Have you been able to work out what the cost differential is for self-insurance? Not sure what it's like in the US, but dental costs here are not that low, especially if kids need corrections etc.

And yes, when people spend more, it counts as economic activity, which increases GDP. If it's coming out of your savings (which is usually fairly unproductive money), and going to a company that has to cover it's admin costs (ie: employ people) and make a profit (ie: provide a return for investors), then it could well be a net economic benefit for all.

For you, personally, it may not (but then if one of your kids needs dental surgery or braces, it may still do).

danivon wrote:Have you been able to work out what the cost differential is for self-insurance? Not sure what it's like in the US, but dental costs here are not that low, especially if kids need corrections etc.

And yes, when people spend more, it counts as economic activity, which increases GDP. If it's coming out of your savings (which is usually fairly unproductive money), and going to a company that has to cover it's admin costs (ie: employ people) and make a profit (ie: provide a return for investors), then it could well be a net economic benefit for all.

For you, personally, it may not (but then if one of your kids needs dental surgery or braces, it may still do).

I think you should buy something you don't need with your unproductive savings.

The insurance doesn't cover braces ... it pays out an annual maximum of $1,000 per kid ... basically the government is mandating that I buy something that I don't need and does not have any societal benefit. That's not good policy.

Ray Jay wrote:I think you should buy something you don't need with your unproductive savings.

I was talking about the net economic potential, addressing your point.

The insurance doesn't cover braces ... it pays out an annual maximum of $1,000 per kid ... basically the government is mandating that I buy something that I don't need and does not have any societal benefit. That's not good policy.

You don't yet know that you might not need it. Every year I don't crash my car and it isn't stolen, I could claim that I don't 'need' car insurance. But the state mandates that I buy at least a minimum standard (and it works out better to buy a higher level in practice).

What is the annual cost of that cover, and what does it include - would it include surgery, regular check-ups, hygenist treatments, fillings etc?

To me your line of thinking makes no sense ... it's like saying that you should go to casinos because you may win ... but we all know that over time the house wins. That's how they pay for their costs, and then some. Insurance is no different if you don't need what they are selling, and I don't need what they are selling. By the way, because I am self-employed, my charge is about 50% higher than someone who has at least 2 families employed by a company..

I can understand your reluctance to discuss figures, but it really doesn't help me to understand what the actual loss here is. Being self employed often means you seem to pay more, but ultimately it works out the very simiarly, as the employer pays part and an employee pays part, meaning that the value of the benefit is really part of the overall package for employment)

So anyway, what is covered? What would it cost for a 'normal' year (two check-ups a year for kids I would expect, with potential for perhaps some work)? How much less is that than your insurance costs for this cover?

A casino runs zero-sum games. The economy is not zero-sum. I was talking about the overall economy, not just you and the insurance company.

And it's not always like-for-like. I recently looked at raising a claim on my house insurance, after a burglar threw a brick through an outbuilding window. If I didn't claim, it would cost me twice as much to pay for the glazier to come and fix the window as it would the insurance company if I did claim. Why? Because they had a deal with that glazier which guaranteed them a certain rate and business.

Anyway, I do pay for things I don't need all the time. Part of my taxes go to all kinds of things that don't help me and hopefully won't have to in the future. Some of my taxes go on things I really disagree with, such as invading Iraq or subsidising the privatisation of services. But such is life sometimes.

You have kids, and those kids have teeth that need checking up on (at least). So you do 'need' to address that somehow. It may be more expensive at face value to 'self-insure', but that presumes that your kids don't have dental problems that need covering.

Ray, let's just be honest: you don't know what's best for you economically. It's better for you to pay for things you don't need and to pay more for what you do than you did prior to the ACA. You're just not wise enough to grasp that yet. Some day . . .

Doctor Fate wrote:Ray, let's just be honest: you don't know what's best for you economically. It's better for you to pay for things you don't need and to pay more for what you do than you did prior to the ACA. You're just not wise enough to grasp that yet. Some day . . .

Thanks, it's good to have someone who understands.

Danivon, I really don't have the desire to explain the entire dental insurance system of the U.S. to you. You ask questions that show you don't know how it works. That's okay, these things often don't translate exactly between 2 different countries. The point is that the government is making me buy a product that I don't want. Either way my kids will get bi-annual check ups and brush and floss their teeth. The point is that it is wasted energy for me to go through this. It's a nonsensical economic transaction with a private company that is mandated by the government.

Dr. Fate is a small government conservative. I'm more of a small to medium sized government conservative. I don't mind making sure that kids are educated, and that our water is clean, and air is safe to breathe. Please check our food supply and make sure that buildings are up to code. But don't spend your energy and mine making sure that I buy piddlely dental insurance that I don't need, that is very limited anyway.

I guess you could make a conjecture that the US should be doing better economically because it has grown at a slower rate than in previous recessions...except the financial crisis did not occur in prior recessions...So which would be more reasonable to rely on to assess the performance of the American economy since the Financial Crisis--look to see how the American economy did after earlier recessions when economic conditions were different and the recessions were not caused by a serious financial crisis causing trillion of dollars in economic damage or to look at how other advanced economies responded to the Financial Crisis? That's a rhetorical question...

RJ,

What did Churchill say about Democracy being the worst system except for all the rest... The ACA is kind of like that. I have never really liked dental insurance either, because there is no point to having insurance when the risk is not great relative to your finances...But someone with worse finances who did not take their kids to the dentist (because they could not afford it) now will do so...That's a good thing isn't it? (whether that is worth the negative effect on you of course is up to you to judge.)

I was not asking how the 'entire' US dental health system works, RJ, just how the dental insurance you object to actually affects you. Defensiveness noted.

I do understand you principle here, but what is your actual pain?

danivon wrote:I was not asking how the 'entire' US dental health system works, RJ, just how the dental insurance you object to actually affects you. Defensiveness noted.

I do understand you principle here, but what is your actual pain?

More lazy / tired than defensive.

For $55 per month my kids get 100% preventive care. Here are the details: https://www.hsainsurance.com/uploads/d1 ... 2da100.pdf

Freeman:

What did Churchill say about Democracy being the worst system except for all the rest...

I was thinking of this quote:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

H. L. Mencken

freeman3 wrote:I guess you could make a conjecture that the US should be doing better economically because it has grown at a slower rate than in previous recessions...except the financial crisis did not occur in prior recessions...So which would be more reasonable to rely on to assess the performance of the American economy since the Financial Crisis--look to see how the American economy did after earlier recessions when economic conditions were different and the recessions were not caused by a serious financial crisis causing trillion of dollars in economic damage or to look at how other advanced economies responded to the Financial Crisis? That's a rhetorical question...

I think that's the right question. I don't think that these other economies are a good comparison because they have historically grown more slowly than the U.S., partially because their populations do not increase at the same rate and partially because they have more regulation and less entrepreneurship (in general).

I wouldn't discount the important of fracking. Energy costs are declining here quite a bit and that is giving us a huge comparative advantage in manufacturing which is often energy intensive.

Ray Jay wrote:I wouldn't discount the important of fracking. Energy costs are declining here quite a bit and that is giving us a huge comparative advantage in manufacturing which is often energy intensive.

And, we could, if Obama and Co. were not being obstructionists, have a booming economy. How? More drilling, more fracking, lower energy prices, more jobs.

Thought experiment: if energy was free, would our economy benefit?

On the other hand, what does making energy more expensive do? So, why the insistence on less-affordable energy sources? Because of the environment? That's great, but if we cannot afford them, we cannot afford them.

Meanwhile, in a special election in FL for Congress, the Democrat, Alex Sink, outspent her opponent 4:1, brought in all the heavy-hitters, including Bill Clinton, was favored to win . . . and lost.

The central issue? Well, the one that's "popular," "helping people," and causing our economy to boom! Of course, it was Obamacare!

Yeah, this fall is going to be very nice.

Just don't do any fracking near my groundwater...

http://www.propublica.org/article/new-s ... king-sites
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... ation.html

Go ahead Pennsylvania--what's a little methane in your water if it means the rest of us get cheap energy...
Ok, I can stand a little methane in morning coffee but I draw the line at arsenic