Senate to vote on health care bill unconstitutionality!

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Listen buddy, you show me a law in the books that specifically limits the Net Profit % of a publicly traded or privatelty held mortgage originating /servicing institution and I will drive to Fla and buy you a drink. K?

Let me tell you what would happen, because it's not rocket surgery..

The fund managers on wall street ultimately are charged with creating growth for investment firms and small financial planners that work for folks like me with very modest 401k's.

These fund managers would promtly sell every share of the companies that fell subject to this law. Because it's now a company that is not allowed to grow. An easier example is this. Why would I want to buy stock in a company knowing that they have no incentive to perform.

I'm not a financial expert but I'm pretty sure I have the right idea..

One more thing.
You seem to be pretty hung up on "Limiting Profits"
You do understand that profit margins for other industries are easily higher than banking.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

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 after all competing for my business.

Why would anyone beat their current rate if the market can pay the requested rate? When I actually tried to shop for new auto insurer, I found that the cost of the plans which provide the same coverage differs no more than 5%. May they charge less for the same plans (and have smaller profit)? Probably - but somehow they do not. Again, the Georgia situation confirmed this.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

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?

Sure, once you're dead there is no need to maintain health insurance anymore. However while you're alive and living in the USA, you might need medical services (and some of them are very expensive here) at any given moment of your life. To ensure you can pay for them when you need them, you need to maintain health insurance (a bond option would be fine too, but I doubt anyone would use it).

Quote

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.

Yes, but at some moment a 20 year old guy in good health becomes a middle-aged guy with health problems. If he only gets coverage when his health issues require costly treatment, then the question is who is going to pay for them (as his premiums obviously do not cover the cost of treatment), and why should others pay for him if he didn't want to pay for others? At this moment it is addressed through "pre-existing condition" clause - so if this "invincible" guy gets cancer, he'll not get insurance, and will be paying for treatment by his own. Obviously he doesn't have money to pay, and files for bankruptcy - basically stealing from the doctors, hospitals and drug companies who were forced to provide service for free. This, of course, is not a solution, hence the fine (which, as I said, should be high - House version got it pretty right).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

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?

Sure, once you're dead there is no need to maintain health insurance anymore. However while you're alive and living in the USA, you might need medical services (and some of them are very expensive here) at any given moment of your life. To ensure you can pay for them when you need them, you need to maintain health insurance (a bond option would be fine too, but I doubt anyone would use it).

Before the passage of these bills I would have agreed with in a general sense - now, why bother? I don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions or not being accepted, so why pay now when I can wait until later?

Quote

Quote

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.

Yes, but at some moment a 20 year old guy in good health becomes a middle-aged guy with health problems. If he only gets coverage when his health issues require costly treatment, then the question is who is going to pay for them (as his premiums obviously do not cover the cost of treatment), and why should others pay for him if he didn't want to pay for others? At this moment it is addressed through "pre-existing condition" clause - so if this "invincible" guy gets cancer, he'll not get insurance, and will be paying for treatment by his own. Obviously he doesn't have money to pay, and files for bankruptcy - basically stealing from the doctors, hospitals and drug companies who were forced to provide service for free. This, of course, is not a solution, hence the fine (which, as I said, should be high - House version got it pretty right).

That's how it USED to be - now, once he finds out he has cancer, he goes down the street and signs up for health insurance and, et viola, he's covered for his expensive treatments.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Before the passage of these bills I would have agreed with in a general sense - now, why bother? I don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions or not being accepted, so why pay now when I can wait until later?

As I said, it depends on how much is the fine in final version. Being a 2.5% or $750, I'd have no problem with it. A healthy 20yo can get insurance for $750/year, so if he pays those money to the government instead, it is okay too.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A healthy 20yo can get insurance for $750/year, so if he pays those money to the government instead, it is okay too.

How does that help the insurance company?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

How does that help the insurance company?

If you have to a) spend $750 on insurance and get health insurance, or b) spend $750 on fine and get nothing, my guess is that everyone would go for a) option, as at least you're getting something for your money.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

How does that help the insurance company?

If you have to a) spend $750 on insurance and get health insurance, or b) spend $750 on fine and get nothing, my guess is that everyone would go for a) option, as at least you're getting something for your money.

That's making the assumption that the $750 will buy a year's worth of insurance. I'm not sure that will be the case, given the rise in premiums in states that have adopted this type of system (MA, KY, WA).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

That's making the assumption that the $750 will buy a year's worth of insurance. I'm not sure that will be the case, given the rise in premiums in states that have adopted this type of system (MA, KY, WA).

If this is not the case, then a safe bet would be for Congress to increase the fine accordingly.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That's making the assumption that the $750 will buy a year's worth of insurance. I'm not sure that will be the case, given the rise in premiums in states that have adopted this type of system (MA, KY, WA).

If this is not the case, then a safe bet would be for Congress to increase the fine accordingly.

Yeah...God forbid they do something radical like find a way to DECREASE the cost instead of raising the penalty...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Yeah...God forbid they do something radical like find a way to DECREASE the cost instead of raising the penalty...

How come? A perfectly run private industry should find ways to decrease costs itself, as it would increase competition! So raising fine would only happen if the industry doesn't work as supposed to.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

When I actually tried to shop for new auto insurer, I found that the cost of the plans which provide the same coverage differs no more than 5%

You're right. You sound like a pretty educated and informed shopper too. And adding to that maybe someone pitches me on"accident protection". I don't have that now but I'm sure that I closely compared plans everything would mostly wash.

Yes, maybe a company can charge less for the same plan and still profit. ...Because they reduced costs. But if the next company reduced costs...then lowered prices (less profit), the first compamy would be forced to compete or lose business.

I feel like the horse is dead, you get the last word..

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah...God forbid they do something radical like find a way to DECREASE the cost instead of raising the penalty...

How come? A perfectly run private industry should find ways to decrease costs itself, as it would increase competition! So raising fine would only happen if the industry doesn't work as supposed to.

It's regulated by fed.gov - make it where people can buy insurance across state lines and see what happens.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It's regulated by fed.gov - make it where people can buy insurance across state lines and see what happens.

That is also partially covered by the bill.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Yes, maybe a company can charge less for the same plan and still profit. ...Because they reduced costs. But if the next company reduced costs...then lowered prices (less profit), the first compamy would be forced to compete or lose business.

And apparently it doesn't work for auto insurance - the market is large, and there are a bunch of companies who indeed compete, but the prices are not going down all the time. In my opinion this is because market supports their asking price, and people are ready to pay it, so there is no need to lower the price. Same would happen after tort reform as well - the market supported previously paid price, so there are no incentives for insurers to lower their premiums. As a result, such tort reform would only benefit the insurers.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

It's regulated by fed.gov - make it where people can buy insurance across state lines and see what happens.

That is also partially covered by the bill.

As I recall, each state has an exchange, so no, it won't be different in that respect.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

As I recall, each state has an exchange, so no, it won't be different in that respect.

That's in Senate version, House version provides national exchange. Again, let's see how the difference will settle.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

As I recall, each state has an exchange, so no, it won't be different in that respect.

That's in Senate version, House version provides national exchange. Again, let's see how the difference will settle.

That's entirely possible - couldn't recall off the top of my head.

Honestly, I'd love to see the scrap this, open inter-state insurance sales and give it a couple years to see the results. I'd bet insurance prices would come down pretty sharply.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,171]

>C'mon, That doesn't "restrict profit"

Of course it does. Antitrust law prohibits, among other things, price gouging, which is an attempt to make an unusually high profit during times of scarcity (i.e. doubling the price of plywood right before a hurricane hits.) It also prohibits tying the price or purchase of one unrelated product to another; this is a way corporations can make a greater profit on unwanted items. (Ex: Microsoft tying IE to their OS.)

[billvon 3,171]

>Red herring - there is no special "non-homeowner tax".

I'm afraid there is. Here's the link to the IRS page:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204671,00.html

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

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.

Applicable laws vary from state to state. Neither of your statements is true in Florida.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

you show me a law in the books that specifically limits the Net Profit %

I did that already. I even linked to the actual US Code provision. Usury laws limit the gross profit a lender can make, which effectively limits the net profit, since net profit is less than gross profit.

Quote

The fund managers on wall street ultimately are charged with creating growth for investment firms and small financial planners that work for folks like me with very modest 401k's.

These fund managers would promtly sell every share of the companies that fell subject to this law.

Testing your assertion, all I need to do to prove it inaccurate is to find a single fund that is invested in a bank operating in a state with usury laws. How hard do you think it would be to do that?

Quote

Because it's now a company that is not allowed to grow.

By what math are you basing such a statement? Usury laws limit profit; they don't prohibit profit.

Quote

I'm not a financial expert …

You don't say.

Quote

I'm pretty sure I have the right idea.

No, you really don't.

Quote

You seem to be pretty hung up on "Limiting Profits"
You do understand that profit margins for other industries are easily higher than banking.

You asked for an example of a law that limited profit and saved consumers money. I provided usury laws as just such laws. Whether or not there are other industries that are more profitable than banking is completely irrelevant.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

When I actually tried to shop for new auto insurer, I found that the cost of the plans which provide the same coverage differs no more than 5%.

Another tale I don't believe at all. Either false, or an extremely limited situation.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

you show me a law in the books that specifically limits the Net Profit %

I did that already. I even linked to the actual US Code provision. Usury laws limit the gross profit a lender can make, which effectively limits the net profit, since net profit is less than gross profit.

ignores leverage, service fees, penalty fees.

The limits set by usury laws doesn't seem far out of 'Loans by Louie' territory, so I don't see it as a significant limitation. The bank risks the borrower defaulting, and can't break his kneecaps.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

I did that already. I even linked to the actual US Code provision. Usury laws limit the gross profit a lender can make, which effectively limits the net profit, since net profit is less than gross profit.

Ok so what is the maximum profit allowed?