Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Millions Flee Obamacare
Author Message
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #41
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(08-29-2016 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-29-2016 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-29-2016 06:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I knew you said when you were a young man, but the sentence construction was a bit confusing. You said you "had [health insurance] while working for $625/month" so I assumed you were saying that you were paying $625 per month for health insurance, not that you had [health insurance] while working for a salary of $625 per month. Just a slight misunderstanding due to sentence construction and my experience with the costs of healthcare.

We need to go back to teaching HS English students how to diagram sentences.
The ambiguity would still be there: the diagrammer would have to discern whether "while working" and "for $625/month" are parallel diagonals depending from the same predicate, or "for 625/month" depends from "while working". So the answer would still come from knowledge outside the sentence. In many cases, that's OK -- even if two interpretations are grammatically plausible, only one may be factually plausible. But in this case, it just happened that RiceLad and Optimistic were drawing from two very different knowledge bases, in each of which one interpretation but not the other was factually plausible.

But yes: diagramming is probably the most powerful way to impart a thorough understanding of sentence structure, and a thorough understanding of sentence structure is absolutely something that a high school graduate should have.

George, I feel so validated. Thank you.

I also still stand by my comment that I probably needed to receive more English training during undergrad though.
08-29-2016 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #42
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(08-29-2016 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(08-29-2016 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-29-2016 06:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I knew you said when you were a young man, but the sentence construction was a bit confusing. You said you "had [health insurance] while working for $625/month" so I assumed you were saying that you were paying $625 per month for health insurance, not that you had [health insurance] while working for a salary of $625 per month. Just a slight misunderstanding due to sentence construction and my experience with the costs of healthcare.
We need to go back to teaching HS English students how to diagram sentences.
The ambiguity would still be there: the diagrammer would have to discern whether "while working" and "for $625/month" are parallel diagonals depending from the same predicate, or "for 625/month" depends from "while working". So the answer would still come from knowledge outside the sentence. In many cases, that's OK -- even if two interpretations are grammatically plausible, only one may be factually plausible. But in this case, it just happened that RiceLad and Optimistic were drawing from two very different knowledge bases, in each of which one interpretation but not the other was factually plausible.
But yes: diagramming is probably the most powerful way to impart a thorough understanding of sentence structure, and a thorough understanding of sentence structure is absolutely something that a high school graduate should have.

I guess I was just taught to resolve that kind of ambiguity on a FIFO basis. "Had [health insurance] while working for $625/month," would mean you worked for $625/month and bought health insurance out of that, whereas, "had [health insurance] for $625/month while working," would mean you paid $625/month for health insurance. But I agree, it's at least somewhat awkward at best and could probably have been written more clearly.

It's probably also somewhat generational. OO and I can remember when $625/month was a reasonable salary.
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2016 03:55 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
08-29-2016 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,173
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2209
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #43
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
So...in other news today...anyone get their new premium statement?

Obamacare Plan Premiums In 2017 Higher Than Expected And For Worse Coverage

Nov 1, 2016 @ 12:35 PM

Quote:As premiums for Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance plans skyrocket across the country, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appears to be spinning the bad news by noting that 2017 premiums are about what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expected they would be when the law passed in early 2010. However, CBO’s November 2009 estimate of future premiums involved significant and generally unforeseeable errors in key underlying assumptions having nothing to do with the ACA. A valid understanding of the ACA’s effect on insurance premiums would need to account for these errors.

When Congress passed the ACA, health care inflation had been relatively low for about 4 years even though this was not fully known because of data lag. CBO’s 2009 premium projection did not accurately predict that low health care inflation would continue. CBO also projected that the economy would grow much faster than it actually has; the nation’s 2016 gross domestic product (GDP) is roughly 7% lower than CBO projected it would at the time. This is important since growth in health care spending and growth in the overall economy are positively correlated. Thus, given the much slower rate of growth in overall health care spending than expected due to factors largely unrelated to the ACA, we should expect premiums to be below projections.

Moreover, ACA plans—extremely high deductible policies with very narrow provider networks—are generally lower quality than CBO expected when the law passed. Therefore, it not an apples-to-apples comparison to contrast 2017 premiums with what was projected in 2009. Since lower quality coverage carries lower premiums, the larger than expected premiums for the ACA benchmark plans are in effect even worse.


and the hits keep a'comin'
11-01-2016 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #44
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-01-2016 12:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So...in other news today...anyone get their new premium statement?

Obamacare Plan Premiums In 2017 Higher Than Expected And For Worse Coverage

Nov 1, 2016 @ 12:35 PM

Quote:As premiums for Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance plans skyrocket across the country, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appears to be spinning the bad news by noting that 2017 premiums are about what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expected they would be when the law passed in early 2010. However, CBO’s November 2009 estimate of future premiums involved significant and generally unforeseeable errors in key underlying assumptions having nothing to do with the ACA. A valid understanding of the ACA’s effect on insurance premiums would need to account for these errors.

When Congress passed the ACA, health care inflation had been relatively low for about 4 years even though this was not fully known because of data lag. CBO’s 2009 premium projection did not accurately predict that low health care inflation would continue. CBO also projected that the economy would grow much faster than it actually has; the nation’s 2016 gross domestic product (GDP) is roughly 7% lower than CBO projected it would at the time. This is important since growth in health care spending and growth in the overall economy are positively correlated. Thus, given the much slower rate of growth in overall health care spending than expected due to factors largely unrelated to the ACA, we should expect premiums to be below projections.

Moreover, ACA plans—extremely high deductible policies with very narrow provider networks—are generally lower quality than CBO expected when the law passed. Therefore, it not an apples-to-apples comparison to contrast 2017 premiums with what was projected in 2009. Since lower quality coverage carries lower premiums, the larger than expected premiums for the ACA benchmark plans are in effect even worse.


and the hits keep a'comin'

My son's insurance is up 36.3%
11-01-2016 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,173
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2209
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #45
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-01-2016 01:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-01-2016 12:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So...in other news today...anyone get their new premium statement?

Obamacare Plan Premiums In 2017 Higher Than Expected And For Worse Coverage

Nov 1, 2016 @ 12:35 PM

Quote:As premiums for Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance plans skyrocket across the country, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appears to be spinning the bad news by noting that 2017 premiums are about what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expected they would be when the law passed in early 2010. However, CBO’s November 2009 estimate of future premiums involved significant and generally unforeseeable errors in key underlying assumptions having nothing to do with the ACA. A valid understanding of the ACA’s effect on insurance premiums would need to account for these errors.

When Congress passed the ACA, health care inflation had been relatively low for about 4 years even though this was not fully known because of data lag. CBO’s 2009 premium projection did not accurately predict that low health care inflation would continue. CBO also projected that the economy would grow much faster than it actually has; the nation’s 2016 gross domestic product (GDP) is roughly 7% lower than CBO projected it would at the time. This is important since growth in health care spending and growth in the overall economy are positively correlated. Thus, given the much slower rate of growth in overall health care spending than expected due to factors largely unrelated to the ACA, we should expect premiums to be below projections.

Moreover, ACA plans—extremely high deductible policies with very narrow provider networks—are generally lower quality than CBO expected when the law passed. Therefore, it not an apples-to-apples comparison to contrast 2017 premiums with what was projected in 2009. Since lower quality coverage carries lower premiums, the larger than expected premiums for the ACA benchmark plans are in effect even worse.


and the hits keep a'comin'

My son's insurance is up 36.3%

Is that all? Tanks Democrats!
11-01-2016 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #46
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-01-2016 12:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So...in other news today...anyone get their new premium statement?

Yes. Mine is up 46%. That brings the total increase up to about 250% from what I was paying when I started self-insuring six years ago.

President Obama said a family would save on average $2500 per year under the Affordable Care Act. My insurance is now close to $6000 more per year for a policy that in some ways provides less coverage than before. Could someone please explain to me how getting less for a lot more has benefited me?
11-05-2016 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #47
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-05-2016 06:32 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  
(11-01-2016 12:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So...in other news today...anyone get their new premium statement?

Yes. Mine is up 46%. That brings the total increase up to about 250% from what I was paying when I started self-insuring six years ago.

President Obama said a family would save on average $2500 per year under the Affordable Care Act. My insurance is now close to $6000 more per year for a policy that in some ways provides less coverage than before. Could someone please explain to me how getting less for a lot more has benefited me?

You have the satisfaction of having helped those less fortunate than you. And next year, you will get even more satisfaction as your fair share rises.
11-05-2016 09:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,173
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2209
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #48
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
see ya, ACA.
11-11-2016 03:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #49
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
Donald Trump could save health care by pushing a Bismarck approach. He might be the one republican who can do it. That alone would probably solidify his place in history.
11-11-2016 07:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #50
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 03:04 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  see ya, ACA.

Will be interesting to see how things transition and what, if anything, replaces it.

The one position I like with Trump regarding insurance is doing away with the state boundaries. I never really understood why that was in place as it seemed like an awful regulation that would artificially increase prices by limiting the movement of companies. I'm no policy wonk on this though, so I'm not sure if there was some valid line of reasoning.
11-11-2016 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,173
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2209
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #51
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 08:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The one position I like with Trump regarding insurance is doing away with the state boundaries. I never really understood why that was in place as it seemed like an awful regulation that would artificially increase prices by limiting the movement of companies. I'm no policy wonk on this though, so I'm not sure if there was some valid line of reasoning.

A Big reason: State Insurance Commissioners don't like their power and control over people's lives reduced even if it would help the people they are supposed to represent save money and have access to better products. Typical of government overreach and red-tape obstruction where it doesn't belong. The government is not the solution to the problem--the government IS the problem.
11-11-2016 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #52
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 09:22 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 08:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The one position I like with Trump regarding insurance is doing away with the state boundaries. I never really understood why that was in place as it seemed like an awful regulation that would artificially increase prices by limiting the movement of companies. I'm no policy wonk on this though, so I'm not sure if there was some valid line of reasoning.

A Big reason: State Insurance Commissioners don't like their power and control over people's lives reduced even if it would help the people they are supposed to represent save money and have access to better products. Typical of government overreach and red-tape obstruction where it doesn't belong. The government is not the solution to the problem--the government IS the problem.

Ugh. I'll take non-tinfoil hat theories for $1,000 please. Sometimes I wish there could be a little non-partisan nature to these discussions.

I google'd it and from the bastion of liberal paranoia found this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/...f54c9a5f01

Doesn't dig too deep, but near the end it mentions that there is an increased cost to build new networks for doctors. Would like a real answer if possible.
11-11-2016 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Donald Trump could save health care by pushing a Bismarck approach. He might be the one republican who can do it. That alone would probably solidify his place in history.

If he genuinely tried to implement something like the French system I think he would get a lot of support from Dems. And zero from the Republicans.
11-11-2016 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gravy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,394
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 104
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 01:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Donald Trump could save health care by pushing a Bismarck approach. He might be the one republican who can do it. That alone would probably solidify his place in history.

If he genuinely tried to implement something like the French system I think he would get a lot of support from Dems. And zero from the Republicans.

Well, the first item on his health care policy page is "Repeal and replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)." I get "repeal Obamacare," but the part about HSAs is strange since those existed before Obamacare and continue to exist under Obamacare.

My hunch is that we're going to end up with something that is closer to the 2009 status quo than anything else. Probably with privatized VA and Medicare.

Like RiceLad15, I'd like to hear a pragmatic explanation for why eliminating state lines would make a significant difference. Don't companies that have the capacity for multi-state operations just set up subsidiaries? My hunch is that the idea is to allow all insurance companies to nominally incorporate in Delaware. That's not necessarily a bad thing since lots of other companies do the same, I just don't expect it to make a huge dent in costs.
11-11-2016 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #55
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 01:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Donald Trump could save health care by pushing a Bismarck approach. He might be the one republican who can do it. That alone would probably solidify his place in history.
If he genuinely tried to implement something like the French system I think he would get a lot of support from Dems. And zero from the Republicans.

And I would expect a lot of support from republicans and zero from democrats. Democrats are interested in concentrating power in the federal government. Quality of health care is immaterial to them.
11-11-2016 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #56
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 01:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Donald Trump could save health care by pushing a Bismarck approach. He might be the one republican who can do it. That alone would probably solidify his place in history.
If he genuinely tried to implement something like the French system I think he would get a lot of support from Dems. And zero from the Republicans.

And I would expect a lot of support from republicans and zero from democrats. Democrats are interested in concentrating power in the federal government. Quality of health care is immaterial to them.

Blah, blah, blah. Great conservative talking point that completely dismisses the other side's views and opinions just to vilify them and produce a counter-narrative to fit one's own opinions.

Look, I can play that game too! I would expect no support from Republicans because they are only interested in reducing the amount of taxes they have to pay so that poor people can have no access to anything because they're only poor because they don't work hard enough.

Now wasn't that constructive?
11-11-2016 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #57
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I would expect a lot of support from republicans and zero from democrats. Democrats are interested in concentrating power in the federal government. Quality of health care is immaterial to them.
Blah, blah, blah. Great conservative talking point that completely dismisses the other side's views and opinions just to vilify them and produce a counter-narrative to fit one's own opinions.
Look, I can play that game too! I would expect no support from Republicans because they are only interested in reducing the amount of taxes they have to pay so that poor people can have no access to anything because they're only poor because they don't work hard enough.
Now wasn't that constructive?

I'm sorry you don't like my point. But if democrats really cared about people, why is it that they support spending so much money on so many programs that concentrate power but don't confer much in the way of benefits to the people that they are supposed to be helping?

We have a welfare system that traps people in poverty instead of helping them climb out. Why? Democrats are pretty much the ones who put the system in place. I will agree that the republican insistence on "means testing" is a big part of the problem. But the whole system has many truly pernicious aspects. We pay single mothers who have children. That gives fathers an economic incentive to bail out. Since we started doing that, the incidence of single parents with children in the African-American community has skyrocketed. Coincidence? I doubt it.

I'm sorry if you take offense, but I really think there is a significant portion of the democrat leadership that believes, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you keep 'em voting reliably democrat." Not among the rank and file. I don't think you feel that way. But I do believe that the leaders whom you trust do believe exactly that--Pelosi, Reid, Schemer, Obama, Biden. Hell yes, I believe they think that way. Otherwise, they could and would change things.

As for your prior post, if democrats would support Bismarck, why have no democrats introduced it? Do they really think the things that they are proposing would work better? Why? I say there's one simple reason why they haven't--it reduces federal control rather than increasing it.
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2016 04:42 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-11-2016 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #58
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 04:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I would expect a lot of support from republicans and zero from democrats. Democrats are interested in concentrating power in the federal government. Quality of health care is immaterial to them.
Blah, blah, blah. Great conservative talking point that completely dismisses the other side's views and opinions just to vilify them and produce a counter-narrative to fit one's own opinions.
Look, I can play that game too! I would expect no support from Republicans because they are only interested in reducing the amount of taxes they have to pay so that poor people can have no access to anything because they're only poor because they don't work hard enough.
Now wasn't that constructive?

I'm sorry you don't like my point. But if democrats really cared about people, why is it that they support spending so much money on so many programs that concentrate power but don't confer much in the way of benefits to the people that they are supposed to be helping?

We have a welfare system that traps people in poverty instead of helping them climb out. Why? Democrats are pretty much the ones who put the system in place. I will agree that the republican insistence on "means testing" is a big part of the problem. But the whole system has many truly pernicious aspects. We pay single mothers who have children. That gives fathers an economic incentive to bail out. Since we started doing that, the incidence of single parents with children in the African-American community has skyrocketed. Coincidence? I doubt it.

I'm sorry if you take offense, but I really think there is a significant portion of the democrat leadership that believes, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you keep 'em voting reliably democrat." Not among the rank and file. I don't think you feel that way. But I do believe that the leaders whom you trust do believe exactly that--Pelosi, Reid, Schemer, Obama, Biden. Hell yes, I believe they think that way. Otherwise, they could and would change things.

As for your prior post, if democrats would support Bismarck, why have no democrats introduced it? Do they really think the things that they are proposing would work better? Why? I say there's one simple reason why they haven't--it reduces federal control rather than increasing it.

I could believe that some Democratic leaders actually believe that bologna, but I think most believe that either 1) that the plans they put forth will actually work or 2) they don't believe that the plans they really want to put forth could be passed due to opposition, same Republicans.

Based on the way you speak, it sounds like you think there is one, and only one answer to the healthcare problem, that if only everyone wasn't so stupid/evil/corrupt/etc. that they would see it, and it would be implemented immediately. But the thing is, there likely isn't a truly perfect solution because of competing interests on all sides and competing ideas/philosophies.

The general idea behind Obamacare makes sense - if everyone bought insurance on the free market, insurance companies would compete for that business, which could lead to a decrease in prices. And because so many people are purchasing health insurance, the companies would have a significant steady stream of revenue to help cover costs. But what do they say about theory and practice?

Anyway, enough rambling from me.
11-11-2016 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,597
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #59
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I could believe that some Democratic leaders actually believe that bologna, but I think most believe that either 1) that the plans they put forth will actually work or 2) they don't believe that the plans they really want to put forth could be passed due to opposition, same Republicans.

Politicians care about two things: 1) getting elected, and 2) once elected, getting re-elected. Caring about people, except for their votes and their money, is way down their list. Building and maintaining a sizable captive voting base is very useful in that effort. It is in the clear self-interest of the democrats to keep poor people poor and voting democrat. If they started getting out of poverty, they might vote republican. I'm sorry if you find that too cynical, but I think of it as healthy skepticism.

Quote:Based on the way you speak, it sounds like you think there is one, and only one answer to the healthcare problem, that if only everyone wasn't so stupid/evil/corrupt/etc. that they would see it, and it would be implemented immediately. But the thing is, there likely isn't a truly perfect solution because of competing interests on all sides and competing ideas/philosophies.

What I actually think is that there is one conceptual approach--Bismarck universal private insurance--that has consistently outperformed the others over a series of comparative studies, including the 2000 WHO study which so many on the left have cited repeatedly. To say that I am insisting on one perfect answer ignores the fact that Swiss, Dutch, French, and German Bismarck systems represent four very different ways of applying the same principles. I prefer the French approach, but the others have features to recommend them.

Quote:The general idea behind Obamacare makes sense - if everyone bought insurance on the free market, insurance companies would compete for that business, which could lead to a decrease in prices. And because so many people are purchasing health insurance, the companies would have a significant steady stream of revenue to help cover costs. But what do they say about theory and practice?

Bismarck basically works this way, with the economic incentives set so that everyone signs up. What separates Obamacare from Bismarck are that Bismarck eliminates
Medicare and reduces the scope of Medicare, that the federal government has a much smaller role in Bismarck, that the Bismarck equivalent of the mandate is both universal and fully funded, and that Bismarck has no IPAB or any other agency to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship. We could actually get from Obamacare to Bismarck fairly quickly if we delinked health insurance from employment and greatly reduced the size and scope of the federal health care bureaucracy, including eliminating the IPAB.
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2016 06:30 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-11-2016 06:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,173
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2209
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #60
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(11-11-2016 02:45 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 01:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(11-11-2016 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Donald Trump could save health care by pushing a Bismarck approach. He might be the one republican who can do it. That alone would probably solidify his place in history.

If he genuinely tried to implement something like the French system I think he would get a lot of support from Dems. And zero from the Republicans.

Well, the first item on his health care policy page is "Repeal and replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)." I get "repeal Obamacare," but the part about HSAs is strange since those existed before Obamacare and continue to exist under Obamacare.

HSAs were basically gutted from what they were and intended to be under the restriction imposed upon people by Obamacare. Think of it this way: what if every legal US citizen and foreign national had an HSA (or actually, Ben Carson's Health Empowerment Accounts were even better) and what if the tax advantages were beefed up even more, and what if the govt helped seed low-income citizens' accounts (this would be the big leap, but would be the coup that would pout the nail in the coffin of the left's dream of govt controlled healthcare)?

Now, you'd have everyone covered, all catastrophic illnesses and pre-existing conditions would be as well, most people would be saving, and heavily incentivized to do so, every individual would own and control their own health care (not the government and not any employer trapping people in situations lees than ideal.) While govt and employers could contribute to the HSAs (the companies' contributions would be tax deductible expense) the fact that the individuals would control the money and their consumer choices would drive the market for the service of healthcare would greatly reduce prices along with opening competition across state lines. They'd still have to be a pool likely for the worst pre-existing conditions and disabilities, but I don't know anyone who is adamantly against helping the truly disabled, and routing out the fakers who suck the system dry.

It would go a long, long way to moving people forward of all income levels and treating everyone equally. Plus, people could make their own choices, companies would be free to compete on the basis of how much they would contribute, but people would be more in control of their own lives. It wouldn't be 100% perfect, nothing ever is, but I think it'd be close to 98%, and that's better than what Obama created which I'd say only worked for 5-10% of people at the most. Tremendous, tremendous improvement.
11-11-2016 07:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.