5 ms·

It's interesting how his private insurer raising rates is obviously "ObamaCare"'s fault. Like all businesses, insurers raise prices because they can, thanks to

by kgrin 16y ago

It's interesting how his private insurer raising rates is obviously "ObamaCare"'s fault. Like all businesses, insurers raise prices because they can, thanks to market position, scarcity and all the other usual factors (distorted, as the health insurance market is, by oligopoly-entrenching state regulations that have little to do with the Affordable Care Act).

kgrin 16y ago
To elaborate a bit - it just really struck me as bizarre that he's basically giving his insurer a pass for raising his prices, because it's "business", and business can do no wrong - as a fellow businessman, he understands the plight of the insurance company. But all the money that's collected in taxes, in his mind, goes into the black hole of Washington & Trenton - including not just the somewhat-opaque things like income tax (which indirectly funds his and Sally's roads, schools, police force and wars abroad) but things like disability & unemployment insurance, which it seems like Sally might need if he has a bad day.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Welcome to the mind of the Republican. This guy probably spent 8 years defending the Bush deficits and discovered he was a fiscal hawk on January 29, 2009. Until 2016, that is, or earlier if he's lucky.
  - jambo 16y ago
    To those upvoting this speculation about the author's frame of mind, why does this add to the conversation? To my mind, it distracts from the argument by focusing on the arguer. Is this TPM?
    - jbooth 16y ago
      I was addressing the person I responded to, who was astounded by the gigantic blind spot in the author's reasoning. I explained why.
    - chc 16y ago
      Understanding the motivation behind irrational thinking usually requires some degree of focus on the one doing the thinking. And just for the record, I've been a registered Republican since I turned 18, and I've also noticed this sudden surge of fiscal hawkishness in the party. This isn't liberal bas talking. This also isn't to say the guy is necessarily being disingenuous. Just that somebody in his chain of trust is playing politics and that's causing him to form opinions that aren't entirely rational.
  - davidw 16y ago
    > Welcome to the mind of the Republican. patio11 has said in the past that he's a Republican. And even though I think I'd disagree with him about various topics in politics and economics, I think he's got a pretty good mind. And I would vastly prefer a site where I can talk with people like him about tech and startups, rather than the Nth echo chamber site about politics where you get a self-reinforcing feedback loop that tends to marginalize those who disagree with the majority opinion.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      I was just summarizing the reason for the original author's blind spots -- partisan bias. patio11 and/or any other republican on the internet can speak for himself.
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  He doesn't get to choose whether to dump money into the black hole of Washington & Trenton.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Health insurance is a fairly competitive market - narrow profit margins, commodity good, many competitors (in most states, including NJ). If a health insurance company can raise prices, it's probably because costs are going up or are likely to do so in the near future. The calculus is fairly simple: If I raise prices, my competitors don't, and costs don't go up, I lose customers. If I raise prices, my competitors don't, and costs go up, I lose competitors. Insurance companies all seem to be placing their bets on the latter case. If you feel they are wrong, feel free to bet against them.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  I don't quite know the situation in that market, but to provide an alternative, it could also be an oligarchy. That is, there's a number 1 guy with 60% share, a number 2 guy with 20% a number 3 with 10% and some little guys. It is not hard in an oligarchy to act like a monopoly.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I think you mean an oligopoly. In NJ, the top guy has 34%, the number 2 guy has 25%. Is that an oligopoly? http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/health_competitiveness.pdf http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/health_co... Oligopolies do tend to be correlated with monopolistic pricing, but I'm not sure they allow it in an otherwise competitive market. Most oligopolies which successfully raise prices tend to be in uncompetitive markets, e.g. cell or cable service, and the price increases may be caused by the hindered competition rather than the oligopoly itself. Consider the case of an oligopoly in the DRAM market: when they tried to raise the price of DRAM (2001-2002), they succeeded for a short time. They also collectively lost 3.3% of market share over those 2 years and members of the oligopoly (Hynix was the first, I think) quickly broke ranks in pursuit of increased profits. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Dec_17/ai_95511290/ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Dec_17/a...
    - Ardit20 16y ago
      If you are going to make a misleading statement, at least do not provide the data to clearly show your bendy argument. The combined market share of the largest and second largest insurer provider goes below 50% only in four states. It goes below 60% in only 5 states. That makes a combined 9 states out of 52 or so where there might not be an oligopoly. There are 19 states where their combined share is above 70% and I have used that cut off line strictly, not counting for example 69%. So yeah, it might be very competitive in 4 states, ok maybe in 9 states. These states seem to be the one I recognise such as California where the combined share is the lowest at 44%, but it seems that for the vast majority of people the market is hardly "very competitive" or competitive at all.

by kgrin 16y ago

kgrin 16y ago

To elaborate a bit - it just really struck me as bizarre that he's basically giving his insurer a pass for raising his prices, because it's "business", and business can do no wrong - as a fellow businessman, he understands the plight of the insurance company. But all the money that's collected in taxes, in his mind, goes into the black hole of Washington & Trenton - including not just the somewhat-opaque things like income tax (which indirectly funds his and Sally's roads, schools, police force and wars abroad) but things like disability & unemployment insurance, which it seems like Sally might need if he has a bad day.

jbooth 16y ago
Welcome to the mind of the Republican. This guy probably spent 8 years defending the Bush deficits and discovered he was a fiscal hawk on January 29, 2009. Until 2016, that is, or earlier if he's lucky.
- jambo 16y ago
  To those upvoting this speculation about the author's frame of mind, why does this add to the conversation? To my mind, it distracts from the argument by focusing on the arguer. Is this TPM?
  - jbooth 16y ago
    I was addressing the person I responded to, who was astounded by the gigantic blind spot in the author's reasoning. I explained why.
  - chc 16y ago
    Understanding the motivation behind irrational thinking usually requires some degree of focus on the one doing the thinking. And just for the record, I've been a registered Republican since I turned 18, and I've also noticed this sudden surge of fiscal hawkishness in the party. This isn't liberal bas talking. This also isn't to say the guy is necessarily being disingenuous. Just that somebody in his chain of trust is playing politics and that's causing him to form opinions that aren't entirely rational.
- davidw 16y ago
  > Welcome to the mind of the Republican. patio11 has said in the past that he's a Republican. And even though I think I'd disagree with him about various topics in politics and economics, I think he's got a pretty good mind. And I would vastly prefer a site where I can talk with people like him about tech and startups, rather than the Nth echo chamber site about politics where you get a self-reinforcing feedback loop that tends to marginalize those who disagree with the majority opinion.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    I was just summarizing the reason for the original author's blind spots -- partisan bias. patio11 and/or any other republican on the internet can speak for himself.
jdminhbg 16y ago
He doesn't get to choose whether to dump money into the black hole of Washington & Trenton.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Health insurance is a fairly competitive market - narrow profit margins, commodity good, many competitors (in most states, including NJ). If a health insurance company can raise prices, it's probably because costs are going up or are likely to do so in the near future. The calculus is fairly simple: If I raise prices, my competitors don't, and costs don't go up, I lose customers. If I raise prices, my competitors don't, and costs go up, I lose competitors. Insurance companies all seem to be placing their bets on the latter case. If you feel they are wrong, feel free to bet against them.

Ardit20 16y ago
I don't quite know the situation in that market, but to provide an alternative, it could also be an oligarchy. That is, there's a number 1 guy with 60% share, a number 2 guy with 20% a number 3 with 10% and some little guys. It is not hard in an oligarchy to act like a monopoly.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I think you mean an oligopoly. In NJ, the top guy has 34%, the number 2 guy has 25%. Is that an oligopoly? http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/health_competitiveness.pdf http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/health_co... Oligopolies do tend to be correlated with monopolistic pricing, but I'm not sure they allow it in an otherwise competitive market. Most oligopolies which successfully raise prices tend to be in uncompetitive markets, e.g. cell or cable service, and the price increases may be caused by the hindered competition rather than the oligopoly itself. Consider the case of an oligopoly in the DRAM market: when they tried to raise the price of DRAM (2001-2002), they succeeded for a short time. They also collectively lost 3.3% of market share over those 2 years and members of the oligopoly (Hynix was the first, I think) quickly broke ranks in pursuit of increased profits. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Dec_17/ai_95511290/ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Dec_17/a...
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    If you are going to make a misleading statement, at least do not provide the data to clearly show your bendy argument. The combined market share of the largest and second largest insurer provider goes below 50% only in four states. It goes below 60% in only 5 states. That makes a combined 9 states out of 52 or so where there might not be an oligopoly. There are 19 states where their combined share is above 70% and I have used that cut off line strictly, not counting for example 69%. So yeah, it might be very competitive in 4 states, ok maybe in 9 states. These states seem to be the one I recognise such as California where the combined share is the lowest at 44%, but it seems that for the vast majority of people the market is hardly "very competitive" or competitive at all.