[Cthulhu D]

ArtK78, on 2013-November-12, 08:17, said:

Plans get canceled all of the time. Prior to a year ago, my firm had 3 coverage options - two types of PPO plans, and an HMO plan. The firm paid part of the premium on each plan, and the employee paid the rest. There were differing premiums on the three plans - PPO Plan A was the most expensive, PPO Plan B was less expensive, and the HMO Plan was the least expensive.

About a year ago, the insurance company eliminated PPO Plan A, and that reduced our choices to PPO Plan B and the HMO Plan.

This had nothing to do with the ACA.

While it may be true that insurance companies are using the ACA as an excuse for canceling plans now, it doesn't change the fact that plans get eliminated all of the time for various reasons (although I am sure the primary reason is profitability).

Yeah, that's what happening - insurers would normally just make changes to protect their margins, but the legacy provisions force them to cancel plans where they would otherwise crank up the rates or descope coverage. But this is purely the corporations fault.

Quote

Winston, this may seem ridiculous to you, but this point is lost on most Americans.

It's honestly baffling that the fact that people are surprised by the fact that corporations, which are by design sociopathic, and reward sociopaths disproportionately screw over their customers. Corporations are fine if the incentives are aligned with the interests of the public and consumers, but the problem with the health insurance industry in the US is that the health insurance corporations are rewarded for how much service they refuse to give you.

[Winstonm]

dwar0123, on 2013-November-12, 17:10, said:

Increase demand for treasure bonds doesn't increase the number of treasure bonds issued, it lowers the interest rate paid out and consequently decreases the future number of bonds issued. The government is only losing once here

No, the government is losing twice. Take the Bush tax cuts. The first loss was the lowered taxes; the second loss was the interest paid when those lowered tax savings were used to buy treasury bonds which, ironically, were sold to cover the shortfall caused by insufficient tax revenues.

[Winstonm]

Then there is this from today in Huffington Post:

Quote

But a new study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association strongly undercuts the assertion that an aging population is primarily to blame for soaring health care costs. Instead, the study concludes, the overwhelming share of increased health expenditures can be traced to the higher prices that hospitals, medical professionals and drug companies charge to treat a wide swath of illnesses, from cancer to depression

So there we have it from the docs themselves - the cause of rising costs is higher prices. This borders on genius.

[Winstonm]

HighLow21, on 2013-November-12, 11:31, said:

Winston, this may seem ridiculous to you, but this point is lost on most Americans.

In all sincerity, though--corporations CAN be good for the general public, but it requires that the government properly direct their actions for this to be accomplished. The government makes the rules, period (and if they fail to make the rules, the corporations will, to their own benefit).

That was the tradeoff that was made when we decided to exclude the public option. It is deeply ingrained in the American culture to choose the "free market" over government solutions, thanks to Reagan and a number of others. Obamacare was designed to do exactly this--build a system whereby corporations can make their profits, but not at the expense of the American people's health.

I, for one, am against most of my American compatriots in this respect. I am deeply distrustful of corporations and their motives, just as Adam Smith was. I'd much rather have single-payer. But the concept of "free enterprise" is part of the American bloodstream, and the whole idea behind constructing it this way was to get Republicans on board with the plan because it remains pro-profit. Instead, they just continued to oppose it, because their viewpoint is that ANY cooperation with Obama and the Dems is bad for their party. (What's best for the American people, to them, is completely irrelevant.)

Note that I use the scare quotes because we don't really have free markets or free enterprise anywhere.

But trust me when I tell you those folks you mentioned are NOT credible Presidential candidates. Some may run but will be out of the primary by the 3rd state. Chris Christie is probably about a 70% favorite to win the GOP nomination in 2016 at this point.

The surprising aspect to me is how many people appear to believe that healthcare should be no different than say a concrete plant - that business is business, regardless of the product or service.

Sorry, but the health welfare of a nation's citizens should not be held hostage to a company's return on investment.

[FM75]

Logic error:
Somebody said you "need health insurance". Wrong - you need air to breathe. You might want health insurance.
You don't need health insurance unless:
1) You have or will have a medical problem.
2) You can't just live with it now or when you get it.
3) You don't have enough money to pay for the care, if and when you need it, AND
4) You can't arrange to acquire the money to pay for the care, if and when you need it.

Many people do not meet all of those. Some not even any of them.

Compounding the logic error.
We need the medical insurance the the government says we must have. "Don't worry, sir. I am from the government and I am here to help you."

There is the slippery slope.
But wait. It gets worse. Obviously you can't choose to insure your risks. Why don't we just make everybody buy car insurance, homeowners' insurance, personal liability insurance?
So what if they don't own a car. They might drive one. They might not own the house, but accidentally burn it down. Finally, god forbid, they might have a pre-existing mental illness and buy a knife and go out and stab somebody, not killing them, but making them invalids for life! (No not a gun, they will be outlawed soon enough.)

The government of the people
No matter what - yes, not by or for. The House has already repealed PPACA numerous times. Obviously, by the people, is gone.
OK. We stepped onto the slippery slope. The healthy will pay EXTRA money for the unhealthy. If that is fair, let's just charge everybody the same for car insurance. After all, alcoholism and tendency to speed are pre-existing conditions. So are the propensity to get distracted while driving, having poor vision, or reaction time loss (old folks, with reaction times about the same as drunks (does any state measure this?)

But wait! That is not enough. Rock climbing and sky-diving are dangerous. Since we can't charge a premium based upon risk, let's outlaw risk-taking. Heck, did you know that triathlons are an order of magnitude more dangerous than marathons? No more triathlons. No more football. (Just watch reruns of old games.) No more hunting. What do you mean you want to buy welding equipment to work on antique cars? What are we paying all these legislators and regulators all that good money. Don't they realize we have people doing things besides taking a walk and watching television (and playing bridge)?

Rewrite the curriculum
Yeah, they probably already did that. America is not the land of opportunity and home of the brave and the free. Forget all that. We are the home of the wimps, the weak, the vast teaming masses looking for a free lunch, free healthcare, free TVs, internet, cell phones and the right to speak the language from where we came from and if it isn't English expect to write everything in our language.

Taxation without representation
That did not go out with the passing of the 16th amendment. We lost that later with Social Security - a tax paid by the yet unborn - a government passed Ponzi scheme. It has never been a real "pension system" administered well or poorly by the government. Just a free lunch for today's elderly paid for by today's workers and tomorrow's.

- Hey, I did not grow up in Nanny Jersey, and I hope to leave soon.

[hrothgar]

FM75, on 2013-November-12, 18:27, said:

- Hey, I did not grow up in Nanny Jersey, and I hope to leave soon.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out...

FWIW, you won't be missed

[dwar0123]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-12, 18:06, said:

No, the government is losing twice. Take the Bush tax cuts. The first loss was the lowered taxes; the second loss was the interest paid when those lowered tax savings were used to buy treasury bonds which, ironically, were sold to cover the shortfall caused by insufficient tax revenues.

That is a different scenario than a private institution deciding to purchase treasury bonds rather than invest more directly in the economy. The government doesn't lose money when demand increases for bonds, it saves money due to being able to lower the interest rates.

Of course making up for a shortfall in revenue with debt is doubly painful but this wasn't the scenario I intended my reply to be about.

[mike777]

Single payer is still a bit confusing term. The UK and Canada don't just have single payer system, they have thousands of payers of health care.

To be fair it is even difficult to define and measure the "health care system". It is far more than doctors, nurses and hospitals. IN fact doctors may be only a small part of the system.

Many posters are for single payer health care system but don't really define and tell us how to measure it. So we sort of have a true lack of science here.


With that said I think we all can agree that the present system of health care by any definition and measurement is not good for 50 million or more.

Even Medicare is not a full system of single payer health care. It is a program that is very popular and full of fraud running about 250 billion by some reports and with many compliants and in danger of being bankrupt.

[FM75]

mike777, on 2013-November-12, 21:08, said:

Single payer is still a bit confusing term. The UK and Canada don't just have single payer system, they have thousands of payers of health care.

To be fair it is even difficult to define and measure the "health care system". It is far more than doctors, nurses and hospitals.

Many posters are for single payer health care system but don't really define and tell us how to measure it. So we sort of have a true lack of science here.


With that said I think we all can agree that the present system of health care by any definition and measurement is not good for 50 million or more.

Even Medicare is not a full system of single payer health care. It is a program that is very popular and full of fraud running about 250 billion by some reports and with many compliants and in danger of being bankrupt.

Lack of science is an understatement. Well said.

One could think of a single-payer system as one consumer pays one provider. That seems like the simplest definition and logical. The opposite is an every-payer system in which everybody pays one provider for that consumer's health care. (Oh, wait. We want to call that single payer, as in the government, which has no realistic way of earning income outside taxation, ignoring public park fees and the like. Is it single payer when supported by massive transfer payments from taxpayers?). Then you have the in between schemes where some people never pay for anybody's health care including their own.

As to it not being "good for 50 million or more"... I think you really mean not "good enough" by someone's standard. Why should health care be any different from food, housing, or any thing else you might want or need? You want/need a car? Go buy one (that you can afford). You can't afford the one you want. Steal one that somebody else paid for. Are you really, really hungry. Drop by McDonald's. Grab somebody's dinner and run fast.

Consider this. How about a one-time transfer payment for health care? You don't like your options, fill out this form (on paper, so we don't have to get a web-site working). Sign it. You get a one way air-fare to the country of your choice. No returns. No rush. No deadlines. You can opt in any time you like.

[Vampyr]

FM75, on 2013-November-12, 21:54, said:

Why should health care be any different from food, housing, or any thing else you might want or need? You want/need a car? Go buy one (that you can afford).

It's not the same at all. Some people will get illnesses they "can't afford". Some people will get cancer, or heart disease, or be run over by a bus. Should people who are not wealthy just die, or should everyone contribute a bit towards helping these people (and themselves, if needed) survive? I guess it is a question of values.

Quote

You can't afford the one you want. Steal one that somebody else paid for. Are you really, really hungry. Drop by McDonald's. Grab somebody's dinner and run fast.

Health care is extremely difficult to steal.

Quote

Consider this. How about a one-time transfer payment for health care? You don't like your options, fill out this form (on paper, so we don't have to get a web-site working). Sign it. You get a one way air-fare to the country of your choice. No returns. No rush. No deadlines. You can opt in any time you like.

How does this help?

[Vampyr]

Duplicate

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-12, 18:06, said:

No, the government is losing twice. Take the Bush tax cuts. The first loss was the lowered taxes; the second loss was the interest paid when those lowered tax savings were used to buy treasury bonds which, ironically, were sold to cover the shortfall caused by insufficient tax revenues.

I'm not sure we should look at reduction in government revenues as the government "losing". Although, since government seems categorically unable to cut back spending when revenue is reduced, that's certainly a problem.

[mike777]

Clearly the voters have said they want bigger govt, more revenues, more control over the economy.
Any thing less is a loss.

Again if the govt is more efficient, better at asset/capital allocation, better at social justice and fairness then loss of revenue is a loss.

Winston points out the rich buy bonds, the govt spends. That is asset/capital allocation!
------------


As one poster put it health care is very difficult to steal, but many posters seem to feel it is easy to steal. We cannot even agree how easy/hard it is to steal.

[HighLow21]

FM75, on 2013-November-12, 18:27, said:

Logic error:
Somebody said you "need health insurance". Wrong - you need air to breathe. You might want health insurance.
You don't need health insurance unless:
1) You have or will have a medical problem.
2) You can't just live with it now or when you get it.
3) You don't have enough money to pay for the care, if and when you need it, AND
4) You can't arrange to acquire the money to pay for the care, if and when you need it.
...

The remainder of this post has "Tea Party" written all over it. Riddled with non-sequiturs and arguments that have no purpose in a discussion on this or any other germane topic. I'm happy to point out many of them if anyone likes.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-12, 22:15, said:

Health care is extremely difficult to steal.

Is it? I remember visiting my father (who was a cardiologist) a couple of decades ago and seeing a guy drive up in a truck and drop off several bushels of apples and peaches. Dad insisted I take a bushel of each home with me. When I asked him what the deal was, he told me the guy, a farmer, had been a patient, and when he told Dad he couldn't afford to pay the bill, Dad just forgave the whole thing. So the farmer insisted on giving Dad some of his crop every year. I asked my father if this happened often. He said "fortunately, not often enough to put me in the poorhouse." He also said that at the rate the farmer was "paying off the debt" it would probably take him a couple of centuries to get it done. Not counting interest.

Okay, not stealing, exactly. I don't think the farmer went into the deal intending to get something for nothing. Still, it's a part of the problem. Will the ACA fix it? Probably not, but who knows? The law is so damn complex it's hard to tell what its effects will truly be.

[HighLow21]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-12, 22:37, said:

I'm not sure we should look at reduction in government revenues as the government "losing". Although, since government seems categorically unable to cut back spending when revenue is reduced, that's certainly a problem.

Given that revenue began falling due to a long-term debt cycle decline (read: depression or deleveraging), one of the worst possible actions that could have been taken would have been to cut spending. All that would have done is further exacerbate the depression.

Actually, cutting taxes in that scenario is also one of the worst possible ideas, but Republicans still seem to dig it.

See:
http://dealbook.nyti...d-cartoon/?_r=5

[mike777]

/given 2013,,,,


1) more taxes much more


2) on health care we spend what...more?


ion any event 50 million and more don't have it

[Cthulhu D]

HighLow21, on 2013-November-13, 00:46, said:

The remainder of this post has "Tea Party" written all over it. Riddled with non-sequiturs and arguments that have no purpose in a discussion on this or any other germane topic. I'm happy to point out many of them if anyone likes.

I love that he cannot see that, infact, air to stop you from dying and an emergency blood transfusion to stop you from dying are, infact, exactly the same.

People who think there is a free market for healthcare are, in a very real sense, idiots. We've known since Adam Smith that a free market requires several things:

A) Fully informed consumers
B) Who are able to make a rational choice
C) Have a number of options available that are in perfect competition.

Now, let me cite a real healthcare example. You are hit by a car and knocked unconscious in the accident. How are you a) Informed about anything, because you are unconscious b) able to make a rational choice from amongst the treatment options available to you because you are unconscious.

This fundamental healthcare scenario fails Adam Smith's precepts. There is no free market for healthcare, nor can there ever be. Should people wait for you to come around before calling an ambulance? What if you die in the mean time? What about if you are literally dying in an ER, and will not survive being moved to another hospital. The provider realises this, and suddenly the cost of his services is 'All of your possessions'. How does that meet point C?

People who do not understand this inability for there ever to be a free market for healthcare under any circumstances are quite literally one of two types of idiots - dunces (those incapable of learning) or ignoramuses (those who are uneducated or ignorant).

[mike777]

Posters make a strong argument that the President of America should be in charge of health care not free markets.


"This fundamental healthcare scenario fails Adam Smith's precepts. There is no free market for healthcare, nor can there ever be. Should people wait for you to come around before calling an ambulance? What if you die in the mean time? What about if you are literally dying in an ER, and will not survive being moved to another hospital. The provider realises this, and suddenly the cost of his services is 'All of your possessions'. How does that meet point C?

People who do not understand this inability for there ever to be a free market for healthcare under any circumstances are quite literally one of two types of idiots - dunces (those incapable of learning) or ignoramuses (those who are uneducated or ignorant)."

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2013-November-13, 06:59, said:

Posters make a strong argument that the President of America should be in charge of health care not free markets.

I don't recall anyone arguing that the President should be in charge of health care.
I wouldn't trust George W. Bush to wipe his own ass, let alone run health care.

A number of people, myself included, have stated that they think that the government should run health care in the United States (just as it does in every other developed economy).