I guess that is my point. If they are doing such a bad job, it would seem that another carrier would jump into the state and take market share.
Repealing Obamacare
- Thread starter Hollandtx
- Start date
W
When you own the market, you have extreme leverage. They can end their contract with a hospital and literally cripple them.
First, no company "owns" a market.
What effects cancelling a contract have on a hospital is irrelevant to being a monopoly. The only characteristic that determines a monopoly is the ability to prevent others from entering the market.
Nothing is preventing other companies from entering Alabama. The other companies just need to file the paperwork with the insurance regulators in Alabama and maintain the required capital. This is the same reason that "allowing companies to compete across state lines" is a bogus argument.
Oooookaay. Are you really that naive?
Is that a rational response? I missed the logic and facts.
How about this?
-You do not have a mandate to buy or have health insurance.
-If you do not have said insurance, you will not be covered for any expenses related to a catastrophic diagnosis (cancer, for instance). In other words, no pre-existing coverage for people who choose not to purchase insurance.
-Pre-existing coverage will exist for those who must change insurance companies due to loss of a job, moving to a different state, etc.
Currently, young healthy people have no incentive to buy health insurance. The little fine from the IRS is pretty minuscule; much less than the cost of insurance. If they do get sick, well, so what? They can go buy insurance after a diagnosis because of blowbamacare's utterly idiotic pre-existing condition blanket mandate. That single item removes practically all incentive for a young person to buy insurance. The only logical means to encourage such a person to purchase insurance coverage is to raise the specter of not being insurable if they are diagnosed while not having any coverage.
You make allowances on pre-existing conditions for people who must change insurance carriers due to life events, not for those who simply choose to roll the dice.
Are they a "true" monopoly, no. Are you really under the belief that a company cannot control a market? Tell me who else is a player there. Are other companies avoiding Alabama because they do not want to make a profit?
You always apply common sense.
That depends on what you mean by "control a market".
Not sure what you mean by "Are other companies avoiding Alabama because they do not want to make a profit?". They are probably avoiding Alabama because they would prefer not to get their heads kicked in by losses, not because one carrier "owns the market".
BCBS owned it before ACA and is an excellent example of the need to allow competition across state lines. Why would they get their heads kicked in if it was not an access issue? Consumers and company plans don't want better options?
Exactly.
How about when BCBS cuts CVS out of the pharmacy option?
Or how about this?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.al.c..._blue_cross_blue_shield_get.amp?client=safari
Or how about this?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.al.c..._blue_cross_blue_shield_get.amp?client=safari
"Control" and "predatory behavior" are inaccurate terms used to describe a company(s) that, from a retrospective measurement, has sold a greater percentage of product or service in a market. The past does not necessarily represent the future. For instance, the names of Fortune 500 firms in 1980 is vastly different from the names of the Fortune 500 firms in 1990 and 2005.
What should trigger anti-trust violations are collusion and price fixing among competitors, both of which harm the consumer and reduce the freedom to transact. What usually triggers anti-trust lawsuits are competitors using political power to try and gain "special rights" against other competitors that are simply better managed firms. Anti-trust is normally the substitution of government decision making for the decisions of individuals in the marketplace, and the anti-trust lawsuits usually harm the consumer by artificially raising prices, or by raising prices for some individuals that should not be paying a higher cost, and lowering prices for those that should be paying more.
As a related aside take a look at Uber. That start-up company is reportedly valued at $50billion. What a great idea someone had! However, Uber existed in another form back in the early 1900s under a different name. Due to the artificially high prices of municipal transit services in some American cities, owner-operated vehicles were used to transport passengers at lower costs than the municipally controlled transportation methods. The owner-operated vehicles were known as "jitneys", which is slang for a nickel. The jitneys were not controlled by a central decision making authority. The owners could adjust their schedules to meet demand as needed. The jitneys were put down in every American city to protect the inefficient municipal transit systems. Recently, Austin, Texas entered the economic fight of regulation vs. freedom. The proponent of "jitney" regulation has been given $4,000 by the taxi industry, but also makes a valid point (mixed with other unnecessary requirements) about the need for background checks on drivers.
What should trigger anti-trust violations are collusion and price fixing among competitors, both of which harm the consumer and reduce the freedom to transact. What usually triggers anti-trust lawsuits are competitors using political power to try and gain "special rights" against other competitors that are simply better managed firms. Anti-trust is normally the substitution of government decision making for the decisions of individuals in the marketplace, and the anti-trust lawsuits usually harm the consumer by artificially raising prices, or by raising prices for some individuals that should not be paying a higher cost, and lowering prices for those that should be paying more.
As a related aside take a look at Uber. That start-up company is reportedly valued at $50billion. What a great idea someone had! However, Uber existed in another form back in the early 1900s under a different name. Due to the artificially high prices of municipal transit services in some American cities, owner-operated vehicles were used to transport passengers at lower costs than the municipally controlled transportation methods. The owner-operated vehicles were known as "jitneys", which is slang for a nickel. The jitneys were not controlled by a central decision making authority. The owners could adjust their schedules to meet demand as needed. The jitneys were put down in every American city to protect the inefficient municipal transit systems. Recently, Austin, Texas entered the economic fight of regulation vs. freedom. The proponent of "jitney" regulation has been given $4,000 by the taxi industry, but also makes a valid point (mixed with other unnecessary requirements) about the need for background checks on drivers.
Last edited:
That is a good example of the government interfering with the market. BCBS seems to be receiving special treatment by the government, which is wrong.
Strangely, BCBS reportedly lost $135million in Alabama, and Alabama has one of the lowest costs for health insurance in the nation, both of which are temporary/unsustainable.
No, that is not an excellent example. Nothing is preventing other companies from competing in Alabama, and others have and still do. They would get their heads kicked in by not being competitive, or because government regulations prevent them from charging a sufficient price. It may be that they want to wait until BCBS decides it has lost enough money and begins to raise its premiums to the point of being profitable -assuming they are allowed to do so by the regulators.
I have no idea. Is it possible that anti-trust actions and class action lawsuits are bogus? Absolutely.
Actually, I couldn't care less about BCBS. I just repeatedly hear otherwise educated people talk about monopolies when none exist save for those created by government rule. Just trying to open some eyes.
Let the judge and consultants in Alabama know. Maybe we can stop this anti-trust B.S.
I don't know a whole lot about the insurance industry but I would think one way to battle this is to make insurers compete in a minimum numbers of states. Ie., if you are going to be an insurer, you can't just insure just Texas, you must pick two other states to go along with Texas. You could impose other rules, such as ...if you pick Texas, you must also offer similar coverage in one of the bottom 5 uninsured states.
That's a tough call. Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake for you.
Texas already requires insurers to insure risks they don't want to insure -wind coverage of property on the coast, but that program is failing.
It really comes down to free market or govt intervention. If it's going to be govt intervention it's going to be screwed up, and you are going to pay for someone else's insurance.
I would like to say let the govt have their own separate hospitals to serve the uninsured, but then the
V. A. Came to mind.
Every government program sucks because the incentives and constraints faced by the private sector don't exist among govt employees and politicians.
Texas already requires insurers to insure risks they don't want to insure -wind coverage of property on the coast, but that program is failing.
It really comes down to free market or govt intervention. If it's going to be govt intervention it's going to be screwed up, and you are going to pay for someone else's insurance.
I would like to say let the govt have their own separate hospitals to serve the uninsured, but then the
V. A. Came to mind.
Every government program sucks because the incentives and constraints faced by the private sector don't exist among govt employees and politicians.
If I knew I could only get VA level care without insurance, it would motivate me to buy insurance.
In this day and age of publicizing the misfortunes of those who are innocently adversely impacted by event it takes a lot of cojones to say, "Too bad." Or even, "It's a shame of course, but we believe government intervention would make it worse."
Obamacare: Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Affordable Care Act, leaving it in place - CNNPolitics
Hey all you lawyers... didn't Roberts rule that ACA was Constitutional because the Individual Mandate was a tax (though Obama lied and said it wasn't) which is their legal right? And now that the penalty was repealed, why would the rest of it stand?
That being said, I like the donut hole coverage, the portability of pre-existing conditions and the ability to cover your children on your employer plan until they turn 26.
The Republicans had no "replace" for the "Repeal and Replace" talk. Seems they failed on that one.
Hey all you lawyers... didn't Roberts rule that ACA was Constitutional because the Individual Mandate was a tax (though Obama lied and said it wasn't) which is their legal right? And now that the penalty was repealed, why would the rest of it stand?
That being said, I like the donut hole coverage, the portability of pre-existing conditions and the ability to cover your children on your employer plan until they turn 26.
The Republicans had no "replace" for the "Repeal and Replace" talk. Seems they failed on that one.
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
