Now he blames the bad apple insurance company's

What people buy for clothes,food, etc doesn't affect me O brilliant DE.

2seaoat wrote:You can't be daft enough that you still think a free market or free will prevails at this stage... do you? Cmon...


I am a part owner of a title company which issues title insurance.  It has state and federal regulations which define the policies.  Each state has different regulations, and even sets fee schedules in some states.   You are the one who is deft and has zero experience in a business which is heavily regulated by two levels of government yet the companies compete fiercely in this regulated insurance market.   Sorry, if you cannot understand the level of competition which will follow, you have never dealt with regulated insurance.  There is going to be huge competition when the portals give true apple to apple comparisons.

Exactly.

Dreamsglore wrote:What people buy for clothes,food, etc doesn't affect me O brilliant DE.

It surely does because all of them in combination directly affect the health of an individual. therefore to ensure they are living healthy lives the government should intervene by forcing them to spend their money wisely.

It is for their own good that the government should force them to make healthy choices and be responsible.

After all that is basically what you want... for people to be forced to make responsible decisions. Then it seems that what you want falls far short and these measures of ensuring responsible decisions should be incorporated also.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

 

I'ma thinkin' that a mandate to force everyone to do two hours of mandatory bootcamp exercising should be forced on all you panty waist civilians everyday too.

We want to keep all of you maggots healthy so get down and give me fifty right now!

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b1q-IlxGrk

After all that is basically what you want... for people to be forced to make responsible decisions

I am confused again. For eighty years states and the federal government has regulated insurance. Suddenly, insurance regulation is socialism or government over reaching and making personal decisions for people. Some people are absolutely without historical context, as they try to make government's regulation of insurance products as something new......ignorance can be corrected with information, but stupid is clearly permanent.

2seaoat wrote:You can't be daft enough that you still think a free market or free will prevails at this stage... do you? Cmon...


I am a part owner of a title company which issues title insurance. It has state and federal regulations which define the policies. Each state has different regulations, and even sets fee schedules in some states. You are the one who is deft and has zero experience in a business which is heavily regulated by two levels of government yet the companies compete fiercely in this regulated insurance market. Sorry, if you cannot understand the level of competition which will follow, you have never dealt with regulated insurance. There is going to be huge competition when the portals give true apple to apple comparisons.

Heh... I built three companies that extended beyond the se. I worked in national and international before that.

I guess if there will ever be a fair exchange between us... we may want to come to some understandings.

Level ground ok w you?

2seaoat wrote:After all that is basically what you want... for people to be forced to make responsible decisions

I am confused again.  For eighty years states and the federal government has regulated insurance.   Suddenly, insurance regulation is socialism or government over reaching and making personal decisions for people.   Some people are absolutely without historical context, as they try to make government's regulation of insurance products as something new......ignorance can be corrected with information, but stupid is clearly permanent.

What gives the government the right to force people to purchase something from a privately owned company simply because they happen to be breathing?

If you're going to agree with that then my mandates are not out of line and I want them instituted for a better healthier America.

After all... It's for the good of all.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

I built three companies that extended beyond the se. I worked in national and international before that.


So you do not understand the regulation of insurance products? What type of business have you run which has none of the products I have outlined which are regulated and protect business, consumers, and allow standards which give a business the same protections as consumers when buying products.

To call almost a century of insurance regulation statism, is completely dishonest for a person who has operated business. I can expect the same from folks who have not ran a business, but to suggest that regulation of health insurance products is some sort of socialism or venture into the realm of communism is simply a foolish discussion. Now I am not happy on my unemployment, workman comp, (and I just had a huge increase in my business liability policy), my vehicles, my bank accounts, and my title policies are all regulated policies which when the world actually had business men who ran small business on main street and voted republican a discussion of insurance products was rationally based.....now we have these no nothing nihilist who have never operated a business, and they are driven by hate and prejudice and have simply allowed the discussion to get stupid. I find your complete lack of knowledge of the regulated insurance industries either intellectual dishonesty, or lack of experience in the same. Either way you choose to leave a rational discussion and insert political dogma, where when talking about insurance regulation is simply silly.

What gives the government the right to force people to purchase something from a privately owned company simply because they happen to be breathing?


I will give you a simple answer. The Supreme Court of the United States says we can tax breathing individuals. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything. If you choose not to buy anything, you will pay a tax.......It does not get any simpler......and when you stop breathing, and you have chosen to be a deadbeat, at least society can recoup some of your costs as you stopped breathing and reimburse society, so those folks who are responsible and have purchased insurance do not have to pay your bills. The simple answer to your question is the Constitutions gives them the right.

Arguing w/ a moron, DE is like watching a dog chase his tail.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:That is a FLAT OUT LIE.

Not is isn't.  You see, my response to you has just as much substance as your response to me.

FLAT OUT LIE!

Dreamsglore wrote:

ImpishScoundrel wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

ppaca wrote:But don't you believe that a person should be able to purchase according to their needs? Come on, why should a 60 yr old female or a gay male have to include maternity on their plans? It should have been a pick a choose what a person wanted on a plan with an extra cost for each one. If someone did not any of the 10 essential health benefits then their premiums should be dirt cheap. This is govt telling us they know what's best for us just like they always have. I do agree everyone should have some kind of degree of health coverage, but one size does not fit all.

No, I don't believe people should be allowed to purchase according to their needs. They won't do it. My son has a policy that barely covers anything because it's cheap. Should he have a serious accident who do you think is going to pay for that? Not his policy.That's for sure. People must be forced to do the right thing just like car insurance.No difference.

People must be forced to do the right thing????  That is just wrong on so many levels.

Really? You want to think about that? Do you know how many people come in my office for help w/ medical because they were hit by someone who had no insurance and now they are disabled and can no longer work? They're living on SSDI and no insurance. Why? Because some ass who shouldn't be forced to have insurance didn't and now their life is effed up. So tell me people shouldn't be forced to be responsible.

When did they quit offering uninsured motorist insurance?

2seaoat wrote:What gives the government the right to force people to purchase something from a privately owned company simply because they happen to be breathing?


I will give you a simple answer.  The Supreme Court of the United States says we can tax breathing individuals.    Nobody is forcing you to buy anything.  If you choose not to buy anything, you will pay a tax.......It does not get any simpler......and when you stop breathing, and you have chosen to be a deadbeat, at least society can recoup some of your costs as you stopped breathing and reimburse society, so those folks who are responsible and have purchased insurance do not have to pay your bills.   The simple answer to your question is the Constitutions gives them the right.

If you wish to go down that slippery slope then the mandates that I proposed are a good idea. I think everyone on SSI and SSDI need guidance on what they need to purchase, just a nice way of saying forced by the way, by only providing them monthly allowances on different ration cards that the money goes into. Then I know they won't be spending it all on video games, alcohol, and drugs, instead of what they should be spending it on.

I'll bring it up with my Congressmen the next time I see them.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Dreamsglore wrote:

ppaca wrote:But don't you believe that a person should be able to purchase according to their needs? Come on, why should a 60 yr old female or a gay male have to include maternity on their plans? It should have been a pick a choose what a person wanted on a plan with an extra cost for each one. If someone did not any of the 10 essential health benefits then their premiums should be dirt cheap. This is govt telling us they know what's best for us just like they always have. I do agree everyone should have some kind of degree of health coverage, but one size does not fit all.

No, I don't believe people should be allowed to purchase according to their needs. They won't do it. My son has a policy that barely covers anything because it's cheap. Should he have a serious accident who do you think is going to pay for that? Not his policy.That's for sure. People must be forced to do the right thing just like car insurance. No difference.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

If I do not drive or own a car, I don't have to buy auto liability or any other type of insurance.

Forced to do the right thing according to whom?

boards of FL wrote:

ImpishScoundrel wrote:
People must be forced to do the right thing????  That is just wrong on so many levels.

What if their doing the wrong thing has an effect on your pocket book?

Whom determines what is the "right" thing?

Dreamsglore wrote:Arguing w/ a moron, DE is like watching a dog chase his tail.

The only moron here is you arguing that people have the right to receive something they do not have to work for and then turning around saying that you have the right to take away things that other people have worked for.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Whom determines what is the "right" thing?


Mr. Markle.....you teach real estate.......you are in a highly regulated industry.  The folks who have a license must meet certain standards as set forth by the state.  They want the requisite knowledge of these professionals to be able to do the "right thing".   When you sell a house the buyer is going to get a title insurance policy, which makes sure that the insurance actually insures things under the ALTA standards......and the right things are done.    When you purchase your errors and omissions policy, you are buying a highly regulated insurance product where the government wants the right thing done, but input into the legislative process is from multiple sources.  So who does determine the right thing in all these products which are regulated.....well in a democracy the people do..........that is the fatal flaw of your logic......the people are the government.

I could go over the HUD regulation changes which form the backbone of a real estate transaction, and you and I both may have problems with some of these regulations, perhaps in different directions on a number of them, but we understand the purpose of this regulation. In the absence of regulation, or where regulation goes too far, we lose efficiency and fairness, and the American economic engine does not run as efficiently as it must.

2seaoat wrote:Over the next couple of years if your premium and deductible go up 50% will you think Obamacare is great?  That's what is happening to many people. And a lot of people don't qualify for any subsidy.


I think your concerns about private insurance companies gouging consumers is legitimate........just like they have been doing over the last 20 years with double digit inflation.   Your concerns are legitimate.  However, two things give me hope.   Insurance companies have a fixed overhead number which is universal..... they cannot dump cost and profit into overhead.  Second, when these exchanges are working, these are for profit insurance companies, and they are going to compete, and I think we will see public option companies on the exchanges in four years, so competition will reverse 20 years of double digit medical inflation driven by uninsured and irresponsible people who dump their costs into the system, while responsible people bear their costs.

Yes, with a fixed overhead, which is universal, they will be unable to provide adequate service. You know, much like the government.

Yes, with a fixed overhead, which is universal, they will be unable to provide adequate service. You know, much like the government.


Mr. Markle in your travels teaching real estate have you had an opportunity to go to Wisconsin where title insurance rates are dictated by the legislation. This is common in many states in regard to insurance products. I can tell you that title insurance carriers in Wisconsin make nice profits in a highly regulated market and the big boyz do not hesitate to get a piece of that action.

The medical insurance providers will adjust and profit. Competition will drive prices down, but I think Neko's article about health care providers not accepting certain insurance companies will be the short term battle to be fought. In the end, what is deemed adequate service in my opinion will be the advent of supplemental insurance policies which much like the medicare supplemental policies, will get those folks with a primary policy from a less than acceptable carrier into those providers. The health care market place will be dynamic, and there will be mistakes made. In the end the market will work it out......despite the regulation.

2seaoat wrote:After all that is basically what you want... for people to be forced to make responsible decisions

I am confused again.  For eighty years states and the federal government has regulated insurance.   Suddenly, insurance regulation is socialism or government over reaching and making personal decisions for people.   Some people are absolutely without historical context, as they try to make government's regulation of insurance products as something new......ignorance can be corrected with information, but stupid is clearly permanent.

States have regulated insurance until this boondoggle, not the Federal Government.

Obviously stupid is clearly permanent.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Arguing w/ a moron, DE is like watching a dog chase his tail.

The only moron here is you arguing that people have the right to receive something they do not have to work for and then turning around saying that you have the right to take away things that other people have worked for.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

I have no clue where you get those crazy statements from? They're not rational. I advocate for people to pay their fair share if their able to.

2seaoat wrote:What gives the government the right to force people to purchase something from a privately owned company simply because they happen to be breathing?


I will give you a simple answer.  The Supreme Court of the United States says we can tax breathing individuals.    Nobody is forcing you to buy anything.  If you choose not to buy anything, you will pay a tax.......It does not get any simpler......and when you stop breathing, and you have chosen to be a deadbeat, at least society can recoup some of your costs as you stopped breathing and reimburse society, so those folks who are responsible and have purchased insurance do not have to pay your bills.   The simple answer to your question is the Constitutions gives them the right.

That part I highlighted in red is such an interesting concept. Since people choose not to buy something from a private company the government can now tax you on it... Wow! That's another slippery slope... If someone doesn't buy life insurance, car, refrigerator, house, etc... can the government now tax them for that too? After all all they would have to do is mandate that everyone should have these things and of course if you refuse to purchase it the government will tax you for being a deadbeat.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pm4fQRl72k

 

States have regulated insurance until this boondoggle, not the Federal Government.

Obviously stupid is clearly permanent.


I think clearly you are incorrect on the insurance products which are in fact regulated by the federal government. When you have a buyer who cannot make a conventional loan happen.......what is mortgage insurance? is it not a federal program. When your homeowner's policy in Florida is highly regulated by the state, and wind and flood are excluded, is not flood insurance a federally regulated insurance policy. You have said you are an expert on floodplain development, and is not your FEMA map exclusions and FEMA panels all federal regulation, which often states, and even counties compound that federal regulation.

I think you are being less than sincere when you say this is stupid. If like me you have had to deal with flood plain regulation, and the multi layered government regulation, yes......sometimes it is beyond stupid. However, what are the underlying policy choices for regulation in these areas. You have some strong opinions which you have posted in the past about these things, yet now you want less regulation about building in the floodplain.

I have my reservations on how these programs are going to be implemented. Any fair minded person can see a great deal of incompetence at this juncture. I deal with government incompetence every day, and fight to change regulations, but I do not share political dogma. I am a realist who believes we can make government function better, and certainly we need to scale back government in certain areas. Health care may be one of those areas, but the theory is sound, the policy in place, the courts have given the green light, and but for the incompetence in the executive branch we would be testing these markets and determining if the policy is sound, or the function achievable. I personally expect great improvements and more traditional debate about the merits of the system in the next few years.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Arguing w/ a moron, DE is like watching a dog chase his tail.

The only moron here is you arguing that people have the right to receive something they do not have to work for and then turning around saying that you have the right to take away things that other people have worked for.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

I have no clue where you get those crazy statements from? They're not rational. I advocate for people to pay their fair share if their able to.

What makes you think they are paying their fair share or not paying their fair share?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

2seaoat wrote:Whom determines what is the "right" thing?


Mr. Markle.....you teach real estate.......you are in a highly regulated industry.  The folks who have a license must meet certain standards as set forth by the state.  They want the requisite knowledge of these professionals to be able to do the "right thing".   When you sell a house the buyer is going to get a title insurance policy, which makes sure that the insurance actually insures things under the ALTA standards......and the right things are done.    When you purchase your errors and omissions policy, you are buying a highly regulated insurance product where the government wants the right thing done, but input into the legislative process is from multiple sources.  So who does determine the right thing in all these products which are regulated.....well in a democracy the people do..........that is the fatal flaw of your logic......the people are the government.

I could go over the HUD regulation changes which form the backbone of a real estate transaction, and you and I both may have problems with some of these regulations, perhaps in different directions on a number of them, but we understand the purpose of this regulation.  In the absence of regulation, or where regulation goes too far, we lose efficiency and fairness, and the American economic engine does not run as efficiently as it must.

Unless a buyer is giving a mortgage to a lender, the buyer is not required by any law to buy title insurance.

As a real estate broker, I am not required by any law to have error and omissions insurance.

Banking regulations are a big part of how the real estate/mortgage/financial meltdown occurred. Good ol' Barney Franks and Chris Dodd mandated that Fannie and Freddie INCREASE the percentage of low quality, sub prime loans. That allowed all mortgage insurance companies to lower their standards and for Janet Reno to force lenders to make such loans, if the economic incentive was not enough with threats of law suits for violations of the Fair Lending laws.

Minimal regulations are likely necessary. But far fewer are necessary than we have today in all fields.