View Full Version : Will Obamacare succeed where term limits failed?
ICantSpellDawg
11-12-2013, 06:10
The Chicago Tribune's editorial board slams Obamacare. This was something of a surprise seeing as how it's his hometown paper. As always, read the whole article, but here's the last line money-shot....
Truth, consequences and Obamacare (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/obamacare-ct-edit-1111-20131111,0,459810.story)
I couldn't say it much better. :yes:
Unfortunately it is sour grapes at this point. It is law. It is now more important that we kill the evil within the law and replace it with good. Continuing to point out how bad the law is won't get it overturned
ICantSpellDawg
11-12-2013, 13:15
And of course what exactly is wrong with the law is a huge spectrum of opinions. Acting like the "Repeal It!" crowd is even remotely close to a majority of those unhappy with it would be a mistake on part of the Republicans. Some want tougher intervention, most at least want the to keep in place the consumer protection aspects of the law no matter what kind of reform occurs. If R's want a say in the future they need to start negotiating.
I hope Xiahou is still around here in 2016 so I can link back to this thread and say I Told You So when obstructionism fails again.
We should capitalize on the confusion and frustration with the
Law, but in a different direction. Most people only know how they feel., not what needs to be done to fix anything. Id like to see Republicans sweep in with health insurance premium relief in the form of coinsurance increases (which most people don't understand) along with the requirement that all companies period provide access to HSA's for their employees, which they can use to pay their medical expenses INCLUDING insurance premiums. This will benefit everyone immediately out of pocket, except the most seriously I'll, who likely have disability supplements and access to medicaid.
You would see premium relief, taxable income relief and a more sustainable program in the future.
Unfortunately it is sour grapes at this point. It is law. It is now more important that we kill the evil within the law and replace it with good. Continuing to point out how bad the law is won't get it overturned
Whats the "good"?
There's giveaways, but they're not "good", unless bankrupting the insurance industry is what you consider good.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-12-2013, 21:00
The good is essential consumer protection from predatory insurance practices. Or does that not count?
Why is it that Conservatives are always pro Free Market but never pro Consumer Protection?
The "invisible hand" is supposed to work on the basis of self defense (caveat emptor). In 1776, it may have been sufficient to assume that the consumer would know the risks -- it was a comparatively non-tech era -- but the South Sea Bubble argues against even that. The volume of knowledge required for a range of typical consumer products in the current era suggest that it would be beyond the capabilities of any individual to make caveat emptor enough of a safety net.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-12-2013, 22:13
Right. The millions of dollars spent by Monsanto alone to try and change ingredient names (rather than ingredients themselves) is proof enough that consumers need a powerful advocate in the government.
Hell, every other ad on TV for food or medicine is right up against (and often across) the line between marketing and dangerous misinformation.
There will be a backlash sooner or later. You can see already how companies try to fight knowledgeable consumers by discrediting them rather than doing the right thing. Eventually enough old people are going to die off to where the majority opinion is a very justified anti corporate one.
I tend to favor the absolute minimum amount of regulatory oversight by government, GC, but to me the one absolute requirement in terms of government relation is the fullest possible effort to prevent, minimize, and punish fraud. Couple that with providing accurate and up to date information and a few basic requirements for the general health and you have the role the government MUST play. I am by no means anti-corporatist, a bit pro if anything, but I loathe cheats and thieves -- and defrauding customers while wearing an executive-cut Saville Row suit is no better than going door-to-door in khakis selling fake raffle tickets to a hard-of-hearing pensioners.
One thing that always get me about 'Free Market' is that apparently less-regulation is better in itself.
I don't mean go one extreme to the other either, with 'more regulation is better' but it is based on the current situation and what kind of regulation. A statute against monopolies would bring about a 'freer' market than not having such a measure in place, for example.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'free'. A society of common rules that bind us together and make us equal in being able to parttake and exchange, or Somalia.
Come on, just take these principles of a free market:
http://www.freemarketmonument.org/principles.php
Now tell me how many of them are naturally fulfilled given that the government pretty much removes all regulation.
Point 4 even says "lowest feasible level", which, as I explained earlier, is different depending on the market.
Number 6 is also funny seeing how most of the animal resources we handle so efficiently have a strong tendency to die out really fast. Keep in mind that animals are resources that reproduce themselves relatively fast, unlike e.g. oil.
I'm not denying that free markets have their uses and efficiencies but a lot depends on the market and the government setting rules to prevent abuse. A completely free market usually doesn't work.
Oh and the Forbes article about Switzerland also recommended me this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/09/22/main-gott-what-germany-inc-can-teach-america-about-economics/
Basically it seems like the German market is not as deregulated as one might think given its success.
And before you say Mister Eamonn Fingleton is a German shill, check out this, just for fun:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/10/27/hang-in-there-barack-four-good-reasons-to-keep-bugging-merkels-phone/
He even mentions our economic model as something America should oppose here, or at least parts of it.
His other articles also have funny headlines btw.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-13-2013, 04:30
I don't think any of us wants a completely free market. Certain aspects of an economy must be directed for strategic security; some resources must be managed for long term preservation; health and safety issues need to be addressed before and not after a tragedy has occurred. I argue only for the least possible degree of regulation in achieving such requirements.
Pannonian
11-13-2013, 08:27
Of course you don't want that, you're a normal person. Unfortunately the only "people" with the power to meaningfully influence politics any more owe that label to a poor supreme court decision...
Any details of said court decision?
I don't think any of us wants a completely free market. Certain aspects of an economy must be directed for strategic security; some resources must be managed for long term preservation; health and safety issues need to be addressed before and not after a tragedy has occurred. I argue only for the least possible degree of regulation in achieving such requirements.
Exactly. And the problem with your free market healthcare system was that it was an ongoing tragedy not everyone acknowledged as such.
What I like about Obamacare is that it actually changes the established system at all. It may be bad but as Gelatinous Cube says this may well be because you get nothing through congress without a huge dose of corporate interest infusion. And then you wonder why you have to pay more as a result...
You can say what you want about better Republican offers but by the time they get passed it will most likely be the corporations who make the most profit again, regardless of how sensible the initial idea was.
I don't mean go one extreme to the other either, with 'more regulation is better' but it is based on the current situation and what kind of regulation. A statute against monopolies would bring about a 'freer' market than not having such a measure in place, for example.
Show me a monopoly that wasn't created via government interference/cronyism.
Ironside
11-14-2013, 09:40
Show me a monopoly that wasn't created via government interference/cronyism.
Standard oil? The most imfamous monopoly of them all? The AT&T wasn't created via government interference/cronyism either, the Kingsbury Commitment simply gave it goverment approval.
The end market of a product is expected to be an oligopoly market. One major reason on why that doesn't end up in a monopoly is because the goverment walks in and forcefully breaks up the company, if it get too big.
Show me a monopoly that wasn't created via government interference/cronyism.
Microsoft ?
Apple ?
Microsoft used to have complete dominance of the IT market where in the EU especially, governments brought in fair-use clauses, such as Microsoft having to offer different browsers, different media players and the like on a fresh install.
Similar situation with Apple and their iPod/iPhone/iPad markets, they keep fighting to have competitors kicked out or limited in the courts, most notoriously, the rift between Samsung and Apple with tit-for-tat lawsuits.
There is also Coca-cola and Pepsi too.
Long list of possible monopolies and global corporations.
Even the Indian Trading Companies who were unchecked and ended up trying to dictate foreign policy that they ended up nationalised.
*Ahem*
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?144540-Will-Obamacare-succeed-where-term-limits-failed&p=2053558781&viewfull=1#post2053558781
The system doesn't have to be perfect but there is also no pure and perfect free market, consider that companies using very good marketing and market manipulation can get advantages they should not get on a perfect free market. Intel bribed some electronics stores here so they wouldn't sell any systems with AMD CPUs. Now Intel are so far ahead because they made illegal market manipulations that they have a monopole in the upper mid and high end CPU "market". Now regulation does not stop this since it's illegal and happened anyway but the point remains that regulation is usually there to fix flawed markets that simply do not work properly without it because not everything in the world is perfectly aligned to work on a free market.
I seem to be two pages ahead of everyone else. :rolleyes:
I don't know that I'd consider Microsoft as a monopoly- and certainly not Apple. Both have had meteoric rises in their respective markets, but increased competition and changing markets have seen both decline somewhat.
Microsoft in particular is in trouble as the market places more emphasis on tablets and portable devices- their attempt to get in on the action (Windows8) has pretty much been a flop.
Standard Oil is a common example- but it's early market dominance came from it's control of the early oil fields at the birth of the industry. It's market share was substantially reduced due to competitors before its breakup.
The AT&T wasn't created via government interference/cronyism either, the Kingsbury Commitment simply gave it government approval.
AT&T grew to dominance out of patent exploitation. When its patents expired, competition exploded and their market share declined. It was while they were trying to quash competition that the Kingsbury Commitment was written. Later, the Willis-Graham Act further cemented its status.
Many companies rise to market dominance, but when they stop innovating and turn their focus to protecting it's turf their fall typically follows. :shrug:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-14-2013, 17:59
I don't know that I'd consider Microsoft as a monopoly- and certainly not Apple. Both have had meteoric rises in their respective markets, but increased competition and changing markets have seen both decline somewhat.
Microsoft in particular is in trouble as the market places more emphasis on tablets and portable devices- their attempt to get in on the action (Windows8) has pretty much been a flop.
Microsoft is still technically a monopoly in home computing, and a complete monopoly in the workplace (outside dedicated servers).
Their issues currently stem from trying to muscle into the tablet market and lock machines down to enforce that monopoly - so Linux won't work on a UEFI board with the Microsoft Serial Key burned into the UEFI. You have to turn the modern UEFI off and use legacy BIOS.
Windows 8 has basically failed to capture the PC market - Windows 7 still dominates - but the Microsoft Surface Pro 2 is the first step towards ABSOLUTE dominance on the Tablet market - people are already realising that the iPad and Android are developmental cul-de-sacs.
As regards US healthcare - I hear the new web sign up facility has only had around 27,000 people thus far.
Looks like this terrible healthcare Law is going to fail on its own.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-14-2013, 18:14
Current numbers put sign ups at roughly 106k -- the large majority of which were signed up through the 14 states running their own exchange web-sites.
Hmmmm....states handling things for their citizens while the feds flail with a one-size fits all effort.....hmmmmmm.
I don't know that I'd consider Microsoft as a monopoly- and certainly not Apple. Both have had meteoric rises in their respective markets, but increased competition and changing markets have seen both decline somewhat.
Microsoft in particular is in trouble as the market places more emphasis on tablets and portable devices- their attempt to get in on the action (Windows8) has pretty much been a flop.
Standard Oil is a common example- but it's early market dominance came from it's control of the early oil fields at the birth of the industry. It's market share was substantially reduced due to competitors before its breakup.
AT&T grew to dominance out of patent exploitation. When its patents expired, competition exploded and their market share declined. It was while they were trying to quash competition that the Kingsbury Commitment was written. Later, the Willis-Graham Act further cemented its status.
Many companies rise to market dominance, but when they stop innovating and turn their focus to protecting it's turf their fall typically follows. :shrug:
Yeah, look at how the diversity spreads:
http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Intel-Business.jpg
Of curse it's not a monopoly without having 100% market share and clearly Intel never abused anything and clearly had a higher market share at all times due to totally legit business practices such as clearly superior products and better prices. :rolleyes:
Current numbers put sign ups at roughly 106k -- the large majority of which were signed up through the 14 states running their own exchange web-sites.
Hmmmm....states handling things for their citizens while the feds flail with a one-size fits all effort.....hmmmmmm.And those numbers are completely dwarfed by the Medicare expansions. :no:
Obama, shocked that the law is working as designed, has announced that people are now allowed to renew their cancelled insurance plans for one more year (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-obamacare-statement-at-11-35-a-m-145708141.html)....
Under what authority does he do this? Once again he's changing the law as written under no authority but his own.
Does he realize that this will only accelerate the insurance industry death spiral? Healthy people will now be able to keep their more inexpensive (better) plans for another year. Meanwhile, the unhealthy people will continue to migrate towards the exchanges where price-controls will limit what insurers can charge. The only thing that made the exchanges even remotely viable was the ability for the insurance companies to overcharge healthy customers to offset the costs of the unhealthy ones via the mandate. Obama has just removed this requirement.
Is he really that stupid or is he deliberately trying to destroy private insurance?
Maybe he is trying to destroy private insurance. If he is, I regret my vote a lot less. Bring on universal healthcare!
Unlike many fellow conservatives, I've long applied Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) to my view of the insurance death spiral. But eventually, you do begin to wonder...
EDIT: Is Obama's new plan even feasible? Insurance companies purged those plans and created new ones that are Obamacare complaint. I imagine there was no small amount of administrative work in that transition. What's involved in bringing those plans back from the trash heap before year-end? Also, there are some pretty big financial dis-incentives for insurance companies to even do so.
Obama has set them up to fail whether or not they try to renew the cancelled plans. If the manage to renew them, they invite financial ruin. If they don't, they become scapegoats. :no:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-14-2013, 21:26
Unlike many fellow conservatives, I've long applied Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) to my view of the insurance death spiral. But eventually, you do begin to wonder...
EDIT: Is Obama's new plan even feasible? Insurance companies purged those plans and created new ones that are Obamacare complaint. I imagine there was no small amount of administrative work in that transition. What's involved in bringing those plans back from the trash heap before year-end? Also, there are some pretty big financial dis-incentives for insurance companies to even do so.
Obama has set them up to fail whether or not they try to renew the cancelled plans. If the manage to renew them, they invite financial ruin. If they don't, they become scapegoats. :no:
Most of the policies have not been cancelled, they usually cycle with the calendar year as an automatic renewal and the companies are simply not renewing. Should be pretty seamless IF the appropriate legislation or executive order (not sure if such could be done Constitutionally, not that the current government always observes that old rag anyway) is promulgated before Christmas then the companies will not have dumped the policies -- but every day longer makes the process more annoying to the consumer because January payments often fall due in December.
Ironside
11-14-2013, 22:26
Standard Oil is a common example- but it's early market dominance came from it's control of the early oil fields at the birth of the industry. It's market share was substantially reduced due to competitors before its breakup.
It still controlled 64% and was divided into 33 companies, decades after the methods that created its rise was hampered or forbidden.
Many companies rise to market dominance, but when they stop innovating and turn their focus to protecting it's turf their fall typically follows. :shrug:
One of the essential things for that to happen are that the monopoly companies can't simply eliminate their compeditors before they're a threat.
Most of the policies have not been cancelled, they usually cycle with the calendar year as an automatic renewal and the companies are simply not renewing. Should be pretty seamless IF the appropriate legislation or executive order (not sure if such could be done Constitutionally, not that the current government always observes that old rag anyway) is promulgated before Christmas then the companies will not have dumped the policies -- but every day longer makes the process more annoying to the consumer because January payments often fall due in December.From the WaPo...
The White House’s Obamacare fix is about to create a big mess (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/14/the-white-houses-obamacare-fix-is-about-to-create-a-big-mess/)
Here's how Robert Laszewksi, an insurance consultant, put it in a note to clients earlier this morning:
This means that the insurance companies have 32 days to reprogram their computer systems for policies, rates, and eligibility, send notices to the policyholders via US Mail, send a very complex letter that describes just what the differences are between specific policies and Obamacare compliant plans, ask the consumer for their decision — and give them a reasonable time to make that decision — and then enter those decisions back into their systems without creating massive billing, claim payment, and provider eligibility list mistakes.
All by January 1.
I don't think it's going to be seamless at all. :no:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-15-2013, 16:56
From the WaPo...
The White House’s Obamacare fix is about to create a big mess (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/14/the-white-houses-obamacare-fix-is-about-to-create-a-big-mess/)
I don't think it's going to be seamless at all. :no:
You will note that I did capitalize the "if."
Just listening to the Reems show on NPR. Heard my first dem political/policy wonk analyst acknowledge the possibility of the word "implosion" being an outcome for the ACA.
Just listening to the Reems show on NPR. Heard my first dem political/policy wonk analyst acknowledge the possibility of the word "implosion" being an outcome for the ACA.
I've got to admit that even I'm surprised with how catastrophically the law is failing so far. I knew it was going to be bad.... but man.
Did anyone catch any of Obama's apology speech yesterday? This bit left me practically dumbfounded...
One thing that we’ve discovered, though, that I think is — is worth noting, a lot of focus has been on the website and the technology, and that’s partly because that’s how we initially identified it; you know, these are glitches. What we’re discovering is that part of the problem has been technology, hardware and software, and that’s being upgraded. But even if we get the — the hardware and software working exactly the way it’s supposed to with relatively minor glitches, what we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy. And another mistake that we made, I think, was underestimating the difficulties of people purchasing insurance online and shopping for a lot of options with a lot of costs and lot of different benefits and plans and — and somehow expecting that that would be very smooth, and then they’ve also got to try to apply for tax credits on the website.
He just figured that out? Seriously? These are the people that wrote the law and oversaw the creation of the website and exchanges..... and they've just now discovered that insurance is complicated????
Inexcusable. Resign. Now.
Thanks Xiahou, for not losing your humor in all this.
Greyblades
11-15-2013, 18:53
Inexcusable. Resign. Now.
Oh give it a rest, if a president doesn't have to resign over getting tens of thousands of people killed pursuing the agendas of oil companies the next one isn't going to resign over an insurance website's teething troubles.
Seriously, you kicked out a guy for getting a blowjob despite being the best peace time president in the last 30 years yet you don't so much as blink when the next guy bankrupt's the country and plunges you into hellish wars, what the hell?
Seriously, you kicked out a guy for getting a blowjob despite being the best peace time president in the last 30 years yet you don't so much as blink when the next guy bankrupt's the country and plunges you into hellish wars, what the hell?
No, we didn't- but continue your uninformed ranting. :yes:
Yes, "teething problems"- that's the only problem with the law. I see you've taken my "Why follow the news?" thread to heart.
Uninformed ranting? I'd say the one calling for Obama's resignation is the one partaking in that activity...
You mean he wasn't joking the whole time?
All I can say is that if Obama has lost the Pennsylvania Libertarian support that is his base ... it's all over. Resignation is inevitable.
Heh, I keed, I keed.
The problems with ACA would make me a lot less nervous if I saw any evidence that the Repubs had a realistic plan to improve and/or replace it. Who knows, maybe the congressional Repubs will actually get interested in governing. This would be a great moment for them to show interest in, you know, the well-being of the nation and their fellow citizens.
It could happen.
Greyblades
11-15-2013, 21:49
No, we didn't- but continue your uninformed ranting.
Yes, I am well aware it was all an excuse to fulfil partisan desires to get him out of power. I still wonder why the heck you pushed through such a pathetically irrelevant excuse to remove clinton (and are pushing this one against obama) while bush got off scott free.
Crazed Rabbit
11-15-2013, 22:26
All I can say is that if Obama has lost the Pennsylvania Libertarian support that is his base ... it's all over. Resignation is inevitable.
Heh, I keed, I keed.
The problems with ACA would make me a lot less nervous if I saw any evidence that the Repubs had a realistic plan to improve and/or replace it. Who knows, maybe the congressional Repubs will actually get interested in governing. This would be a great moment for them to show interest in, you know, the well-being of the nation and their fellow citizens.
It could happen.
Imagine if Ted Cruz and his merry band of shutdown morons had instead spent their time on a good alternative to Obamacare.
Instead of getting the focus on the shutdown, they could have sat on the sidelines while the ACA problems took center stage, and then offered up a viable alternative.
But as you say, they'd have to care about governing and not short term political points, or some stupid 'stand' against Obamacare. And some intelligence on their part in designing a good alternative.
He just figured that out? Seriously? These are the people that wrote the law and oversaw the creation of the website and exchanges..... and they've just now discovered that insurance is complicated????
Remember, we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
CR
Seamus Fermanagh
11-16-2013, 00:27
Imagine if Ted Cruz and his merry band of shutdown morons had instead spent their time on a good alternative to Obamacare.
Instead of getting the focus on the shutdown, they could have sat on the sidelines while the ACA problems took center stage, and then offered up a viable alternative.
But as you say, they'd have to care about governing and not short term political points, or some stupid 'stand' against Obamacare. And some intelligence on their part in designing a good alternative.
Remember, we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
CR
The problem is their preferred answer -- tax protected medical savings accounts and private insurance for all -- is unpalatable to the bulk of the electorate and would be excoriated in the media.
ICantSpellDawg
11-16-2013, 02:21
The problem is their preferred answer -- tax protected medical savings accounts and private insurance for all -- is unpalatable to the bulk of the electorate and would be excoriated in the media.
Why is it unpalatable? What are you talking about? Having a 401k that you could take and spend on medical services is something that people don't want?
Even morons understand how a basic traditional 401k works and that it is tax deferred. See? I'm a moron and I know that. This would assist people in buying monthly plans and give them an incentive to save it as it is additional real money that would otherwise be used in retirement. Force businesses to offer it as an investment vehicle (like they are forced to have workers comp and disability in most states - they wouldn't have to fund it and you could allow them to reduce payroll taxes to cover certain fees) and open up the criteria for plan usage.
People don't like the idea of trading "guaranteed" benefits into privatized retirement investment, but getting free money is usually pretty popular with the people who actually vote.
All I can say is that if Obama has lost the Pennsylvania Libertarian support that is his base ... it's all over. Resignation is inevitable.
Heh, I keed, I keed.
The problems with ACA would make me a lot less nervous if I saw any evidence that the Repubs had a realistic plan to improve and/or replace it. Who knows, maybe the congressional Repubs will actually get interested in governing. This would be a great moment for them to show interest in, you know, the well-being of the nation and their fellow citizens.
It could happen.
You jest, but yes - when facing an enemies weakness it is a good time to show strength. What little you show will pay dividends when compared with the abject failure of the opposition.
This bill is the right bill to push and it should be followed by others. Anything to look like the good guys and make the other guy look like an incompetent.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-16-2013, 23:34
No politician in the US is actually capable of making the decisions necessary to fix America's healthcare system - those who understand the problem cannot get elected and those that get elected cannot understand the problem.
a completely inoffensive name
11-18-2013, 02:18
No politician in the US is actually capable of making the decisions necessary to fix America's healthcare system - those who understand the problem cannot get elected and those that get elected cannot understand the problem.
Until someone finally comes along and suggests a proper universal government health care plan, you are correct. But I have a feeling the time is coming when a major politician will campaign for just that, and nothing less.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-18-2013, 05:03
Until someone finally comes along and suggests a proper universal government health care plan, you are correct. But I have a feeling the time is coming when a major politician will campaign for just that, and nothing less.
Unlikely.
In order to understand why the US lacks a 1st World Healthcare system, you first need to understand why the First World Countries have these systems.
The impetus was the overwhelming number of lives ruined by two successive world wars - with so many dead, so many absent fathers, the European States were forced to develop welfare systems to support their wives and children. Likewise, the surviving veterans of these wars constituted the majority of the male adult population, and the majority of them needed a doctor for something. In the UK you also had numerous Civilians who had been wounded in the bombing campaigns.
Everybody needed a doctor, or they needed someone to pay for food - rationing remained in effect in the UK for years.
Those governments that were even functioning immediately after the War were simply forced to pay for the care their populations needed - the impetus was both moral and political - the ousting of the Conservatives in the UK demonstrated that the British people would not support Winston Churchill, despite his heroic stature - they wanted Clement Atlee and the Welfare State.
In the US, you have a tradition of exceptionalism, for groups and individuals. You looked at the returning soldiers, and you decided that Veterans needed support and healthcare, then you decided the very poor did.
Even today - few Americans can conceive of a general need for services. This extends beyond healthcare, it encompasses other services, like law enforcement and provision of other emergency services. In the rest of the Anglo-sphere these services started in large cities, but were then extended to counties and regions by the end of the 19th Century. In the US the majority of Counties still rely on elected politicians to provide Law Enforcement and a Judiciary, rather than professionals appointed by the State.
Bottom line - the US can't bare the weight of the concepts required for universal healthcare provision - if it could the "Public Option" would not have been dropped, and would now be driving the majority of Private Providers out of business.
HoreTore
11-18-2013, 09:06
It is ironic that our money enabled the creation of modern Europe, yet conservatives claim we don't have the money to modernize ourselves.
"If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." - Tony Benn
Tellos Athenaios
11-18-2013, 13:52
It is ironic that our money enabled the creation of modern Europe, yet conservatives claim we don't have the money to modernize ourselves.
Well you spent it all on tax breaks...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-18-2013, 15:03
It is ironic that our money enabled the creation of modern Europe, yet conservatives claim we don't have the money to modernize ourselves.
Here's another thought - just to hammer home how stupid they are.
Private insurance goes against what might happen, but you will get sick, which means the normal function of insurance does not apply. In essence, medical insurance is deferred payment of expenses - which is why it costs so much.
Obamacare at this point is a deliciously epic fail. Odumbo has less than a year to fix this mess before the Dems take a well deserved pounding at the polls. Chances are high though, that nothing will get fixed. Nada. Partly because Barry is stubborn as a mule when it comes to touching his precious Obamacare, and partly because the GOP has a lot to gain from keeping this wound fresh and regularly salting it instead of offering any viable alternative.
In the meantime, my insurance premiums have jumped by $150 per month. Thanks, Obama.
It just means hundreds of people died every month before because you paid 150$ too little. Or they used the ER and couldn't pay the bill so someone else paid it, like the government using 150$ of your taxes to pay it. Think of all the military stuff they can buy now from the money they save.
Pannonian
11-20-2013, 09:56
It just means hundreds of people died every month before because you paid 150$ too little. Or they used the ER and couldn't pay the bill so someone else paid it, like the government using 150$ of your taxes to pay it. Think of all the military stuff they can buy now from the money they save.
You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns
And the public wants what the public gets
But I don't get what this society wants
...like the government using 150$ of your taxes to pay it...
Exactly. They used my money before and now they're using more of my money. It's extra taxation disguised as insurance.
Exactly. They used my money before and now they're using more of my money. It's extra taxation disguised as insurance.
In all fairness, this is exactly what the Supreme Court said it was.
In all fairness, this is exactly what the Supreme Court said it was.
Yeah, I remember that ruling. Then again, I'm not really arguing about the legality of Obamacare, just stating that it's crap. Utter crap.
Greyblades
11-20-2013, 18:18
Do you mean the right wing sabotaging obamacare or itself?
Either way yes it was surprising seeing them go off the deep end.
HoreTore
11-20-2013, 18:20
Eagerly looking forward to 2016, so a Republican can campaign on repealing it and lose to Hilary. In retrospect she's probably the tougher reform candidate.
Who could have predicted this level of right-wing sabotage?
I have always had the impression that Obama is more of a moderate* than Hillary. Would that be correct?
*Speaking of social policies only, I must admit to not knowing the difference in fields like foreign policy
I have always had the impression that Obama is more of a moderate* than Hillary. Would that be correct?
I would disagree with that. Hillary is very much a centrist.
Exactly. They used my money before and now they're using more of my money. It's extra taxation disguised as insurance.
It's necessary to prevent China from conquering the USA. There are times when everybody has to give a bit for the glory of the nation and 150$ is still so little compared to those who dedicate their lives to defend the nation.
China has already conquered the USA... In the meantime $150 buys more red wine than I can drink in a month.
Montmorency
11-20-2013, 21:47
Why does that 'China owns the US' bit still get so much airing? They don't own much more than a tenth of our debt. For the moment, this debt is a bigger liability to China than it is to the US, in terms of geopolitical constraint.
Why does that 'China owns the US' bit still get so much airing? They don't own much more than a tenth of our debt. For the moment, this debt is a bigger liability to China than it is to the US, in terms of geopolitical constraint.
Don't confuse us with facts. We're 'Murica!
https://i.imgur.com/BuHFf47.jpg
Why does that 'China owns the US' bit still get so much airing? They don't own much more than a tenth of our debt. For the moment, this debt is a bigger liability to China than it is to the US, in terms of geopolitical constraint.
I think if you default they can foreclose your white house.
So, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it." has already been proven a lie.
Next up? "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/insurers-restricting-choice-of-doctors-and-hospitals-to-keep-costs-down/2013/11/20/98c84e20-4bb4-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html)"
As Americans have begun shopping for health plans on the insurance exchanges, they are discovering that insurers are restricting their choice of doctors and hospitals in order to keep costs low, and that many of the plans exclude top-rated hospitals.
The Obama administration made it a priority to keep down the cost of insurance on the exchanges, the online marketplaces that are central to the Affordable Care Act. But one way that insurers have been able to offer lower rates is by creating networks that are far smaller than what most Americans are accustomed to.
---
The result, some argue, is a two-tiered system of health care: Many of the people who buy health plans on the exchanges have fewer hospitals and doctors to choose from than those with coverage through their employers.
A number of the nation’s top hospitals — including the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, and children’s hospitals in Seattle, Houston and St. Louis — are cut out of most plans sold on the exchange.
In most cases, the decision was about the cost of care
So on one hand, we have the Obamacare insurance death spiral, on the other hand we have the Obamacare provider death spiral (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/20/209165/doctors-are-concerned-about-pay.html). There's already a shortage of general practitioners in the country. Obamacare provides restricted access to an already small pool and enforces discount rates that will cause even more providers to drop out of the system. This will, in turn, channel more patients to the existing providers who will also leave the exchanges as discounted rates take an ever larger share of their practices.
Many doctors are disturbed that they’ll be paid less – often a lot less – to care for the millions of patients who are projected to buy coverage through the health law’s new insurance marketplaces.
Some have complained to medical associations – including those in Texas, California, Georgia, Connecticut and New York – saying the discounted rates could lead to a two-tiered system in which fewer doctors participate, perhaps making it harder for consumers to get the care they need.
“As it is, there is a shortage of primary care physicians in the country, and they don’t have enough time to see all the patients who are calling them,” said Peter Cunningham, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington.
If providers are paid less, he said, “Are (enrollees) going to have difficulty getting physicians to accept them as patients?”
Montmorency
11-21-2013, 15:14
Irredentism for Cuba, then. :shrug:
I know one of my doctors will soon no longer be able to see me; AFAIK the new position he's accepted at another hospital is contractually unable to accept any insurance, nor to authorize claims forms.
The thing about being cut out, is that those hospitals will have to cut the cost of care to more reasonable levels. Thus, this would bring down healthcare costs so they end up included in these plans. Isn't that what you want from the Free Market?
HoreTore
11-21-2013, 21:36
Doctor wages should be drastically cut anyway.
Pour the money into important things in life instead, like engineering.
HoreTore
11-21-2013, 23:21
I disagree. A nation that spends most of its money on the health and happiness of its people is doing something right.
So do I, thus we should spend our money on engineers instead of doctors ~;)
To make it simple: I would rather pay for the engineer who makes a safer car than pay a doc for stitching the driver after a crash.
Preventive care, not band-aids. The engineer will give you the former, the doctor will give you the latter. As for pain, death and suffering: we should learn again how to live with it.
Funny Xiahou mentions a shortage of GPs but not the fact that its a consequence of the market. Specialists just make buttloads more money, and medical school costs too much to ignore the difference.Because of the market? Perhaps, but not a free market.
This is an area where strong government intervention paid for by the Tax Payer would be the most reliable solution. Don't go pretending like the right wants anything fixed.And yet, the government is making it worse... Weird, huh?
Montmorency
11-22-2013, 01:42
Because of the market? Perhaps, but not a free market.
So, like, a husband leaves his family for a few days to trade assorted goofs with the nearby homestead? That kind of free market? :rolleyes:
And yet, the government is making it worse... Weird, huh?
Favorite anti-government tactic: sabotage the government's function at every level and then complain about the dysfunctionality of reform-attempts.
Favorite anti-government tactic: sabotage the government's function at every level and then complain about the dysfunctionality of reform-attempts.Obama sabotaged his own signature legislation? That's called incompetence, not sabotage. :yes:
Spare me the Tinkerbell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6IKaLF4Fqc) fallacy.
A worthwhile back-and-forth between Sully and Levin/Ponnuru about the future of healthcare, and what a Republican replacement might look like. It spans several articles and posts, so I'll just give you the last round:
On an Obamacare Alternative (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364463/obamacare-alternative-yuval-levin-ramesh-ponnuru), NRO, Levin & Ponnuru
The GOP’s Answer To Obamacare? (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/11/22/the-gops-answer-to-obamacare/), The Dish, Sullivan
Seamus Fermanagh
11-24-2013, 02:09
A worthwhile back-and-forth between Sully and Levin/Ponnuru about the future of healthcare, and what a Republican replacement might look like. It spans several articles and posts, so I'll just give you the last round:
On an Obamacare Alternative (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364463/obamacare-alternative-yuval-levin-ramesh-ponnuru), NRO, Levin & Ponnuru
The GOP’s Answer To Obamacare? (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/11/22/the-gops-answer-to-obamacare/), The Dish, Sullivan
The GOP would have done better to have had this sort of thing out, front and center, long since. Saying "NO" without showcasing a viable alternative approach (even an approach that is diametrically opposed) raises too many hackles -- smacks of obstructionism for obstructionism's sake.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-24-2013, 02:10
I disagree. A nation that spends most of its money on the health and happiness of its people is doing something right.
I prefer, as much as possible, for them to keep their own money and spend it as they choose.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-24-2013, 02:19
Depends how they got it.
Fraud and thievery should not be rewarded, I concur. I have spoken to such effect in other threads.
Fraud and thievery should not be rewarded, I concur. I have spoken to such effect in other threads.
I suspect GC's definition of what constitutes thievery varies a good bit from yours. :yes:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-26-2013, 22:52
I suspect GC's definition of what constitutes thievery varies a good bit from yours. :yes:
A distinct possibility.
Fisherking
11-28-2013, 12:39
Well, just so you are aware, what the ACA is doing is assuring that all the smaller insurers will fail. Only Insurance companies with very deep pockets will be able to manage in the long run. Those Corporation with the deepest pockets will win in the end, making up the difference in market share.
In the end you have cut competition and left things to just a few large corporations.
Just like banking or the defense industry you will wind up with just a few mega businesses in the sector, setting the rules, and of course contributing to political campaigns so things stay the way they are.
Tell me how this is a good thing?
Greyblades
11-28-2013, 12:51
It's a good thing because it will make the insurance companies even worse providers, increasing the demand for reform which will make the obama's plan to push for universal healthcare in 2016 that much easier to implement. That in turn will be so badly planned that the idea of universal healthcare will be forever stained in the American consciousness and the government will be forced to give up on the idea. All this so that when the drug companies release the pathogen and infect the eastern seaboard there will be no one willing to risk their political careers to prevent the companies charging exuberant amounts for temporary cures and therefore make enough money for the republican/scientologist stock holders that they will be able to pay for the rebuilding of the lost city of Rhyleth which will awaken the great old one and doom the world to insanity, so sayeth the ruler of bathos.
Duh.
Politifact's Lie of the Year:
If you like your health care plan, you can keep it (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/)
There are some interesting developments (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/16/wonkbook-insurers-will-spend-more-than-500-million-to-get-people-to-sign-up-for-obamacare/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein) today, with lots of implications ...
... but I'm going to ignore all of that, and indulge my Bad Political Music Fetish. I CAN'T HELP MYSELF. I see/hear horrible political music, and I light up like a Christmas tree.*
http://youtu.be/1GmY8KH03rM
* Although, for the record, I think Hillary 4 U and Me (http://youtu.be/5FvyGydc8no) still stands as the greatest piece of Bad Political Music in my lifetime. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.