djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 29, 2013 10:27:42 GMT -5
I don't disagree with your assertion that the market as structured conspires against the individual; but, the purest health insurance market is in catastrophic care. At that end, no individual who needs catastrophic care is in a position to shop around: nearest hospital, best they can do to patch you up, on if necessary/possible to the next nearest that can finish the job. The insurer there necessarily has to try to stand in place of the patient making rational choices for herself, because the patient in extremis doesn't have the option of bleeding out on the way to a more efficient or less greedy facility elsewhere. And, by the way, nobody in this market is looking at the patient's ability to pay for the necessary services that keep her alive. It's not even theoretically the case that an insurer breaks even over the lifetime of a catastrophic care policy that includes a claim. The bet by the insurer has to be that it doesn't come to that, and the bet has to be hedged with enough premium payors that it feels pretty confident of winning the bet almost all the time. That isn't a free market. It can't be made free. No market mechanism will guarantee that the best available healthcare in an emergency will also be the most affordable; price, the limiting factor in a free-market transaction, is an afterthought in emergency care. there will never be a free market for healthcare. that idea is pure fantasy. but i know that you "realists" will probably assail me for this assertion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 11:35:01 GMT -5
Just don't lump me in with "you realists" there. We're in agreement. Catastrophic care can't even theoretically be free - you can socialize risk through insurance to an extent but there are limits to either coverage or cost or both.
Subsidiary markets in healthcare can be free. Take a good long hard look at the concept of 'intellectual copyright' for example, and you have scope to dramatically alter the price points in the pharmaceutical market. A market with fewer drugs on it, and ever fewer players in it, may not be less free or fair than the current one, because the current one is a rigged game in the worst way.
So part of the problem is in insisting that everything we think of as 'healthcare' is to be tackled the same way. Why isn't the Department of Agriculture a mere agency of HHS? Is not nutrition a basic component of healthcare?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2013 11:49:01 GMT -5
I don't disagree with your assertion that the market as structured conspires against the individual; but, the purest health insurance market is in catastrophic care. At that end, no individual who needs catastrophic care is in a position to shop around: nearest hospital, best they can do to patch you up, on if necessary/possible to the next nearest that can finish the job. The insurer there necessarily has to try to stand in place of the patient making rational choices for herself, because the patient in extremis doesn't have the option of bleeding out on the way to a more efficient or less greedy facility elsewhere. And, by the way, nobody in this market is looking at the patient's ability to pay for the necessary services that keep her alive. It's not even theoretically the case that an insurer breaks even over the lifetime of a catastrophic care policy that includes a claim. The bet by the insurer has to be that it doesn't come to that, and the bet has to be hedged with enough premium payors that it feels pretty confident of winning the bet almost all the time. That isn't a free market. It can't be made free. No market mechanism will guarantee that the best available healthcare in an emergency will also be the most affordable; price, the limiting factor in a free-market transaction, is an afterthought in emergency care. Catastrophic care is what REAL insurance is for.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2013 11:54:10 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 12:08:35 GMT -5
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Oct 29, 2013 13:18:39 GMT -5
Exactly!... This was obvious the day he said it and the major news networks and a large percentage of the "to dumb to think voters" are just starting to realize it now right?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2013 15:35:08 GMT -5
Something else Angel was wrong about besides the obvious- which almost everyone knew: ObamaCare wasn't ready for prime time- is that ObamaCare would NOT let you keep your plan and would NOT let you keep your doctor. I'll give her a pass on this one in part at least because the law uses language that makes it seem like you can keep your plan- unless it changes. Where I'll fault our resident ObamaCare 'expert' is not seeing government for what it is, and not at the very least suspecting Obama and the Democrats were lying about ObamaCare. www.nationalreview.com/corner/362484/top-dem-admits-we-knew-jonathan-strongToday, a top Democrat and proponent of ObamaCare admits what we already knew- they knew. And they lied. So while the Obama and the Democrats repeatedly lied about ObamaCare, the press ran cover for them, and Kool-Aid drinkers like Angel came here and cited chapter and verse why I and my sources were "wrong"- the DHHS simply interpreted the keep your policy language out of the law with the regulatory power granted the agency. As important as the fact that Obama lied is WHY he lied? He told the same lies about keeping your plan, and keeping your doctor, often beginning with, "No matter what you've heard..." He was referencing the conservative voices- like me- crying in the wilderness attempting to expose what we- Obama AND the whole of the Democratic Party and their house organ, the lamestream press already knew in 2010. There was never any way anyone would keep their plan, or their doctor once this train wreck was foisted upon us. Now, if there are any further questions about ObamaCare, we will be going with what CONSERVATIVES have to say about it as the final word. Because we've been right all along while Obama, the Democrats, the Obama lapdog media, and the Kool Aid drinkers were all lying, covering for lies, and believing lies. Conservatives knew. Conservatives warned. Conservatives are now the only credible authority on all things ObamaCare. If we say it, there's really no choice but to listen to us now.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2013 15:37:37 GMT -5
Well, we had to pass it to find out what was in it, right? My sole prediction that was wrong about the 2012 elections was that I missed the fact that America had reached a critical mass of stupid. I figured there was simply no way there were enough people this stupid as to re-elect this lying dirtbag. That's what I was wrong about. Hopefully, we now have the average fucking idiot's attention.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Oct 29, 2013 15:48:57 GMT -5
The few % of the public having to change coverage wouldn't have been enough to change the election.
We need to stop focusing on the Dems and focus on what we have been doing wrong over the last 7 years.
2014 is coming up quick.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 20:05:34 GMT -5
Few %? It's the majority of people with insurance not provided by employers or gov't.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 20:24:43 GMT -5
Well, we had to pass it to find out what was in it, right? My sole prediction that was wrong about the 2012 elections was that I missed the fact that America had reached a critical mass of stupid. I figured there was simply no way there were enough people this stupid as to re-elect this lying dirtbag. That's what I was wrong about. Hopefully, we now have the average fucking idiot's attention. So... you're saying that your apparent OCD is exacerbated by ADHD as well? Man, that's tough.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 29, 2013 20:42:47 GMT -5
Few %? It's the majority of people with insurance not provided by employers or gov't. Actually you can move employers' ( most, at least) provided insurance to the other column. They are not being counted right now, but if they are like my business' commonly sold plan, the letter was sent months ago that your plan was cancelled. It was simply sent to the employer, not the insured. Most of my 125 employees don't know what their new plan is. The committee that volunteered to address the issue, (when I stated that we would just drop insurance and let everybody go on obamacare) , only finalized their plan that was acceptable to management, yesterday. They are not excited about presenting it to the staff because it is far higher deductible, and a higher cost (multiple times for dependent care), but it is better than the exchange, according to them. To say that employer provided health insurance wouldn't be cancelled is inaccurate. More important, I would like to point out that the radical right on this board have been predicting this cancellation fact from the inception of the law. A little humble pie is in order, as painful as that may be. How about a symbolic tip-of-the-hat from dj to Paul in acknowledgement of a win, for the conservative debaters on this board, then back to spinning this train wreck as the capitalist solution to socialistc desires.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 21:13:55 GMT -5
Interesting. I haven't heard a word about what our insurnace will be like next year. Our HR portal already has open enrollment up and running, but no announcements or info has been provided. So I'm waiting anxiously. All I know is my share of the cost has gone up $30/month.
You know, mistakes and dumb decisions have always rolled of Obama like water off a duck's back. But this time around, he really seems to be getting his feet held to the fire by the media. It's about time.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 29, 2013 21:40:43 GMT -5
Well it is pretty much true- it was a capitalist backed alternative to what the republicans feared would happen- and granted they were backed into a corner to come up with it. The true sides of this debate are single payer/universal schemes and deregulation and deference to the 'free-market'.
While this law falls way short of what was needed, and has plenty of problems- the GOP can do nothing more than point fingers. What is their solution? It is quite obvious that Obamacare is the GOP healthcare plan in action, and the only other option they have to fall back on is what we had- aka do nothing at all. I will not be tipping any hats to people out to destroy something that is going to help a lot of people.
Also, the whole cancellation/keep your plan argument is weak- the law clearly allowed insurance companies to keep policies in effect and grandfathered them in. The truth is the insurance companies made the choice to end them.
And- good freaking riddance to them. Pretty much everyone that were on these cheap and cancelled policies were free riders anyway. The idea has to be (at least if we keep this bullshit private insurance based system) that everyone has to be in and pay for a sufficient level of coverage- if not it fails. And if it does fail- fine with that too- just solid proof that insurance companies need to go away forever and make way for an efficient health care system that we can afford.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 29, 2013 21:41:39 GMT -5
Employer cost is up 10%, employee cost up from $30 to $50, deductible from $500 to $3,000, no more co-pay, no more vision / dental co-pay, dependent care from $250 to $950 + change.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 29, 2013 21:50:04 GMT -5
Also, the whole cancellation/keep your plan argument is weak- the law clearly allowed insurance companies to keep policies in effect and grandfathered them in. The truth is the insurance companies made the choice to end them.
In the same way that you don't have to fall when you jump off a cliff, the truth is gravity makes the choice, but come on its gravity, what do you think it's going to choose. Insurance companies have shareholders, how would you respond to a loss of 401k value, if they chose to not cancel those policies after the law was implemented?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 21:58:41 GMT -5
Insurance companies are a force of nature?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 29, 2013 22:01:50 GMT -5
I am not sure why they were cancelled- unless the law applied to the old plans- which I don't think was the case. What good reason would an insurance company have to cancel profitable policies on the individual market? They had a ton of plans that were full of red tape, caps, exclusions, the ability to cancel the policy right when a customer needed it, etc. Just the kinds of policies they wish they could sell to everyone.
And as to how would I respond to a 401K loss- (and I think this law does nothing more than increase the value of insurance companies) I would do like always- blame the assholes on WS that play games instead of invest, that screw all of us out of what we are due because they have insider knowledge and super fast trade flipping computers that sucks money out of the system and legally steals from almost all of us.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 30, 2013 0:00:01 GMT -5
Insurance companies are a force of nature? Force of economics, same predictability.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 30, 2013 0:10:46 GMT -5
I am not sure why they were cancelled- unless the law applied to the old plans- which I don't think was the case. What good reason would an insurance company have to cancel profitable policies on the individual market? They had a ton of plans that were full of red tape, caps, exclusions, the ability to cancel the policy right when a customer needed it, etc. Just the kinds of policies they wish they could sell to everyone. And as to how would I respond to a 401K loss- (and I think this law does nothing more than increase the value of insurance companies) I would do like always- blame the assholes on WS that play games instead of invest, that screw all of us out of what we are due because they have insider knowledge and super fast trade flipping computers that sucks money out of the system and legally steals from almost all of us. The good reason is that the law put up roadblocks that essentially guaranteed cancellations. That is the essence of the AP and Reuters accusation that fueled today's media blitz. As far as red tape, caps, etc., our company plan was good, exactly what the committee of employees wanted, and all new options are inferior, and trust me they took the time to do thorough research. We were happier before, exclusions and all. So, your savings should probably be buried in a coffee can in the back yard. I will say that some of us like our corporate investments to be profitable, and leave it at that.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Oct 30, 2013 1:41:37 GMT -5
Just a thought, If and only if the system of insurance and care system billing could reducer the red tape and huge cost due to delay of care and over testing, we could see a 25% reduction in heath care cost... and about a 50% reduction in long term development..like drug R& .....new Hospitals!!! Increased demand on overworked RN and PharmD's ..Pay cuts to go with that!!!! BiMetalAuPt
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2013 5:21:20 GMT -5
Insurance companies are a force of nature? Force of economics, same predictability. And as such some people still suggest health care is an area that would do well in the free, for profit, market?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 11:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2013 6:38:03 GMT -5
I love it. Now that Obamacare is crashing and burning right out of the gate, it's suddenly "GOPcare". Sorry, it doesn't work like that. But nice try.
If the GOP actually had any decent ideas at this point, the tide would be turning. Too bad they have no decent ideas of their own.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 30, 2013 7:03:00 GMT -5
It's never been "Obamacare" and it isn't "GOPcare". It's "IdiotCongresscare", just as it's been right along. Choose your side and thumb your noses at one another. It's still "IdiotCongresscare".
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Oct 30, 2013 7:06:09 GMT -5
I love it. Now that Obamacare is crashing and burning right out of the gate, it's suddenly "GOPcare". Sorry, it doesn't work like that. But nice try. If the GOP actually had any decent ideas at this point, the tide would be turning. Too bad they have no decent ideas of their own. Management..Like we had in our Home Care Unit..saved money and keep many out of the hospital..Omamacare is more about open the beds up.... . Just a thought ... Principal in Home Health and Health Care President BiMetalAuPt
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 30, 2013 7:27:05 GMT -5
I love it. Now that Obamacare is crashing and burning right out of the gate, it's suddenly "GOPcare". Sorry, it doesn't work like that. But nice try. If the GOP actually had any decent ideas at this point, the tide would be turning. Too bad they have no decent ideas of their own. IB- not trying to be a jerk here- but I expect better from you than to buy into, and perpetuate the myth that the GOP doesn't have any alternative ideas. They have not only presented ideas, but implemented them. One of the best ideas in a generation is the HSA, which like your plan's grandfather clause is just words in the bill- ObamaCare will kill one of the best, most effective ideas in existence. Yes, there are some GOP proposals to replace ObamaCare, but the premise- that we need an "alternative" government sponsored idea is something I have never really accepted. This is like my kid asking me to buy him a video game, and I say, "No"; and his response is fine- what's YOUR IDEA instead of a video game? I don't need an alternative. Sometimes, "NO!" actually IS the alternative. That being said... The KEY GOP ideas have been around for AT LEAST a DECADE and they include, but are not limited to: 1. Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. The "Commerce Clause" in the Constitution is there to PREVENT states from limiting commerce across state lines, but in this case the government has flipped it on its head to prohibit residents of IL from buying insurance plans from Indiana-- it's a mess that needs to be fixed RIGHT NOW and frankly because it's illegal and unConstitutional we shouldn't need a legislative fix- we could just declare the Constitution the highest law in the land and void / nullify state laws to the contrary. However, lacking such courage and common sense- let's fix this. 2. Portability- making individuals the owners of their own healthcare even if it's from an employer. 3. Tort reform- limiting punitive judgments, and limiting jury awards to ACTUAL economic costs / harm done. dailycaller.com/2013/09/18/republican-study-committee-to-release-obamacare-alternative/
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Oct 30, 2013 7:52:49 GMT -5
Investorbob is correct. We have no ideas. We had control from 2000 to 2006 and as usual did nothing. If we had handled the problems of this country when we had control we wouldn't be in the position, politically, that we are in today.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 30, 2013 8:13:07 GMT -5
Force of economics, same predictability. And as such some people still suggest health care is an area that would do well in the free, for profit, market? Yes, and the debate over whether profit drives cost down and quality up, by efficiency, vs profit is a gluttonous race to lower quality at higher costs begins now. It has been played over and over here with no resolution, so no need to repeat. Place me firmly in the profit is good category. Either side you fall on, one thing is certain, profit is a predictable and the Administration new what the law would do, but said the opposite to drive popular support.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 11:13:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2013 8:36:24 GMT -5
for those who havent seen anything about it, or heard about it HR 3121.....republican answer to the health care issues please pay attention to title III TITLE III--IMPROVING ACCESS TO INSURANCE FOR VULNERABLE AMERICANS Subtitle A--Eliminating Barriers to Insurance Coverage SEC. 301. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY IN INDIVIDUAL MARKET. (a) In General.--Section 2741(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-41(b)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking ``(1)(A)'' and inserting ``(1)''; and (B) by striking ``and (B)'' and all that follows up to the semicolon at the end; (2) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2); (3) in paragraph (3)-- (A) by striking ``(1)(A)'' and inserting ``(1)''; and (B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and (4) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5). (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. Subtitle B--Ensuring Coverage for Individuals With Preexisting Conditions and Multiple Health Care Needs Through High Risk Pools SEC. 311. IMPROVEMENT OF HIGH RISK POOLS. Section 2745 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-45) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary shall provide from the funds appropriated under subsection (d)(3)(A) a grant of up to $5,000,000 to each State that has not created a qualified high risk pool as of September 1, 2013, for the State's costs of creation and initial operation of such a pool.''; (2) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), by striking ``and (2)(A)'' and inserting ``(2)(A), (3)(B), and (4)'' each place it appears; (3) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ``with respect to funds made available for fiscal years before fiscal year 2014,'' after ``applicable standard risks,''; (4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following new paragraph: ``(5) Verification of citizenship or alien qualification.-- ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective upon the date of the enactment of this paragraph, only citizens and nationals of the United States shall be eligible to participate in a qualified high risk pool that receives funds under this section. ``(B) Condition of participation.--As a condition of a State receiving such funds under this subsection for a fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2014, the Secretary shall require the State to certify, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that such State requires all applicants for coverage in the qualified high risk pool to provide satisfactory documentation of citizenship or nationality in a manner consistent with section 1903(x) of the Social Security Act. ``(C) Records.--The Secretary shall keep sufficient records such that a determination of citizenship or nationality only has to be made once for any individual under this paragraph.''; and (5) in subsection (d)-- (A) in paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph (6)''; (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or (2)'' and inserting ``(2), (3)(B), or (4)''; (C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as paragraphs (5) through (7), respectively; and (D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: ``(3) Authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2014.--There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2014-- ``(A) $50,000,000 to carry out the second sentence of subsection (a); and ``(B) $2,450,000,000 which, subject to paragraph (6), shall be made available for allotments under subsection (b)(2). ``(4) Authorization of appropriations for fiscal years 2015 through 2023.--There are authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2023 which, subject to paragraph (6), shall be made available for allotments under subsection (b)(2).''. beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/3121/texti dont think there is a perfect answer for our healthcare problems this looks like it takes care of a lot of them......but i am no expert
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 30, 2013 9:06:34 GMT -5
there is your answer, right there. 60.
|
|