Darth J wrote:Another aspect to the Act is how it's going to affect investing. Insurance companies don't make money from premiums. They make money from investing premiums and earning returns on those investments. While insurance companies and the politicians to whom they give money like to blame rising insurance costs on malpractice lawsuits, the reality is that insurance premiums tend to rise to make up the difference when investments are not paying off sufficiently.
So what's going to happen when health insurers have a much larger risk pool, and have to pay for riskier treatments and medications? They will need to make increasing amounts of money from their investments to make a profit, since they will be paying out more money in claims. This may necessitate investing in riskier areas to earn a greater return. I wonder how much money insurance companies invested in things like collateralized debt obligations, before the housing market collapsed.
But you know, one place insurance companies could invest seeking larger returns in is commodities. I'm sure it will not affect the price of things like food or gas for your car when lots and lots of multi-billion dollar companies have to throw tons of money into a market to make larger returns to make up for the increased risks they have been forced to accept.
And you know those experimental drugs and treatments insurance now has to cover? I wonder what that will do to doctors' malpractice premiums.
You're flipping between 2 different types of insurance, liability insurance and health insurance, which is loss insurance not liability insurance. The link you provide is doing the same thing.
If you want to make the point about health insurance, you need to provide some examples from health insurance, not liability insurance.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
The mandate’s opponents favor a federal government as James Madison fashioned it, one limited by the constitutional enumeration of its powers. The mandate’s supporters favor government as Woodrow Wilson construed it, with limits as elastic as liberalism’s agenda, and powers acquiring derivative constitutionality by being necessary to, or efficient for, implementing government’s ambitions. .........................
Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), asked where the Constitution authorized the mandate, exclaimed, “Are you serious? Are you serious?,” she was utterly ingenuous. People steeped in Congress’s culture of unbridled power find it incomprehensible that the Framers fashioned the Constitution as a bridle. Now, Thursday’s episode in the continuing debate about the mandate will reverberate to conservatism’s advantage.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
Darth J wrote:Another aspect to the Act is how it's going to affect investing. Insurance companies don't make money from premiums. They make money from investing premiums and earning returns on those investments. While insurance companies and the politicians to whom they give money like to blame rising insurance costs on malpractice lawsuits, the reality is that insurance premiums tend to rise to make up the difference when investments are not paying off sufficiently.
So what's going to happen when health insurers have a much larger risk pool, and have to pay for riskier treatments and medications? They will need to make increasing amounts of money from their investments to make a profit, since they will be paying out more money in claims. This may necessitate investing in riskier areas to earn a greater return. I wonder how much money insurance companies invested in things like collateralized debt obligations, before the housing market collapsed.
But you know, one place insurance companies could invest seeking larger returns in is commodities. I'm sure it will not affect the price of things like food or gas for your car when lots and lots of multi-billion dollar companies have to throw tons of money into a market to make larger returns to make up for the increased risks they have been forced to accept.
And you know those experimental drugs and treatments insurance now has to cover? I wonder what that will do to doctors' malpractice premiums.
You're flipping between 2 different types of insurance, liability insurance and health insurance, which is loss insurance not liability insurance. The link you provide is doing the same thing.
If you want to make the point about health insurance, you need to provide some examples from health insurance, not liability insurance.
Most insurers offer clients a premium based on the expected cost of caring for them, plus a markup for administrative costs and profit. An insurance company can actually turn a profit even if the cost of administration and insurance claims exceeds the premiums it collects. It does so by investing income on the float: between the time when a client pays a premium and the time when the client needs payment for his or her medical expenses, Humana invests the premium in stocks and bonds.
Health insurance companies' investments in fast food chains and tobacco companies have made a few people wonder about a conflict of interest, or at least hypocrisy.
Or you can read a 2003 report commissioned by The Federation of American Hospitals and the American Hospital Association on the underwriting cycle of health insurers, which says this: Health Plans must maintain adequate surplus levels. They also have a claim reserve for claims incurred but not yet paid. These funds are invested and the return on this investment is another source of revenue. Gains and losses on investments can affect premium levels, adding another layer of uncertainty in determining what premium rates will be adequate in a given year. The high returns on invested assets during the boom of the 1990s allowed Plans to partially offset underwriting losses during the last low point of the insurance cycle. As the economy slowed, the evaporation of these returns was another contributing factor to the sharp increases in premium levels experienced over the past several years. Health Plans heavily invested in equities (e.g. stocks) were especially hard hit. For example, Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans with an average of 19.3% of their portfolios invested in equities (compared to 3.6% on average for publicly traded health insurers) faced a significant loss of investment income.
Samantabhadra wrote: not a partisan hack like Thomas.
Thomas isn't a partisan hack. He holds to a judicial philosophy that just happens to produce results conservatives like on a consistent basis. Occasionally his reasoning gets strained in ways that flatter his ideological preconceptions, but that is true of all justices and Thomas is way on the principled side of the spectrum as far as that goes.
I think you are confusing him with Scalia. Or, more accurately, I think you are parroting Democrat boilerplate that is apt for Scalia, but not Thomas.
lostindc wrote:holy sheet...bcs and darthJ agree on something
It might superficially appear that way, but it isn't ultimately accurate.
I'm in favor of the rule of law. I agree with Chief Justice Roberts' opinion and what it does for Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause jurisprudence.
Bcspace is in favor of his team winning. He agrees with George Will's editorial about Chief Justice Roberts' opinion and what it forecasts about Republicans in the upcoming election.
EAllusion wrote:I think you are confusing him with Scalia. Or, more accurately, I think you are parroting Democrat boilerplate that is apt for Scalia, but not Thomas.
By Extraterrestrial standards, both Scalia and Thomas vote with their tubers.
We do? If I recall correctly even the liberal justices don't really accept Robert's argument that PPACA is a tax but they'll take it anyway being the types of justices to bend the constitution at every opportunity. As for Darth J, he doesn't know squat about healthcare or economics.
We do? If I recall correctly even the liberal justices don't really accept Robert's argument that PPACA is a tax but they'll take it anyway being the types of justices to bend the constitution at every opportunity. As for Darth J, he doesn't know squat about healthcare or economics.
And another person join's Droopy's "I Haven't Read The Opinion, But I'll Pontificate About It Anyway" club.
By the way, how do you know what I do or don't know about healthcare or economics, or what I think about the individual mandate as a policy decision?
EAllusion wrote:I think you are confusing him with Scalia. Or, more accurately, I think you are parroting Democrat boilerplate that is apt for Scalia, but not Thomas.
By Extraterrestrial standards, both Scalia and Thomas vote with their tubers.
??? I don't get it. Will you please explain?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"