Peter Schiff on Health Care

[Infohawk]

Peter Schiff on Fox News Regarding Health Care

I'm not crazy about Peter Schiff, but I sympathetic with his views here. It's probably the only thing that is going to reset the messed-up health care price system we have now.

 

[xj0hnx]

Too bad it would shift the blame for not having health insurance back on the same individulas that are whining about not having it now, except now they can blame insurance prices, or anyone but themselves for not saving. What I pay every month in insurance could easily pay for the visits we make, BUT, since I am already paying for them, PLUS 20% more it's pretty silly, though we do have pretty damn good coverage, I personally would rather have that money in a HSA, that I could draw on if I really needed it outside of healthcare issues, and have a much cheaper policy for catastrophic events.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Too bad it would shift the blame for not having health insurance back on the same individulas

We wouldn't want individuals to have to take responsibility for their actions now would we?

How would they play victim?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Too bad it would shift the blame for not having health insurance back on the same individulas

We wouldn't want individuals to have to take responsibility for their actions now would we?

How would they play victim?

Yeah, damn people for choosing faulty genes. They should have known better than to be conceived with such flaws.

Oh and watch out for that bus!

 

[miketheidiot]

from the start:

health care is no different than any other market

yes it is. For a free market to work people need to have knowledge of the market; no adverse selection, moral hazard or asymmetric problems and equal bargaining position. None of those are true for healthcare.

it would be better if americans paid for healthcare the same where they pay for any other good

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

the problem isn't quality, quality is provided for by the free market

lol does he know how bad healthcare in america is?



the only valid point is that insurance leads to overuse. there are better ways to solve that than by dismantling the industry and throwing people to the wolves.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Too bad it would shift the blame for not having health insurance back on the same individulas

We wouldn't want individuals to have to take responsibility for their actions now would we?

How would they play victim?

Yeah, damn people for choosing faulty genes. They should have known better than to be conceived with such flaws.

Oh and watch out for that bus!

If pre-existing conditions is the crux of the matter, than spedific regulations can be put in place. My insurance covered pre-existing conditions after six months, kind of sucked, but I got through it.

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

lol does he know how bad healthcare in america is?

I think you are confusing healthcare, with healthcare coverage. Our healthcare is probably the best in the world. I have been hospitalized a few times, and always found it to be a pleasant experiance minus the cause of being there. My son has been to the doctor a few times, and it was always great. Matter of fact the only unpleasant experiances I have had is when I had to go to the emergency room and got caught up in the flood of morons with their kids there for fucking colds, and scraps, which I can only imagine would even worse under the Obamanations version of healthcare for everyone.

 

[Argo]

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

With things like police it's not even feasible to implement selective coverage, and even if you did it's not cost effective.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Argo

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

With things like police it's not even feasible to implement selective coverage, and even if you did it's not cost effective.

Yes. But I think I would be in favor of paying for vaccines and reproductive meds because it affects the general population.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Argo

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

free market incentives could be used (equally poorly) in fire, police and defense. You being sick affects plenty of other people; spreading disease, time missed from work and other economic losses, and so forth.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Argo

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

With things like police it's not even feasible to implement selective coverage, and even if you did it's not cost effective.

Yes. But I think I would be in favor of paying for vaccines and reproductive meds because it affects the general population.

AFAIK, you get free vacines against most known preventable deseases when you're born.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Argo

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

free market incentives could be used (equally poorly) in fire, police and defense. You being sick affects plenty of other people; spreading disease, time missed from work and other economic losses, and so forth.

Not nearly to the same degree. If my condo catches on fire the other 160+ units in my building are under grave danger. If I catch a flu both the risk and the consequences are an order of magitude lower.

That being said, somebody can correct me if I'm wrong - but if a truly dangerous contageous desease comes around, it'd be under CDC charter to provide free vacines.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Argo

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

With things like police it's not even feasible to implement selective coverage, and even if you did it's not cost effective.

Yes. But I think I would be in favor of paying for vaccines and reproductive meds because it affects the general population.

AFAIK, you get free vacines against most known preventable deseases when you're born.

no, your parents have to pay for those either with cash or insurance.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Argo

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

With things like police it's not even feasible to implement selective coverage, and even if you did it's not cost effective.

Yes. But I think I would be in favor of paying for vaccines and reproductive meds because it affects the general population.

AFAIK, you get free vacines against most known preventable deseases when you're born.

no, your parents have to pay for those either with cash or insurance.

I stand corrected then...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Argo

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

With things like police it's not even feasible to implement selective coverage, and even if you did it's not cost effective.

Yes. But I think I would be in favor of paying for vaccines and reproductive meds because it affects the general population.

AFAIK, you get free vacines against most known preventable deseases when you're born.

no, your parents have to pay for those either with cash or insurance.

I stand corrected then...

And if they cant, they are free.

 

[First]

Schiff is like any other politician or soon-to-be politician; ends justify the means if it results in their ultimate agenda being passed. In Schiff's case, just as in Ron Paul's case, they run as Republicans even though they are nothing of the sort, something they openly admit, and have in fact admitted that they only run as Republicans because they'd lose otherwise if they ran under the Constitution or Libertarian party banners.

 

[ericlp]

Schiff is biased since his dad was a insurance agent for his entire life. Of course he wants the government out of insurance policies. Yeah, let's all pay 50 bucks a month with a 5000 deductible. Whoohoo, where do I sign up. He's a disaster waiting to happen.

Now that the economy is doing good, this tweeb is jumping on the bandwagon and fox is eating it up for all it is worth.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Evan
Schiff is like any other politician or soon-to-be politician; ends justify the means if it results in their ultimate agenda being passed. In Schiff's case, just as in Ron Paul's case, they run as Republicans even though they are nothing of the sort, something they openly admit, and have in fact admitted that they only run as Republicans because they'd lose otherwise if they ran under the Constitution or Libertarian party banners.

He's running as an indi though?

 

[fskimospy]

Peter Schiff has been hilariously wrong for almost his entire career. He totally predicted this latest crisis, but any reasonably person would look at his history and realize that a stopped clock is right twice a day.

No smart person would ever vote for this moron, he's made a career out of being a shit analyst.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Evan
Schiff is like any other politician or soon-to-be politician; ends justify the means if it results in their ultimate agenda being passed. In Schiff's case, just as in Ron Paul's case, they run as Republicans even though they are nothing of the sort, something they openly admit, and have in fact admitted that they only run as Republicans because they'd lose otherwise if they ran under the Constitution or Libertarian party banners.

He's running as an indi though?

Unless he changed his mind since last week, no he isn't.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Schiff is biased since his dad was a insurance agent for his entire life. Of course he wants the government out of insurance policies. Yeah, let's all pay 50 bucks a month with a 5000 deductible. Whoohoo, where do I sign up. He's a disaster waiting to happen.

Now that the economy is doing good, this tweeb is jumping on the bandwagon and fox is eating it up for all it is worth.

He is correct however. Letting a 3rd party(govt or insurance) pay for what is affordable will only drive up costs as it hides the true cost to the end consumer.

This weekend my insurance was billed more than $300 by a doc at a minor emergency clinic for taking care of a small wound. Did not take more than 15 minutes to take care of it. I am pretty sure his time was not worth $1200/hour. I am sure the insurance company will cut the bill in 1/2 before they pay it. But what does it matter to me, my copay was cheap...

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: Argo

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

With things like police it's not even feasible to implement selective coverage, and even if you did it's not cost effective.

First world countries feel the same about health care. To us it's unimaginable that someone could be bankrupted because they got sick.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: Argo

I would perfer we paid for it just like other similar goods, like fire, police, defense, etc.

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there. Fire, police, defense protection is not something that individual can opt in or out of. If I chose to decline fire coverage I am affecting lots of other people as well as myself.

With things like police it's not even feasible to implement selective coverage, and even if you did it's not cost effective.

First world countries feel the same about health care. To us it's unimaginable that someone could be bankrupted because they got sick.

And yet it happens daily

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Argo

Not nearly to the same degree. If my condo catches on fire the other 160+ units in my building are under grave danger. If I catch a flu both the risk and the consequences are an order of magitude lower.

That being said, somebody can correct me if I'm wrong - but if a truly dangerous contageous desease comes around, it'd be under CDC charter to provide free vacines.

Yep, 99.9% of diseases don't affect everyone like fire does.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ericlp
Schiff is biased since his dad was a insurance agent for his entire life. Of course he wants the government out of insurance policies. Yeah, let's all pay 50 bucks a month with a 5000 deductible. Whoohoo, where do I sign up. He's a disaster waiting to happen.

Now that the economy is doing good, this tweeb is jumping on the bandwagon and fox is eating it up for all it is worth.

He is correct however. Letting a 3rd party(govt or insurance) pay for what is affordable will only drive up costs as it hides the true cost to the end consumer.

This weekend my insurance was billed more than $300 by a doc at a minor emergency clinic for taking care of a small wound. Did not take more than 15 minutes to take care of it. I am pretty sure his time was not worth $1200/hour. I am sure the insurance company will cut the bill in 1/2 before they pay it. But what does it matter to me, my copay was cheap...

Exactly! I see this all the time, my insurance was billed for $700 yet I couldn't see ANYTHING that would come even close to that! All the doctor did was give me some pills and asked me how I was doing, that is it!

 

[DS9VOY]

Schiff has already ended his political career.

I have already seen 2 interviews with him. Both of them went along these lines

Interviewer: So you are against medicare along with any other current government health programs?

Schiff: Yea I would get rid of them all and would work to that end in the senate.

Interviewer: So you would take away medicare from seniors?

Schiff: Yea

Interviewer: Aren't your parents on medicare?

Schiff: Well yea.... but that's different.

FAIL.

This guy is a celebrity among the doom and gloom folks on the internet because his claim to fame is that he predicted the current recession. Of course he is a PERMA-BEAR and has been predicting a recession every day for the past 10 years so of course he will eventually be rgiht.

Hell I predicted this recession! When I saw people getting 50 year mortgages and then taking out instant home equity lines on them I knew we were in trouble. In fact at the end of 2007 I moved ALL (and I mean ALL) of my investment funds to short term AAA rated bonds. This was before most people had a clue what was coming. ALL my investments were in the black during 2008. Anyone who pays attention would have seen it coming.

But he is a celebrity to these people so they are sending him tons of cash and asking him to run for office because he is their personal little hero. Kind of like the fools who wanted Al Bundy to run for office back when Married with Children was on the air because a small fan base thought he had special insights no one else had.... what a joke.