Will Obamacare succeed where term limits failed?

I guess in the American system it would be something like 2000$ for the letter the doctor handed you, 100$ for the hour he spent examining and talking to you, 3000$ for sending stuff to the lab, 50000$ for six days in the hospital and you can buy the dialysis machine yourself for 10000$ if you want to live a little longer.

In an ideal system however, the free market would decide whether you get a kidney failure or a heart disease in the first place.

Yikes! what happened to make your kiney shut down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Out of pocket costs so far = $0.00; that will change when I fill my prescriptions => what would be my experience in the USA?

---

Two thoughts:

1. The USA system is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be (who exactly gets stuck with the inflated bills is a hotly contested issue every single time), but you've got the general outline correct.
2. Your out-of-pocket may be $0, but you are still paying. (Ain't no such thing as a free lunch.) But you are paying in a much more rational manner than we do south of the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Yikes! what happened to make your kiney shut down?

---

As I understand it I suffer from a condition that causes the kidney to eat itself. Had I caught it sooner, it is treatable with steroids; by the time it was discovered I had only 3-5% of my kidney remaining.
Vote +1 for regular check-ups :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I guess in the American system it would be something like 2000$ for the letter the doctor handed you, 100$ for the hour he spent examining and talking to you, 3000$ for sending stuff to the lab, 50000$ for six days in the hospital and you can buy the dialysis machine yourself for 10000$ if you want to live a little longer.

In an ideal system however, the free market would decide whether you get a kidney failure or a heart disease in the first place.

---

This is ridiculous. No way the dialysis machine would be that cheap to buy. That's probably the cost just to have it used on you for that week. Also, the cost is way to low for the doctor examination (I've gotten $175 bill, pre-insurance, for 15 minutes).

I'm not really joking.

However, you should read the article "Bitter Pill" by Steven Brill (PDF alert!). It discusses, in great depth, the astronomical cost of care in the USA and looks at reasons why (like hospitals charging 100x the cost for over the counter medicine).

Quote:

---

As I understand it I suffer from a condition that causes the kidney to eat itself.

---

Wow, that's unnerving. Best of luck with your treatment.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Also, the cost is way to low for the doctor examination (I've gotten $175 bill, pre-insurance, for 15 minutes)

---

It is $32 for that from our private sector, 'free' if you visit the local GP you are registered to.


*Free at the point of access.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

This is ridiculous. No way the dialysis machine would be that cheap to buy. That's probably the cost just to have it used on you for that week. Also, the cost is way to low for the doctor examination (I've gotten $175 bill, pre-insurance, for 15 minutes).

I'm not really joking.

---

I know, and I'm sorry.

I was trying not to look anti-american by using numbers that are too high. :sweatdrop:
The numbers were loosely based (from cheese-like memory) on some I saw in another forum recently.

Also wish you all the best HopAlongBunny!

Condolences, Bunny. That ____ing sucks. Healthy enough for transplant in near future? Or is there some hope of returning to useful function percentage?

Thank you for the good wishes!:yes:
The good news is that I am a good candidate for transplant (young and healthy); that was a shocking description made by one doctor.
I repeat though: get regular check-ups! Had I followed the initial signs over the last decade or so, I would be free and clear today.
~:grouphug:

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

Quote:

---

It was a mistake to attempt such a massive government intrusion on a marketplace and a mistake to do so without anything close to a public consensus.

---

I couldn't say it much better. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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/eamonnfi...out-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/eamonnfi...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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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/showt...post2053558781

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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-conten...l-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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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....

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?