Personal Finance Universe | PersonalFinanceUniverse.com

David L asked:


Does it mandate that insurance companies cover everything, or can they still provide lists of treatments they won’t cover?

I couldn’t find anything about it on his website.

Website content

C.S. asked:


The new tobacco tax will fund health insurance for Children. If I had to choose this seems to be a no brainer.

But for you, from a national level: what would you prioritize?

Kansieo.com

Dan asked:


Car insurance:
1) Need to get it if you choose to drive.
2) Government bureaucracy does not force you to choose only in-state car insurance.
3) Coverage is meant to protect others from damages.
4) You choose how much coverage you want.
5) Does not violate freedom of religion.
6) Taxpayers don’t pay for people who can’t afford car insurance.

Hillary Care:
1) Need to get if you choose to live.
2) Government bureaucracy limits the choice of provider.
3) Coverage only protects you and not others from damages
4) Government mandates what is covered, not you.
5) Violates freedom of religion for those whose beliefs prevent them from getting hospital care.
6) Government steals taxpayer money to supplement those who cry poor.

Hillary supporters: Is it even possible to argue this? Go ahead and try. See you after Hillary loses the general election!

Caffeinated Content

lilith663 asked:


What do you think about that? I find it scary in a way. The article said that it would be mandatory for everyone to buy health insurance. There would be many kinds to choose from with tax help also. I still wonder how this can be accomplished. Can you imagine being forced to pay for health insurance and then not being able to meet the rent, car expenses, food, etc. Some people live day-to-day, check-to-check without any money for anything else. Unless the tax help would be enough to pay for the premiums??
Oh pardon me for spelling Hillary wrong. That really warranted a comment did it not?
The whole health care issue is scary. We get people from Canada paying out of pocket to come to our office to have foot surgery or foot care because they’ve waited for months to get in to see a specialist.
To THAT GUY OVER THERE – Excuse me, but what pretend Canadians are you referring to. But for HIPPA, I would give you their names, addressed and phone numbers so you could call then and ask them. These are real patients that we have in our very real doctor’s office so don’t tell me I’m making them up.
Blue Ridge Living – good answer. Why not just state that in the first place instead of being picky about a spelling of a name.

Create a video blog…instantly.

Time to Shrug, Atlas asked:


The question I typically see assumes that insurance companies make a choice between patients and profits.

But how can businesses survive if they operate in this manner?

Do restaurants choose between profits and diners? Do they serve rotten meat, just because they can buy it cheaper and make higher profits?

The benefit of profits is that pursuit of them breeds competition which drives down costs and increases quality.

The only time companies can provide bad service and stay in business is when government imposes laws to restrict competition.

Sound familiar? Current laws prevent insurance companies from selling policies across state lines. The result: higher premium prices.
Stiggo: Competition is key. You supported my point without meaning to. The artificial restriction of competition by government prohibits insurance companies from offering competing policies. The government FORCES them to cover certain treatments, and they therefore cannot tailor to the specific needs of customers.

Consider: Which industry contends with more government interference and restrictions – restaurants or health insurance…

Caffeinated Content

Obama Hood – Spread the Wealth asked:


Insurance companies are one of the most regulated industries on the planet. Instead of putting in place a Universal Healthcare System, should we model health insurance around the life insurance model in place today?

If we deregulate the insurance industry and allowed competition across state lines, it would be affordable.

You can have whole health that grows in value until you need it like whole life. You buy it young to get the cheap rates. You have term health that can be bought in 1 year, 5 year, 10 year or 20 year increments like term life. Premiums would be based upon the policy you choose and a physical exam.

1 year term health would be the cheapest and would cover the basic healthcare and the cost adjusts every year we get older. Whole health would be the most expensive and if you didn’t use the entire policy when you die, the retained value passes onto your children or spouse.

To me this makes sense vs. UHC. Thoughts?

Caffeinated Content

pdooma asked:


And why?

Caffeinated Content for WordPress

Oklahoma State Alum asked:


If you’re frugal with money, have stayed out of debt, and lived within your means you should be fine.

I can understand if you’ve been laid off, I know that times are tough (I’ve been there), but it seems like the media is blowing this way out of proportion.

Kansieo.com

American First, Cons Second asked:


A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

Website content

marbehraglaim asked:


It’s true that nobody likes high taxes, and so promises of lowering them are a great selling point for politicians.

On the other hand, many services provided by the government are quite popular, and politicians who reduce or eliminate them are unlikely to satisfy the public.

In both cases–tax cuts and government programs–the politicians are spending money to please the public. Yet in political discussions, tax cuts tend to get lumped together with frugal spending under the mantle of “fiscal conservatism.”

When did this rhetorical practice start, and what is its justification? I’d like to hear different viewpoints on this topic.

Create a video blog…instantly.