06 Jan 14
Originally posted by normbenignPreviously health insurance was not a commodity you could purchase freely if you had a pre-existing condition that the insurance company didn't like . I understand that under laissez faire theory those people should have just died so that the purity of the market could be maintained, but that is seemingly not a result that most people are comfortable with. I guess there's just too many damn "socialists".
Insurance and risk pooling are fine, if insurance is a commodity which people can purchase freely. Nearly all insurance has rating factors which are beyond the range of pooling.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"The ACA is here to stay; get over it."
I've never made any such acknowledgement. I think the individual mandate is unwise and unnecessary, but not a "gross usurpation of individual rights".
Republicans have no interest in "reforming" health care just as they have no interest in "reforming" immigration. For political reasons they'll talk like they have but no substantive proposal can be expected. The ACA is here to stay; get over it.
ACA will take several years to totally implode, but by then the left will be blaming the doctors, pharma, and insurance, and crying the only answer is pure socialized single payer. I predict in less than a decade, sooner if another leftist administration or control of Congress happens.
Originally posted by normbenignI don't believe your claim that any employer provided policy would suddenly cost half of someone's weekly salary. In point of fact, anyone who can't find a policy on the exchanges that costs less than 8% of their income is exempt from the mandate fine/tax.
The employer mandate was not pushed back when my friend faced his open enrolment period. There are many people in this same boat, where employers presumed the mandate would go forward, especially for not friends of Obama.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you already had an accident, or your house was on fire you couldn't purchase auto or home owners insurance.
Previously health insurance was not a commodity you could purchase freely if you had a pre-existing condition that the insurance company didn't like . I understand that under laissez faire theory those people should have just died so that the purity of the market could be maintained, but that is seemingly not a result that most people are comfortable with. I guess there's just too many damn "socialists".
Let me clarify for you what insurance is and is not. Insurance is protection against risks. It is not volunteering to pay for losses already experienced.
If the government wanted to cover an uninsurable risk, as it does with flood insurance, that is a possible choice which would not undermine and alter the entire insurance and health care industry. The destruction of the private sector is far more a purpose of the ACA than is covering a few people with preexisting conditions.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, I don't have the exact numbers. I don't know what the guy makes, exactly, but I do know he's marginal before ACA, and the increase in his share of his premiums was unacceptable, and he chose to drop coverage.
I don't believe your claim that any employer provided policy would suddenly cost half of someone's weekly salary. In point of fact, anyone who can't find a policy on the exchanges that costs less than 8% of their income is exempt from the mandate fine/tax.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe cheaper plans usually covered the catastrophic end, but had larger co pays for routine care, and none for things like contraception. When I first got health care from Teamsters back in the '60s, it was called hospitalization. Visits to the family doctor, dentist and optometrist were not covered, nor were prescriptions.
Who pays the unpaid bills in case of a personal bankruptcy? It's not necessarily "the government", but it certainly is the taxpayer.
The notion of comprehensive health care insurance came from unions, and from Ted Kennedy's invention of the HMO. It all was seducing. People got along fine paying for those services, and being insured for the big stuff. Now they use that money for other stuff, and presume health care will be paid for by someone else.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by normbenignYou are confused. Those with a pre-existing condition need future treatment. The purpose of health insurance is to give the individual some protection against future costs.
If you already had an accident, or your house was on fire you couldn't purchase auto or home owners insurance.
Let me clarify for you what insurance is and is not. Insurance is protection against risks. It is not volunteering to pay for losses already experienced.
If the government wanted to cover an uninsurable risk, as it does with flood insur ...[text shortened]... ctor is far more a purpose of the ACA than is covering a few people with preexisting conditions.
Your soapbox assertion in the last sentence is uninteresting. Investors have shot up the value of health insurance stocks since the ACA was passed; apparently they don't buy the "ACA will destroy private insurance" line that rabid right wingers are parroting.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by sh76What happens is that hospitals compensate by arbitrarily high prices, in other words overcharging everyone.
The hospital eats it. I suppose you can argue that the cost gets passed on to the consumer eventually, but that's quite indirect. Perhaps the provider simply makes a little less money.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by normbenignBizarro World Norm strikes again. Ted Kennedy invented health insurance is about as convincing as Al Gore invented the internet.
The cheaper plans usually covered the catastrophic end, but had larger co pays for routine care, and none for things like contraception. When I first got health care from Teamsters back in the '60s, it was called hospitalization. Visits to the family doctor, dentist and optometrist were not covered, nor were prescriptions.
The notion of comprehensive ...[text shortened]... w they use that money for other stuff, and presume health care will be paid for by someone else.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by sh76The problem was that the system before the ACA wasn't at all free market, with the most expensive parts of the system already being government controlled and run, Medicare and Medicaid.
===The system was unsustainable with rising costs (premiums increased in the 10 years preceding the ACA at 2 1/2 times the rate of inflation and overall health care costs rose to 19% of the total economy and were on pace to hit 30% in another 10 or so years)===
Agreed, certainly. The problem is that under the ACA premiums are rising even faster.
The largest portion of the private market, employer provided coverage had similarly small amounts of consumer inputs, as much of it was gold plated, union backed "insurance" which was really prepaid care, not insurance per se.
Subsidizing anything will never result in lower consumer prices. Heavily government subsidized areas all are increasing far above inflation, which itself is a government subsidy. Housing, education, employment all get more and more subsidies, and all are out of control.
06 Jan 14
The post that was quoted here has been removedI predict that everyone receiving "free" anything likes it, until it starts to unravel.
I predict that many people will grudgingly find down the road that the isn't any "free" lunch or health care.
The US system is a hybrid, with the great majority already in at least a quasi governmental controlled system. The notion of blaming it's shortcomings on the free market is absurd.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by no1marauderPreexisting conditions and future expenses of them are predictably much higher than the general population. A bit like living in a Mississippi valley flood plain. You can't insure that, anymore than an insurance company will fix your car, or rebuild your house if you didn't insure before the condition existed.
You are confused. Those with a pre-existing condition need future treatment. The purpose of health insurance is to give the individual some protection against future costs.
Your soapbox assertion in the last sentence is uninteresting. Investors have shot up the value of health insurance stocks since the ACA was passed; apparently they don't buy the "ACA will destroy private insurance" line that rabid right wingers are parroting.
Whether my assertion is interesting to you doesn't bother me. You seem uninterested in individual choices and responsibility in general.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by normbenignThe only "solution" you offer is to freeze out large amounts of the populace i.e. the poor, the elderly, the sick from health care. Of course this would be fine with insurance companies, but why should a society accept such a system? Believe it or not, most people don't identify "liberty" with being free to die of easily treated conditions if they don't have a lot of money.
The problem was that the system before the ACA wasn't at all free market, with the most expensive parts of the system already being government controlled and run, Medicare and Medicaid.
The largest portion of the private market, employer provided coverage had similarly small amounts of consumer inputs, as much of it was gold plated, union backed "insur ...[text shortened]... dy. Housing, education, employment all get more and more subsidies, and all are out of control.
In the modern economy, large entities like the government and insurance companies are the only brake on health care costs since they have some bargaining leverage. Individual consumers have none plus their demand curve for health care is extremely inelastic (if you're aware that failure to purchase a product has a real likelihood of causing your death it tends to shift the demand curve).
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by normbenignYou're not offering "individual choice"; you're offering death to people who don't have money. "Responsibility" has zero to do with it.
Preexisting conditions and future expenses of them are predictably much higher than the general population. A bit like living in a Mississippi valley flood plain. You can't insure that, anymore than an insurance company will fix your car, or rebuild your house if you didn't insure before the condition existed.
Whether my assertion is interesting to y ...[text shortened]... u doesn't bother me. You seem uninterested in individual choices and responsibility in general.