The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

[unofan]

that's a really short-sighted, emotion-laden, narrow-minded, unthinking reply.

I was speaking in hypotheticals about different possibilities, not making any one particular policy proposal, and even within the hypothetical I just offered, it would be far more effective to give poor people a pre-paid healthcare debit card to use to cover doctors' visits and co-pays than the thoroughly messed up system that we are stuck with now. Or did you overlook the part about "special-risk pools covered by state expenditures" in your zeal to demonstrate how compassionate you are?

Health savings accounts have three fatal flaws (literally, as in people will die): 1) they ignore the fact that a significant percentage of the population has no money to save, 2) even those who have the money to save can't schedule their illnesses to occur when the money is actually saved, and 3) people are idiots and won't necessarily save even if they have the time and money to do so.

Now maybe you are a libertarian and see the last flaw as a feature like Flaggy, but good luck getting society to agree to let people die on the streets because they didn't have perfect foresight.

And if those high risk pools were so great, why was medical treatment the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country? (It may still be, though I know it's come down since the ACA has come in to force).

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Stay down, Fishy. You are punching so far above your weight.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Colorado wants to become Europe. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...with-statewid/

Enjoy your insanely higher taxes and keeping the poor poor. Oh, and BTW, it will be a felony to try to avoid the long waiting list.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Health savings accounts have three fatal flaws (literally, as in people will die): 1) they ignore the fact that a significant percentage of the population has no money to save, 2) even those who have the money to save can't schedule their illnesses to occur when the money is actually saved, and 3) people are idiots and won't necessarily save even if they have the time and money to do so.

we agree that they are not for everyone. Is that any reason to take them away from those who do know how to use them effectively? the more people who do use them well, the less strain on the system overall. Also, if I were in marketing, I'd market HSA / health insurance coverage in tandem, and not stand-alone: you could have low-deductible insurance of $xxx per month, OR for the same $xxx per month, you could have medium-deductible insurance AND put $yy into a healthcare-only savings account too! In that context, I think it would be pretty well received in today's environment: after all, you can roll over an HSA when you change jobs, even if you can't keep your employer-sponsored plan, no matter how much you like it.

And if those high risk pools were so great, why was medical treatment the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country? (It may still be, though I know it's come down since the ACA has come in to force).

I worked for a bankruptcy attorney for over a year, the leading cause of bankruptcy among his clientele was uninsured medical bills. I would have to assume that 100% of those people were not covered under high-risk pools. They were non-high risk people with really bad luck, and often just bad timing.

ACA exchange policies do absolutely nothing to change that: they all have high deductibles and substantial co-pays. Having uncapped medical bills, or having $7,500 out of pocket before an ACA exchange policy kicks in, makes very little difference to someone already teetering on the verge of bankruptcy to begin with.

Our problem, as you obliquely mentioned, is the conflict between free will / government coercion, and the "free rider" problem. As we can see from the data, people are very resistant to government coercion, millions of people are choosing to pay the "tax" on being uninsured as cheaper than purchasing an ACA policy. So what to we do with them?

"Single payor" is a mirage, there is always rationing of scarce goods. If you don't want to ration by money, then you ration by time. there is no escape. either people get the healthcare that someone is willing to pay for, or people do without, under the guise of waiting in line.

As I said before, I'd much rather just give poor people pre-paid, healthcare-only debit cards (no doubt even then there would be plenty of fraud as people then just sell them on the street...) and let them make their own purchasing decisions than to have a centrally-planned, centrally-controlled "system" that only benefits those running the system.

The first rule of government is always first to take care of the people who work for government; everything else is an afterthought. You consistently forget that.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Or start shortening the human lifespan. If we don't get old, there won't be as many healthcare costs.

Sadly, that's exactly what Ezekiel Emmanuel advocated.....it would take me a little searching to find the exact interview, in which he says "I don't want to live past age 75, and I don't see why anyone else would want to either."

That was the source of the "death panels" scare, IIANM...the "death panels" bit was an exaggeration, but it was not completely invented....

[burd]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

What was it about the Romney health care plan that saved it from this kind of attack in Mass?

[unofan]

What was it about the Romney health care plan that saved it from this kind of attack in Mass?

It was implemented by a White Republican.

Same reason cap and trade worked for SO2 but God forbid we do the same with CO2.

[joecct]

What was it about the Romney health care plan that saved it from this kind of attack in Mass?

Because it was implemented at the state level by legislators who had knowledge of local issues.

You can't expect the federal government to successfully design a one size fits all solution that will work equally well in Fairbanks and Framingham.

[burd]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Because it was implemented at the state level by legislators who had knowledge of local issues.

You can't expect the federal government to successfully design a one size fits all solution that will work equally well in Fairbanks and Framingham.

I understand the truth of that, joe, but it is possible to be more specific what parts of the Mass law do not translate?

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

I understand the truth of that, joe, but it is possible to be more specific what parts of the Mass law do not translate?

Exactly. That's the big problem with dire predictions. We already have a decade long test case in Massachusetts. Now its true that Mass may be an atypical state, but whether or not death panels are needed is pretty cut and dry. The answer obviously is 'no'.

[unofan]

Because it was implemented at the state level by legislators who had knowledge of local issues.

You can't expect the federal government to successfully design a one size fits all solution that will work equally well in Fairbanks and Framingham.

Except for abortion and guns, right?

[joecct]

Exactly. That's the big problem with dire predictions. We already have a decade long test case in Massachusetts. Now its true that Mass may be an atypical state, but whether or not death panels are needed is pretty cut and dry. The answer obviously is 'no'.

You have Storrow Drive.

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

You have Storrow Drive.

Well played!

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Now its true that Mass may be an atypical state, but whether or not death panels are needed is pretty cut and dry.

After living in Mass for 7 years, I'd say it was cut and dry...

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Uninsured rate at record lows:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...are-poll-finds

But....but...Obamacare is a job killer, right? Right?!?!?

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/06/nonfa...nt-rate-5.html

Read 'em and weep knuckledraggers!