Exporting Insurance
What a surprise. It seems that even medical insurance is going
south of the border. And of course, there's complaining about it.
In this case, it seems a business near the Mexican border (southern California), couldn't continue to afford the outrageous fees of $100,000+ per year to insure their 50 employees. So they decided to pay closer to $50,000 to insure more employees...in Mexico.
The employees of Sam Ellis department store now head over the border to see doctors and the employees seem to be rather happy about the lower costs and friendly doctors.
Of course, some people complain about the quality of medical care -- not the employees who are GETTING the medical care, others who are apparently official overseers of the correct type and quality of medical care for everyone else on the planet. Idiots.
It's called a free market, those of you who are complaining. If people want to see a doctor in Mexico, of what business is it of yours to tell them not to? Talk about controlling other people's lives!
And of course, there's always the question of why? Why are people doing this? Because insurance costs too much. Why does it cost too much? Because the states are absolutely interfering with the free market. The states prohibit me from entering into a contract for insurance that will allow me to buy what I need.
Instead, each state decides what insurance I MUST buy if I want insurance. In other words, if I don't want insurance against mental health, aids, smoking-related illness, aromatherapy, acupuncture, drug abuse, and literally hundreds of other conditions and treatments, I simply cannot buy it.
Why? Because all those other conditions and treatments would NOT make it in a free market, so the government FORCES those who do not want that coverage to pay for those who do. Folks, we might not have national health care yet, but we are well on the way -- there is NOT a free market in insurance today, and there should be.
If we had a true free market in insurance, the prices would drop overnight a huge amount for 90% of Americans. The other 10%, who want exotic coverage and coverage for expensive treatments, well, they'd have to pay more -- and they should if there is any economic freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:03 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.
1
2 comments:
1) I noticed, when I had my children, that the bill, if itemized, contained many treatments that I did not get. In fact, they simply put the same "bill of goods" together for all regular deliveries, and just add stuff if the baby ends up in NICU or something.
2) Our local transportation union - SEPTA - is going on strike at the end of the month because they don't want to pay any percentage of their insurance premiums. They currently pay only co-pays; they're completely insulated from the travesty of insurance today, and the transportation authority, surprise surprise, is practically bankrupt.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at October 03, 2005 10:43 AM (vR7Sl)
2
Nice, birdwoman. I remember when my father had insurance, the way it worked was that HE paid the entire bill, then went to insurance companies to get his money back.
While this may cause more work on behalf of the person, the person certainly had a GREAT incentive to only pay for services rendered!
And yes, unions are certainly helping to destroy insurance. Of course, government regulations requiring companies to provide insurance is yet another way the government interferes with what should be a free market. What if I don't WANT insurance? Why am I FORCED to take it?
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 11:56 AM (/k+l4)
3
Ogre - a word of caution. I used to design self-insured health plans, as an insurance broker.
In a typical group of 20 - 2 had medical conditions that required lots of medication & intense use of plan, 4 had random/occasional sickness like broken leg or influenza, 6 just went in for their annual check-up, and the rest - mostly healthy twentysomethings - never went to the doctor at all.
It was by spreading out the risk over the entire group, and not cherrypicking the healthy 8, that make care available to everyone. The market wants to insure just the 8, but most of them choose to opt ut of coverage and gamble that an emergency room will cover them if they DO get sick.
In the meantime - what about the 2 that had a heart attack or need an organ transplant? What about a chronic disease like diabetes, where people can be productive with their medication?
If you really DO want to go without health insurance, then you should need to agree to allow a hospital to interecpt up to 25% of your income/assets in the event of a health disaster to recoup cost of care. That would be a gamble for you, but not like the current one, where the public indemnifies hospitals via tax levy through uncompensated care pools. Then, you WOULD be taking a real gamble, not betting from a fail safe position where you can skimp on premiums secure in the knowledge that a hospital has to take care of you.
So - are you feeling lucky, punk?
(a quote, Ogre, not a charachterization)
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 03, 2005 01:42 PM (VHQXK)
4
I do clearly understand your point, Peter, thanks for stopping by -- but your question is moot because the government won't even allow me to have that option. Why won't they let me take that chance if I want to?
Posted by: Ogre at October 03, 2005 03:29 PM (/k+l4)
5
000800: Hey, does anyone know where I can find a list of gas stations with low prices in my area?
Posted by: Debra Riley at October 17, 2005 08:33 PM (dhx7P)
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2005 08:58 PM (iJFc9)
7
I've managed to save up roughly $61222 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?
Posted by: Courtney Gidts at November 14, 2005 07:57 PM (HpDlV)
8
I presume that's $61,222.00. I don't look at a house as an investment -- to me it's an expense -- so I don't buy them to make money, I buy them to have a place to live because they cost money and don't generate it.
Will home prices go up or down? Like the realtors say: depends on location, location, and location.
Posted by: Ogre at November 14, 2005 10:06 PM (7PCNv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
21kb generated in CPU 0.0527, elapsed 0.1728 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.1633 seconds, 197 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
