PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare



jyng1
01-08-2014, 05:34 PM
The online controversy appears to be continuing. Every time NPR and Atlantic Cities put something online comments come thick and fast.

I don't get it. Health care costs $8,900 per capita. 22 cents in the tax dollar already goes to pay for socialised health care like Medicaid and Medicaid that still leaves a pretty big chunk to be paid by private health premiums.

Quite a few people who appear to have changed their plans have now got quite good subsidies and quite a few who don't are complaining. The complaints appear to be mostly Republicans and that strikes me as being a little ironic. I thought Republicans would be pretty keen to pay the full cost of their health care and wouldn't want any communist subsidies.

Anyway, I thought we needed a thread as the whole topic amuses the shit out of me.

LordLatch
01-08-2014, 05:41 PM
I know I've said this before:

Breaking down the word 'amuse' we get 'no think' as in

The 'a' in amuse means 'no' seen in these other examples:
apathy= no feeling
atheist= no god

Muse (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/muse?s=t)means to think and as a noun it deals with one that inspires.

So the whole topic makes you not think or be inspired? Is this what you meant?

Senseye
01-08-2014, 05:42 PM
American's just don't seem to get this one. At first, I thought Obamacare would establish a beachead from which a single pay type system could evolve (once the citizens realized they would get more bang for the buck that way). But now, I start to worry that Obamacare might get pushed off the beach, and it may scupper healthcare reform in the US for decades.

starla
01-08-2014, 05:48 PM
I think Obamacare is missing the point. It's basically forcing young people who can't afford it to pay jacked up premiums for health insurance that they will probably never benefit from, so that people who also can't afford it but need it can pay less. In the meantime, the vast majority of middle, upper-middle, and rich folks -- you know, the ones who could afford to subsidize insurance for the poor -- have insurance through their jobs and thus are completely unaffected by the scheme. So we're basically robbing the poor to give to the poor. Nice job.

Obamacare changes my premiums about zero. I'll be paying around $200-$250/month for a policy that I will likely never use. It would have been about the same before Obamacare, except that I could have bought insurance that wouldn't cover pregnancy and it would have been around $190/month. And while granted I am not planning to become pregnant in the coming year, the whole point of insurance is to mitigate the risk of unplanned healthcare needs, so the idea of insurance that doesn't cover certain healthcare events is completely ridiculous.

jyng1
01-08-2014, 05:50 PM
I know I've said this before:

Breaking down the word 'amuse' we get 'no think' as in

The 'a' in amuse means 'no' seen in these other examples:
apathy= no feeling
atheist= no god

Muse (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/muse?s=t)means to think and as a noun it deals with one that inspires.

So the whole topic makes you not think or be inspired? Is this what you meant?


Hmm, I was using the term in it's current common English usage, not really the original French.

Charde
01-08-2014, 06:00 PM
I think Obamacare is missing the point. It's basically forcing young people who can't afford it to pay jacked up premiums for health insurance that they will probably never benefit from, so that people who also can't afford it but need it can pay less. In the meantime, the vast majority of middle, upper-middle, and rich folks -- you know, the ones who could afford to subsidize insurance for the poor -- have insurance through their jobs and thus are completely unaffected by the scheme. So we're basically robbing the poor to give to the poor. Nice job.

Yeah, I do see that as an issue, and it's why they are trying to market so hard to the younger crowd but not doing so well with that. (The incentive isn't quite there.) Although, from what I understand about increasing penalties, the incentive ends up being financial since after the first year the cost of not having insurance will quickly become more expensive than having it.

I'm in the class that has insurance through my workplace.

The biggest deal for me is the "no exclusion based on preexisting conditions" clause, which impact my son (with cystic fibrosis) directly and could also impact my health care as well. That one's a big deal, but there has to be a way to cover those costs built into the system.

Fucking up the roll-out really didn't help them much.

JollyBard
01-08-2014, 06:05 PM
Oh man, I'm glad to live in Canada. Never do I ever worry about health care, I just know I'll be in good hands if something happens. Although, we do have to wait much longer than you guys. A year before an important operation, 12 hours at the ER...

pensive_pilgrim
01-08-2014, 06:07 PM
This idea that young people don't need healthcare is a dangerous myth, and it leads to old people with chronic diseases and serious conditions that could have been prevented or solved cheaply had they been addressed early on. Everybody seems to be okay with the idea of paying thousands of dollars to mitigate the potential expense of unforeseen car problems, and with taking your vehicle in for regular maintenance by a trained professional, but our own bodies? I guess they're just not as important or something.

LordLatch
01-08-2014, 06:09 PM
Hmm, I was using the term in it's current common English usage, not really the original French.

English was derived from a mishmash of proto Germanic, French and other influences and I reject the notion that underlying roots and meanings are irrelevant even in colloquial English- if for nothing else but subconscious effect.

Charde
01-08-2014, 06:25 PM
This idea that young people don't need healthcare is a dangerous myth, and it leads to old people with chronic diseases and serious conditions that could have been prevented or solved cheaply had they been addressed early on. Everybody seems to be okay with the idea of paying thousands of dollars to mitigate the potential expense of unforeseen car problems, and with taking your vehicle in for regular maintenance by a trained professional, but our own bodies? I guess they're just not as important or something.

To be honest, I see a lot of people run their cars into the ground and not bother with casual maintenance either. It's amazing how many miles people can go without an oil change or a tire check, for example. If it wasn't regulated by the state, people typically wouldn't spend the money on it or take the time, until an obvious problem occurred and by then it would be too late. I'm sure car insurance would also be dropped if it wasn't illegal in the states in question.

C.J.Woolf
01-08-2014, 06:26 PM
I think Obamacare is missing the point. It's basically forcing young people who can't afford it to pay jacked up premiums for health insurance that they will probably never benefit from, so that people who also can't afford it but need it can pay less. In the meantime, the vast majority of middle, upper-middle, and rich folks -- you know, the ones who could afford to subsidize insurance for the poor -- have insurance through their jobs and thus are completely unaffected by the scheme. So we're basically robbing the poor to give to the poor. Nice job.

Part of the ACA is a new tax on so-called "Cadillac" plans that rich people buy. I don't know how much revenue that raises, though.


The biggest deal for me is the "no exclusion based on preexisting conditions" clause, which impact my son (with cystic fibrosis) directly and could also impact my health care as well. That one's a big deal, but there has to be a way to cover those costs built into the system.

Also no cancellation by the insurer, no lifetime benefit cap, etc. That's the underpublicized benefit of the ACA for people who already have insurance, like Mrs. Woolf and me. Also, individual insurance (i.e., not through an employer) will be cheaper. With the economy as it is, that is a relief for the middle-aged unemployed.

Senseye
01-08-2014, 07:41 PM
I think Obamacare is missing the point. It's basically forcing young people who can't afford it to pay jacked up premiums for health insurance that they will probably never benefit from, so that people who also can't afford it but need it can pay less. In the meantime, the vast majority of middle, upper-middle, and rich folks -- you know, the ones who could afford to subsidize insurance for the poor -- have insurance through their jobs and thus are completely unaffected by the scheme. So we're basically robbing the poor to give to the poor. Nice job.Unfortunately, that's how insurance pools work. The low risk subsidize the high risk. The thing is, those young people will someday be old, and then they will benefit from the system. You need to have some foresight to see this though. The masses usually can't budget past their next paycheck, so this is one of those rare cases where a government with the best interests of it's people at heart, has to step in and force feed everybody some good medicine even though they don't like the taste.

The other elephant in the room, is why per capital healthcare costs in the US are roughly double the cost of most (all?) OECD countries with socialized medicare with, on average, no better health outcomes? Those excess costs are almost certainly going into corporate profits.

As a rule, I don't have a problem with capatilism for consumer goods, i.e. cars, TVs, phone service etc. etc. But healthcare? I dunno, just seems wrong that people should be left to die to make sure shareholders are happy with profit margins.

I leave you with this for your viewing amusement. It's a photo from 1962 when the first Canadian province introduce socialized medicine. The Canadian Medical Association and the insurance companies were none too happy and organized a doctors strike. Note the similarity of the slogans on the placards to the rhetoric one hears about Obamacare today.

"Government responsible for chaos"
"Alternate plans ignored"
"Plan must satisfy all"

http://canadiandimension.com/images/slir/w500-h400/images/articles/SAB-Morris_neg1_website.jpg

Charde
01-08-2014, 08:11 PM
I leave you with this for your viewing amusement. It's a photo from 1962 when the first Canadian province introduce socialized medicine. The Canadian Medical Association and the insurance companies were none too happy and organized a doctors strike. Note the similarity of the slogans on the placards to the rhetoric one hears about Obamacare today.

"Government responsible for chaos"
"Alternate plans ignored"
"Plan must satisfy all"


People usually quote Santayana ("Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" or something like that) for monumental worldwide historical episodes of horror, but honestly I find it far more practical and useful in these smaller situations. They see people happy today after change has had time to shift and stabilize and forget how rocky the shift was originally for that now-stable situation, while continuing to freak about the current similar change in their own lives. So in the end we keep having to relive these dramas out, socially, over and over again.

ACow
01-08-2014, 09:21 PM
Unfortunately, that's how insurance pools work. The low risk subsidize the high risk. The thing is, those young people will someday be old, and then they will benefit from the system.

Assuming, of course, that when they get old, there is a sufficient ratio of youngs paying in to olds taking out as there is right now, which we're pretty sure there won't be (without some relatively large social upheavals). Of course, this isn't an american phenomenon, but pretty much the entire developed world. No idea how its going to play out.

starla
01-08-2014, 09:51 PM
This idea that young people don't need healthcare is a dangerous myth, and it leads to old people with chronic diseases and serious conditions that could have been prevented or solved cheaply had they been addressed early on. Everybody seems to be okay with the idea of paying thousands of dollars to mitigate the potential expense of unforeseen car problems, and with taking your vehicle in for regular maintenance by a trained professional, but our own bodies? I guess they're just not as important or something.
I've never had a doctor find anything during a checkup. Seriously, what are they going to find by weighing me and taking my blood pressure, and why do you need 4 years of medical school and 4 years of residency to handle that? I don't think I know anyone who has gone in for a normal checkup and found an issue unless they were pregnant. I've never had a doctor diagnose me when I didn't already know the diagnosis myself. I've gone to the doctor in pretty sorry shape, and thousands of dollars later he still didn't know what was wrong with me and told me there was nothing more they could do, but if I ever woke up paralyzed to mention these other symptoms when I get to the emergency room. Thanks dude. I feel much better now.


Also no cancellation by the insurer, no lifetime benefit cap, etc. That's the underpublicized benefit of the ACA for people who already have insurance, like Mrs. Woolf and me. Also, individual insurance (i.e., not through an employer) will be cheaper. With the economy as it is, that is a relief for the middle-aged unemployed.
Yeah, I've never understood why they can cancel your insurance because you started using it. That also defeats the purpose of risk mitigation. That shit never should have been legal. However, individual insurance is more expensive for young folks unless they get a subsidy, and still pretty expensive for everyone else (unless you have a pre-existing condition, in which case it's expensive but loads cheaper than it would have been otherwise).


The other elephant in the room, is why per capital healthcare costs in the US are roughly double the cost of most (all?) OECD countries with socialized medicare with, on average, no better health outcomes? Those excess costs are almost certainly going into corporate profits.
That is what I'd like to see addressed by the government. Also, price discrimination by doctors and hospitals. They should not be charging insurance companies less than someone who walks in off the street with no insurance for the same medicines or procedures. That's another example of poor people subsidizing other poor people. And I think a lot of insured people go to the doctor when they don't need to, and most would rather pop pills than live a more healthy lifestyle.


Assuming, of course, that when they get old, there is a sufficient ratio of youngs paying in to olds taking out as there is right now, which we're pretty sure there won't be (without some relatively large social upheavals). Of course, this isn't an american phenomenon, but pretty much the entire developed world. No idea how its going to play out.
Oh god, if I have to listen to my dad rant about social security and his government pension one more time I'm going to strangle his stupid republican neck.

Roger Mexico
01-08-2014, 10:01 PM
Everybody seems to be okay with the idea of paying thousands of dollars to mitigate the potential expense of unforeseen car problems, and with taking your vehicle in for regular maintenance by a trained professional.

Everybody? No. I mean, if those were things I could easily afford then sure, I'd probably take any car I owned in for regular maintenance checks. But thousands of dollars when every other necessary expense in my life is more expensive than it really should be relative to my income? No. I wouldn't choose to do that, and I'd probably not be "OK with" being legally required to do that under those circumstances.

At least you can stop driving if you don't want to be paying for car insurance. Obamacare pretty much says "well, if you don't like being overcharged for bullshit by a shady and dysfunctional business, at least you could kill yourself."

When I've owned a car (sold the last one a year ago to cover a debt after it sat mostly unused for a couple of months due to a mechanical problem I didn't have money to deal with), I've always just bought the bare legal minimum of insurance, which is often merely insuring yourself against the damages a court would assess against you if it found you responsible for causing damage to someone else.

That makes perfect sense to me. I think it would be great if gun owners were required to carry liability insurance on their guns, too.

But when money's an issue, I don't pay to have my own car insured against maintenance costs. I buy cheap used cars and how it works is that I own that car up until the point where something breaks which would cost more than I can afford to pay to fix. Basic regular maintenance I can do myself or have done for an affordable price gets paid for out of pocket.

When I'm living paycheck to paycheck I generally consider it the definition of irrational to ever be paying for anything I'm not using. I would tend to regard anyone trying to back up any insistence that I do such a thing with threats as a thief.

There's also the fact that "routine maintenance" on my body doesn't really require any assistance from anyone with specialized expertise. You don't need a medical degree to figure out that your body will go longer without needing expensive repairs if you don't eat two pounds of beef and three cups of sugar every day.

This was a private joke I had with myself as a teenager, when I was getting routine physicals a couple of times a year and all that. The doctors naturally felt compelled to give me advice, but often seemed like they were straining themselves to come up with anything I wasn't already doing before I walked into their office:

"Do you drink?"

-"Nope."

"Smoke?"

-Nope (lying, but it's not like I didn't know it was bad for me)

"Drugs?"

-Nope

"Sexually active?"

-Nope

"Exercise?"

-"Yep."

"Uh, well, see you next time, then."

The closest any of them ever got to winning this little game was the guy who asked if I was sexually active , then when I said no asked "well, why not?" Priceless.

I'd also point out that when I thought my son might have a dangerous infection here in Honduras, two physical exams and a blood test cost me $50. For comparison, our pre-departure immunizations (15 minutes of face time with an MD and three injections between us) cost me $150 after a charity fund run by the clinic chipped in.

pensive_pilgrim
01-09-2014, 12:24 AM
At least you can stop driving if you don't want to be paying for car insurance. Obamacare pretty much says "well, if you don't like being overcharged for bullshit by a shady and dysfunctional business, at least you could kill yourself."

Yeah, but on the other hand, if you're uninsured and your car breaks down you're gonna be walking. If you have no health insurance they can't just turn you away from the emergency room, and that's where a whole lot of people end up. It's an imperfect analogy.

Anyway, you guys can have your anecdotes about how having access to healthcare never helped anybody you know, but the fact is that the majority of people in this country are dying from chronic diseases. These things don't happen overnight, and they don't kill you overnight either. They take a long time during which you get to be one of the old people driving up per capita healthcare costs. Are annual check-ups the solution? I doubt it, but the fact is that populations with access to healthcare go to the doctor more and have better health outcomes. Having people wait until they're old and falling apart to start getting healthcare is a good way to make sure that that healthcare is going to be expensive and urgent.

I mean I'm not gonna get in the corner of saying the new law is awesome or anything, and it seems clear that there's a huge morass of problems with our systems and ways of thinking that needs to change, but it's important that every single person have health insurance and be able to go to the doctor whenever they feel it's necessary.

Aurast
01-09-2014, 12:27 AM
Quite a few people who appear to have changed their plans have now got quite good subsidies and quite a few who don't are complaining. The complaints appear to be mostly Republicans and that strikes me as being a little ironic. I thought Republicans would be pretty keen to pay the full cost of their health care and wouldn't want any communist subsidies.

The people who are rightfully upset are those who got their plans canceled and found the replacement options much more expensive, or those who had their premiums skyrocket for their existing plans. My parents basically got boned by the whole thing and had their insurance canceled, and have decided to take the penalty and go without health insurance rather than paying four times as much. I'm insured by my employer so it's not changing for me, thankfully, at least not yet.

I think the real irony is how many people are still going to be uninsured, many of whom were previous insured.

Hephaestus
01-09-2014, 12:54 AM
Everybody seems to be okay with the idea of paying thousands of dollars to mitigate the potential expense of unforeseen car problems, and with taking your vehicle in for regular maintenance by a trained professional
I have no idea what your talking about, let alone where your getting this 'everybody' from. Furthermore, I know of no law that mandates I purchase such a thing. Unless you are referring to liability insurance for cars and lube jobs. In which case the comparison isn't even close to equal--and you still don't have 'everybody' on board.

The 'unforeseen car problems' of liability insurance have to do with accidents and damages to life and property. The equivalent in medical insurance would be a payout for accidentally stabbing or punching someone. Homeowners insurance is more akin to that than medical insurance.

Furthermore, car insurance doesn't cover maintenance, but medical insurance must or people wont do it because they won't be able to afford it.

Very different ideas. But if you had something else in mind, I think it's clear that it isn't 'everybody', and it isn't a federal mandate, so it makes for a poor comparison because it fails to address what people are complaining about.

starla
01-09-2014, 02:45 AM
Having people wait until they're old and falling apart to start getting healthcare is a good way to make sure that that healthcare is going to be expensive and urgent.

Do you think doctors are clairvoyant? Or do you think people need a doctor to tell them that they're fat, should stop smoking, should quit having unprotected sex with heroin addicts, and not be an alcoholic? Maybe I'm a genius, but I figured all that out on my own. So the only thing I'm going to learn from a checkup is that my blood pressure is a bit low, which I already know because my hands go numb if I sleep with them on my chest. And also because I check it for free every time I go to CVS. The doctors, btw, have never said anything about my blood pressure.

People with insurance totally overuse health care, IMO. And doctors overtest and overtreat. Because doctors know that patients won't come back unless they walk out with a prescription, they always write one, especially if they know you have insurance (though I imagine they just make that assumption unless you tell them otherwise). When I went to the doctor with sudden onset double vision, they gave me a prescription to treat dizziness. And when I googled the medication, it is the same shit you can buy for $6 over the counter for motion sickness. What was the purpose of this? Was she trying to make me feel better, or herself? Because it sure as hell wasn't going to solve the problem, which was that I couldn't fucking see. After that, I got sent to a specialist who ordered every test in the book. Later, he told me that I may still have one of the things I tested negative for because the test itself had a 50% false negative rate. Why would you even bother to give someone such a test? I mean, besides to make money. I later found out that putting ice packs over your eyelids for 10 minutes and seeing if the problem went away is a more effective test, but of course it's free so that was never suggested.

I mean, yes, I agree that people who need to see a doctor should be able to without having to worry about it wiping out their savings and putting them into debt. But I don't think Obamacare even comes close to accomplishing that. Most poor people are going to buy lower cost plans, which pay nothing until you hit a deductible. That deductible is still more money than a poor person has. And you know what? It kind of pisses me off that the people who will benefit from it most are ones who pissed away their good health with shitty habits and bad decisions. That's the majority of people with these chronic conditions. I feel for the kid with congenital whatever that he inherited from his parents, but why the fuck should healthy people have to subsidize some asshole who spent his free time eating bacon wrapped steak on the couch while watching football? That guy is the problem we need to solve, and we're not going to solve it by making 21 year olds overpay for insurance that they're never going to use.

Deckard
01-09-2014, 03:19 AM
I don't get it. Health care costs $8,900 per capita. 22 cents in the tax dollar already goes to pay for socialised health care like Medicaid and Medicaid that still leaves a pretty big chunk to be paid by private health premiums.

There are a few primary reasons that I think almost entirely explain why obamacare is not being universally embraced:

- Obamacare has problems, serious ones. Which are perhaps expected since this is just one step in unfucking a completely fucked system, but which are glaring nevertheless.
- The subset of middle-to-upper-class people who get no additional benefit from the changes (or who are worse off) and simply don't care that it's beneficial for others.
- The massive propaganda machine driven by the for-profit healthcare and insurance industries. This propaganda will continue to exist as long as the predatory business model is profitable, and it targets the most vulnerable (the poor & uneducated).

As an interesting parallel, the same three points are basically analogous in the context of belief in climate change and support of a price on carbon. And I think people tend to underestimate the influence of propaganda in both scenarios.

Personally I think Obamacare is a significant step in the right direction, not only in terms of the obvious direct effects, but also in terms of setting precedent for introducing significant legislation that goes against the wishes of the massively powerful healthcare & insurance industries. Where I think it fails to be a perfect solution is not removing insurance companies from the equation entirely put all that skimmed money back into our pockets and into actual healthcare.


When I'm living paycheck to paycheck I generally consider it the definition of irrational to ever be paying for anything I'm not using. I would tend to regard anyone trying to back up any insistence that I do such a thing with threats as a thief.

I honestly don't understand how any intelligent person could fail to understand the concept behind paying for protection that you may or may not need in the future, or why that's important with respect to one's health. To me, calling it "irrational" or drawing analogies to thievery represents a lack of understanding, not just a difference of preference or opinion. If you genuinely can't afford basic healthcare insurance (whether it's state-run healthcare built into your taxes, or private insurance), then that's fundamental problem with your personal finances or with the minimum wage, not a problem with the concept behind paying in advance for healthcare infrastructure and the right to use it.

jyng1
01-09-2014, 03:51 AM
The people who are rightfully upset are those who got their plans canceled and found the replacement options much more expensive, or those who had their premiums skyrocket for their existing plans. My parents basically got boned by the whole thing and had their insurance canceled, and have decided to take the penalty and go without health insurance rather than paying four times as much.

Are they paying more than $17,800 per year for both of them? (inclusive of 22 cents in the tax dollar they pay for Medicaid and Medicare). Cause if they didn't, they didn't get boned as that's the per capita cost.

Anything less than that and they're being subsidised by the 'commie' guvmint.

jyng1
01-09-2014, 04:03 AM
I think Obamacare is missing the point. It's basically forcing young people who can't afford it to pay jacked up premiums for health insurance that they will probably never benefit from.

My second wife had to have a cone biopsy for cervical cancer. I think she was 23 or so at the time. HPV is one of the most widely spread sexual diseases and almost every sexually active young person will have been exposed. These are the costs for treatment from North Carolina Medicaid (actually as far as Gardasil goes there's an estimate that if vaccination rates in the U.S. were as high as Rwanda, it would save 50,000 lives).


Total Medicaid costs at 6 months after diagnosis were $3,807, $23,187, $35,853, and $45,028 for in situ, local, regional, and distant cancers, respectively. The incremental cost of cancer treatment for local and regional cancers was $13,935 and $26,174 and by 12 months increased to $15,868 and $30,917, respectively.

I think you're right in that the majority of young people won't require health care (a disproportionate number of poor kids probably will), but some will and the costs will probably be relatively crippling.

Roger Mexico
01-09-2014, 04:17 AM
Anyway, you guys can have your anecdotes about how having access to healthcare never helped anybody you know.

This is either a very weak straw man argument, or an indication that you missed the substance of my critique. I am not opposed to people having access to health care.

A law requiring me to purchase something does not grant me access to that thing. Furthermore, access to health insurance and access to health care are two separate things.

Insurance companies do not provide health services. They provide financial services. Buying insurance is a form of investment, or, if you will, a form of gambling. You are betting on a scenario in which you need an amount of money greater than the amount of money you have. You pay the insurance company to assume that risk on your behalf. The company "wins" (profits) in this transaction if the actual costs to them of assuming that risk (the amount of actual payments they've had to make on your behalf) are less than the revenues you provide to them by paying for coverage. You "win" at any point where you receive services whose costs exceed the cost of carrying any insurance that covers them.

In other words, if you spend ten years paying $1000 a year in health insurance premiums, then in the 11th year you find you need a surgery which costs $15,000, you have essentially profited from your transactions with the insurance company in the amount of $5000. However, if this surgery only costs $9000, then you have lost $1000 in this transaction. (You would be $1000 richer if you had simply been putting $1000 into a bank account every year instead of giving it to your insurance company.) You and the insurance company are each betting on one or the other scenario taking place--otherwise your transaction would be economically irrational.

It therefore stands to reason that most people are only going to want to buy health insurance when they determine they have a realistic risk of developing a health problem which will cost them more to treat than they are realistically likely to have saved in their bank accounts at the time it occurs. For any health problems which would cost less to treat than what they would have saved by the time the problem occurs, they would be better off taking the money they would have spent on insurance premiums and simply putting it into a savings account.

To require insurance companies to insure people whom they would likely not profit by insuring (those likely to require health care that costs more than what they pay for insurance) amounts to forcing the insurer to surrender the balance between these two figures (what they would earn by selling coverage vs what they would pay by honoring claims) to the person they are required to insure. To require a person who would likely not profit by buying insurance (a person unlikely to need health care more expensive than their premiums) amounts to forcing this person to surrender that balance to an insurance company.

To whom each category of forced transfer is to be applied is the crux of how the Obamacare legislation aims to influence the behavior of the health insurance market. Money is to be collected via forced transfers from certain consumers to insurance companies, and used to offset the money distributed via forced transfers from insurance companies to other consumers.

Young people's participation has been widely called critical to the success of this policy. If this is true, it is decidedly not because carrying insurance will be of so much benefit to young people's long-term health prospects as to dramatically reduce the cost of health care services. It is because young people who carry health insurance, as a group, generally tend to consume substantially less in covered health care services than they pay for in the form of health insurance premiums. They're being targeted for milking to offset the ways in which other demographic groups are supposed to receive benefits, and this is being done by making it essentially a finable offense not to be a paying customer of a business whose sole interest in having you as a customer comes from the hope that you will pay for things they never end up doing for you.

To be clear, I'm not even opposed to mandatory participation in risk-distribution schemes. (I'm in favor of a nationalized, tax-funded universal health insurance program.) I am opposed to this particular scheme of mandatory risk distribution because it distributes the risks in all the wrong fucking ways. A federal single-payer system would presumably be funded via an existing type of tax, such as the income tax--which is not a perfect idea by any means, but I'm not complaining about lack of perfection. Your federal income taxes are (obviously) indexed to your income, so under an insurance program funded by income taxes, each person's contribution to a program aimed at making health care affordable would at least be clearly and consistently indexed to what they could afford. I don't think that's the case with the individual mandate, even factoring in the clumsy stab at such by way of implementing consumer subsidies (a terrible way to handle the problem of pricing, but I think that's a whole other rant for another post).

Roger Mexico
01-09-2014, 04:37 AM
I honestly don't understand how any intelligent person could fail to understand the concept behind paying for protection that you may or may not need in the future,

I don't fail to understand it. I don't even object to it in the abstract. I'm objecting to the particulars of how it's being forced on people in this case, which are IMO worse than the effects of the proverbial "doing nothing."

Another way to explain this is that when one buys insurance, one is simply paying for the service of reducing the overall level of risk to which one is individually subject. That's a commodity, and one which will have a price people will or will not find to be worth paying depending on how it compares to the amount of risk-reduction they get in exchange.

I think the price of this commodity, for many classes of people (young, healthy people being one such class), is grossly inflated by various mechanisms at work in the market for it at present. (Including the inflation of direct-service prices which constitute the risks which are then to be reduced if one pays for the risk-reduction service.) The one form of leverage you have on the price of a commodity as a consumer in a private-sector market is your ability to opt in or out of transactions at any given price point. For most people as individuals, that does rather pale in comparison to the leverage exerted by other, much more powerful actors--however, it does have the other benefit of at least letting you control what costs and risks you leave yourself subject to. The individual mandate removes even that one paltry form of leverage (over both the market and one's own situation) from most consumers, while the policy as a whole does little or nothing to limit the already significant leverage of those other actors who have shown a clear intent to use whatever relative leverage they have over consumers to inflate the price of risk-reduction commodities relative to their utility to the consumer.

The affordability of actual health care (as opposed to health insurance) really isn't addressed at all. What we have is a system that already erects huge barriers to the option of treating routine health service transactions as individual transactions rather than something to which one subscribes for a recurring fee, and it is a goddamn big fucking mess. Obamacare is an attempt to grab the people trying to jump off the sinking ship and force them to polish the silverware so the captain can claim that at least some parts of the ship are undergoing improvements.

Deckard
01-09-2014, 04:41 AM
In other words, if you spend ten years paying $1000 a year in health insurance premiums, then in the 11th year you find you need a surgery which costs $15,000, you have essentially profited from your transactions with the insurance company in the amount of $5000. However, if this surgery only costs $9000, then you have lost $1000 in this transaction. (You would be $1000 richer if you had simply been putting $1000 into a bank account every year instead of giving it to your insurance company.) You and the insurance company are each betting on one or the other scenario taking place--otherwise your transaction would be economically irrational.

It's gambling either way, and I don't believe this analysis fully encapsulates the risk/reward equation we are faced with. This is just one side of it: the potential profit/loss if you gamble on being uninsured and are lucky enough not to get an illness that will leave you destitute/bankrupt/chronically ill/dead due to being uninsured.

To properly assess this decision we need to model that part of the risk. How unnaceptable are these outlier scenarios for us, how likely are they, and how much are we willing to pay for protection and peace of mind from them?

I think the best way to evaluate these risks is by thought experiment: put yourself in the shoes of future-you, having contracted some expensive illness, and consider whether future-you will regret having gambled on being uninsured for the sake of a bit of extra profit. Having contracted such an illness while uninsured, will it still seem economically irrational to have gambled on being uninsured?

Roger Mexico
01-09-2014, 04:51 AM
I think the best way to evaluate these risks is by thought experiment: put yourself in the shoes of future-you, having contracted some expensive illness, and consider whether future-you will regret having gambled on being uninsured for the sake of a bit of extra profit. Having contracted such an illness while uninsured, will it still seem economically irrational to have gambled on being uninsured?

Probably not, but this hasn't happened to me.

Now what has happened to me already is a situation in which then-me gambled on the risks of remaining uninsured for the sake of affording a bit of then-food and then-rent which would have been difficult to pay for if then-me had also taken on the costs of the cheapest available health insurance policy. Then-me did not contract any illnesses which have caused any expensive consequences, so how about we flip your question around to apply to a real-world circumstance with a known outcome--are you saying then-me was making an irrational decision?

jyng1
01-09-2014, 05:02 AM
Probably not, but this hasn't happened to me.

Now what has happened to me already is a situation in which then-me gambled on the risks of remaining uninsured for the sake of affording a bit of then-food and then-rent which would have been difficult to pay for if then-me had also taken on the costs of the cheapest available health insurance policy. Then-me did not contract any illnesses which have caused any expensive consequences, so how about we flip your question around to apply to a real-world circumstance with a known outcome--are you saying then-me was making an irrational decision?

I'm assuming that you weren't really uninsured. If you'd been sick to the extent that you required emergency treatment then you'd have been treated and the costs would have been met by others (Government/s, charities, hospitals...).

What I'm guessing you probably missed out on was preventative care.

Deckard
01-09-2014, 05:35 AM
Now what has happened to me already is a situation in which then-me gambled on the risks of remaining uninsured for the sake of affording a bit of then-food and then-rent which would have been difficult to pay for if then-me had also taken on the costs of the cheapest available health insurance policy. Then-me did not contract any illnesses which have caused any expensive consequences, so how about we flip your question around to apply to a real-world circumstance with a known outcome--are you saying then-me was making an irrational decision?

I think if major health problems were expected, or if we could count on them not occurring, our decision would be a lot more obvious. But since we're implicitly talking about unexpected future health problems, isn't our past medical history a poor predictor, since by definition these future health problems are unexpected? Isn't the same logic just as bunk for 3rd party car insurance -- i.e. "I haven't had an accident before, so I don't have any reason to insure myself against hitting a ferrari or a pedestrian". Since these things *do* happen to people, we have to assume they might happen to us, which means we have to factor in the possibility.

In your scenario, we know the outcome in retrospect so it's completely different to the actual question we're faced with of whether to be insured at any given time.

Roger Mexico
01-09-2014, 05:56 AM
I'm assuming that you weren't really uninsured. If you'd been sick to the extent that you required emergency treatment then you'd have been treated and the costs would have been met by others (Government/s, charities, hospitals...).

What I'm guessing you probably missed out on was preventative care.

Yes, but that was hardly under my control apart from whether or not I opted to go to an emergency room.

The one notable illness of that particular year in which I would have been covered by that particular insurance policy was a brush with what I think was swine flu. (I eventually had all of the symptoms listed in all the media reports.) I did in fact miss out on preventative care, I suppose, in that when the early symptoms (which were not readily distinguishable with certainty from a normal flu) showed up, I considered a visit to a hospital for a diagnostic exam but estimated the cost of such a thing (based on a prior false alarm when I did go in, having been on Medicaid at the time) at around $4-500. I certainly didn't have that kind of cash lying around, although I suppose I could have just let the bill turn into an overdue debt for a while until I scraped it together.

In any case, I decided to just weather whatever happened unless a clear-cut emergency developed, and one never did. My son (1 year old at the time) was also infected, and it was more that I would have taken him to an ER if it seemed necessary--it wasn't typically that dangerous for adults as I understood it, although I knew a guy who died from it that year (or rather from complications related to it--he was rather severely overweight and died from strain on his circulatory system). It was a rough couple of days (high fevers and nasty muscle pain--I spent most of it on the kitchen floor to stay a little cooler than I would have been on a mattress) but then it cleared and there were no lasting effects beyond that.

Now, the policy I could have bought cost $800 just to cover me, and in retrospect would have covered part of a $400 exam plus whatever they might have given me to tamp down the symptoms, but nothing else as I had no other treatment-worthy health problems to deal with over the period in which I would have been covered. I was in grad school, living on a $7,000 financial aid check designed to cover my living expenses for 6 months (classes and internship concurrently, not much time left over to have a paid job), the woman had a bit of money coming in but less than I did, and $800 was roughly two months' worth of groceries so not a trivial deduction from the budget.

I definitely would have felt more responsible and all buying the damn insurance, but that doesn't mean it objectively pencils out as the right move in terms of what it would have actually bought. (Yes, I could have gotten an even worse infection of some kind, or been struck by lightning, but I didn't.) I didn't end up in any emergency rooms so I didn't actually inflict any costs on anyone else.

To my mind, the whole thing is a good argument for single-payer for preventative care--I'm all for "better safe than sorry", especially when communicable diseases are involved, provided it doesn't involve people in tenuous financial situations being expected to break the bank to comply. In the false-alarm case, the feds spent $400 to have me diagnosed with indigestion, but I'm fine with that since a decision about whether or not to miss work was hinging on me knowing whether or not I was hosting a dangerous airborne pathogen. (And I did go through a big guilt trip about whether the guy who died might have caught it from me--but we were both working in public high schools, which are like central distribution centers for disease, so the odds of me being the specific vector are slim.)

I guess now everybody can tell me whether they would have opted to take food out of my kid's mouth for the sake of not having to wait a couple of days to find out whether or not a problem existed.

Oh, right, and I also reproduced while poor. Fucking sue me.

Roger Mexico
01-09-2014, 05:58 AM
In your scenario, we know the outcome in retrospect so it's completely different to the actual question we're faced with of whether to be insured at any given time.

Right, but my point is that it's just as hypothetical the other way*. I can easily agree with you when the sacrifice involved is minor, but for a lot of people it isn't. Why second-guess them one way but not the other?

*It gets less so as you get older, of course, and pathogenic_peripatetic is right that the biggest problem weighing down the system is treating people with serious chronic illnesses. However, that one is related to all manner of other factors that make it much more complicated than simply a question of how often people see doctors in their younger years. (At that point a doctor is mainly just going to tell you to eat better and exercise more, which a lot of people are going to ignore anyway.) A lot of it is lifestyle-related, and thus a complex sociological issue. We do have lots of poor people eating shit-tons of beef and sugar and smoking and then ending up in hospitals with expensive diseases related to those things, but honestly we might as well talk about how much it would mitigate that if we stopped subsidizing the beef, sugar, and tobacco industries. That's at least as much of a driving factor as health insurance regulation.

Deckard
01-09-2014, 06:54 AM
Right, but my point is that it's just as hypothetical the other way*. I can easily agree with you when the sacrifice involved is minor, but for a lot of people it isn't. Why second-guess them one way but not the other?

Ok -- so to reduce this to simple logical form:

IF
- we agree on the importance of having access to healthcare in general (for preventative, emergency and unanticipated reasons)
AND
- you are pointing out that at present it's difficult for many people in low income brackets to afford this
THEN
- shouldn't you be arguing that healthcare needs to be more affordable for the low income brackets and/or advocating an increase to minimum wage, as opposed to arguing that opting out of health insurance is the rational option for the poor?

And if so, shouldn't you be supporting obamacare since that's exactly what it does? Or perhaps arguing that obamacare doesn't do enough to make healthcare access affordable to the uninsured in low income brackets?

At present, part of the reason healthcare costs are so high in the US is that the uninsured are not managing their health problems, and only going in for treatment when those problems become a dire emergency. Which ends up costing the state (and subsequently, taxpayers) far more than if they weren't afraid that treating their mounting health problems would bankrupt them.

Roger Mexico
01-09-2014, 07:14 AM
- shouldn't you be arguing that healthcare needs to be more affordable for the low income brackets...Or perhaps arguing that obamacare doesn't do enough to make healthcare access affordable to the uninsured in low income brackets?

That would be exactly what I am arguing. I don't think it's going to do shit to make health care all that much more affordable to poor people.

Just add the observation that an individual mandate is functionally a regressive tax, and harmful under those circumstances, and you've got it.


I do think the minimum wage should be raised, but that's rather off-topic in this thread. Same with agricultural subsidy reform, although I think it does bear significantly on the US's health problems.





At present, part of the reason healthcare costs are so high in the US is that the uninsured are not managing their health problems

Yes, most likely a small part of the reason, from what I understand. The bulk of the reason has to do with a large, politically influential private health-insurance oligopoly controlling large amounts of market share. Obamacare hands them even more market share by fining people who determine that becoming their customers isn't rational under the shitty circumstances in which they are forced to make these decisions.

We're also sitting here having a conversation about whether problems created by rich people can be solved by punishing poor people for allegedly being too stupid to know what is best for themselves.

Obamacare was thought up by Republicans. It shows.

Deckard
01-09-2014, 07:35 AM
I don't think it's going to do shit to make health care all that much more affordable to poor people.
So if this is the fundamental point of contention: what is your claim based on?

Obamacare expands medicaid for anyone < 133% of the poverty level. However, opponents to this expansion got it struck down as a mandatory change for states to implement, so only ~half of states are actually expanding medicaid in this way.

Is this what you were referring to?

There's also a provision for those who don't qualify for medicaid -- they may qualify for an individual health care subsidy.

In any case, it seems pretty clear that obamacare does help to make health insurance more affordable for a large proportion of America's poor. The fact that all states aren't implementing medicaid expansions isn't the fault of obamacare, but of its opponents who fought to the supreme court to make it voluntary for states to implement.

I'm not sure whether you agree / disagree with these statements, so perhaps you can clarify what you meant in your above quote, in the context of what I've said here.


Yes, most likely a small part of the reason, from what I understand. The bulk of the reason has to do with a large, politically influential private health-insurance oligopoly controlling large amounts of market share. Obamacare hands them even more market share by fining people who determine that becoming their customers isn't rational under the shitty circumstances in which they are forced to make these decisions.
Ok. The question of how much of each of those factors contributes aside, it sounds like we agree here at least.

Roger Mexico
01-09-2014, 08:22 AM
So if this is the fundamental point of contention: what is your claim based on?

Obamacare expands medicaid for anyone < 133% of the poverty level. However, opponents to this expansion got it struck down as a mandatory change for states to implement, so only ~half of states are actually expanding medicaid in this way.

Is this what you were referring to?

There's also a provision for those who don't qualify for medicaid -- they may qualify for an individual health care subsidy.

In any case, it seems pretty clear that obamacare does help to make health insurance more affordable for a large proportion of America's poor. The fact that all states aren't implementing medicaid expansions isn't the fault of obamacare, but of its opponents who fought to the supreme court to make it voluntary for states to implement.

I'm not sure whether you agree / disagree with these statements, so perhaps you can clarify what you meant in your above quote, in the context of what I've said here.


Ok. The question of how much of each of those factors contributes aside, it sounds like we agree here at least.

Big topic and I need to go to sleep. In short, I don't think subsidies are a solution. We already have that for older people via Medicare and treatment of older people with chronic diseases is still one of the bigger areas of trouble in the health care system. If anything, Medicare has contributed significantly to the inflation of costs at the provider level (what hospitals charge patients), along with private insurance companies via more or less similar means, and I think anything that doesn't address that problem directly is likely to be ineffective. The details are complicated. (You subsidize it, the people who profit realize this dilutes the costs of charging more, costs go up, people in defined classes entitled to assistance don't notice right away, but others who aren't included for whatever reason get swamped and forced into perverse-incentive dilemmas, this becomes a problem again, then the cycle repeats--I don't know, I'm going to have to come back to this.)

It's just a little remarkable to me, having now been to a health care facility in a foreign country. High-end, high-tech, specialized medical amenities are pretty nonexistent here (notably pharmaceuticals, from what I understand), but if you need routine services of the kind that most people need most often it's almost shockingly less expensive than it is in the US. Going to the dentist costs about the same as going out to a movie. I'm starting to think I may have a couple of cavities, and if I turn out to need fillings or something, I'm definitely going to have that done here because I'd be nuts to wait and pay what dentists in the US charge for the same thing. Global statistics back up this impression of mine--Americans pay a lot more for the same quality of service and results than most of the rest of the world. Something in that part of the equation is being done wrong in a very fundamental way, and it's likely to be fueling many if not most of the other problems.

Yeah, sorry for vagueness/incoherence. Another time.

jyng1
01-09-2014, 09:28 AM
It's just a little remarkable to me, having now been to a health care facility in a foreign country. High-end, high-tech, specialized medical amenities are pretty nonexistent here (notably pharmaceuticals, from what I understand), but if you need routine services of the kind that most people need most often it's almost shockingly less expensive than it is in the US. Going to the dentist costs about the same as going out to a movie. I'm starting to think I may have a couple of cavities, and if I turn out to need fillings or something, I'm definitely going to have that done here because I'd be nuts to wait and pay what dentists in the US charge for the same thing. Global statistics back up this impression of mine--Americans pay a lot more for the same quality of service and results than most of the rest of the world. Something in that part of the equation is being done wrong in a very fundamental way, and it's likely to be fueling many if not most of the other problems.

Yeah, sorry for vagueness/incoherence. Another time.

One of the arguments that I've seen a few times online is that Presidents and Kings and Queens go to the States for treatment. It's probably true; we certainly send people both to Australia and to the States for treatment if it's not available here. Somehow the claim that the U.S. has the best medical facilities in the world (which it probably does) is meant to mean that Americans have the best health care in the world. Probably also true if you have the right health insurance... but before the ACA 10% of the population had no health care at all, let alone the best health care. That 10% + probably drives down health outcomes dramatically.

Americans could have the best health care in the world; they certainly pay the most per capita of any country by a long shot. They rank about 30th though which is about the same as us and we pay a third as much per capita. So on a population level Americas health care produces results worth around $3,000 per capita yet costs $9,000 per capita. I'm struggling to think what our health care would be like if we tripled our expenditure...

99Problems
01-09-2014, 10:33 AM
Obamacare is morally wrong and functionally wrong.

First, is it not enough to saddle the younger generation with a national debt over 17 trillion? I guess not, lets rape them a little more by making them pay for stuff they don't want or need now.

Government is incapable of running a complicated profitable business. This will be a clusterfuck of epic proportions, I am inclined to think it will have to have a wall street style bailout within a few years, and if it stays in place every so often after that.




And lets be perfectly clear, Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare, it is about insurance.

Aurast
01-09-2014, 02:39 PM
Are they paying more than $17,800 per year for both of them? (inclusive of 22 cents in the tax dollar they pay for Medicaid and Medicare). Cause if they didn't, they didn't get boned as that's the per capita cost.

Anything less than that and they're being subsidised by the 'commie' guvmint.

That's wrong. The high spenders are still on Medicare and not in the Obamacare pool. They did not qualify for subsidies.

They got boned because they are being asked to spend four times as much as they had been.

starla
01-09-2014, 04:01 PM
There's also a provision for those who don't qualify for medicaid -- they may qualify for an individual health care subsidy.

In any case, it seems pretty clear that obamacare does help to make health insurance more affordable for a large proportion of America's poor. .

Have you even looked at a policy offered under obamacare? You realize that having health insurance does not mean a doctor's visit is paid for, even under Obamacare, right? Most of those plans, especially the "affordable" ones, come with high deductibles. This is regardless of what kind of subsidies a poor person gets to pay their insurance premiums. I'm going to assume you're not an american and have absolutely no understanding of how the american healthcare system works, because having health insurance does not mean that you walk into a doctor's office and everything is free.

99Problems
01-09-2014, 04:09 PM
Free healthcare, woohoo!!!

jyng1
01-09-2014, 05:49 PM
Government is incapable of running a complicated profitable business. This will be a clusterfuck of epic proportions, I am inclined to think it will have to have a wall street style bailout within a few years, and if it stays in place every so often after that.

Bail out like they did with that well run bunch of private businesses on Wall Street? That bail out that your grand children will still be paying for?

The sentiment that private business is better is always funny to me as we just had a national referendum on State asset sales which indicates that most people here have the opposite view (probably due to having to bail out so many private businesses - like Air NZ, which as a State owned airline is now one of the world's most successful).

99Problems
01-09-2014, 05:55 PM
like Air NZ, which as a State owned airline is now one of the world's most successful).
State owned but who runs it?

Senseye
01-09-2014, 06:01 PM
To my mind, the whole thing is a good argument for single-payer for preventative care--I'm all for "better safe than sorry...From an outsiders point of view this is the crux of the matter. Obamacare certainly seems to have it's problems, but given all the money behind the corporate interests to maintain the status quo, and the tendancy for those whose ox has been gored to bleat the loudest, I am taking all the bitching and wailing with a grain of salt.

I wonder if the USA can move from the pre-Obamacare status quo towards a form of single-payer system. There appears to be far too much crony capitalism to make the leap in one jump. The question in my mind, is will Obamacare, warts and all, become entrenched enough so that a future goverment will say "let's revise Obamacare to solve the obvious problems" vs "let's revoke Obamacare" and go back to the old way. I think if you go back to the old way, history will show it is political suicide to mess with the healthcare system, and any future change will be a long time coming (if ever).

If the latter comes to pass, I think this will be another case of corporate interests trumping public interests in the USA. Eventually, that is going to catch up with you.

jyng1
01-09-2014, 06:04 PM
That's wrong. The high spenders are still on Medicare and not in the Obamacare pool. They did not qualify for subsidies.

They got boned because they are being asked to spend four times as much as they had been.


What part of the cost of health care in the U.S. is $8,900 per capita did you not get?

jyng1
01-09-2014, 06:18 PM
State owned but who runs it?

The same type of professional manager that runs the rest of the State Owned Corporations.

Aurast
01-09-2014, 06:41 PM
What part of the cost of health care in the U.S. is $8,900 per capita did you not get?

Are you trying to say that having your insurance costs quadrupled by the law isn't getting boned by it?

I don't know where you got the idea that an $8,900 per capita cost means everyone's either paying $8,900 or getting government subsidies.

jyng1
01-09-2014, 06:53 PM
Are you trying to say that having your insurance costs quadrupled by the law isn't getting boned by it?

I don't know where you got the idea that an $8,900 per capita cost means everyone's either paying $8,900 or getting government subsidies.

What I'm saying is that the per capita cost of providing your existing health care - Medicaid, Medicare and all the various private schemes is $8,900 per capita.

That's broken down into 22 cents in the tax dollar everyone pays (everyone who pays tax - we pay 17 in the tax dollar for universal care), and then employer provided health plans and private health plans.

A few people will be paying $8,900 but most will be either paying more or less.

If they're paying less than $8,900 (including their tax contribution) then someone else is paying more to make up for it.

Aurast
01-09-2014, 07:09 PM
What I'm saying is that the per capita cost of providing your existing health care - Medicaid, Medicare and all the various private schemes is $8,900 per capita.

That's broken down into 22 cents in the tax dollar everyone pays (everyone who pays tax - we pay 17 in the tax dollar for universal care), and then employer provided health plans and private health plans.

A few people will be paying $8,900 but most will be either paying more or less.

If they're paying less than $8,900 (including their tax contribution) then someone else is paying more to make up for it.

If you're paying less than $8,900 then someone else is paying more, of course. But that in no way means you're getting a subsidy or that you're getting the good end of the bargain. You may use far, far less than $8,900 in health services per year in which case your insurance premiums would be subsidizing someone else's, even if they are less than the average per capita premium. That's to say nothing of government subsidies.

LordLatch
01-09-2014, 07:48 PM
My self employed insurance went up. I got the shaft. Even in French.

99Problems
01-09-2014, 07:50 PM
My self employed insurance went up. I got the shaft. Even in French.
Why you hate sick needy people?

LordLatch
01-09-2014, 07:53 PM
Because I'm under the impression that I should get to keep what I work for. Its mine, I earned it and I want it.

Since its taken against my will, it's theft.

99Problems
01-09-2014, 07:59 PM
To paraphrase Obama: You didn't earn that, someone else made that happen.

LordLatch
01-09-2014, 08:04 PM
I'm so thankful that someone helped me as I started my business. Who was it as I sold my entire Star Wars collection to pay my bills. Who was it that was actually there doing the work and research and leg work? I helped myself as the man tried to hold me down.

Me. I owe myself bigtime. So in the schizophrenic viewpoint, yeah I didn't build that, but I did. The other I. I should pay his health insurance.

And what does it mean to misspeak? Can I keep my doctor like it was misspoken several hundred times? Or not?

99Problems
01-09-2014, 08:13 PM
The amazing lunacy of that line of liberal thought is that it involves the government owning everyone's efforts. Maybe John made my job possible but now the government wants dues for me walking on the back of John. I hate government, it is made up of the worst kinds of people.

Roger Mexico
01-09-2014, 08:15 PM
From an outsiders point of view this is the crux of the matter. Obamacare certainly seems to have it's problems, but given all the money behind the corporate interests to maintain the status quo, and the tendancy for those whose ox has been gored to bleat the loudest, I am taking all the bitching and wailing with a grain of salt.

I wonder if the USA can move from the pre-Obamacare status quo towards a form of single-payer system. There appears to be far too much crony capitalism to make the leap in one jump. The question in my mind, is will Obamacare, warts and all, become entrenched enough so that a future goverment will say "let's revise Obamacare to solve the obvious problems" vs "let's revoke Obamacare" and go back to the old way. I think if you go back to the old way, history will show it is political suicide to mess with the healthcare system, and any future change will be a long time coming (if ever).

If the latter comes to pass, I think this will be another case of corporate interests trumping public interests in the USA. Eventually, that is going to catch up with you.

The corporate money was leveraged against an early proposed version of Obamacare in which a government-managed health insurance fund was created, then consumers could go to one of the "exchange" websites and compare the costs and benefits of buying into the "public option" vs anything they would qualify for offered by a private insurance company. The health insurance companies went after that idea with a vengeance.

That version was quickly scrapped, and actually I think the corporate insurance lobby has been pretty damn quiet on the subject ever since. The people behind the Congressional "shutdown" were GOP attack dogs long ago given simple orders to vehemently obstruct any major policy initiative Obama attempted for the sake of denying him claimed accomplishments in his reelection campaign--the higher-ranking party leaders seem to have left them off the chain for a while but are now rather desperately trying to muzzle them. The whole affair was really more about partisan politics than any desperation on the part of the corporate insurance lobby to defeat Obamacare. In a sense, they had already won their fight against it (or rather against what bothered them about it) by the time it originally went up for a vote.

In fact, a health insurance company, Kaiser Permanente, was the sixth largest corporate contributor (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638) to Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.

Light Leak
01-09-2014, 08:37 PM
Personally I think Obamacare is a significant step in the right direction, not only in terms of the obvious direct effects, but also in terms of setting precedent for introducing significant legislation that goes against the wishes of the massively powerful healthcare & insurance industries. Where I think it fails to be a perfect solution is not removing insurance companies from the equation entirely put all that skimmed money back into our pockets and into actual healthcare.

I hope it's a step in the right direction, but I'm not so sure that it is. Insurance companies are still a problem, and to me at least it seems like they're just getting worse.

My monthly premium has gone up. That's not a huge issue so it already went up every year prior to Obamacare. Also, my deductibles, copays, etc. have also gone up. They're flat out denying coverage of certain medications that I used to get and telling me I have to switch to a list of approved medications or go through a review process in order to prove that those medications are medically necessary. My doctor is contacting my insurance company to try to get me approved for these medications, but I was basically told not to get my hopes up. She said that she had seen this a lot recently and that it's likely to be denied. My choices are to switch to medications I know don't work because I've already tried them. Or to pay in full for them out of my own pocket.

I'm left wondering what the point is for me to even have insurance now if they're no longer going to cover the things I need. It's legally required that I have it though.

jyng1
01-09-2014, 11:35 PM
If you're paying less than $8,900 then someone else is paying more, of course. But that in no way means you're getting a subsidy or that you're getting the good end of the bargain. You may use far, far less than $8,900 in health services per year in which case your insurance premiums would be subsidizing someone else's, even if they are less than the average per capita premium. That's to say nothing of government subsidies.

Almost everyone uses far, far less than $8,900 in health services a year. Even diabetics only use about $7,900 worth of medication.

That's why the per capita cost of health care is divided up in some way between the healthy. And as the healthy can't predict very well when they will be part of the extremely expensive unhealthy (and we mostly all are at some stage - that's why the probability of dying doubles every 8 years) we all share that cost; either through insurance or tax (Americans do a weird mishmash of both paying more in tax than most other countries and paying more in private insurance).

If you're paying less than the average you're getting subsidised by someone else.

We're not discussing your individual likelihood of receiving health services because that's a different argument (and I'm all for charging smokers, the obese and vehicle drivers more for their health services but that's generally not what happens - apart from smokers).

Aurast
01-10-2014, 01:37 AM
Almost everyone uses far, far less than $8,900 in health services a year. Even diabetics only use about $7,900 worth of medication.

That's why the per capita cost of health care is divided up in some way between the healthy. And as the healthy can't predict very well when they will be part of the extremely expensive unhealthy (and we mostly all are at some stage - that's why the probability of dying doubles every 8 years) we all share that cost; either through insurance or tax (Americans do a weird mishmash of both paying more in tax than most other countries and paying more in private insurance).

If you're paying less than the average you're getting subsidised by someone else.

We're not discussing your individual likelihood of receiving health services because that's a different argument (and I'm all for charging smokers, the obese and vehicle drivers more for their health services but that's generally not what happens - apart from smokers).

The cost of healthcare being divided up among the healthy does not necessarily mean that everyone is assessed the same cost and any discrepency in what they actually pay is due to a subsidy. A subsidy involves a transfer of wealth and if you're putting in more than you're getting out you're the one doing the subsidizing. I understand your point but insurance companies spreading the risk around isn't a "guvmint subsidy".

jyng1
01-10-2014, 03:09 AM
A subsidy involves a transfer of wealth and if you're putting in more than you're getting out you're the one doing the subsidizing.

All right, tell me how your parents know they are putting more in that they will get out?

It's like the argument from retired people receiving Medicare who said they paid for it out of a life time of taxes. The only problem is they paid those taxes when they were earning $20 a week and are drawing on it when the median wage is a $1,000 a week.

What illnesses or accidents or worn-out body parts will your parents have in their lifetime and what will the cost of those be?

There was one new lung cancer treatment I saw the other day. A single treatment cost $120,000.00

There's a move to put the cost of pharmaceuticals on prescriptions. Apparently even Doctors who prescribe them aren't aware of the true cost of modern medicines and were quite shocked with the prices.

Deckard
01-10-2014, 03:53 AM
There's the true cost of pharmaceuticals, then there's the arbitrarily inflated price they charge because there's no competition or oversight.

You know your healthcare system is fucked when it's actively exploiting us and its priorities put profit above healing. I know a lot of people will find it hard to swallow (like the fox news talking heads above), but socialised healthcare is the way out of this parasitic model. Do away with insurance corporations, and heavily regulate big pharma.

Aurast
01-10-2014, 04:15 AM
All right, tell me how your parents know they are putting more in that they will get out?

It's like the argument from retired people receiving Medicare who said they paid for it out of a life time of taxes. The only problem is they paid those taxes when they were earning $20 a week and are drawing on it when the median wage is a $1,000 a week.

What illnesses or accidents or worn-out body parts will your parents have in their lifetime and what will the cost of those be?

There was one new lung cancer treatment I saw the other day. A single treatment cost $120,000.00

There's a move to put the cost of pharmaceuticals on prescriptions. Apparently even Doctors who prescribe them aren't aware of the true cost of modern medicines and were quite shocked with the prices.

That's a different matter. I didn't say they wouldn't be on the receiving end of the subsidization, I only said paying less than the per capita cost doesn't imply that you're being subsidized. You might be or you might not be, depending on the relation between the costs incurred by you and the costs paid out of your pocket.

I'm prescribed over $10,000 in medication per year by the sticker price. Every month it's a little bottle of pills worth its weight in gold. It costs me $30. I've been trying very hard to get off of them for a year. But I digress. What do you mean by putting the cost of pharmaceuticals on the prescription? Like the actual manufacturing cost? I'd sure like to know.

jyng1
01-10-2014, 04:47 AM
That's a different matter. I didn't say they wouldn't be on the receiving end of the subsidization, I only said paying less than the per capita cost doesn't imply that you're being subsidized. You might be or you might not be, depending on the relation between the costs incurred by you and the costs paid out of your pocket.

I'm prescribed over $10,000 in medication per year by the sticker price. Every month it's a little bottle of pills worth its weight in gold. It costs me $30. I've been trying very hard to get off of them for a year. But I digress. What do you mean by putting the cost of pharmaceuticals on the prescription? Like the actual manufacturing cost? I'd sure like to know.

All right; tell me how the premiums should be worked out? Those that should pay more should be those with higher health needs? Like: kids, mothers, the middle aged, smokers, the obese, the unfit, those that have sunbathed or work outside, any person involved in physical work...

And those that should be cheaper: young, normal weight, fit professionals who don't smoke.

ferrus
01-10-2014, 10:53 AM
In fact, a health insurance company, Kaiser Permanente, was the sixth largest corporate contributor (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638) to Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.
Kind of interesting that traditional industry tends to lean towards contributing to Democrats and finance towards Republican (though that may have been swayed by Romney's background and connections).

Aurast
01-10-2014, 04:24 PM
All right; tell me how the premiums should be worked out? Those that should pay more should be those with higher health needs? Like: kids, mothers, the middle aged, smokers, the obese, the unfit, those that have sunbathed or work outside, any person involved in physical work...

And those that should be cheaper: young, normal weight, fit professionals who don't smoke.

You could do that, but that has the same problems as any other insurance scheme, namely that healthcare still costs too much. The whole big argument over who should pay what is largely incidental to the problem that society as a whole is paying too much.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to government intervention but I have a strong preference for market solutions. I have an even stronger preference for things that work. Healthcare costs were too high before Obamacare, then we got Obamacare and healthcare costs are still too high. It was fucked up before and after, probably even worse now, so neither one makes the cut. I'm not shy to propose government intervention but it should target the cost problem first and anything left over second. And the market should be allowed to do the heavy lifting as much as possible.

Restore health insurance to actually being insurance. Low premiums, high deductibles, you don't use it for routine, predictable maintenance you use it as a safeguard to protect your lifestyle in case something catastrophic happens.

Outlaw for-profit insurance companies and encourage not-for-profit cooperatives in the same vein as credit unions. Mandate that the price paid for a procedure is the same regardless of whether the payment comes from an individual or from an insurance company.

Mandate subsidies (from the insurance coops) for those who still can't afford insurance and treatment unassisted so that they can even if they can afford $0. The insurance and treatment would still cost the same amount but any fees that can't be paid by the insuree would go into an account which they would need to start paying off if/when their income allows it. The point is to make insurance affordable for everyone. Then there would be rules forbidding discrimination towards anyone with conditions developed before age 25 or while they were covered by some health insurance policy. You can still choose to go without insurance but if something happens to you it will have been your choice to forego insurance and you will get to deal with the consequences of your choices (maybe you will die for want of treatment).

Sickness limits. Once you hit a certain amount of out of pocket expenses for a particular illness or its related issues, you never pay for anything else related to that illness again.

No age discrimination.

No Medicare or Medicaid. To the extent possible (which isn't the entire extent or the country would go broke) what you paid into both programs the government pays back into your own premiums.

jyng1
01-10-2014, 06:17 PM
You'll have to tell me more about these not for profit market solutions...

I'm actually a fan of Singapore's health system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore. A universal system with mix of compulsory savings, charging for everything and where you can pass on your lifetime of health savings in your estate. It's not egalitarian, but that would probably appeal to most Americans as well.

Per capita costs around $2,600 per annum vs $8,900 in the U.S. and ranked 6th in the world. Singapore is the same size as the lake out my door, so they don't have the geographic issues of a lot of places so centralisation isn't really an issue I imagine.

Aurast
01-10-2014, 07:44 PM
You'll have to tell me more about these not for profit market solutions...

I'm actually a fan of Singapore's health system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore. A universal system with mix of compulsory savings, charging for everything and where you can pass on your lifetime of health savings in your estate. It's not egalitarian, but that would probably appeal to most Americans as well.

Per capita costs around $2,600 per annum vs $8,900 in the U.S. and ranked 6th in the world. Singapore is the same size as the lake out my door, so they don't have the geographic issues of a lot of places so centralisation isn't really an issue I imagine.

You can have markets and competition without profit or corporations. There still is profit in a sense, but not the same sense as corporate profits. A cooperative still needs to take in just as much or more money than it expends, but whatever surplus there is is returned in some way to the members of the cooperative. I mentioned a credit union (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCredit_ union&ei=xEnQUu3_DK3LsQSlwYH4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGnuusYcdbAw14FnuQVNARRckyXbA&sig2=xfWM4aLTTMhqhm4FjgJYZA&bvm=bv.59026428,d.cWc) as an example, I don't know if those are common in the UK or not (or are you the guy from New Zealand?). When a credit union is making a profit, it uses that to provide its members with better services or lower costs, basically adjusting itself to get rid of its profitability. It doesn't disburse the profits to investors as a corporation does.

In thinking about these things what I'm always most afraid of is the money passing through government hands and it turning into a big Ponzi scheme that's going to bite everyone in the ass a generation down the line (Social Security, Medicare...). Markets prevent that in that if a market entity can't pay for itself in real time it collapses and is replaced by another without any real damage to the overall structure, barring some kind of too-big-to-fail situation (which should be avoided by regulation if necessary). In the scenario where the money goes through the government though... the US government never makes a serious commitment to a program's long-term sustainability and Americans hate to hear that we have to eat our vegetables and actually pay for ourselves. Instead, we pay for the generation before us and expect the coming generation and foreign creditors to pay for us. Closing the loop and getting each generation to pay for itself is the key to sustainability. But on another note, sorting the costs out first is the only way to make that possible without beggering ourselves (the $8,900 figure is particularly staggering when you consider how many Americans have no or negligible income).

I am not familiar with Singapore's health care system but it sounds pretty unique and I've got the article bookmarked.

Osito Polar
01-10-2014, 07:59 PM
I'm so thankful that someone helped me as I started my business. Who was it as I sold my entire Star Wars collection to pay my bills. Who was it that was actually there doing the work and research and leg work? I helped myself as the man tried to hold me down.


The amazing lunacy of that line of liberal thought is that it involves the government owning everyone's efforts. Maybe John made my job possible but now the government wants dues for me walking on the back of John. I hate government, it is made up of the worst kinds of people.

You guys are responding to a straw man here, and I wonder how you'd address the point that President Obama was actually making in the speech you're misquoting.

What he said was that the government provides the infrastructure that makes business possible. The railroads that move goods around, the roads that move people around, the education system that trains workers, the legal environment that makes contracts enforceable, etc. All of that stuff collectively created the United States economy which is undeniably one of the strongest in the world. There's a reason why so much of the world's foreign investment capital ends up concentrated either directly in the United States or in American-owned economic ventures. American businesspeople benefit hugely from that, and its fair to expect them to help pay for the system that makes their livelihoods possible.

99Problems
01-10-2014, 08:12 PM
And the US government "acquired" all of it from us.

Senseye
01-10-2014, 08:14 PM
I'm not fundamentally opposed to government intervention but I have a strong preference for market solutions. Normally, I would agree, but I just don't think certain public services fit well for a market solution. Healthcare being one of them. The "market" just doesn't care if people die - so you know the state has to step in to some extent.

Anyways, there are plenty of successful models out there (at least more successfull than the US model) and I think they are by and large single pay (where the government acts as insurer and payer, and premiums are basically rolled into taxes). This allows the government to control costs by controlling all the aspects of coverage and many aspects of costs.

Primarily, you need to get private corporations out of the insurance end. The government is the optimal place to run an insurance pool with mandatory inclusion of all citizens and premiums paid via taxes. The "market" can probably still provide the medical services. I'm not quite sure what's optimal there (as I am no healthcare systems expert) but I am pretty sure you need to get the insurance side of the house "non-profit".

LordLatch
01-10-2014, 11:21 PM
You guys are responding to a straw man here, and I wonder how you'd address the point that President Obama was actually making in the speech you're misquoting.

What he said was that the government provides the infrastructure that makes business possible. The railroads that move goods around, the roads that move people around, the education system that trains workers, the legal environment that makes contracts enforceable, etc. All of that stuff collectively created the United States economy which is undeniably one of the strongest in the world. There's a reason why so much of the world's foreign investment capital ends up concentrated either directly in the United States or in American-owned economic ventures. American businesspeople benefit hugely from that, and its fair to expect them to help pay for the system that makes their livelihoods possible.

Oh, he didn't say, "You didn't build that?" Is that the part I'm misquoting?

Because I didn't quote him at all.

Osito Polar
01-10-2014, 11:32 PM
Oh, he didn't say, "You didn't build that?" Is that the part I'm misquoting?

He did speak those words, yes, but you were engaging in a mischaracterization of the idea he was articulating. It's either intellectually lazy and ignorant, or you're being deliberately dishonest. I suspect the former.

Anyone who's heard the quote you're talking about should be intelligent enough to realize those words are a sentence fragment. If you include the entire sentence he was speaking it wouldn't be controversial or serve anyone's political agenda.

LordLatch
01-10-2014, 11:36 PM
He did speak those words, yes, but you were engaging in a mischaracterization of the idea he was articulating. It's either intellectually lazy and ignorant, or you're being deliberately dishonest. I suspect the former.

Anyone who's heard the quote you're talking about should be intelligent enough to realize those words are a sentence fragment. If you include the entire sentence he was speaking it wouldn't be controversial or serve anyone's political agenda.

You said I misquoted him and now you're saying I'm engaging in misscharacterization. These are two different things and one is a lie. Which one did you lie about?

Osito Polar
01-10-2014, 11:42 PM
You said I misquoted him and now you're saying I'm engaging in misscharacterization. These are two different things and one is a lie. Which one did you lie about?

If you understand the words you're using right now you would realize that they are not in fact different things in this context.

I guess you didn't think about it very much? A misquote is a type of mischaracterization. Duh.

stuck
01-10-2014, 11:43 PM
editor's note: taxes are NOT considered "theft" in the United States

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 12:33 AM
If you understand the words you're using right now you would realize that they are not in fact different things in this context.

I guess you didn't think about it very much? A misquote is a type of mischaracterization. Duh.

I never quoted. Therefore I never misquoted. So your claim I misquoted is a lie. If I misrepresented is another matter. Boy you are slippery.

Osito Polar
01-11-2014, 12:36 AM
I never quoted. Therefore I never misquoted. So your claim I misquoted is a lie. If I misrepresented is another matter. Boy you are slippery.

I wasn't addressing you individually in the post you're talking about, and yes "you" were misquoting President Obama. It's really not complicated, latch but if you enjoy being dull and intellectually ponderous please continue.

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 12:41 AM
I wasn't addressing you individually in the post you're talking about, and yes "you" were misquoting President Obama. It's really not complicated, latch but if you enjoy being dim and intellectually ponderous please continue.



That's slick. Now change the meaning of the 'you' you used. The last few post you're talking to me and now you're talking about us. If that is your new argument you are shifting to then know that 99problems didn't quote him either. He paraphrased.

So in one you guys statement, you lied about both of us.

I am dim! A dim bulb in a dark closet.

pensive_pilgrim
01-11-2014, 12:48 AM
He's saying you misquoted because you misrepresented what you were referring to. You should argue the content of what you're talking about rather than semantics, semantics are boring.

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 12:59 AM
He's saying you misquoted because you misrepresented what you were referring to. You should argue the content of what you're talking about rather than semantics, semantics are boring.

And I'm saying he lied and he's arguing semantics to get out of the lie. When he started talking about how I define words(post 73). I responded in kind(post 75).

Interesting you didn't see him do it first..

A far as the speech, I know it would be pointless to discuss the subtext of it which smacks the business owner in the face. The infrastructure was paid for by the people before that 'didn't build that' and the upkeep was paid for by me.

starla
01-11-2014, 01:09 AM
Anyone who is taking that quote out of context already knows it by now, but has no interest in what Obama was really saying and would prefer to propagate the mischaracterization. Why bother arguing? They only want their own beliefs echoed back to them and that's all they'll listen to.

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 01:10 AM
Back on topic. Can I keep my doctor under the Affordable Health Care Act? Can I keep my current health insurance policy?

jyng1
01-11-2014, 06:57 AM
http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-healthcare-slowdown/282964/

Increase in health spending is growing slower than the economy for the first time since 1997; and nobody knows why.

MacGuffin
01-11-2014, 08:07 AM
The sooner we get nationalized health care, the better.

I never thought I would say that, but it's clear that the private sectors is inadequate in delivering the resources required on a national scale.

I am about pragmatic solutions. Private healthcare has proved to be a failure.

jyng1
01-11-2014, 08:33 PM
Back on topic. Can I keep my doctor under the Affordable Health Care Act? Can I keep my current health insurance policy?

I don't know. Can you?

C.J.Woolf
01-11-2014, 08:39 PM
Some health insurance policies were cancelled because they violate the ACA. The insurers will never admit it, but the policies were essentially fraudulent. The people who bought them never found out because they never tried to make a claim.

jyng1
01-11-2014, 08:47 PM
Some health insurance policies were cancelled because they violate the ACA. The insurers will never admit it, but the policies were essentially fraudulent. The people who bought them never found out because they never tried to make a claim.

I was just reading an article on the WSJ and there's a whole lot of right wing obfuscation around why the policies have been cancelled. They used an example in the article which when looked at a bit deeper actually appears like the insurance company would have cancelled it anyway due to the patient exceeding their life time limits which without Obamacare, would have left her uninsurable.

There are no life time limits in universal care so the terms aren't particularly familiar to me.

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 09:49 PM
My policy was changed into a more expensive one. The only upgrade was the price. So I pay more for free and the 'You can keep you policy" turned out to be a lie. How many more lies are in that 600 pages the legislators passed without reading?

I don't want it. I didn't vote for it. I don't know anybody IRL that wanted it and I deal with a lot of people.

jyng1
01-11-2014, 09:52 PM
My policy was changed into a more expensive one. The only upgrade was the price. So I pay more for free and the 'You can keep you policy" turned out to be a lie. How many more lies are in that 600 pages the legislators passed without reading?

I don't want it. I didn't vote for it. I don't know anybody IRL that wanted it and I deal with a lot of people.

How much is it?

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 09:53 PM
$141 up from $100 and my wife's went up for $150 to $188. I pay both. I pay an extra $70 for nothing.

Arachne
01-11-2014, 09:53 PM
I think one of the biggest plusses of Obamacare is the annual out-of-pocket maximum. It's a huge relief to me to know that if I get seriously sick or injured and wind up in the hospital, I won't wind up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

I also think that it will be great for the economy that we are uncoupling health insurance from employment.

I'm self-employed and bought my health insurance through the California exchange in November and got my insurance card today! I'm thrilled because I've been doing without insurance since 2009. Fortunately, nothing worse than an ear infection came up during that time, but I don't like living with the risk.

starla
01-11-2014, 10:06 PM
$141 up from $100

Ok, I'm curious. What the hell kind of coverage are you getting for $141? And what were you getting for $100? Because I've been looking at individual insurance for about three years now and I've not seen anything that cheap out there except for people who are like 20 years old. IIRC you are not that young, no?

jyng1
01-11-2014, 10:07 PM
$141 up from $100 and my wife's went up for $150 to $188. I pay both. I pay an extra $70 for nothing.

A month? So that's $1,692 a year? That's a pretty big subsidy.

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 10:10 PM
Ok, I'm curious. What the hell kind of coverage are you getting for $141? And what were you getting for $100? Because I've been looking at individual insurance for about three years now and I've not seen anything that cheap out there except for people who are like 20 years old. IIRC you are not that young, no?

Catastrophe insurance with a $10000 deductible on hers an $6000 on mine. And I'm only allowed to keep these plans for one year and then I'm forced to enroll in Obamacare or pay the fine.


A month? So that's $1,692 a year? That's a pretty big subsidy.

There is no subsidy. It's the same product I was paying for but more expensive and temporary.

Like paying x amount for your phone bill, bug government steps in says, now pay x*1.5 and be glad about it because it's subsidized.

Who's money am I taking now?

starla
01-11-2014, 10:28 PM
Catastrophe insurance with a $10000 deductible on hers an $6000 on mine. And I'm only allowed to keep these plans for one year and then I'm forced to enroll in Obamacare or pay the fine.


You were getting insurance for $100/month? That is fucking unbelievable. When I looked into insurance for myself, I could find a similar plan for $171, except the deductible was $11,000 and it didn't cover pregnancy, and that was a few years ago so I'm sure it would be more expensive now. When I checked for rhinosaur (who is 8 years younger than me) it cost something like $140.

I'll be basically getting the same thing for $240/month but with only a $5500 deductible under Obamacare. The only difference is that I think they have to give me free birth control pills, though I cannot find this specified anywhere in the online literature for my policy. But it doesn't matter because I'd still rather pay $30 for a years' worth of birth control pills in Mexico than however much it would cost for a doctor to go spelunking in my vagina, scrape away some of my most sensitive skin, and then write me a prescription.

jyng1
01-11-2014, 10:31 PM
There is not no subsidy. It's the same product I was paying for but more expensive and temporary.

Like paying x amount for your phone bill, bug government steps in says, now pay x*1.5 and be glad about it because it's subsidized.

Who's money am I taking now?

I'll give you a clue; 15 million people in the US are consuming 10% of GDP in healthcare ($1,045,653.00 per annum each) and they're not the one's paying for it.

If it was guaranteed you could pay for it as you're required to consume it, there wouldn't be an insurance industry.

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 10:51 PM
If your defense of Obamacare is that it's just like insurance then that is true in that it take money from a pool and pay out claims. And I hate insurance - it's all a scam. And if I opt in then that's on me.

The difference is before Obamacare I wasn't forced to have health insurance, I didn't have to partake. Now I do and it's against my will.

Why do I need coverage for pregnancy? I'll never get pregnant. My wife won't either- she doesn't even have a uterus- it was scooped out years ago! Why do I have to pay for maternity coverage?

jyng1
01-11-2014, 10:56 PM
If your defense of Obamacare is that it's just like insurance then that is true in that it take money from a pool and pay out claims. And I hate insurance - it's all a scam. And if I opt in then that's on me.

The difference is before Obamacare I wasn't forced to have health insurance, I didn't have to partake. Now I do and it's against my will.

Why do I need coverage for pregnancy? I'll never get pregnant. My wife won't either- she doesn't even have a uterus- it was scooped out years ago! Why do I have to pay for maternity coverage?

I'm not defending Obamacare; if you'd read one of my previous posts, I support a system like Singapores.

What I'm saying is that everyone requires healthcare and their use of it is sometimes expensive and often unpredictable. You don't have the option of opting out of getting it (even if you're uninsured) therefore you shouldn't have the option of opting out of your shared responsibility of paying for it.

ACow
01-11-2014, 11:04 PM
Jesus H christ on a stick!

Now, i'm used to everything costing less in the US, except for insurance. Getting insurance for travelling through the US is always the most expensive compared to the rest of the world...but those plans???? Are those for families?

I just did a quick check of my own insurance company. The MOST EXPENSIVE PLAN I CAN GET as far as I can tell is $134 a month. I do not get said plan.

starla
01-11-2014, 11:05 PM
I'll give you a clue; 15 million people in the US are consuming 10% of GDP in healthcare ($1,045,653.00 per annum each) and they're not the one's paying for it.

If it was guaranteed you could pay for it as you're required to consume it, there wouldn't be an insurance industry.

Yeah, either the industry is goughing those people for their services or they need to just die. Especially if they're old. Why pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep some 89 year old on life support after two strokes and a heart attack? Or a deformed baby that will never be able to have a thought? I think if the public actually knew what that money was paying for, you'd have even more outrage than you do now. We let emotions get in the way of making good decisions when it comes to health care. At some point, it's just not worth it to keep someone alive anymore. People need to accept that.


If your defense of Obamacare is that it's just like insurance then that is true in that it take money from a pool and pay out claims. And I hate insurance - it's all a scam. And if I opt in then that's on me.

The difference is before Obamacare I wasn't forced to have health insurance, I didn't have to partake. Now I do and it's against my will.

Why do I need coverage for pregnancy? I'll never get pregnant. My wife won't either- she doesn't even have a uterus- it was scooped out years ago! Why do I have to pay for maternity coverage?

I think men should have to pay for pregnancy coverage unless they are medically unable to fertilize an egg. So until they die or get their balls snipped or irradiated. Really, subsidizing the cost of pregnancy is the least you could do.


Jesus H christ on a stick!

Now, i'm used to everything costing less in the US, except for insurance. Getting insurance for travelling through the US is always the most expensive compared to the rest of the world...but those plans???? Are those for families?

I just did a quick check of my own insurance company. The MOST EXPENSIVE PLAN I CAN GET as far as I can tell is $134 a month. I do not get said plan.

It makes sense when you consider how much more healthcare costs here. If the insurance is going to have to pay out more, they're going to have to charge more.

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 11:10 PM
Yeah, either the industry is goughing those people for their services or they need to just die. Especially if they're old. Why pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep some 89 year old on life support after two strokes and a heart attack? Or a deformed baby that will never be able to have a thought? I think if the public actually knew what that money was paying for, you'd have even more outrage than you do now. We let emotions get in the way of making good decisions when it comes to health care. At some point, it's just not worth it to keep someone alive anymore. People need to accept that.



I think men should have to pay for pregnancy coverage unless they are medically unable to fertilize an egg. So until they die or get their balls snipped or irradiated. Really, subsidizing the cost of pregnancy is the least you could do.

Not for someone I never met against my will. I of my own accord, already discount my prices for widows and single moms and I do that because I want to. I don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's pleasure.

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 11:12 PM
I'm not defending Obamacare;

Sorry.
tl;dr

...your shared responsibility of paying for it.

My imposed responsibility.

jyng1
01-11-2014, 11:16 PM
My imposed responsibility.

I hope you don't drive, cause I'd hate you to be driving on that road that it's your imposed responsibility to share the cost of.

starla
01-11-2014, 11:17 PM
So basically you don't believe in insurance? I would be fine with that stance so long as people like you were left to die at the front door of the hospital. I have no problem with paying into a pool from which health insurance bills are paid out of. My major problem is that not everyone is contributing as much as they should, and the payouts are way higher than they should be for the services rendered. We're making slightly less poor people subsidize all the poor people, and the rich are left out of it altogether. This was the case before Obamacare, when those without private insurance had to pay extremely inflated prices to subsidize all the people who didn't pay their bills, and it is the case now when people who don't have a job which affords them health insurance - mostly middle and lower middle class folks - are subsidizing premiums for those who do.

Let's say you don't have to buy insurance. Would you? And what do you think hospitals should do when someone with uncertain insurance and financial status shows up in need of emergency care?

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 11:23 PM
I hope you don't drive, cause I'd hate you to be driving on that road that it's your imposed responsibility to share the cost of.

I welcome that cost. It was paid for on the city and state level and I can go talk to the people that manage those resources in person if I like.

The federal government didn't pay for my roads- I did and the rest of people in my state.

Also its not against the law to not drive.

If I was forced to drive and forced to pay for it then that would be ObamaDrive. Can't you see the difference?


So basically you don't believe in insurance? I would be fine with that stance so long as people like you were left to die at the front door of the hospital. I have no problem with paying into a pool from which health insurance bills are paid out of. My major problem is that not everyone is contributing as much as they should, and the payouts are way higher than they should be for the services rendered. We're making slightly less poor people subsidize all the poor people, and the rich are left out of it altogether. This was the case before Obamacare, when those without private insurance had to pay extremely inflated prices to subsidize all the people who didn't pay their bills, and it is the case now when people who don't have a job which affords them health insurance - mostly middle and lower middle class folks - are subsidizing premiums for those who do.

Let's say you don't have to buy insurance. Would you? And what do you think hospitals should do when someone with uncertain insurance and financial status shows up in need of emergency care?

I hate insurance and I don't want it forced on me. I went to the hospital without insurance and you know what? I paid them. I go to the dentist and I pay them.

As far as what the hospital does, that's on them how they make their decisions. People freely without being forced, donate and volunteer at hospitals and I'm sure charity(not forced charity) goes into the decision making process.

I'm unqualified to answer as I'm not a hospital administrator and I reject your attempt to sell forced insurance(which is actually happening) by using a theoretical moral obligation situation.

jyng1
01-11-2014, 11:31 PM
I welcome that cost. It was paid for on the city and state level and I can go talk to the people that manage those resources in person if I like.

The federal government didn't pay for my roads- I did and the rest of people in my state.

Also its not against the law to not drive.

If I was forced to drive and forced to pay for it then that would be ObamaDrive. Can't you see the difference?

US drivers are the most subsidised people on the planet. Some estimates are if the true externalities were factored into driving in the States fuel would cost as much as $15 a gallon.

stuck
01-11-2014, 11:33 PM
The federal government didn't pay for my roads- I did and the rest of people in my state.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 11:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

I knew about that. It represents .01% of the roads I drive on.


US drivers are the most subsidised people on the planet. Some estimates are if the true externalities were factored into driving in the States fuel would cost as much as $15 a gallon.

Where are the 'some estimates' so I can address them from an informed standpoint?

jyng1
01-11-2014, 11:48 PM
I knew about that. It represents .01% of the roads I drive on.



Where are the 'some estimates' so I can address them from an informed standpoint?

What 'informed' standpoint. The US is the only country that uses more than a gallon of fuel per day per person and has the cheapest fuel outside of OPEC.

Why do you think this is?

American drivers certainly aren't even meeting basic infrastructure costs.


Obama's Fix-It-First program calls for $40 billion in spending on a backlog of urgent repairs and upgrades. That would follow $31 billion that went into infrastructure as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But those sums are dwarfed by the $3.6 trillion in investment the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) says is needed by 2020.

LordLatch
01-11-2014, 11:51 PM
What 'informed' standpoint. The US is the only country that uses more than a gallon of fuel per day per person and has the cheapest fuel outside of OPEC.

Why do you think this is?

The informed standpoint I'll have when I know where you are getting your information.

jyng1
01-11-2014, 11:54 PM
The informed standpoint I'll have when I know where you are getting your information.

Bloombergs, Freakonomics, CNBC... I could go on.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 12:02 AM
Do any of those say I'm forced to drive?

jyng1
01-12-2014, 12:06 AM
Do any of those say I've forced to drive?

I presume you mean 'I'm forced to drive'. No, and I didn't say you're forced to drive. I said you're forced to subsidise those that do drive and if you do drive you receive a subsidy to do so.

Just like you're forced to pay 22 cents in the tax dollar to pay for Medicare and Medicaid - more than most people do in countries that have universal health care.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 12:11 AM
I don't get what you're saying.

It looks like you are saying I'm already subsidized for oil so I should like being subsidized for government run and mandated healthcare.

So I pay $10 and some else pays $8 and we both get $9 worth of gas or roads or whatever?

No, I don't think its right or ok and the government did it without my approval.


I never complain about gas prices- I think a gallon should be $50 for everyone.

jyng1
01-12-2014, 12:16 AM
It looks like you are saying I'm already subsidized for oil so I should like being subsidized for government run and mandated healthcare.

Glad you agree you're getting subsidised for healthcare.

Hephaestus
01-12-2014, 12:26 AM
Glad you agree you're getting subsidised for healthcare.
He didn't. He's stating what he thinks your argument is.

jyng1
01-12-2014, 12:37 AM
He didn't. He's stating what he thinks your argument is.

I know what he said; it was just easier than pointing out the fallacy of 'he pays $10 and someone else pays $8 and they both receive $9 of roads or gas or whatever'.

His argument is that the cost of health care is $8,900 per capita and he's being forced to pay a $1,600 share of this on the unlikely possibility that he will incur health costs he can't self insure for.

He would prefer to self insure (I guess without being forced to like the Singaporeans are) and would prefer not to guarantee the State that he has adequately done so. He would also like to opt out of catastrophic health coverage and if something horrendous happened to him would prefer to die on the street but living in the US the State will not allow him to do so.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 12:45 AM
His argument is that the cost of health care is $8,900 per capita and he's being forced to pay a $1,600 share of this on the unlikely possibility that he will incur health costs he can't self insure for.

I'm not interested in per capita numbers. I never said anything about them so how could my argument be about something I didn't say? They might as well be imaginary. I'm not a whole country. I see my bank account. All this talk of subsidies to me is jargon intended to cloud the fact I'm being forced into something I don't want.

As for my fallacy, where do you think that money comes from? Thin air?

I still am against government subsidies and I very against forced government subsidies.

No I don't want to answer to the State- they work for me. The federal government shouldn't be discussing starla's vag at all. They should concern themselves with national defense and a few other things. Most other issues can be handled locally by states and provinces.

These laws and policies were adopted by elite that care nothing for the little guy.

jyng1
01-12-2014, 01:24 AM
I'm not interested in per capita numbers. I never said anything about them so how could my argument be about something I didn't say?

Your argument is that when your private insurance company had to guarantee the Government you were adequately covered, they couldn't, so they cancelled your policy and issued you with a new one that did. This new plan was more expensive. Either that or your 'private' insurance company is ripping you off (hard to see since Obamacare limits their profits to 20%).

How is this Obamacare's fault?


I still am against government subsidies and I very against forced government subsidies.

You seem pretty reluctant to cough up the rest of the $6,000 per annum of your share of health costs.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 01:30 AM
I didn't happen before.

But that isn't my argument at all.

starla
01-12-2014, 01:31 AM
I don't understand how Obamacare mandated that the premiums for the same policy that you had before are more expensive this year. If nothing really changed, then your insurance company raised the price. It has nothing to do with Obamacare.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 01:40 AM
Ok I don't know why communication is not happening. That raise in price is on a policy I can only keep for a year. It's being canceled in one year.

And my deal is that it is was forced on me.


You seem pretty reluctant to cough up the rest of the $6,000 per annum of your share of health costs.

My share of what's fair? Fairness deals with placing demands on someone else's time or property so everyone has the same.

Those that passed the laws onto us little folk are exempt from them. Why? They passed the law and don't have to live by it. Is that fair and equal?

I don't live in a socialist country and I don't want to. This is in that direction and I don't want it. Don't try to make the health care of someone in Texas or some other place my responsibility.

You are not going to change my mind on this.

Hephaestus
01-12-2014, 01:41 AM
Causality. If I stab someone in the heart, technically they died from heart failure. If I hadn't stabbed them, it's possible they would have died at the same moment from heart failure anyway. Nonetheless, if anyone were to claim I wasn't responsible for the death, especially after viewing the video and my written testimony before and after that I was going to stab this person...

The effects of the ACA are obviously more far-reaching than the text of the document. If there is a change taking place coincident to the Act, it isn't unreasonable to see it as consequent to the Act, and a bit strange not to when the change and the Act effect the same thing.

jyng1
01-12-2014, 01:44 AM
Ok I don't know why communication is not happening. That raise in price is on a policy I can only keep for a year. It's being canceled in one year.

And my deal is that it is was forced on me.

Probably more likely to have been forced on the insurance company. They can't continue to sell fraudulent policies.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 01:51 AM
Do you work for the government?

Hermione
01-12-2014, 01:54 AM
Causality. If I stab someone in the heart, technically they died from heart failure. If I hadn't stabbed them, it's possible they would have died at the same moment from heart failure anyway. Nonetheless, if anyone were to claim I wasn't responsible for the death, especially after viewing the video and my written testimony before and after that I was going to stab this person...

The effects of the ACA are obviously more far-reaching than the text of the document. If there is a change taking place coincident to the Act, it isn't unreasonable to see it as consequent to the Act, and a bit strange not to when the change and the Act effect the same thing.

I got you on that. To my thinking you are absolutely correct. People are mad because we've already been getting screwed since like the 80's on this healthcare thing and we did nothing to stop it. We are still getting screwed today and have done nothing to stop it. Now someone tries to begin to do something to stop it, and boy oh boy are we pissed. People.. we need more mental health care obviously. We are delusional about this issue.

Btw, don't stab anyone. I like to believe you are who I believe you are and I don't have insurance yet. So, I'd like to remain all sweet and naive for another day or two. See? Srsly, this whole issue makes me sick more than I can even say. <_<

Hephaestus
01-12-2014, 01:55 AM
Note: I'm anticipate benefiting greatly from the ACA in the short term. I haven't had health insurance in years. Between the ACA, SNAP, and SL deferral for being poor, I'm making about 7K a year before doing anything else--even after you consider the effects of interest on those loans. On the other hand, it also means that I can't afford to make more than about 15000 unless I make at least 22-23K.

I can't afford a full time minimum wage job. Any work that pays less than $12/hr must be part time or I'm throwing away money--or at least that's the way it looks until I can find solid information on what sort of subsidy I can get for out of pocket insurance costs. I'll recondition my calculations once I know that info for sure, but for right now, working full time for $10/hr is for suckers.

While I've been without health insurance, I haven't been without need for healthcare btw. But even the year I had pnuemonia, my health care costs were under $200 for the year.

My biggest healthcare costs were for dental--wisdom tooth extraction (I know, I'm dentally retarded) and a couple fillings (I know, but allegedly my teeth are still way better than most my age). But most health insurance plans don't cover that anyway--and good luck finding a dentist who takes government insurance--or an oral surgeon. (For the record, I can tell you of a an oral surgeon who takes government insurance in WA, if you need the info. I also know a nice pediactric dentist who takes government insurance if you need a recommendation there too.)

jyng1
01-12-2014, 01:57 AM
I don't live in a socialist country and I don't want to. This is in that direction and I don't want it.

Must have pissed you off when you received a free education.

starla
01-12-2014, 01:59 AM
Ok I don't know why communication is not happening. That raise in price is on a policy I can only keep for a year. It's being canceled in one year.

So your policy is being cancelled under Obamacare, but not for a year? I was unaware of the "you can keep your policy but only for a year" provision. More likely, your insurance company feels free to cancel the cheap policies and jack up premiums on the next cheapest ones since they know you're going to be forced to buy one and they don't have to worry about losing you as a customer. Which is pretty much what is wrong with the government mandating that we purchase a product from a profit-seeking entity. I'd rather pay the government. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 02:06 AM
Must have pissed you off when you received a free education.

Oh the free indoctrination? That was also on a state level. I'm not against government, I'm against the Federal Government telling me what to buy. Why do you not see that?


So your policy is being cancelled under Obamacare, but not for a year? I was unaware of the "you can keep your policy but only for a year" provision. More likely, your insurance company feels free to cancel the cheap policies and jack up premiums on the next cheapest ones since they know you're going to be forced to buy one and they don't have to worry about losing you as a customer. Which is pretty much what is wrong with the government mandating that we purchase a product from a profit-seeking entity. I'd rather pay the government. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise.



Whoa are you working for the government too?

Thevenin
01-12-2014, 02:09 AM
The ACA is 906 pages long (it's often reported to be 2,400 pages long). It is also extremely complicated. Most people opine without having read one page of the law. Typically, with laws like this there are unintended consequences--just look at what Obama has said that turned out to be wrong. You'd think he or, at least his advisors, would be experts on the law. Of course, the GOP has said a lot about the bill that is wrong, too. Unfortunately, nobody is an expert on the law and that is part of the problem, part of the failures and screw-ups. Ultimately, to be successful, laws must evolve empirically and through additional legislation to fix the mistakes that are inevitable and inherent in such complexity. However, to fix problems, there has to be political will, which seems to be mostly lacking for the ACA.

jyng1
01-12-2014, 02:29 AM
Oh the free indoctrination? That was also on a state level. I'm not against government, I'm against the Federal Government telling me what to buy. Why do you not see that?

Cause you're not being told what to buy. You get a choice - hence the exchange.

I don't really care what you buy; if you could guarantee that you could meet all your potential health costs I'd be pretty happy if you self-insured. You don't live in Somalia so it's impossible to be left to die on the street, so the options are socialised health care (or in your case mandated private insurance - an expensive version of the same thing).

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 02:31 AM
Cause you're not being told what to buy. You get a choice - hence the exchange.

I don't really care what you buy; if you could guarantee that you could meet all your potential health costs I'd be pretty happy if you self-insured. You don't live in Somalia so it's impossible to be left to die on the street, so the options are socialised health care (or in your case mandated private insurance - an expensive version of the same thing).

I don't want to buy anything. Can I do that without penalty?

jyng1
01-12-2014, 02:34 AM
I don't want to buy anything. Can I do that without penalty?

I'd be pretty happy for you to do that if you can guarantee that you will never require health care that you can't afford. Since 5% of the population have health costs that exceed $1,000,000.00 a year you'd have to have an independent disposable income in excess of $1,000,000.00 per annum.

Hephaestus
01-12-2014, 02:37 AM
With that line of thinking, we should have mandatory commerce insurance too--y'know, for when people buy things they can't afford. It will kick in when your credit card is declined.

jyng1
01-12-2014, 02:38 AM
With that line of thinking, we should have mandatory commerce insurance too--y'know, for when people buy things they can't afford. It will kick in when your credit card is declined.

As opposed to the current system where people just go bankrupt?



Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.

Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.

And if you think only Americans without health insurance face financial troubles, think again. NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 02:38 AM
With that line of thinking, we should have mandatory commerce insurance too--y'know, for when people buy things they can't afford. It will kick in when your credit card is declined.

Oh I want that! I'll pay my Obamacare opt out fine with it.

Hephaestus
01-12-2014, 02:42 AM
:rofl:

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 02:45 AM
Where's the high five emoticon?

Oh here: :highfive:

Ptah
01-12-2014, 02:46 AM
Where's the high five emoticon?

:highfive: (highfive)

Hermione
01-12-2014, 02:48 AM
:sameagle:

pensive_pilgrim
01-12-2014, 02:51 AM
I'd be pretty happy for you to do that if you can guarantee that you will never require health care that you can't afford. Since 5% of the population have health costs that exceed $1,000,000.00 a year you'd have to have an independent disposable income in excess of $1,000,000.00 per annum.

It would make more sense to have him sign a waiver saying he doesn't get any healthcare that he can't pay for out of pocket, no matter the circumstance.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 02:54 AM
Or I can sign a waiver saying I can buy my 'illegal' health insurance which I choose to buy. Then I don't have to say Obamacare ever again.

jyng1
01-12-2014, 03:02 AM
Or I can sign a waiver saying I can buy my 'illegal' health insurance which I choose to buy. Then I don't have to say Obamacare ever again.

Sure thing dude; you can join the 56 million Americans who found they were underinsured in 2013.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 03:04 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/06/johnson-obamacare-subsidies-congress/4341229/

Here's one problem. Subsidies for folks that make more than $175000. That's where my money is going?

C.J.Woolf
01-12-2014, 03:15 AM
Why pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep some 89 year old on life support after two strokes and a heart attack? Or a deformed baby that will never be able to have a thought? I think if the public actually knew what that money was paying for, you'd have even more outrage than you do now. We let emotions get in the way of making good decisions when it comes to health care. At some point, it's just not worth it to keep someone alive anymore. People need to accept that.

Yeah, the people who freak out over "death panels" don't consider that it's all about the greatest good for the greatest number.

jyng1
01-12-2014, 03:17 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/06/johnson-obamacare-subsidies-congress/4341229/

Here's one problem. Subsidies for folks that make more than $175000. That's where my money is going?


At $1,600 a year, I'll tell you where your money isn't going... into your share of health insurance.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 03:18 AM
Yeah, the people who freak out over "death panels" don't consider that it's all about the greatest good for the greatest number.

Don't call it that. Call it end of life counseling.

starla
01-12-2014, 04:08 AM
Yeah, the people who freak out over "death panels" don't consider that it's all about the greatest good for the greatest number.

There are already death panels, and they have a profit motive.

stuck
01-12-2014, 04:09 AM
The sooner we get nationalized health care, the better…

...I am about pragmatic solutions. Private healthcare has proved to be a failure.

This.

LordLatch
01-12-2014, 04:19 AM
It's law. You're getting what you want. Don't expect me to like it.

We're on the precipice. You'll see.

And remember, you wanted this.



End of line.

stuck
01-12-2014, 04:24 AM
It's law. You're getting what you want. Don't expect me to like it.

We're on the precipice. You'll see.

And remember, you wanted this.



End of line.

To wit, I want nationalized single payer health care, not the ACA propping up for-profit corporations… not to mention a lot of other things. That's not even close to the scariest precipice we're on.

MacGuffin
01-12-2014, 06:13 AM
It's law. You're getting what you want. Don't expect me to like it.

We're on the precipice. You'll see.

And remember, you wanted this.



End of line.
The sooner healthcare is nationalized, the better.

Private healthcare is a failure.

2hype
01-12-2014, 02:15 PM
I get my health insurance through my employer. Luckily, the company that sells the insurance let us renew our insurance a month early- December instead of January. If they had waited until January, rates for the same plan would have gone up 47%. My understanding is that the reason for this increase is because the way underwriting is done under the ACA has significantly changed and is now almost all based on age. So since our company is small with an older demographic, our rates will be significantly higher under the ACA. To the point that if something doesn't change in the next year, they won't be offering an insurance plan next year. I looked at the plans that are available under the exchange and there is nothing even close to as good as what I have now. Maybe I have a so-called Cadilac plan? I don't know, but I if I spent the same amount as what my plan costs now (my cost + employers cost) and bought a plan through the exchange , I would have much less coverage with a higher deductible, co-insurance, and copays. Plus, buying through the exchange is after tax dollars, which makes it much more expensive. So, while I think it's great that people who weren't able to buy insurance now can and people with preexisting conditions can buy affordable insurance, I'm certainly not looking forward to shelling out more money for MUCH worse coverage next year.

2hype
01-12-2014, 02:21 PM
Oh, and my insurance company isn't even participating in the individual plan healthcare exchange. I don't know if they are offering individual plans outside the exchange. But if things don't change, next year I might not be able to see the doctors I've been seeing for years.

EDIT: and no, I'm not republican or rich

EDIT: and I live in a state that already had a good state-run program for low-income people.

jyng1
02-08-2014, 07:38 PM
A map comparing individual State average lifespan and it's comparable country...

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/2014/02/lifeexpectancymap2.jpg/96d376894.jpg

And how they vote...

http://victoryinstitute.net/images/WHITEWING.png

starla
02-08-2014, 09:03 PM
Utah and WV are ruining the R squared value of your correlation.

jyng1
02-09-2014, 04:58 AM
Utah and WV are ruining the R squared value of your correlation.

Yeah; West Virginia is in a world of it's own...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGYs4KS_djg

jyng1
06-19-2014, 10:07 PM
Britain's NHS voted the best of 11 nations health care and spends the second lowest (beaten only by New Zealand). http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

Americas private care costs the most and comes in dead last.

jyng1
08-15-2014, 11:39 PM
An American Doctors horror experience with the NHS...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/crisis-what-crisis-a-visiting-californian-doctor-gives-the-nhs-a-rave-review-9672186.html