33 votes

Clinton Admits Ponzi Scheme of Obamacare

Only works if you suck in (force) the $$ from the young and healthy.. forever! 1:06 mark


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Healthy forced to pay for Unhealthy (Obamacare unplugged)

Should Healthy Americans be forced to pay for Unhealthy Americans when

Poor Lifestyle choices (usually) leads to poor health

and: Limited resources (usually)encourages poor choices

and: Cheap(or free) medical insurance (usually) encourages poor lifestyle choices

While the American Medical Industrial Complex and Private Insurance Companies Profit?

It sucks... you think the

It sucks... you think the elderly would have had enough with racking up 17 trillion in debt and leaving it to my unborn grandchildren. Instead they will not be satisfied until I am homeless or living with my mother at 22. Which is what I am doing.


forced to live with my step dad and I'm 26.

Stay strong brother... we are

Stay strong brother... we are a generation that has nothing to lose because it has already been lost. That is why the government is so damn scared.

Clinton is being refreshingly honest here

In any insurance mechanism there needs to be a pool that spreads the risk, not just to be profitable but to have enough in reserve to pay the future claims. We have an aging population and increasing medical costs that are hampered by regulation and litigation. That being said, the other problem is the system of employer paid health insurance that has several special interests working to block any change that would allow free market forces to hold down prices.

The special interests are, the employers, the employees, the state regulatory agencies, the insurance companies and the medical industrial complex.

The real solution is to have each individual own his own HSA policy and start the funding at their first paycheck, 100% tax free. As funds grow in the HSA the guaranteed renewable major med policy could have deductible choices from $1,000-$100,000+. That would put the patient in control of costs, its a whole lot easier for the hospital to charge $50.00 for an aspirin on a blue card, than to get a patient to write out a check from his own account.

Phil Graham once said "If I had an employer paid card to buy my groceries with, I would eat better and so would my dog"

Put the individual in control of as much of the costs as possible and the free market will drive prices down, eliminate unnecessary procedures, and create a viable low regulation market for insurers.

Explain more

Would these policies be from private companies? If so, are they free to price the policies as they choose, and free to reject any applications they want to reject? You say it is "guaranteed renewable," which presumably means a law that says that if they write the policy to begin with they can't cancel the policy (except for non-payment of course). But then are there controls on the pricing, or are they free to set the price of renewal to whatever they want (which would make any law about guaranteed renewal meaningless).

Curious about the details of what you have in mind here.

Its really just the comprehensive major medical policy

and of course they have to have a cap in order for the actuaries to calculate the base rates, five, ten or whatever million as a cap. The policy is underwritten at the time of application, similar to a life insurance policy. Once issued if the insurer raises the rates, all policies in that given state would have to also be adjusted, so they can't single out just the ones who have a claim. As I wrote below I think exclusions for pre-existing if mutually agreed to should be allowed.

For the relatively few people with un-insurable pre-existing conditions a state risk pool is a possible answer. The point I was trying to made is to buy an individual policy at a younger age and own that policy. Tying insurance into employment IMHO is not to the benefit of the employee, you lose your job you lose your insurance. It's like living in a company housing arrangement, you lose your job your homeless, LOL

I'm skeptical

You've made some excellent points but I think what you're suggesting ends up converging on something that you wouldn't like. I definitely agree that insurance tied to employment is the source of a lot of problems, so that part would be a step in a good direction -- getting rid of the tax breaks that create an incentive for employer-based insurance would make that happen pretty quickly.

But I think that once you start trying to write legislation to control rates for private insurance, with the goal of making sure that people don't lose coverage or get priced out of coverage after they get sick, you're getting into a rat's nest that isn't going to end up working well. It either ends up being bad for the insurance companies (they can't adjust their rates flexibly enough to stay profitable) or for the policy holders (the insurance company can raise their rates flexibly, and can use that to push the more costly out).

And this: The point I was trying to made is to buy an individual policy at a younger age and own that policy.

Well that's the sticking point for Obamacare isn't it? Younger people tend to only have medical insurance if it's something automatic through employment. Otherwise, when you're young and feeling invulnerable, there are lots of other things that seem more important for that money. And if they don't get it when they're young and healthy, a lot of them end up wanting to get that insurance when they're older and it's quite a bit more expensive.

I don't have a good solution in mind to suggest instead though. I don't think there's a free-market solution that gets everyone access to the medical care they need at a reasonable price.

No, no, I did not say anything about legislation controlling

rates for private insurance, that's price controls and does not work. Rates have to float based on the loss ratio of the pool of business. The reason it does not work well now is because the largest pool is employer paid group business. Imagine if this system changed and everyone had to buy their own policy, the market for individual policies would create a larger pool and competition would bring more insurance companies into the market. That is assuming people will even buy private insurance if it's not given to them by an employer. If they don't have the responsibility to do that, they may need the nanny state after all. I prefer not to believe that.

So, just like auto insurance, homeowners insurance, life insurance, etc. they will shop for the best rate and be responsible for themselves.

If there aren't price controls

then I don't see how "guaranteed renewable" has any meaning. If they guarantee that you can renew your policy, but can reprice it each year based on whatever they want to base it on, then if you develop a condition that means you're costing them more than they're getting out of you they can just drive you out with a higher price even though technically you can renew it. Like with auto insurance, where if you are costing them a lot they'll put you in a higher risk category and jack up your rates.

And once you have a known condition that makes cost them more than they're getting, competition isn't working in your favor because no private company is going to offer you the deal you were getting when you were healthy. You're at the mercy of the company you signed up with, for the rest of your life, if it's all done via individual policies.

But I think the crux of the problem is in "assuming people will even buy private insurance if it's not given to them by an employer". A lot of young people won't, that's pretty obvious. I've also known people who canceled their insurance, then had a major emergency health issue in the family, and got the care they needed but couldn't afford. When that's possible it takes away some of the incentive to carry insurance.

People are also really bad about assessing risk. Look at some of the comments in the texting while driving thread, from people who think that because they've done stupid thing X for Y years they must be able to do it safely. People sometimes look at their health that way too. Again, especially young people.

You may be confusing price controlls with regulation

Insurance regulation is now handled by each state, its the frame work that regulates the insurers, like a referee in a sport. As an example, Insurers have to file financial information to show they have sufficient cash reserves to pay potential claims. Do some policyholders cost more in claims than others? Of course. The overall book of business must be profitable for the insurer to stay in business. Insurers should not be allowed to cherry pick and tier accounts on an individual basis, but prices can be changed for the overall book based on the regulatory parameters.
What it boils down to is this, should the individual be responsible or the nanny state? Should the free market with proper state regulation operate the system or have a federal bureaucracy run health care? As a libertarian, IMHO the individual should have as much control and choice as possible.

I think we're mostly saying the same thing

The insurance company can't set renewal prices to whatever they want, which is what I mean by price controls. Like you say, "prices can be changed for the overall book based on the regulatory parameters."

I just don't think the current approach to regulatory parameters works all that well, and I think the problems would be far more obvious if insurance weren't employer-based. Attaching medical insurance to employment is a very bad idea, but it does mask a lot of problems -- the insurance companies cover groups, so the risk pool is better for them (young people with jobs are paying through their employer, many of whom wouldn't be in those risk pools if they had to pay out of pocket), and when the insurance companies are pricing for those groups rather than for individuals they'll tend to do reasonable things with or without regulation. Again, that's because the groups tend to be good risk pools, especially since the people in those groups are healthy enough to be working.

And I agree that individual responsibility is how it *ought* to work. But I'm cynical about it. People assess risks poorly, especially the young. There's currently a huge free rider problem because in practice, if you get really sick and don't have insurance, you can probably get a lot of the medical care you need anyway, with the costs passed along indirectly to others. And if you're insured, because you cost a lot more to the company once you get really sick competition stops working in your favor; to any other company you have a pre-existing condition and if they write you a policy at all it will be based on that.

I'm in favor of solutions that give the individual as much choice and control as possible. I'd prefer to buy a catastrophic policy with a huge deductible, like 50k or more, and I don't need it to cover preventive care, I'd rather pay out of pocket and be able to go to whatever kind of provider I want. I had a policy like that years ago but I don't think they exist any more, certainly not after Obamacare. There should be a lot more visibility of costs, both for insurance (obscured by the employer sourcing of it) and in the care itself.

Those are things that could be easily solved by the free market, as long as the goal isn't to provide coverage for everyone. Get rid of the tax incentives for employer-based insurance. Let pricing and competition for private medical insurance be more like competition for auto insurance. The only government involvement would be to define an untaxed HSA kind of thing, with employers able to match contributions perhaps, so that when you spend money on health care you're spending your own money, directly, and with very broad rules about what can count as a health-related expense. You'd have robust competition both from providers and from insurers.

You got it

See how easy that was to fix? Then comes the next question, why not just implement the changes? Enter the vested special interests.

The insurance companies would much rather insure groups, if they can write a policy with 100, 200, 1200+ lives, the billing is easy, the benefits manager at the company handles much of the paper work, it's an easy sell. Who wants to sell 1200 policies to 1200 people when you can sell one policy that covers 1200 people to one person?

The employees have an illusion of (free) "company benefits", many times this can be a determining factor as to where they work. How many times have you heard "but, they have really good benefits". Employees also look at the benefits as something "if you don't use it you lose it" so there is no incentive to not over use the insurance or even check the billings.

The medical industrial complex loves not having to do any "for service pricing", once they get a hold of the blue card the patient is out of the loop. They charge as much as they can and keep the billing as confusing as possible. I don't know of any product or service that is handled this way. Can you imagine going to your local auto dealership, giving them a card and saying, just fix whatever you want to, send me a paid receipt in a few months?

Is there any wonder why the cost of healthcare is out of control?

Well sure it's easy

if you don't have a goal of providing medical care to everyone who needs it whether they can afford it or not.

Without that goal, the fixes are pretty easy, and maybe not such a hard sell either. Private insurers lose the large group structure, but removing a lot of the current regulations means they gain the ability to price more competitively, like auto insurance. Nothing would stop them from offering group policies. You used to be able to buy group insurance through professional organizations and the like. That's become much more rare. Get regulations out of the way and you'd see a lot of creative group policies being offered, to groups that on the whole are more likely than average to be healthy. And instead of a group policy that your employer picks for you, consumers would be shopping around for the best group policy they could qualify for. That would be a very positive change. You might see also policies offered contingent on meeting certain health goals, probably all kinds of creative things.

An HSA system that has people spending their own money directly would cover the day-to-day stuff for most people, as well as making people much more aware of where their health-related expenses are going. So most people who get insurance would probably want a pretty high deductible. (Maybe even make it a condition of being able to sell the more competitive, less regulated insurance that the policy have a deductible of at least 10k. The HSA portion needs to be the primary resource.) And it would be a bit of a safety net for people who lose their insurance.

But again, this is all just daydreaming about what you could do without a goal of making sure everyone can get the medical care they need. What I don't see a good way to do is to provide coverage for the people who would be worse off under the kind of system I'm describing. Earlier you said "For the relatively few people with un-insurable pre-existing conditions a state risk pool is a possible answer." I don't think that's a small number, and under the kind of changes I've described it would be a bigger number. And getting back to where we started, I don't think that's actually a very good solution. But like I said at the beginning, I dont' have a better one to offer. I don't think there is a good solution, frankly.


Thanks for sharing.

Government does what no sane businessman would do.

Essentially government destroys free markets by interfering with their functioning. A free market penalizes failure and rewards success. Government penalizes success and rewards failure.

Forcing healthy people to effectively subsidize sick people is yet another effort to destroy the free market. Pre-existing conditions have always been excluded by sane insurers, but government forcing them to be covered results in added cost which must be paid by someone, and in this case it is both young healthy people and taxpayers.

It is clear to me that much disease is the result of unhealthy lifestyle and diet. While it may be common, it is not normal for people to need a large number of prescription drugs, increasing with age, to stay alive. Adult onset diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity, and many other diseases are for the most part the result of things people do to themselves. Why should people who take care of themselves pay for the foolish choices of others?

Unfortunately we have reached the point in the industrial age where we as a society can't afford luxuries, advanced health care, higher education, and retirement. This is because the cost to acquire energy is following an exponential growth curve which is forcing the economy to stop expanding and will very soon force it to contract relentlessly. Luxuries, advanced health care, higher education and retirement are part of the economic output, and less necessary than food and shelter, so as the economy fails for want of sufficient energy to fuel it, these will be the first to be given up. No law passed in Washington, DC can defy the laws of nature, so Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Social Security will be hollowed out even if the federal government remains, which is questionable itself.

Be able to manage your own health or die will be the reality of the new paradigm. Of course this is nothing new compared to most of history, but for those in our society who have abused themselves and then depended on others to subsidize their disease care, it will come as a rude awakening.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

" Pre-existing conditions have always been excluded by sane

insurers, ..."

Not totally correct. Before federal government involvement with health care, it was possible to purchase an individual health care policy even if you had one of various pre-existing conditions. These policies cost more than if you did not have such conditions, but they were not outrageously expensive and most working people could afford them. Once the feds got involved in the '60s, the game would never be the same. The egregious inflation in the cost of health care after government involvement is what made such policies out of reach, not the free market.

At one time an insurance company could write in an exclusion

In Michigan anyway. Then through a well intended regulation exclusions for pre-existing conditions were not allowed. What that did was cause insurers to stop writing individual policies in the state. Lets take myself as an example, a cervical disk injury, any procedures for the disk injury could simply be waived. I'm cool with that. At least I could buy a reasonably priced family policy that would cover everything else. If I want to buy a policy with an exclusion and the insurer is willing to sell me one, what right does the state have to say we can't enter into a mutual contract?

Oh, BTW, employers love this because the group policies will cover employees with pre-existing conditions. For key employees it's better then a non compete agreement.


There is no real food anymore. It's man made viruses, sprayed fruits and veggies, a toxic environment and fake food that make people sick. The younger generation will max out at 45 years old. Then it's death.

Keepin' it real.

I totally agree, with this statement, Henry...

"A free market penalizes failure and rewards success. Government penalizes success and rewards failure." Yet people cannot accept the fact that our socalled leaders have been conspiring against the will of the people for as long as they have. From suppressed technologies across the board to actually killing their own, cradle to grave illness and poverty, by design. This whole nation is suffering from PTSD, some for a very long time.

Much like social security.

Much like social security.

Southern Agrarian

...and Medicare (part D as well)

Thanks a pantload LBJ and W (and the usual Congressional minions).

and the currency?

It's important to remember that even though the fundamental concepts of our republic: sound money, privacy, free markets, (a true definition of insurance based on risk assessment), are commonly bastardized in the ubiquitous electronic discussion, they still exist as sound concepts. Are we entering a genuine era of doublespeak, where the public is unable to grasp the deception, or are enough of us waking up?