loumeinhart 0 #101 December 26, 2009 QuoteLet's assume I'm a monopoly Yes, and I already agreed with you earlier that the government has a role in preventing monopoly, If there is no monopoly, what's to keep an insurance company from lowering their price and attracting more business? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #102 December 26, 2009 Quotenterest is the profit associated with lending money Interest is the price of money. A company can charge interest and still not make a profit. That's what happens when 100+ banks go out of business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #103 December 26, 2009 QuoteQuotenterest is the profit associated with lending money Interest is the price of money. A company can charge interest and still not make a profit. That's what happens when 100+ banks go out of business. Wrong. Banks borrow money (e.g., take in deposits) and they lend money. They pay interest on the money they borrow. They charge a higher interest rate on money they lend out. That is profit. Usury laws limit the profit for lenders, saving consumers money.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #104 December 26, 2009 QuoteQuote Interest is the price of money. A company can charge interest and still not make a profit. That's what happens when 100+ banks go out of business. Wrong. Banks borrow money (e.g., take in deposits) and they lend money. They pay interest on the money they borrow. They charge a higher interest rate on money they lend out. That is profit. The profit is the interest rate spread, MINUS loan defaults and the cost of running the business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #105 December 26, 2009 QuoteI do not see how would this be a solution for the described problem. In fact, the (4) is one of the roots of the problem - people, who think they're invincible so they do not need insurance. Then they got into ER, do not pay, and live without insurance for the rest of their life as they now have a pre-existing condition which nobody wants to cover. None of your 1-4 addresses that, and in fact (4) promotes it. The bills passed in Congress don't address this either. There's nothing to prevent 'the invincibles' from waiting to get insurance until they actually get sick - so, the same problem will still exist.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 December 26, 2009 Quote>There are no direct criminal penalties listed in the bill, but that does NOT >mean that criminal penalties cannot be assessed, given the language of >the civil penalties section. Correct. You can go to jail for not paying the penalties for not buying a house, just as you can go to jail for not paying the penalties for not buying insurance. Red herring - there is no special "non-homeowner tax". Quote>.if this is such a great thing, why the hell are they having to use ANY >penalties to get people to use it? Same reason you have to force republicans to pay taxes for the war they supported. They think it's a great idea, until they have to pay for it. (True of both parties.) And ANOTHER red herring.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #107 December 26, 2009 QuoteUsury laws limit the profit for lenders, saving consumers money. I just cannot understand this. Here's how I look at it: My bank charges me 5% interest on a loan. A few months later the bank pursues a number of cost-cutting steps: -Negotiate a cheaper monthly lease rate -Reduce labor costs -Reduce other misc operating costs So they slightly increased their profit margin. Do you think they should call me and lower my interest rate to 4.99%? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #108 December 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteUsury laws limit the profit for lenders, saving consumers money. I just cannot understand this. Here's how I look at it: My bank charges me 5% interest on a loan. A few months later the bank pursues a number of cost-cutting steps: -Negotiate a cheaper monthly lease rate -Reduce labor costs -Reduce other misc operating costs So they slightly increased their profit margin. Do you think they should call me and lower my interest rate to 4.99%? UNclever way of not responding to his statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #109 December 26, 2009 QuoteIf there is no monopoly, what's to keep an insurance company from lowering their price and attracting more business? For example, the fact that there is no more business to attract. It is not like the number of doctors would suddenly increase when they lower the price, or that a doctor would get two or three insurance policies instead of just one - and those who are there will pay you anyway. No reasons to lower the price, and as GeorgiaDon pointed out, that's what already happened in Georgia, so we even have a real world example.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #110 December 26, 2009 Quote The bills passed in Congress don't address this either. There's nothing to prevent 'the invincibles' from waiting to get insurance until they actually get sick - so, the same problem will still exist. There is a fine for not maintaining the insurance, which has to be set to the same amount as the average cost of the insurance (they're still discussing the exact amount, and hopefully it will stay). So it would makes much less sense to NOT maintain insurance policy - you're not saving money anymore.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #111 December 26, 2009 QuoteQuote The bills passed in Congress don't address this either. There's nothing to prevent 'the invincibles' from waiting to get insurance until they actually get sick - so, the same problem will still exist. There is a fine for not maintaining the insurance, which has to be set to the same amount as the average cost of the insurance (they're still discussing the exact amount, and hopefully it will stay). So it would makes much less sense to NOT maintain insurance policy - you're not saving money anymore. Nope. The fine is, IIRC, $750 - still less than what people would be paying for insurance.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #112 December 26, 2009 Quote Nope. The fine is, IIRC, $750 - still less than what people would be paying for insurance. AFAIR it is $750 or 2% of your income, whatever is higher, capped on the cost of the cheapest insurance plan. So if one is making 100K, the fine could be $2000. And the fine can go up if non-compliance is high.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #113 December 26, 2009 QuoteQuote Nope. The fine is, IIRC, $750 - still less than what people would be paying for insurance. AFAIR it is $750 or 2% of your income, whatever is higher, capped on the cost of the cheapest insurance plan. So if one is making 100K, the fine could be $2000. And the fine can go up if non-compliance is high. Nope - you're thinking of the House bill, in regards to the 2% (actually 2.5% of modified AGI up to a max equal to the premium for the insurance). For the senate bill, the fine starts at $95 in 2014, ramps up to $350 in 2015 and $750 in 2016, then adjusts for cost of living increases. In both cases, it is almost assuredly going to be LESS than the premiums.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #114 December 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Interest is the price of money. A company can charge interest and still not make a profit. That's what happens when 100+ banks go out of business. Wrong. Banks borrow money (e.g., take in deposits) and they lend money. They pay interest on the money they borrow. They charge a higher interest rate on money they lend out. That is profit. The profit is the interest rate spread, MINUS loan defaults and the cost of running the business. Those are some of the expenses that must be considered when determining the net profit. I thought it was obvious that I was offering a simple description of gross profit. Apparently it wasn't as obvious as I thought. I apologize for the confusion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #115 December 26, 2009 Quote Quote Usury laws limit the profit for lenders, saving consumers money. I just cannot understand this. Here's how I look at it: My bank charges me 5% interest on a loan. A few months later the bank pursues a number of cost-cutting steps: -Negotiate a cheaper monthly lease rate -Reduce labor costs -Reduce other misc operating costs So they slightly increased their profit margin. Do you think they should call me and lower my interest rate to 4.99%? There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. My point stands: usury laws save consumers money by limiting the profit of lenders. You asked for an example; and I gave one.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #116 December 27, 2009 Quote Nope - you're thinking of the House bill, in regards to the 2% (actually 2.5% of modified AGI up to a max equal to the premium for the insurance). For the senate bill, the fine starts at $95 in 2014, ramps up to $350 in 2015 and $750 in 2016, then adjusts for cost of living increases. Right. So now they're working to bring the differences together, and the difference should be addressed somehow. I think everyone understand that $95 a year is not a fine at all, and the insurance companies would lobby hard to increase it (because they'd have to cover preexisting). $750 per individual, however, is a different story - there were some crappy plans for $62/mo. Quote In both cases, it is almost assuredly going to be LESS than the premiums. But you need to also consider that when one pays premium, one gets insurance which may save their asses from bankruptcy. When one pays fine for not getting insurance, one gets nothing in return, so even paying less than premium makes little sense if you can actually get something instead for a little more. This is pretty much the same "savings" as donating $100 to pay $20 less in tax (which some amusingly call "savings of $80", but I personally see it as "spending extra $80").* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #117 December 27, 2009 Quote My bank charges me 5% interest on a loan. A few months later the bank pursues a number of cost-cutting steps: ... So they slightly increased their profit margin. Do you think they should call me and lower my interest rate to 4.99%? No, they do not - and the reason is that it is THE BANK which optimized their expenses without affecting the customers. If insurance company optimized their expenses (for example by NOT paying 4M salaries to their CEOs), I would have no problems with them getting larger profits. However the tort reform is different. Here's the government would be doing something, not the insurance company. And the government action would strip down important right from the consumers, with the rationale that this should benefit the consumers through lower healthcare costs, not that it should benefit the insurance companies by increasing their profits.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #118 December 27, 2009 QuoteBut you need to also consider that when one pays premium, one gets insurance which may save their asses from bankruptcy. Not anymore - I can wait until I actually get sick to get insurance at all, because they HAVE to cover me, no ifs, ands or buts. QuoteWhen one pays fine for not getting insurance, one gets nothing in return, so even paying less than premium makes little sense if you can actually get something instead for a little more. This is pretty much the same "savings" as donating $100 to pay $20 less in tax (which some amusingly call "savings of $80", but I personally see it as "spending extra $80"). If I'm paying for insurance and I don't need to see the doc that year, I've gotten nothing in return for my premium payments. If the penalties are equal/less than the premiums, there's no incentive for people to get the insurance at all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #119 December 27, 2009 Quote Not anymore - I can wait until I actually get sick to get insurance at all, because they HAVE to cover me, no ifs, ands or buts. It depends - for example, if one hooked in, or got into car accident, and being airlifted to the nearest hospital for surgery, their chance to apply and get the insurance in time are quite low. I wouldn't be surprised if it would take a month to get the insurance after applying, just to prevent this kind of things. Quote If I'm paying for insurance and I don't need to see the doc that year, I've gotten nothing in return for my premium payments. Interesting. Do you also consider car, home, life, disability and basically any other insurance as a waste of money unless you filed a claim that year?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #120 December 27, 2009 QuoteUNclever way of not responding to his statement. QuoteUsury laws limit the profit for lenders, saving consumers money So what's the limit? What is the most profit a lender like Chase Mortgage is allowed to report to their investors? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #121 December 27, 2009 QuoteQuote Not anymore - I can wait until I actually get sick to get insurance at all, because they HAVE to cover me, no ifs, ands or buts. It depends - for example, if one hooked in, or got into car accident, and being airlifted to the nearest hospital for surgery, their chance to apply and get the insurance in time are quite low. I wouldn't be surprised if it would take a month to get the insurance after applying, just to prevent this kind of things. Quote If I'm paying for insurance and I don't need to see the doc that year, I've gotten nothing in return for my premium payments. Interesting. Do you also consider car, home, life, disability and basically any other insurance as a waste of money unless you filed a claim that year? OMG states have been prosecuting people unconstitutionally for years and getting away with it for not having AUTO insurance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #122 December 27, 2009 QuoteFor example, the fact that there is no more business to attract. It is not like the number of doctors would suddenly increase when they lower the price, or that a doctor would get two or three insurance policies instead of just one - and those who are there will pay you anyway. No reasons to lower the price, and as GeorgiaDon pointed out, that's what already happened in Georgia, so we even have a real world example. Isn't it the same general idea as me shopping for a new Auto Insurer? If someone out there can beat my current rate then I'll switch to them? They are afterall competing for my business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #123 December 27, 2009 Quote If I'm paying for insurance and I don't need to see the doc that year, I've gotten nothing in return for my premium payments That's how I feel about auto I've been accident free since I took the wheel 14yrs ago. I'd hate to get the calculator out! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #124 December 27, 2009 Quote Quote If I'm paying for insurance and I don't need to see the doc that year, I've gotten nothing in return for my premium payments. Interesting. Do you also consider car, home, life, disability and basically any other insurance as a waste of money unless you filed a claim that year? If you didn't own a car, would you buy auto insurance? Would you buy home insurance if you lived with your parents? Life insurance, if you were single with no kids? While I understand what you're saying (and I *do* carry insurance), we (again) are speaking of 'the invincibles'. A 20 year old in good health statistically isn't in a high risk pool for most medical issues outside of accidental injury.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #125 December 27, 2009 Quote Quote If I'm paying for insurance and I don't need to see the doc that year, I've gotten nothing in return for my premium payments That's how I feel about auto I've been accident free since I took the wheel 14yrs ago. I'd hate to get the calculator out! Right...of course, you're only required to carry liability (to cover damage to other's property) once you've paid off the vehicle. And, of course, said insurance only applicable IF you own a car and IF you use it on public roads.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
