Is mandated car insurance a socialist program?
Sigh! What everybody keeps overlooking in this debate is the fact that when car insurance wasn't mandatory only bad drivers and well off people had insurance. A large number of "safe" drivers opted out from buying a policy. This effected the cost of insurance. Insurance companies had to spread their losses over a smaller number of people, which caused the cost of insurance to be high. When all people had to buy insurance, a larger base allowed insurance companies to spread the losses further and bring the policy cost down. Today, a number of healthy young people don't buy health insurance. Only people who need or expect health problems buy insurance. This limits the base over which the losses can be spread. If all people bought insurance, the cost would come down for all of us. This isn't a tax. This isn't paying for someone else's insurance. This doesn't even create a government agency. The fact is, if a person gets hurt and doesn't have health insurance, we the tax payers end up paying the bill under the current system. I don't understand the resistence to this proposal. It eliminates taxpayers cost for covering the uninsured. It will bring down the cost of health insurance. It doesn't create a government agency. It doesn't take away the current system. It preserves the free market in health insurance. No new tax and cheaper health insurance. What's the problem?
I need health insurance. Should I get private insurance or Obamacare?
Obamacare is not a government-sponsored health insurance plan. Instead, it’s the nickname for the law which requires most people to have health insurance starting this year. You don’t sign up for Obamacare, you only comply with it by getting health insurance or else you run the risk of paying a tax penalty on your 2014 federal tax return. The current open enrollment period runs through the end of March 2014. During that time, you can get health insurance through a licensed agent, directly from the insurer, or through a state health insurance exchange without fear of being declined for coverage based on your medical history. After March 31, you may not be able to obtain health insurance at all until the next open enrollment period comes around. Some people will qualify for government subsidies to help them pay for health insurance which they buy on their own. In order to qualify for subsidies, you need to have a household income of less than 400% of the federal poverty level, which is about $62,000 for a family of two. However, if you are eligible to obtain health insurance through your wife’s employer, you may not qualify for subsidies even if your household income is lower than that amount. Basically, in order for you to get government subsidies to help pay for your coverage, the amount of money your wife has to contribute from her paychecks towards HER OWN coverage must be more than 9% of your household income. I suggest that you work with a licensed agent online or in your area to get an idea of what’s available. Any individual health insurance plan you buy right now will meet your coverage requirements under the health reform law, whether you buy it through an agent or through a government exchange. Exchanges exist primarily to help subsidy-eligible people find subsidy-eligible plans. Outside of the exchanges, you may find more options. You can learn more about the health reform law through our online resource center here: https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/afforda... Best wishes.
Is auto insurance socialism?
While you do not have to pay for other peoples insurance you are required to carry it for yourself. The fact that you are forced to purchase insurance is a socialized method to me. If everyone was required to carry health insurance and there was no government option and taxes were not used to fund anything it would still be argued that by doing so America is supporting socialism. The point I'm making is that there are numerous examples of socialism all throughout the nation. Your tax dollars fund schools which is socialized education. Shouldn't we just get rid of public schools and only allow the wealthy to get an education? It's all just my way of seeing the situation. I appreciate the feedback very much and I'm not condemning anyone's answers. They all seem well thought out and informative. Thank you again.
Is it legal to sell private insurance in a socialist democracy that provides government-controlled health-care to all people? Why or why not?
It is perfectly legal in Scandinavia, and many companies offer a health insurance as a bonus, (or just as a standard part of a normal job contract). It is rare for such contracts to only include a health coverage, and they will often include a life insurance and pension provider. Denmark introduced work related pension plans in the 1980's and so far it looks like a success The world's best and worst places to retire? The company benefits if a worker is treated faster and can return to work, instead of waiting for treatment. Having private Hospitals willing to, for a profit, provide streamlined care is good for the business environment and for the individual. The downside is cost. Private hospitals are for profit companies and they often charge a bit more than the public. But Denmark is a strange country in so many many ways. Private hospitals do not educate staff, they are not teaching facilities. Doctors and nurses often work part time . You can be told by a doctor that the hospital can only provide treatment in 6 months, but you can be treated a private hospital in two, (on tax paid funding), so of course you say yes. When you show up at the private hospital its the same doctor. So yes there are both private and public services. Denmark has a treatment guarantee, after a certain period of time you can choose care where ever you want and the bill is send to your municipality. If you want to skip the waiting period, or want a specific doctor, you pay your self. The system has a few problems. Private hospitals making mistakes, and refusing to take responsibility, leaving the trouble and cost in the hands of the taxpayers is one of them. But waiting lists have decreased though, and that is a very positive.
How is private health insurance better than Medicare for consumers?
I have had Medicare since about 1999/2000. Medicare pays 80% of what they consider is "reasonable cost." Believe me - that isn't much. For example: Suppose I have a bill of $1000. Medicare determines that reasonable cost is $400; they pay 80% of that. And even though I have a private insurance which supplements Medicare, Medicare still sets the reasonable cost which means in my example that my private insurance will pay 20% of $400. Whoever performed the service (doctor, hospital, whoever) is out $600. When my doctor retired about five years ago I called four places which wouldn't take me on as a patient because I have Medicare. Even though private insurance companies are in it for profit, because they charge much higher premiums than the government does for Medicare, they can afford to pay more out because of those higher premiums. It's truly a case of you getting what you pay for. Because I don't work, Medicare is primary and my Blue Cross/Blue Shield is secondary so Medicare sets the reimbursement rate. Secondary insurers REQUIRE that a person be entitled to Medicare if they are eligible to cut down on the costs of the secondary insurance. If I didn't have Medicare and I wasn't eligible for it, my Blue Cross/Blue Shield would be reimbursing my doctors and hospitals at a much higher rate than what Medicare does. Now why doesn't everyone in the United States have Medicare? The insurance companies wouldn't stand for it and the medical community would be backing them up. Our representatives and senators wouldn't dare extend Medicare to all Americans! Frankly I think Medicare should be extended to everyone with increased premium rates and higher payments to providers of services and it could be administered through the private companies. But who am I?
Why do political conservatives support socialist nuclear power?
It's always puzzled me that people who decry socialism also tend to support nuclear power. Nuclear power loans and insurance come straight from taxpayers. It's basically socialized power, and the countries relying most on nuclear power (France, China, etc.) do so by effecitively socializing the power industry. Time has a good story on nuclear power in the US today: "Since 2008, proposed reactors have been quietly scrapped or suspended in at least nine states — not by safety concerns or hippie sit-ins but by financial realities. Other projects have been delayed as cost estimates have tripled toward $10 billion a reactor, and ratings agencies have downgraded utilities with atomic ambitions." "Around the world, governments (led by China, with Russia a distant second) are financing 65 new reactors through more explicit nuclear socialism. But private capital still considers atomic energy radioactive, gravitating instead toward natural gas and renewables, whose costs are dropping fast. Nuclear power is expanding only in places where taxpayers and ratepayers can be compelled to foot the bill." http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816... Electrical utilities can't afford to build $10 billion nuclear power plants without huge loans, which nobody but the government will give them. Insurance companies won't insure nuclear construction projects or plants, so if anything goes wrong during construction or operation, taxpayers foot the bill. There's simply no way to expand nuclear power without effectively socializing it. So why do conservatives support nuclear socialism?
Can a private person buy a fire truck?
Yes you can buy your own fire truck. Check out the Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of Antique Motor Fire Apparatus in America website. http://www.spaamfaa.org/ They have all kind of information on buying owning and maintaining fire trucks. Here is a picture of mine that I bought several years ago. http://www.flickr.com/photos/22021033@N0... These things can be a lot of fun. As antique vehicles go, you can get them in really good shape. With the economy like it is there are some real bargains around if you take the time to look for them. My opinion is that some of the volunteer departments have some good buys since the trucks for the most part, don't get the same amount of runs as a paid company and aren't as worn out. In some place in the South it's not unusual to see active duty trucks 20 years and older still in service. You can drive a truck under 26,001 lbs on a regular driver's license. This would exclude a tanker. Most trucks from the 60's and earlier fall into this category. If you tag your fire truck as antique, you can get antique vehicle insurance, there are some restrictions like commercial and daily driver use but you should be able to get it for about $100-$500 a year. Most states issue antique tag to vehicle 25 years and older, in NC it's 35. You also get a property tax break doing this in most states. If you need a fire truck for commercial use, like construction, farming etc. Then consider something built on a commerical chassis like a Ford or GMC with a fire body on it. It's amazing how fast these trucks loose their value after a few years. Many well financed FDs frequently update trucks after only a few years and sometimes 8-10 year old trucks can be bought for a fraction of their original price while still having years of like left in them. I keep the lights and siren hooked up on mine and this should not be a problem in most places as long as they are not used on public highways. Good luck and hope this helps.