Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you rather pay $5000 more in private premiums than $2000 more in health care taxes?
Yes, paying more to the insurance companies ensure that I am free 27 29.67%
No, paying less into a Medicare-style system is the sensible thing to do 64 70.33%
Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2019, 06:53 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
When the private sector declined to insure flood risks, the Federal Government stepped in. No shortage of coastal developers were the primary beneficiaries.

I understand how flood insurance works and the cap on benefits.

I understand repetitive loss claims represent 30% of all claims.

I also understand premiums are woefully inadequate to cover claims and requires $25-30 billion in government grants, each year.
Premiums are based on risk. Like I said, some people are paying $7,000+/year for a FEMA flood policy that has a maximum payout of only $250,000. That's usually not enough to cover extensive damage or the complete destruction of a home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2019, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,471,329 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
Your premise is faulty from the start. Canada has no NHS, or equivalent.

"NHS" stands for "National Health System." Canadian health care is not administered at the national level (or as we Canadians would call it, the federal level). It is administered at the provincial level. You know, those bodies we have that are like states? Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia and Quebec and Manitoba, and so on? They're in charge of Canadians' healthcare, not the federal government.

But just because I'm curious--could you provide cites to your assertion that "Canada's national healthcare is privatizing because it is facing cuts"? I've heard nothing about this in Canadian news media, and it would be big news if it were indeed true. It's hard to believe cuts are being made to something that doesn't exist, but I'm willing to be educated. Prove your assertion to me, using solid, reputable Canadian cites.
https://themighty.com/2018/10/canadi...ntario-quebec/


https://solidarity-us.org/atc/85/p1679/


https://medium.com/portnewsmedia/pri...e-64111b8bc566


https://globalnews.ca/news/4428251/q...alth-services/


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/privat...them-1.4190549


https://www.bcbusiness.ca/guide-to-p...lth-care-in-bc


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...cuts-1.4882759


https://www.fraserinstitute.org/arti...-aid-solutions


https://nationalpost.com/opinion/hea...ed-tax-changes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 07:53 AM
 
8,120 posts, read 3,663,787 times
Reputation: 2713
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
defense is actually in the constitution....heathcare is not
Ah, of course, the constitution, how did I forget … or did I? Two things: first, please quote where 1+ trillion is in the text, and second, I said "defense", not defense. There is a reason for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,707,495 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Premiums are based on risk. Like I said, some people are paying $7,000+/year for a FEMA flood policy that has a maximum payout of only $250,000. That's usually not enough to cover extensive damage or the complete destruction of a home.
The point is that payouts are far in excess of premiums. Congress attempted to stop the bleeding. Constituents reacted and Congress backed off.

The Biggert - Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act 2012 sought to increase premiums in areas prone to flooding.

Constituents reacted.

A 2014 Act restored grandfathering in certain areas and capped increases.

Appropriations add to the debt.

All insurance, public or private, mutualizes risks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 11:55 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
The point is that payouts are far in excess of premiums. Congress attempted to stop the bleeding. Constituents reacted and Congress backed off.
It might be true that some people are being charged too little for their FEMA flood insurance. That's not true of those paying $7,000+/year for only $250,000 of coverage. Can you imagine the throngs of people who would raise holy hell if they had to pay $7,000+/year in premiums for health insurance that had a payout limit of $250,000? No one would stand for that. So if you think flood insurance premiums under-fund flood insurance, it would be infinitely worse if the federal government implemented single-payer health insurance.
Quote:
The Biggert - Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act 2012 sought to increase premiums in areas prone to flooding.
That's already done. Many coastal areas pay significantly more than anyone else for the exact same insurance with the exact same payout limit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 01:24 PM
 
8,120 posts, read 3,663,787 times
Reputation: 2713
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It might be true that some people are being charged too little for their FEMA flood insurance. That's not true of those paying $7,000+/year for only $250,000 of coverage. Can you imagine the throngs of people who would raise holy hell if they had to pay $7,000+/year in premiums for health insurance that had a payout limit of $250,000? No one would stand for that. So if you think flood insurance premiums under-fund flood insurance, it would be infinitely worse if the federal government implemented single-payer health insurance.
That's already done. Many coastal areas pay significantly more than anyone else for the exact same insurance with the exact same payout limit.



The risk is huge for some of the coastal areas (and it is getting worse due to the global warming), correspondingly the premiums are huge. The payout limit is 250k but some of these houses have been flooded 10-20 times.


There is nothing to "think", losses from 2004 to now have been huge. There is a reason private insurance companies stay away from flood policies. They just like to manage them, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,471,329 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
The risk is huge for some of the coastal areas (and it is getting worse due to the global warming), correspondingly the premiums are huge. The payout limit is 250k but some of these houses have been flooded 10-20 times.


There is nothing to "think", losses from 2004 to now have been huge. There is a reason private insurance companies stay away from flood policies. They just like to manage them, lol.
it may be getting worse, but only certain areas...the sea level is NOT rising by much


all 1700 islands in the florida keys still exist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,152,432 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by krichton View Post
Why anyone would want their healthcare tied to their current job or seek jobs based on health benefits is beyond me.
Your government did that.

FDR levied a Wage & Price Freeze in response to Wage Inflation.

FDR erred big time.

If any response was needed, the correct response was a Price Freeze, letting wages float. Wages would have peaked, plateaued and then declined, which is exactly what happened anyway.

Because of the Wage Freeze, employers could not give pay raises to employees without prior written consent from the National Labor Board, and, no, that did not include Mom & Pop shops.

Since the National Labor Board always said "no" employers started offering to pay all or part of an employee's health plan coverage in lieu of pay increases.

Understand, the employee chose the plan, not the employer. Huge difference.

Later, your government screwed up again when the National Labor Board, now the National War Labor Board, declared health plan benefits to be a fringe benefit not subject to IRS taxation in 1942.

Still, employees chose the plan, not the employer. Huge difference.

In 1946, the American Hospital Association nationalized all of its member-hospital health plans into one huge plan with the creation of the Blue Cross, the first health insurance company. The AMA's Blue Shield followed a few months later.

Now, many employers are choosing for employees, instead of allowing employees to choose, and they're choosing the Blue Cross or Blue Shield or both.

Remember that the MAFIA controls unions, both government and private, and uses union pension to launder money. Union health plans were just one more vehicle the MAFIA could use to launder money.

Inland Steel, a union steel company, filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to block union control of the health plans. In 1949, the Supreme Court issued a decision in In Re: Inland Steel, granting unions control of health plans.

That opened the flood-gates. Now all insurance companies were offering healthcare coverage, and the market share of the Blue Cross dropped from 80% to 54% in just a few years.

Insurance companies could do something the Blue Cross couldn't do, and that's offer life insurance. The Blue Cross is not a bona fide insurance company, because it lobbied all the States to exempt it from insurance regulation and grant its hospitals monopoly status protecting them from anti-trust action.

You can pay premiums for 10 years, never pay another dime, but you and your spouse (and minor children) are covered until the day you die, and whatever you didn't spend on healthcare, you get all your money back, plus more money, enough to buy houses for your children or grand-children.

Or, you can pay the Blue Cross every month until you die and never get a dime back.

Which plan is better?

Well, the Blue Cross plan sucked, which is why everyone was dropping it.

So, the American Hospital Association lobbied Congress to change the IRS Tax Code, and that was in 1954.

Now, it's illegal to couple life insurance with health plan coverage.

Every American who lived and died between 1980 and today got screwed by the American Hospital Association out of $100s of Billions.

Those are the grave errors your government to totally screw up your healthcare system.

Your government has the power to correct those errors.

Your government can eliminate the tax break for employers who offer health plan coverage. That will create the incentive for employers to stop.

Your government can then tax employers who continue to offer health plan coverage. That also creates an incentive to stop.

Then, your government can offer tax breaks to employers who agree to pay all or part of an employee's health plan coverage, but only if the employee chooses the coverage themselves.

Now, you're back at the beginning, when employees chose their coverage and their employer merely agreed to pay all or part of it.

That drives everyone from hundreds of employer pools in a State to one giant State-wide pool.

Everyone benefits from that.

Your government can also repeal that part of the IRS Tax Code that bars coupling life insurance with health plan coverage.

Now, everyone can profit off of their own healthcare.

Next, the government can withhold Medicaid funding from States, until the States repeal all of the enabling laws, break up the hospital monopolies and cartels and define catastrophic coverage, and then allow people to buy insurance a la carte.

That puts us back to everyone paying premiums for 10 years, never paying again, but are covered for the rest of their lives, and they get their money back.

Those who want additional coverage on top of catastrophic coverage, can buy it if they want it.

If they want birth control coverage, they pay extra. If they don't, it costs them nothing extra. If they want pregnancy/maternity/neo-natal coverage they buy that extra. If you don't need it, you don't buy it. If you want doctor office visits or pharmaceuticals covered, you pay extra, if you don't, then you don't buy it.

Break up the hospital monopolies, and you reduce the cost of medical care 30%-60% and that reduces the cost of health insurance 30%-60% and letting people choose their coverage instead of having it rammed down their throats makes it affordable for everyone.

And, if you force hospitals to break up into the clinics and polyclinics that Euro-States use, you save another 10%-30% in medical care and the drops health insurance costs another 10%-30%.

That's how you fix your system.

If there's still people falling through the cracks, and there's always people that have to have their hand held through every second of their life, you can do something for them.

And, if you still wanted a universal system, it would be cheaper, because you fixed all the problems your government created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 02:38 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
The risk is huge for some of the coastal areas (and it is getting worse due to the global warming), correspondingly the premiums are huge. The payout limit is 250k but some of these houses have been flooded 10-20 times.
Just an FYI:

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-d...losses_low.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,707,495 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It might be true that some people are being charged too little for their FEMA flood insurance. That's not true of those paying $7,000+/year for only $250,000 of coverage. Can you imagine the throngs of people who would raise holy hell if they had to pay $7,000+/year in premiums for health insurance that had a payout limit of $250,000? No one would stand for that. So if you think flood insurance premiums under-fund flood insurance, it would be infinitely worse if the federal government implemented single-payer health insurance.
That's already done. Many coastal areas pay significantly more than anyone else for the exact same insurance with the exact same payout limit.
NFIP was $25 billion in the hole at the end of fiscal year 2018. It takes $375 million to service the debt. It can never be repaid, given current design.

Ant NFIP will be back at the Treasury Window after the next big one.

Living in a flood plain is a choice.

Financing property, which requires flood insurance is a choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:57 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top