Insurance Reform is Simply
The following article is excellent. Except for one point– Interstate insurance.
I keep wondering how people can consider themselves limited government advocates and espouse interstate anything. Mr. Levy does not express his stance on real limited government but Beck does.
Any involvement of interstate business involves the federal government. To have a real “limited government” the central government must be limited to it’s fundamental role as defined by the constitution. Yes, I want to put the genie back in the bottle, before it puts the individual in the bottle.
The tort reform mentioned in the article is an excellent point. We do need tort reform, and not just in insurance but across the board. While we are at it, we could stop judges from legislating from the bench through Congress acting like Congress in conjunction with an administration which understands the separation of powers.
For me the idea a company must be forced to insure someone violates a basic principle. One creates a business to enjoy a certain amount of freedom. Being told a business must violate sound business practices, steps across a line for me. A company should not be forced to insure an un-insurable.
The basis for my argument is statistics.
If you want me to insure someone with a high risk, then you must allow me to charge the pool of insured more money. Otherwise, I go broke. The cost of a high risk must be carried by the pool of insured. Insurance is a pool and involves shared risk. That is simple math– more risk equals higher premiums.
If we look at today’s insurance pool of those in states such as New York, one could probably find a larger than normal proportion of higher risk insured. A higher proportion of city dwellers equals higher risk to health. Car accidents, crime, high stress are all factors to increased health care costs.
Think about global insurance. That is where this is headed– giant global banks, insurers, manufacturers. India has a much higher rate of death by snake bite, than Ireland. Should people in Ireland pay more for insurance because of India’s risk of snake bite?
If you buy into the “gop” is better than the Marxists we are doomed. The question should be more government or less government. That should be applied to everything which involves government. Do we want more of less? Static is a temporary condition, we are either growing government or shrinking it.
Which brings me to the final point, shrinking government but growing deficit. That has been considered by many as a victory. In my playbook any move which increases the deficit or the size of government is a loss.
Think of it as a puppet show– same people pulling the strings, just different puppets. We have easy money which increases the deficit but allows for growth or stabilization, as is the case now. We have government by the “gop” or the Marxists. One may be more slightly tolerable, but it is still big government.
