The hottest deals voted on by our community.
Selected and verified by our team of deal editors.
These deals are currently popular in the
community based on votes and comments.
These deals are currently popular in the
community based on votes and comments.
The deals and coupons you see on Slickdeals are
contributed by our community. It's what makes
us different. Do you have a great deal to share
with the Slickdeals community?
Track a product from one of our supported stores
and get notified when there is a price drop. You also
have access to graphs of recent price history.
Slickdeals is the leading and most trusted online
community dedicated to sharing, rating,
and reviewing deals and coupons.
See the latest posts, threads, and ratings
as they happen with Slickdeals Live.
If you don't have Amazon Prime you can use
our Amazon Fillers tool to make sure your
cart qualifies for free shipping.
Find us, friend us, and connect with us across the web.
You last visited: Today at 05:27 PM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|02-27-2013 05:48 PM|
If you drop the barriers, you'll see at the same time (I expect, anyway) more competition and more consolidation. Both should lead to a more efficient market.
|02-27-2013 02:46 PM|
-I didn't say government should regulate every single area of our lives
-healthcare insurance IS an issue of public safety
-If we had one set of basic federal regulations, we would need the thousands of state regulations.
**Sorry had to end it there... busy.**
|02-27-2013 01:45 PM|
Let's take a practical real life example of what happens given some regulation.
1) Insurance providers may not spend more than 10% of their costs on administration
2) Insurance providers must cover all potential clients at the same price
3) High cash reserve requirements to assure companies can pay out in particularly bad situations/epidemics
(3) Results in an oligopoly due to high barrier to entry. (2) makes competition difficult and collusion easy. (1) makes it so insurance companies are not rewarded for lowering medical costs because that would increase the percent of administrative costs.
The government receives tax money on the profits and has no desire to reduce the total profits of the insurance companies or break up the price fixing.
Collusion pushes the price of insurance up. Profit goes up. Taxes collected go up. The consumer gets squeezed.
|02-27-2013 01:36 PM|
This is one area where i really think the libertarians just don't get it. By the time fraud is detected, its too late. And those who are really good at it will get away with it. Just look at how many people went to jail during the last financial meltdown. Very, very few.
|02-27-2013 09:29 AM|
While he and a few people have moved to a new base in Dallas, he still has the corporate headquarters in New York.
He has a radio and Tv program yes, but that is not all. He has a whole TV channel with about 8 hours a day of programming, it's not just his show, and he is working on new programming filling up more time slots.
for example, a new show starts in 2 weeks called "For the Record" which will be what 60-minutes USED to be, a REAL investigative reporting program.
He has a radio network that runs several shows other than his.
He has a news website that has better stats than The Daily Beast
He has a publishing arm Mercury Ink that published his books as well as those of others.
He has a charity Mercury One that is similar to Newman's Own, selling his 1791 US-made clothing line and other items to raise money for disaster relief and other charity work
He is building satellite locations in Utah and New Zealand (of all places) as part of his Dream Labs project
He has a Special Events department that organizes and runs several huge events every year (such as the Dallas 65,000 person event Restoring Love in the Cowboys stadium that sold out all the seats, a feat rarely achieved)
He is now on Dish Network with his own channel and is about to exit his exclusivity deal with them and is working on getting The Blaze on other cable providers when that happens.
And that's just what I can think of from memory, i'm sure I have missed some but I can't be bothered to research it for you.
As for you 'solution' to his health care coverage, you STILL have not explained to me the logic of Obamacare essentially regulating 'Cadillac" plans out of existence. You make sure you explain the benefits of your plan and Obamacare to those who are about to lose their current complete coverage...I would LOVE to hear even 1 person convinced by you that they will be ok or better off.
|02-27-2013 07:56 AM|
There's a need for government regulation, however, we generally see government regulation fail to do what it is intended to do, rarely is repealed, and continues to harm us in innumerable ways.
But look at the states currently...all states have mandates requiring coverage for this or that, e.g., include adopted children, diabetic maintenance, etc. The landscape is low-mandate versus high mandate, so yeah, we could see some states drop some mandates, but right now we don't hear complaints about the inadequacy of low-mandate states.
Your race to the bottom thesis is heavy on conjecture of ill intent, rather than reasoning.
There's a race to the bottom for sure, but you've got this wrong. The race to the bottom is to scoop up as many federal dollars as possible to expand programs that simply don't work, see Medicaid, SCHIP, etc. and create more and more government dependency by spending state dollars and federal matching funds to sign up more people.
And you're right...trying to manage the cost of health insurance does nothing to the cost of actually delivering health care or affect the efficacy of health care.
That's the major cost driver you're ignoring, government-mandated coverages, in addition to shall-issue requirements, and community rating. When a state or the fed govt requires that all plans include specific coverages, it automatically increases the risk in the pool and for consumers.
Obamacare added yet another layer of regulatory complexity to the health care industry...and it isn't cheap as we already see via OMB and CBO reporting.
|02-27-2013 07:21 AM|
|02-27-2013 06:16 AM|
EDIT: Apparently here, his entire media company has 100 employees: http://www.glennbeck.c
Even if he didn, if he wants to provide that coverage, increase the deductible and move the substantial cost savings for lower premiums into regular compensation or a healthcare account to defray any copays/deductibles.
|02-27-2013 06:10 AM|
I also suspect they're overlooking the serious problem this will cause with doctors billing overhead. With cost of billing being on the high side of around 14% and the low side of 9-10%, that is a significant amount of $$ being sucked up by billing functions. Adding dozens of more insurers will dramatically increase this burden on doctor practices. This will further destroy small private practices. Unless standardized billing and coding process is adopted, doctors are going to get screwed. They're going to need to hire more people to collect the same amount of revenue--that or pay an outside company to perform those tasks (if they don't already do this) and will end up paying more due to the increased burden.
My overall problem with solely targeting healthcare insurance for saving money is this--it doesn't address the underlying cost of delivering heathcare. The ACA did some great things by setting certain standards and requirements. But with healthcare insurance profits now capped, it isn't as if the insurance company in WV will be able to deliver insurance that much cheaper in NY because they're not those who are performing the medical services. They're just the middle man. I see selling across state lines as a minor gain, at best, and a huge pain for doctors. It might well turn out to be a net negative.
|02-27-2013 12:54 AM|
|02-26-2013 11:52 PM|
Socialized health care like NHS allows you to buy private healthcare whenever you want... derp
|02-26-2013 11:51 PM|
also, there are some private employers who do that....one that you love to hate is Glenn Beck....his employee roster is ballooning on a daily basis these days, but as of last time I heard him comment on it, he has about 300 employees, and he provides them full 100% coverage: no fees, no deductibles, no copays, nothing....his plan pays for everything. He let it out that the insurance companies tell him he is the only employer in New York that offers this coverage, simply because it is so expensive...he said when the 40% tax kicks in he won't be able to afford this coverage any longer and will have to switch his people to less coverage....
yeah, that sounds like a GREAT policy...thanks Obama: force employers who love and want to take care of their employees to dump high quality care for inferior one....please explain to us why Obamacare does this, and under what demented logic that is a "good" thing for the "little guy" who Obama and the dems lie daily about being "for"
|02-26-2013 09:03 PM|
Nice sweetheart deal from the Democrats to their unions lackeys.
|02-26-2013 09:00 PM|
As of last July, 25 states were exploring inter-state compacts that would operate outside of the inter-state compact provision of Obamacare and 7 states have actually formed them with - surprise - republican and conservative support.
|02-26-2013 07:08 PM|
Regulations are complex, difficult and costly. But if we didn't have them, we'd be at the mercy of fraudsters and profiteers who care more about their bottom line than the health of its patients. Sure, people could revolt against a particular insurer, but that wouldn't be until countless individuals fell victim to bad acts. The free market isn't perfect and doesn't work fast enough. I'm not someone who thinks the government can cure all--but it is a necessary evil. Full faith in the government is about as naive as full faith in the free market. History is full of examples of companies taking advantage of our citizens for profit. We need a referee in business like we need a referee in a football game. I'm 100% for tweaking regulations, getting rid of the dumb ones and creating others where needed. But we need to think these things through. You have yet to acknowledge the problems posed by selling across state lines nor shown any willingness to remedy those problems--all the time seeming to rely on the magical free market. That isn't a viable solution.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|