1 - 7
In response to:

Buy Your Health Insurance Out of State

RG_in_CA Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 5:33 PM
It's an interesting idea, but there are still major challenges. Let's say you live in Atlanta, a company that has no critical mass there will not sell you a policy priced for the Minneapolis market and based on the network of doctors and hospitals there. It has to invest in building a local network and needs the expertise to price its product correctly. If you try to allow that without mandating that the company meet the destination state's requirements you are eliminating state regulation (all companies would domicile in the least restrictive or onerous state). Maybe you could work out the issues but it is not a simple problem and the less the Feds mandate, the less things will be messed up if history is any guide.
In response to:

Buy Your Health Insurance Out of State

RG_in_CA Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 2:26 PM
This is a much more complex issue than the author acknowledges. I am all for free competition, but the main obstacle is State regulation that has results in different requirements by State. Sates and their regulators are perfectly free to recommend a consistent set of standards and allow reciprocity of licensing (some state laws would have to be changed of course), which would be great, but don't confuse this with a need for changes at the Federal level. Many also think that health insurance can be sold across state lines like auto insurance but this is simply a misunderstanding - auto insurance companies are also required to be separately licensed in each state and in most cases people only perceive that they are doing business with a nationwide company when in reality they are dealing with a small subsidiary licensed in their own state. Finally, even with competition prices will vary dramatically by location because they have to reflect the local differences in the cost of care, which can be quite large. If we are going to propose solutions I hope we can start with a better understanding of how the system actually works.
In response to:

VIDEO: A Lie Exposed?

RG_in_CA Wrote: Nov 16, 2014 1:08 PM
Thanks, not my area of expertise but I will note that for future reference!!
In response to:

VIDEO: A Lie Exposed?

RG_in_CA Wrote: Nov 14, 2014 6:12 PM
Ironically, I think Professor Gruber's comments are an inadvertent compliment to republicans since he didn't expect them to believe the premise. To those who actually supported the bill and believed the analysis, he is basically saying, to quote Bluto Blutarski, "You f....d up, you trusted us"!!
In response to:

Don't Limit Tax Relief to Families

RG_in_CA Wrote: Sep 23, 2014 3:38 PM
I think the bigger opportunity is in the corporate tax arena; in principle, the corporate income and payroll tax rates should be zero. The only reason these corporate taxes exist is because politicians exploit the fact that most people do not understand that they are simply passed through, not an "extra" source of tax revenue. If these taxes were zero, companies would hire more workers and reduce the cost of goods sold. There would be more employees and all stakeholders (owners, employees and customers) would greatly benefit. Production costs would be greatly reduced so US goods would be more competitive overseas and rather than US companies having an incentive to go offshore, foreign companies would want to relocate here (further improving employment and GDP). The net effect on tax revenues might even be lower, but government expenditure would be greatly reduced as employment increases and the unemployment rate declines, so I suspect the overall deficit could be eliminated with almost no reduction in government services, if that was also a goal. Finally personal income tax simplification could be achieved easily as there would be no need to differentiate between investment income, capital gains and other non-wage sources of income. Again the true reason this does not happen is that politicians realize that most people have an unfavorable view of corporations, as though they suck profits out of the economy, which must be recovered through taxation, rather than providing valuable goods and services and competing in the worldwide marketplace. This is not to say that businesses should not absorb their true and full costs (i.e., externalities) but income and payroll taxation of corporations is almost 100% counter-productive.
Neil Armstrong!
The 24% number is interesting but it is a mistake to call them young and healthy, because I can guarantee you they will end up be young but less healthy than normal. There are 3 types of people that will be motivated to sign up 1) people being subsidized - we have heard already that this accounts for 80% of the enrollees. 2) people who cold not get insurance before because of preexisting conditions 3) People who had insurance but whose plans were discontinued. The question people should be asking is "what percentage of enrollees do not fall into any of these categories?" If that number is measurably greater than 0 it will be a shock and if its close to zero I think that is all the information you need to understand about why this law is a disaster from start to finish.
1 - 7