Skip to content

Health Insurance Innovations Question & Answers

2014 November 17
by Sarah Fields

Chris asks…

After all the garbage Health insurance companies have put patients through?

why care if they would not be able to compete? And why is free enterprise more important than patients not going bankrupt and getting the care they need?

Would ending competition among health insurances affect development of medicine or would it remain the same?
“Kiss all medical innovation goodbye”

How so?
We’re talking about health insurance companies, how would ending competition among them halt development of medicine?

Sarah Fields answers:

My Health Insurance is great. I have Kaiser and pay $75 bucks a month plus $20 dollar co-pay and I’m set.

I had life saving surgery last year and I was treated like a king in the hospital.

My bill was $380,000 for open heart surgery and I paid $2,400 for all the co-pays and prescriptions.

No company can compete against the government, the government does not have to make a profit or pay taxes and can print their own money, private companies cannot.

90% of all patents, innovation, and development comes from the private sector not government.

Mary asks…

What does raising the minimum wage accomplish?

Why not raise it to 10 dollars an hour?
$15 an hour. Who cares?

The bottom wage earners will still be the bottom wage earners right?

People at the top of the pay scale will make more money to adjust with inflation.
Prices will rise and inflation will increase.
The demand for illegal laborers will increase.
People will still buy a new car and a new TV before they buy health insurance.

It seems that Democrats think a minimum wage increase will take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Like a Robin Hood effect.

Is this really true?

Sarah Fields answers:

Actually if you raise the minimum wage it will cause a loss of jobs because employers won’t be willing to hire as many workers at the new wage rate. Whether or not the price level will rise depends on if the effect of the smaller output by firms on supply outweighs the effect that lower demand (due to people losing thier jobs) has on demand (but then there are also things like unemployment benefits and the number of people on welfare to consider). It might even fall if the effect is small enough.

The higher wage here may also cause jobs to be shipped overseas where production is still cheaper, which would soften the blow to production, but wouldn’t really help with the problem of lowered demand.

For wages to actually increase here we’d need a rise in productivity, not in the nominal wage rate. This could be accomplished by a better education system, technology innovation, etc. I could go on and on, but this is getting long.

I’m a Democrat and I don’t think raising minimum wage would do any good. So please don’t make blanket statements like that. Do all Republicans agree on 100% of the issues?

Charles asks…

Why would it be bad if the United States actually did have socialistic welfare-state policies?

I mean, people throw around “socialism” like it’s a bad word, but aren’t programs like Social Security and state child protective agencies a form of socialism, in a sense?

I don’t really understand how some elements of socialist policies would necessarily be bad or hamper economic growth. Take Sweden or the UK for instance – they certainly pay more money in taxes for health insurance and security, but they have high-growth economies, especially recently.

Why wouldn’t it work here?

Sarah Fields answers:

Socialist military structures are not volunteer-based like here in the United States. In fact, Putin (former president) had said that conscription of citizens into the military (a holdover from the communist era of Russia) would be changed to a volunteer format. Socialist nations have military service requirements that are mandatory and therefore … Socialist. Even Obama’s idea for a National Service Program is a socialist policy since it would be a federally mandated mandatory program (no choice for anyone who wishes not to partake).

Before WWII, FDR’s national economic policies (backed by Congress) nearly had the United States in a socialist regime. However, his policies were actually hurting the U.S. In many areas including the economy itself. It took WWII to get America out of its economic coma and bring it back to prominence.

The UK’s ecomonic status has always been high due to history more than anything else. That is why the British Pound Sterling remains the highest value-attaining currency in the world. As for Sweden, it’s economic growth is based on recent technological advances as well as higher levels of product export. However, when it comes to innovation or advancement, neither country is close to top of the list. Free market nations like the United States and Japan continue that trend. And if you want to bring China into this discussion, remember that they went to more of a free-market leaning economy than their traditional communist ecomony which has led to their increase in GNP as of late.

Looking at welfare, it was changes in state welfare policies to reduce the dependence upon it that actually improved various state economies. Looking at Social Security, it was meant initially to be a temporary program established by FDR. Social Security was designed to provide retirement benefits for those who put into the program. You put in part of your income so that you have something to fall back on later in life. As for child protective services, they are meant to ensure the quality of life for children. They are designed to check up on any issues of problems and mistreatment of children (ex. Child abuse) and get the child out of harm’s way from the offending adult.

In the United States, it has been seen that this nation fares better away from socialist policies than with them.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Leave a Reply

Note: You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS