administrative costs for this are high.
:rolleyes: wow, you haven’t listened to a single thing I’ve said. I could spend $8000 on a policy similar to my companies, or I could spend $2800 for a policy with a $5,000 deductible. My policy has higher limits than my company had. I can’t lose even if I pay the deductible.
Are you trying to establish the claim that doctors don’t give a cheaper rate to those who don’t run it through the insurance company??
If all you’re worried about is hurting Obama’s feelings then leave the budget to the Republicans and the buck can stop there.