There is No Hope - This Country is DONE!
Real Estate Investor · OH · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
I've sadly come to the conclusion that our country is done, over, kaput! I finally came to this conclusion over the weekend as we were circulating petitions to put a Constitutional Amendment on the November ballot in Ohio to stop Obamacare. As you know, I live in Ohio and in a somewhat rural area. This should be prime territory for conservatives. I was SHOCKED at the number of people that wanted Obamacare and many of these people should have known better. I heard comments like "now my son will have free insurance". It was absolutely apparent that these people think that Obamacare is free and comes from Obama's magical stash. They are too STUPID to understand that someone must pay for this stuff and there are a LOT of these people.
Therefore, I'm sorry to report that the USA as we've know it is OVER!
While I am not a fan of government subsidies, I do need to point out that pre-existing conditions are not analagous to getting car insurance after an accident.
Insurance is designed to transfer the risk of uncertainty in return for a fee - the premium. Once you have a car accident, there is little uncertainty over its costs (unless it is one of those rare accidents that results in a large lawsuit). It is therefore not insurable in the economic sense of the word.
Pre-existing conditions are different in a couple of ways. First, everyone is going to have some health condition at some point in their lives that would become "pre-existing" from that point onwards and therefore is not like an avoidable accident. Second, even after you have a health condition, there is a wide range of expenses that you can incur related to it. (For example, you could have hypertension and die of something else with no unusual expense related to your hypertension.) Therefore, pre-existing conditions do make sense for insurance coverage.
The reason why insurance companies have traditionally avoided covering pre-existing conditions is not related to their inappropriateness for coverage but to something called "adverse selection." This refers to the risk of the first insurance company that covers a particular risk ending up with all the people who have that condition, thus driving up its costs and premiums, and then losing all its healthy patients due to the high premiums, consequently necessitating it to raise premiums again, etc. This vicious cycle can continue until the insurance company goes out of business.
That's why insurance companies try to have a "healthier" patient base than their competitors and this also, unfortunately, creates a cycle of each company trying to have a healthier base than its competitors, thereby making insurance harder and harder to get for everyone. That's the situation we were in and a simple solution to eliminate the race to the bottom AND the problem of adverse selection is to pass a law preventing insurance companies from denying someone based on a prre-existing condition.
Insurance companies are actually quite happy with the rule that does not allow them to deny patients based on pre-existing conditions because it increases their revenues and profits. It makes perfect actuarial sense to them. The problem that I have with Obama's health care plan is that it does not do much to address the primary health care problem in this country, which is that costs have gone out of control due to a variety of market distortions.
Rich, thank you for your thoughts. I would respectfully argue that this is a great thread for newbies who are interested in politics. This is a prime example of radical liberal ideas being exposed as bunk when facing real world applications.
I guess everyone finally wore themselves out arguing with each other.
One has to love these discussions (I do)where self righteous, self appointed experts know better than an immigrant what it's like being one, or going thru the immigration process. Or know what socialism is like, better than one having lived thru it half their life. Or know more about feeling jewish (and actually do feel so) than a natural born and lived, jewish person. And nobody dare contradict them, you pathetic highly educated, resource sucking libs!
WOW, it's almost like watching the Glenn Beck spectacle, minus the weeping crisis.
Although that may appear too, at some point, to add flavor and credibility to their arguments. So let the show go on!
On a personal note, what I find truly pathetic is the consistent misuse of "it's" and "its" coming from a former English major, I would expect that from someone whose native tongue isn't English. But that's way beside the point here...
So let me get this straight, Sorin T. You are critical of people who have a self-righteous, holier than thou attitude towards others who have a particular background or experience that would give them a unique, hands on knowledge of a particular topic, unless they are slamming English majors? I can see how you wouldn't want to take any crap from an English major! Damn him for that misuse of the apostrophe!!!
Kind of like the old adage - it ain't bragging if you can do it.
This county is NOT DONE, not as long as I live and breathe.
If I understand the new Obamanation Health Coverage, if you do not have Health Insurance, you have to pay a fine? Is this true? If this is true, is this TRUE FREEDOM?
Health Care should be no different that Car Care, House Care, Pet Care, Yard Care, etc... If you want it, buy it. If you can't afford it, OH WELL! As for public education, I spent 13 of my 17 years of schooling in a Private School, the 4 years I spent in a Public High School were more of a party than an education. What a joke!! If you want it, pay for it, I don't care what it is, ie. Social Security, Medicare, Education, Welfare, Health Care, etc...
Self righteousness, dear rich23s, as a random example, is knowing more about immigration than an immigrant, knowing more socialism than someone who lived it, knowing more about jewishness than a full blodded jew who had lived in Israel... and the list can continue. All strikingly similar views with those regurgitated during weeping episodes on Faux News, I might add.
But, to stay on topic, There is No Hope.... that these simple truths will ever get across... This Discussion is DONE!
There is a difference.
I am a professional consultant in the insurance industry who commands hefty consulting fees for my expertise in insurance. A shift has occurred for me over the past year where the value of my consulting fees for insurance have surpassed my expectations to the point where I can postulate an opinion for a couple hours based on my expertise and make more than one of my rental properties makes in a month. Furthermore, I'm about to drop a hundred grand into further training to increase those fees.
When you Google "Tim Wieneke" the first entry is Bigger Pockets. My business is based on my expertise and for some armchair amateurs to insinuate that I don't have a basic knowledge of insurance when they themselves can't hold a candle to my industry knowledge is a direct assault on my business, my personal income and my future. I cannot afford for any of my current or potential clients to come here and see this and NOT see me beat your amateur insinuations to a pulp. They pay me to represent them and pay me to fight when necessary. That's why I have not and will not request this thread removed even though it was an assault on my business. If a current or future client does come across this thread, it behooves me for them to see how relentless I am when I know I'm right. If I can't see this assault on my expertise through, how can they entrust me to fight for them when millions are on the line?
The armchair amateurs in this debate have no skin in this game while for me it is everything and I will fight relentlessly and I will win.
Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, complimenting Bush for being relentlessly "steady": "Events can change; this man's beliefs never will. He believes the same thing Wednesday as he did Monday. No matter what happened Tuesday."
'nuff said.
I, too, had thought that this thread had died. Here are my final thoughts on this thread:
1. I have no reason to doubt Tim's expertise at his specific job and do not wish him any ill in his business or his career. I would like him and other BP members to do well in their endeavors.
2. I do believe that Tim was wrong about a macro-economic aspect of the insurance industry and I do not think there is any shame in that. His skills are not as an economist or stock analyst, which are occupations that require an ability to predict the consequence of new laws on an industry.
3. If Tim is so concerned about the possible adverse effect of a forum post on his career, then he should not get involved in these political posts. (This thread has been quite civil for the most part and there are other sites and forums where one could be more exposed.)
4. Rich Weese earlier suggested that J Scott and I have been trading votes and someone else opined that it is part of a liberal voting block. I think these suggestions are unnecessary and I suspect that I have voted more times for Rich Weese than for virtually anyone else. I vote based on what I think is a good post and not based on a predetermined opinion of where the poster stands in the politcal spectrum.
5. The other Rich suggested that I have not responded to some specific posts perhaps because I did not have an adequate response. The real reason I did not respond was because I had already make what I consider to be a cogent presentation of my position and did not see a similarly cogent response. In any event, the one thing that I do feel I have lost is the belief that people with opposing views will actually change their minds in response to any new facts or information.
6. I have nothing personal for or against any of the parties that took part in the discussion and wish them all well.
funny how the libs, in typical fashion, have to get in yet another jab after saying how done they are. When losing an argument, attack, misdirect, debate with generalities, attack small imperfections. This is nothing new and is once again beind demonstrated here.
J Scott says he calls out things that are idiotic, yet he doesn't call out Vikram when he makes not only idiotic claims, but claims that could be called dangerous. This type of misinformation is what is causing the OP to come across complete morons in the field. These misinformed people will wind up getting hurt. This same type of information was praised by Mr. Scott, yet he won't take responsibility to back it up either! "nope, I didn't say that". Even if you didn't say it, at least back it up with some facts before saying what a wonderful post it is.
As far as Vikram goes, where is your cogent presentation? that insurance companies will make more money if they accept anti-selection? PLEASE! I BEG YOU! Please enlighten me and everyone else! We're still waiting...and waiting...and waiting....tell us they will make more money.
truth is, when libs talk in generalities, it sounds really nice! Health insurance for all! but when you do stupid things such as forcing companies to accept anti-selection, THE HEALTHY PEOPLE GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. THE RESULT IS THAT PREMIUMS GO UP AND THE POOL OF INSUREDS BECOMES MORE TAINTED. Not rocket science, just basic insurance economics. Vikram, do you dispute this? Will the healthy people just stay in because it's for the good of the people? Will the healthy people pay increased premiums while watching the substandard risks enter the insured pool? Answer the questions, back up your claim, or stop spewing misinformation.
Rich23s, your lack of reading-comprehension is making you the one who looks like an idiot. If you care to, you can go back and read my post about the economic consequences of the two laws that (a) require everyone to get insurance and (b) require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. If you still think I have not addressed your arguments, then you should blame your English teachers and not me.
I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but if you use uncivil language, you should expect it back. And now I am really done with this thread. If you wish to actually discuss this issue with me, feel free to PM me. I do not wish to get into a discussion using uncivilized and immature language.
"I do believe that Tim was wrong about a macro-economic aspect of the insurance industry"
No. Your armchair opinions are still wrong. You failed to grasp this simplest concept of insurance which is that it is a transfer of risk for FUTURE loss. You never did grasp this simple concept at any point in any of your posts.
I even quoted you references from the Casualty Actuarial Society and you failed to respond. You hid from them.
"His skills are not as an economist or stock analyst, which are occupations that require an ability to predict the consequence of new laws on an industry."
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Rich Weese was a janitor. I'll put his ability to invest against your armchair amateur speculations any day of the week.
"If Tim is so concerned about the possible adverse effect of a forum post on his career, then he should not get involved in these political posts."
You took this path and challenged my expertise. I'm simply explaining why I used reality to destroy your speculation and why I will continue to and why I will win.
"I think these suggestions are unnecessary and I suspect that I have voted more times for Rich Weese than for virtually anyone else."
His skills are not as an economist or stock analyst, which are occupations that require an ability to predict the consequence of new laws on an industry.
"The real reason I did not respond was because I had already make what I consider to be a cogent presentation of my position and did not see a similarly cogent response."
Cogent means pertinent or valid. Your position was not based on the reality of the system of insurance as it exists. It was based on the political theory of social insurance.
"In any event, the one thing that I do feel I have lost is the belief that people with opposing views will actually change their minds in response to any new facts or information."
What "new" facts? Quote me one and quote your source.