What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Red Cloud, you've now sunk to Phil Dupree level stupidity. :D Is there some sort of prize for that???

Let me clarify a couple of things however:

1) What in DeMint's plan actually lowers costs and insures more people? All he has is something about buying health care in other states. Great, but how does that bring down costs if the whole system is inefficient? Answer: it doesn't, its a "lets put out a vague plan to say we have one" but it doesn't do anything.

2) I can spend all day picking apart this editorial you posted (the best line is one of the first, that the program failed because there's still 200K out of 6M residents not covered, despite the fact Mass has the highest % of its residents covered of any state in the US), but what I find funny is that you agree with the writer, who says she wants a "progressive tax increase" to pay for the expansion of Medicaid to everybody in the country....isn't that the very thing you conservatives spend time railing against???? Holy Hypocrisy Batman, what DO you favor after all?

Lynah Fan,

I appreciate you giving an answer, but chalking it up to "inertia" seems a little too easy IMHO. More likely there are far bigger factors in employers not dumping health care, the first and foremost would be if they all tried it, most likely, the government would step in and stop them from doing so. Some companies already tend to not offer their employees health insurance (retail for example) so its not like that would be unprecedented. My theory is that 1) as you cite it would be tough to recruit employees if you didn't offer competitive insurance, and a company that dumped employees off on a more expensive govt option where bureaucrats made medical decisions would lose people left and right, and 2) the risk of govt action restricting a company's ability to do so.

If there was truly nothing stopping companies from not offering benefits, I'd argue they'd all be doing so already, as employee based health care isn't a new phenomenon.
 
Rover said:
More likely, you like Sen Inhofe or Michael Steele, just wants to see this fail strictly to take a dig at the President, which is a stupid reason.
Click to expand...

Red and I rarely (not very often?) see eye to eye, but I don't get that impression on this issue. "Failure" if the Obama plan is put into play in this case will cost this country a lot more than having to find a new President and I believe he knows that. Whether or not Red supports a viable alternative plan isn't the point - the world will not stop spinning if we don't immediately change the current health care system.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Rover said:
Lynah Fan,

I appreciate you giving an answer, but chalking it up to "inertia" seems a little too easy IMHO. More likely there are far bigger factors in employers not dumping health care, the first and foremost would be if they all tried it, most likely, the government would step in and stop them from doing so. Some companies already tend to not offer their employees health insurance (retail for example) so its not like that would be unprecedented. My theory is that 1) as you cite it would be tough to recruit employees if you didn't offer competitive insurance, and a company that dumped employees off on a more expensive govt option where bureaucrats made medical decisions would lose people left and right, and 2) the risk of govt action restricting a company's ability to do so.

If there was truly nothing stopping companies from not offering benefits, I'd argue they'd all be doing so already, as employee based health care isn't a new phenomenon.
Click to expand...

So we basically agree that it's competition between companies that keeps them offering health care. As for your 2nd point (that govt could require companies to keep offering it), I disagree in the case of Mass. If Mass (and Mass alone) put in that legislation, you would see an exodus of companies from Mass to other states, or at the very least fewer new companies setting up shop in Mass. So as long as there is reasonable competition from other states, there is relatively little that the Mass legislature would be willing to do along those lines. To turn your argument around: there's nothing stopping the Mass legislature from enacting that legislation, so why haven't they?

In the case of a national health care system, it would be a different story - there effectively is no outside competition, so the federal government could mandate whatever it wanted to. But why would it want to? One thing that the Dems keep stressing is that they WANT the national plan to be in competition with employers' plans - to give consumers MORE choices, not fewer. It would be counterproductive for the federal government to require companies to continue to offer plans - if everybody can suddenly get insurance from their employer (since it's required to be available), why would anybody sign up for the national plan? The national plan would end up being dramatically under-enrolled and under-funded by people with jobs (who can pay into the system) and would therefore not be able to accomplish too much in the way of covering people who CAN'T pay into the system. It would have to rely extensively on outside funding via taxation instead of member premiums - and would end up being another massive entitlement program. Why not just raise the income ceiling for Medicaid eligibility if you're going to do it that way?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Handyman said:
What...was he too busy performing an exorcism to put it out earlier...that guy is a whackjob!
Click to expand...

So... due to this, we're in total agreement that the Repubicans have no plans whatsoever. Party of no.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

walrus said:
Here is how one company has reduced the cost of health ins. They're a big bad corporation though so...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html
Click to expand...

That is a bad idea, following the auto-insurance model for several different reasons. They are wording it one way... rewarding good behaviour with lower premiums but from my experience with auto-insurance you never get the benefits for that behaviour, just more increases on any pretext.

If they pass all four tests, annual premiums are reduced $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. Should they fail any or all tests, they can be tested again in 12 months. If they pass or have made appropriate progress on something like obesity, the company provides a refund equal to the premium differences established at the beginning of the plan year.
Click to expand...

So does that mean the family have to take the test too? :rolleyes:

If I remember correctly that's already in the Obamas plan ... rewarding healthy lifestyle choices and doctors focusing more on healthy outcomes rather than unnecessary treatments. If we're really serious about health we should tax the crap out of fat, sugar etc... like we do with cigarettes.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Tundra said:
If I remember correctly that's already in the Obamas plan ... rewarding healthy lifestyle choices and doctors focusing more on healthy outcomes rather than unnecessary treatments. If we're really serious about health we should tax the crap out of fat, sugar etc... like we do with cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should tax people by the pound, and encourage some of these lard asses to talk a walk or put down that extra can of Crisco. Cut down on diabetes, heart disease and all of the other ailments that result from being overweight.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

ScottM said:
Maybe we should tax people by the pound, and encourage some of these lard asses to talk a walk or put down that extra can of Crisco. Cut down on diabetes, heart disease and all of the other ailments that result from being overweight.
Click to expand...

There is an even simplier solution. Allow the insurance companies to charge them higher premiums because of their weight and give everyone else a break.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

What if there is a medical reason for their obesity do they get taxed also for something they cannot control?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Handyman said:
What if there is a medical reason for their obesity do they get taxed also for something they cannot control?
Click to expand...

There are legitimate medical reasons for obesity. However, a visit to the Minnesota State Fair or any WalMart on the weekend would disabuse you of the notion that they are widespread ... no pun intended. ;)

That said, I like a risk-based pricing model of health insurance, if it incents people to take better care of themselves and lower their own risks and costs.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

ScottM said:
There are legitimate medical reasons for obesity. However, a visit to the Minnesota State Fair or any WalMart on the weekend would disabuse you of the notion that they are widespread ... no pun intended. ;)

That said, I like a risk-based pricing model of health insurance, if it incents people to take better care of themselves and lower their own risks and costs.
Click to expand...

I do too...I was just wondering that is all.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Tundra said:
That is a bad idea, following the auto-insurance model for several different reasons. They are wording it one way... rewarding good behaviour with lower premiums but from my experience with auto-insurance you never get the benefits for that behaviour, just more increases on any pretext.
.
Click to expand...

How did Safeways insurance premiums go down while everyone else saw a rise? There most of been some benefit from their behavior
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

538, great as always.

Feldstein is simply mistaken here. "Single-payer" has to do with who pays for health care (in the case of single-payer, the federal government does). It has absolutely nothing to do with who provides health care. It's the difference between the Canadian system, in which private doctors and hospitals are paid by the Canadian government (and indirectly, Canadian taxpayers) to provide health care to its citizenry, and the British system, in which the providers themselves -- doctors, nurses, hospital administrators -- are actually in the employ of Her Majesty's Government. For that matter, it's the difference between Medicare -- a single-payer system for American seniors -- and the British system. The Canadian system is nationalized health insurance. The British system is nationalized health care -- or if you prefer, socialized medicine.

Obama has never expressed or implied any admiration for the British system of socalized medicine. Not that there aren't admirable elements of it -- but I doubt that you'd find even very many self-identified liberals who would suggest that it's the right system for America. Obama, rather, has expressed admiration for a government-run monopoly on insurance -- single-payer -- as do about half of Americans in opinion polls.

This is really basic stuff -- Health Care 101. For Feldstein to imply otherwise is to disqualify him from being taken seriously on the health care debate. He either has no idea what he's talking about or he's too ensconced in the Harvard Bubble to think that the truth matters.
Click to expand...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

ScottM said:
if it incents people to take better care of themselves and lower their own risks and costs.
Click to expand...

The fact that people smoke and drink excessively despite serious health expense strongly indicates that these kind of behaviors are not linked to cost effectiveness thinking, particularly among the populations who have the biggest problems.

I agree with your larger point; I just wouldn't expect much.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Handyman said:
What if there is a medical reason for their obesity do they get taxed also for something they cannot control?
Click to expand...

You mean like a brain tumor :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top