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

[FreshFish]

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

Are we going to have health insurance for everyone or not?

You are taking three separate and distinct questions and mixing them up together into one.

The fundamental math cannot be denied: premiums plus subsidies plus investment income has to equal or exceed claims payments plus overhead. You cannot possibly escape that constraint: money in must equal money out. (if you are going to spend it, you have to have it first, somehow, from somewhere).

Health insurance does not equal health care. People without health insurance still have access to healthcare. People with insurance, because of deductibles and copays, may not be able to afford the healthcare they need. The real question is not whether people have insurance or not; the real question is whether people have access to healthcare or not.

For people who do have insurance, how are premiums determined, how are coverage levels determined, and how do you handle risk assessment? Those are the three key elements to any insurance pricing question. Again, basic fundamentals. You have to find a way to balance these three elements. That's just how it is.




ACA is failing because it tries to mandate a mathematically impossible outcome. Any possible replacement solution is still constrained by fundamental underlying relationships between key factors that must come into balance merely because that is the way the world works.

There is an old saying, don't blame the messenger. Pay attention to the message, it gives you valuable information that you must heed.

[dxmnkd316]

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

I'm going to blow your relays. What if we take enough money from those fortunate enough to never have to worry about healthcare or insurance? And what if the government collected that money at least four times a year? And what if we took that money, subsidized the poor, and let then use it to gain access to insurance?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

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

I'm going to blow your relays. What if we take enough money from those fortunate enough to never have to worry about healthcare or insurance? And what if the government collected that money at least four times a year? And what if we took that money, subsidized the poor, and let then use it to gain access to insurance?

What are you, some kind of communist? Taxation is THEFT.

[dxmnkd316]

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

Haha. I'm a recovering libertarian. I just think that it's high time that we, as a society, need to provide those who cannot afford it, nsurance and healthcare. Because a person is poor is no reason to condemn them to further financial ruin.

[joecct]

Haha. I'm a recovering libertarian. I just think that it's high time that we, as a society, need to provide those who cannot afford it, nsurance and healthcare. Because a person is poor is no reason to condemn them to further financial ruin.

But is that a function of government or charity? We've gotten away from private giving to government taking and then redistributing according to the government's priorities.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Haha. I'm a recovering libertarian. I just think that it's high time that we, as a society, need to provide those who cannot afford it, nsurance and healthcare. Because a person is poor is no reason to condemn them to further financial ruin.

If you want to give away your wealth to them, that's your prerogative. Actions speak a heck of a lot louder than words, though. You know where in Parkersburg WV your check goes.

[FreshFish]

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

Haha. I'm a recovering libertarian. I just think that it's high time that we, as a society, need to provide those who cannot afford it, nsurance and healthcare. Because a person is poor is no reason to condemn them to further financial ruin.

You and I agree on the desired outcome. There is so much variety and nuance that a single global comprehensive solution is not feasible. It should be a state-by-state matter so that they can make adjustments to fit their own unique circumstances.

The only role the Federal government should have, IMHO, is for Congress to reform the income tax treatment of health insurance premiums. Ideally, they would be 100% deductible to everyone; and for lower income people, perhaps the Earned Income Tax Credit might apply. That would equalize the differential between self-employed and corporate-employed.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners should have the leading role, not the Federal government. They can draft model legislation for states to use: allow association-based group coverage for individuals, maybe have open enrollment windows every year; certainly allow "catastrophe-only" policies plus health savings. For people with chronic conditions, go back to subsidized, specialized high-risk pools.

There are plenty of ways to make it work; as long as you let go of some one-size-fits-all, centralized, one single uniform solution that all must submit to. We need more experimentation and decentralization; the world has changed and we don't really know what will work; what we do know is what concepts have been successful. Flexibility, options, choice: not regimentation, compulsion, standardization.



You said, we, as a society. Society has plenty of other institutional avenues that are not the federal government.

[Kepler]

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

But is that a function of government or charity? We've gotten away from private giving to government taking and then redistributing according to the government's priorities.

That's because private giving was never even remotely enough.

Plus, government priorities are democratically-determined priorities. Nothing stops you from giving privately if you want to target your personal charity to people you think "deserve" it.

[dxmnkd316]

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

I

For people with chronic conditions, go back to subsidized, specialized high-risk pools.

Roughly translates to "bleep boop. Let them eat cake"

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

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

Unsurprisingly, the "National Association of Insurance Commissioners" is basically a lobbying arm of the insurance industry that claims neutrality.

[dxmnkd316]

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

Yeah, I didn't even need to look it up. I just assumed it was a corporate ball-cupper.

I didn't used to be in favor of single-payer, but I'm very slowly warming to the idea. Spreading out the costs proportionally to income seems somewhat fair to me. I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with it.

[5mn_Major]

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

Unsurprisingly, the "National Association of Insurance Commissioners" is basically a lobbying arm of the insurance industry that claims neutrality.

...and whose wet dream is competition-free world for insurance and one of total price collusion. Which is the underlying problem in the whole healthcare industry.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

corporate ball-cupper.

That's hilarious. I'm going to have to remember that one.

[FreshFish]

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

Unsurprisingly, the "National Association of Insurance Commissioners" is basically a lobbying arm of the insurance industry that claims neutrality.

What in the world are you citing?

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners actually is comprised of the insurance commissioners from the 50 states, DC, and the territories:

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is the U.S. standard-setting and regulatory support organization created and governed by the chief insurance regulators from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and five U.S. territories. Through the NAIC, state insurance regulators establish standards and best practices, conduct peer review, and coordinate their regulatory oversight. NAIC staff supports these efforts and represents the collective views of state regulators domestically and internationally. NAIC members, together with the central resources of the NAIC, form the national system of state-based insurance regulation in the U.S. [emphases added]
MEMBERS
NAIC members are the elected or appointed state government officials who along with their departments and staff, regulate the conduct of insurance companies and agents in their respective state or territory.

[dxmnkd316]

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

That's hilarious. I'm going to have to remember that one.

o