Sunday, July 30, 2017

Business of risk

There is so much risk in life where people can pool resources with businesses which will pay out when needed, up to a point, if needed. And such businesses are called insurance companies.

So strangers will take care of your needs, because you've given them money along with enough other people, if you have a problem covered under a contract, which limits liability of the strangers.

And have posted about money and limited social trust before.

Business is about limiting liability to others, while community at its best will save you with its every breath, like if your nation goes to war. The United States as a community has fought. Like with other allied nations as a community of nations more than once to save our world, and community at the highest levels has no limits. And yeah, even family should not, though reality is that is not always true.

As a community the nation has a duty to its citizens, while to be a business an insurance company should only pay to the limits of a contract. But what if a person is sick and still needs care?

If your insurance runs out? Then your community, if you have it, should still care for you. And when it comes to health insurance, your nation should bear the responsibility, and that is probably best paid for at the national level, but could also be at the state level in the US working together with the federal level.

If an insurance company keeps paying past the contractual limits or takes on a person already sick?

Then that insurance company is NOT acting as a business.

Here's a tweet I made recently talking a subject have discussed here before:

And the tweet links back to a prior tweet where I gave a rather simple healthcare plan which could fit into 140 characters. And will post the text here:

My healthcare plan: Preventive Care--everybody, Core Care--insurables, Expected Care--not easily insured, Elder Care--quality of life at end

Where explain all in a post, from 2009: My Healthcare Plan

That insurance companies can administer insurance even if they are NOT paying from the pool paid into to handle risk is not a wild idea.

Wealthy people will have an insurance company, when they will pay if, for instance, in a car accident. The insurance company has more expertise than a wealthy person who presumably rarely gets in an accident, with handling accidents, and that expertise is worth a LOT.

There is no reason for a person to stop receiving care if they reach caps in their health insurance!!!

And politicians know it.

The government can simply pick up the tab from that point on, while the insurance company continues to handle administration.

It's a simple idea folks. Harder to do in the past because administration was very expensive too, until computers made it very manageable.

So why would such a simple idea, which I put forward in 2009, not be part of the national discussion?

I can speculate. More than likely is about TAXES and POWER.

For instance, single payer healthcare would give vastly more power to the US Government, and some seem to desire it. While others seem intent on cutting their taxes by any means possible, and somehow have figured out a way to do so with healthcare a mess.

Some may wonder about the details, like what if people refuse to pay for insurance and just wait till they are sick, knowing is guaranteed? Well I explained one way to handle with a post I called health insurance responsibility back in 2012.

But limits of liability to be a business are just a reality. Without limiting liability, insurance companies can't act as true businesses, but with it they can focus on their strengths, without people caring as they still GET care.

Do you care with your health insurance, who pays if you need care, like if you're in the hospital as long as payment is guaranteed?

So if it switches from your insurance company paying direct, to the government paying you STILL get care. And don't even have to notice as still interact with same insurance company.

Why would you? Main thing for you is to get medical treatment and get well, not worry about who pays.

Why would anyone think you would?

James Harris

Friday, July 21, 2017

When distribution won

Lessons sharing knowledge of the past have been replaced by more potential where simplifying can be key to getting the best of the present. And with the web? Consider you reading this message which I can expect to have free distribution around planet Earth. But as importantly--YOU can do the same with something you might wish to present to others.

And many of you are so doing, as more and more people come online.

The ease with which we can distribute information, which is of course best when useful, is a sharp contrast to the past, where for instance to get political analysis, I would look to a few sources, as was far more limited in choice. For much might go to certain leading newspapers for that sort of thing. Or would consider certain magazines. And on the daily there were brief briefings expected on nightly news, or could look at a morning of content on Sunday talk shows, as discuss a very American experience which is what I lived--until the web revolutionized information distribution.

Today your political representative, rather than wishing on a press conference to reach constituents, or a newsletter probably signed on to by few, can send a tweet! Where that tweet can be a concise position, which is impossible for some news person to misquote. And yes, can be hard to put a position into a single tweet of 140 characters or into a few such, but that can push people to know their positions inside and out.

And everything else is still available. The news people are still working at delivering stories, though news organizations reportedly worry more and more about how they get paid, and the Sunday talk shows are still there as well as nightly briefings, though television struggles with holding on to viewers, as it must maintain relevance in a world where information flows freely from so many sources so people have choices.

I say it pressures all to be the best they can. From politicians pushed to be able to state positions they now know constituents probably WILL read versus in the past where maybe an interpretation through others might reach some, to news people pressured to get it right, with less leeway to interpret from personal bias, to politically active able to put their own messages out there, with same pressures.

Across the board with so much information available, people can check, and are checking.

Focusing on information distribution can help you figure out where you wish to be in the process am sure. Emphasis on that position is to look for a functional way to simplify.

And social media is most powerful as a conversation.

Conversation on social media is where political positions can be both presented and considered with reply from interested constituents. In the conversation, news stories presented can be challenged by parties represented as well as any people who know, or simply critiqued endlessly from almost anywhere, or anyone as people need their information to work well for their present day-to-day.

Sure some may simply work to disrupt the conversation maybe even simply for attention to themselves, but the need of the many is too great. We need to know, and people will work for what they need. And in our times? Information rules.

Sharing information? Helps us empower each other. And I think is a great thing.

Ease of information distribution has won the global conversation by enabling it.

And am so much happier with the potential to know more where before there was so much filtered through others on which I tried to rely. But also appreciate the work that is involved to get information I need, as to do so must learn to check sources! Must be able to cross-reference against multiple presentations. Must try to learn how you learn to understand how information can be manipulated.

It can be exhausting.

Knowledge takes work!

It can be mentally invigorating as well, but more importantly, can give a sense of being part of the conversation when so much additional change is happening. And based on how our country is set up the people of the United States have the duty and believe as a national community, have the knowledge--to govern the outcome as best we can for our nation.

The brilliance of the national conversation of course is not just a factor here in the United States but in nations around the globe where people are figuring it out, if they have free information distribution too. Not something to be taken for granted and not all have it.

But we do, and now is far easier for the people of the United States to discuss from coast-to-coast or wherever they are matters of importance with each other, and with others around the globe.

James Harris