GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Interesting idea. Free health insurance for people

Adraco · 02-28-2010, 07:34 PM

All health economics research point in one direction and one direction only. It is profitable for any government to provide a certain, minimum, level of health care for free or very cheap to it's population and cover the charges with taxes.

And not knowing Walmart's profit margin, I see three problems:
1. Would they increase their prices to cover for the insurance? If not, why would they take out of their profit margin when they already have about every second American already coming into their store on some kind of regular basis?

2. I don't think the profit margin on all items are the same. So buying $10000 worth of milk will not render Walmart the same profit as buying $10000 worth of DVDs. Having a spending amount makes no sense.

3. The agency problem. The people signing up for this would probably be the ones who need sit the most, i.e. costs the insurance company the most. Signing up a lot of high cost insurance individuals, who you have no control over, will certainly make your premium skyrocket.

Every country in the Western hemisphere except Haiti, does provide subsidized healthcare for it's population. The US needs to grow up and understand the math behind this, all coming to the conclusion that you can either get the same amount and quality of healthcare for less $ - or more and higher quality for the same $ as current situation.

Only by having the State acting as one big insurance company, compulsively insuring the whole population, paid via the tax system, you will avoid the Adverse Selection problem as well as the Agency Problem. It will be cheaper for everyone and it will guarantee all a certain minimum level of care. Only by doing so can the US move forward. Just look at the Canadians, they do it, and they are certainly not communists!

Man up, do the changes, and save the money. It well overdue!

02-28-2010, 07:34 PM
Adraco Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2009 Location: Onboard an airplane around the globe Posts: 3,740	All health economics research point in one direction and one direction only. It is profitable for any government to provide a certain, minimum, level of health care for free or very cheap to it's population and cover the charges with taxes. And not knowing Walmart's profit margin, I see three problems: 1. Would they increase their prices to cover for the insurance? If not, why would they take out of their profit margin when they already have about every second American already coming into their store on some kind of regular basis? 2. I don't think the profit margin on all items are the same. So buying $10000 worth of milk will not render Walmart the same profit as buying $10000 worth of DVDs. Having a spending amount makes no sense. 3. The agency problem. The people signing up for this would probably be the ones who need sit the most, i.e. costs the insurance company the most. Signing up a lot of high cost insurance individuals, who you have no control over, will certainly make your premium skyrocket. Every country in the Western hemisphere except Haiti, does provide subsidized healthcare for it's population. The US needs to grow up and understand the math behind this, all coming to the conclusion that you can either get the same amount and quality of healthcare for less $ - or more and higher quality for the same $ as current situation. Only by having the State acting as one big insurance company, compulsively insuring the whole population, paid via the tax system, you will avoid the Adverse Selection problem as well as the Agency Problem. It will be cheaper for everyone and it will guarantee all a certain minimum level of care. Only by doing so can the US move forward. Just look at the Canadians, they do it, and they are certainly not communists! Man up, do the changes, and save the money. It well overdue! __________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is not affected by the beliefs, or doubts, of the majority.