Better journalism on same subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/05/harvard-professors-are-angry-that-their-amazing-health-insurance-is-getting-slightly-less-generous/?tid=HP_business?tid=HP_business
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.
The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/05/harvard-professors-are-angry-that-their-amazing-health-insurance-is-getting-slightly-less-generous/?tid=HP_business?tid=HP_business
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
There are probably more good investigative journalists working today than ever before. They're just scattered across a million little websites and blogs.
The people are there; the tools have never been better. Now it's just a technical problem of hooking up real journalists with audiences. The "news" model has failed, reduced to entertainment, so we will find another way. There is always another way.
There are probably more good investigative journalists working today than ever before. They're just scattered across a million little websites and blogs.
The people are there; the tools have never been better. Now it's just a technical problem of hooking up real journalists with audiences. The "news" model has failed, reduced to entertainment, so we will find another way. There is always another way.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
So you're with Don Henley on this one? http://youtu.be/zof07-6LOyE
So you're with Don Henley on this one? http://youtu.be/zof07-6LOyE
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Yes - written 30 years before its time.
Yes - written 30 years before its time.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Network was on a couple nights ago. I can still dimly recall when it was outrageous parody. Now it looks like a documentary of Fox and CNN.
And way beyond news, or journalism, it seems like a gospel of the world we have managed to imprison ourselves in.
Network was on a couple nights ago. I can still dimly recall when it was outrageous parody. Now it looks like a documentary of Fox and CNN.
And way beyond news, or journalism, it seems like a gospel of the world we have managed to imprison ourselves in.
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
From the NYT:
"The university is adopting standard features of most employer-sponsored health plans: Employees will now pay deductibles and a share of the costs, known as coinsurance, for hospitalization, surgery and certain advanced diagnostic tests. The plan has an annual deductible of $250 per individual and $750 for a family. For a doctor's office visit, the charge is $20. For most other services, patients will pay 10 percent of the cost until they reach the out-of-pocket limit of $1,500 for an individual and $4,500 for a family."
Having been on Harvard insurance myself, it is generous, but if this above is in fact the changes, what's the problem? $250 per individual? $1,500 per year per person??? On a Harvard salary, especially the professors, I'm not sure we're talking poverty and slave wages here.
Oh, and Fishy, you really do need to get laid.
From the NYT:
"The university is adopting standard features of most employer-sponsored health plans: Employees will now pay deductibles and a share of the costs, known as coinsurance, for hospitalization, surgery and certain advanced diagnostic tests. The plan has an annual deductible of $250 per individual and $750 for a family. For a doctor's office visit, the charge is $20. For most other services, patients will pay 10 percent of the cost until they reach the out-of-pocket limit of $1,500 for an individual and $4,500 for a family."
Having been on Harvard insurance myself, it is generous, but if this above is in fact the changes, what's the problem? $250 per individual? $1,500 per year per person??? On a Harvard salary, especially the professors, I'm not sure we're talking poverty and slave wages here.
Oh, and Fishy, you really do need to get laid.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
That is one of the most generous plans I have ever heard of.
From the NYT:
"The university is adopting standard features of most employer-sponsored health plans: Employees will now pay deductibles and a share of the costs, known as coinsurance, for hospitalization, surgery and certain advanced diagnostic tests. The plan has an annual deductible of $250 per individual and $750 for a family. For a doctor's office visit, the charge is $20. For most other services, patients will pay 10 percent of the cost until they reach the out-of-pocket limit of $1,500 for an individual and $4,500 for a family."
Having been on Harvard insurance myself, it is generous, but if this above is in fact the changes, what's the problem? $250 per individual? $1,500 per year per person??? On a Harvard salary, especially the professors, I'm not sure we're talking poverty and slave wages here.
Oh, and Fishy, you really do need to get laid.
That is one of the most generous plans I have ever heard of.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Yes, and they are complaining about it. Go figure.
Yes, and they are complaining about it. Go figure.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Wow. Out of pocket limit is only $1500? We should all be so lucky!
Wow. Out of pocket limit is only $1500? We should all be so lucky!
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Uninsured rate hits new low...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102313931?trknav=homestack:topnews:3
This is proof positive that knuckledragging (aka conservatism) is a ideology for people frustrated with their own lives and unwilling to add anything positive to the discussion or life in general. Lower uninsured rates + lowering the increases in health care spending were the goals of the ACA. Done and done. Time to declare victory and mock the critics (well, I guess I've already been doing the latter).
Uninsured rate hits new low...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102313931?trknav=homestack:topnews:3
This is proof positive that knuckledragging (aka conservatism) is a ideology for people frustrated with their own lives and unwilling to add anything positive to the discussion or life in general. Lower uninsured rates + lowering the increases in health care spending were the goals of the ACA. Done and done. Time to declare victory and mock the critics (well, I guess I've already been doing the latter
).
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
The criticism will never end because it was never substantive, it was always purely political. Plus, they've got their captives hermetically sealed. My coworkers absolutely believe the rate of change of cost is increasing and that more people are uncovered, just as they believe there are hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud every election, that global warming is a hoax, that evolution is false, and that ISIS is streaming across the Arizona border.
Uninsured rate hits new low...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102313931?trknav=homestack:topnews:3
This is proof positive that knuckledragging (aka conservatism) is a ideology for people frustrated with their own lives and unwilling to add anything positive to the discussion or life in general. Lower uninsured rates + lowering the increases in health care spending were the goals of the ACA. Done and done. Time to declare victory and mock the critics (well, I guess I've already been doing the latter
The criticism will never end because it was never substantive, it was always purely political. Plus, they've got their captives hermetically sealed. My coworkers absolutely believe the rate of change of cost is increasing and that more people are uncovered, just as they believe there are hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud every election, that global warming is a hoax, that evolution is false, and that ISIS is streaming across the Arizona border.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Global warming must be a hoax! It's cold today!
Global warming must be a hoax! It's cold today!
But it's warm in Australia.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
As a party they sure do enjoy being on the wrong side of history on a plethora of issues.
Rape, wrong side.
Immigration, wrong side.
Health Care, wrong side.
And those are just the current ones that come to mind.
As a party they sure do enjoy being on the wrong side of history on a plethora of issues.
Rape, wrong side.
Immigration, wrong side.
Health Care, wrong side.
And those are just the current ones that come to mind.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Every system has its flaws. The biggest flaw with the single payer system is right in front of your nose: the single payer. There's no such thing as a free lunch. One party is paying, and therefore one party determines who does or does not receive care. This party usually also has the tendency to create what I am going to coin as a "regulated monopoly", where instead of pricing competition out via free market, they are using regulations to ensure they are the only person providing this sort of thing. We see it today in Medicare, where it is a felony for a person to pay for some portion of care that is not allocated in that manner through the Medicare plan.
I can't believe I'm actually going to type this, but Vermont actually came up with a halfway decent idea: a hybrid of the two systems. Sure, there's the single payer option for those requiring as such, but then there is also a caveat that if you have the ability to pay for it yourself, you may do so without penalty. With all of this, let's add one more caveat to this plan: the opt out clause. If you don't want to participate in the single payer system for whatever reason, you don't have to opt in. In those cases, bill the people for whatever is done, and actually enforce it. Most ambulance services have been sold off to private companies as it is, consider some sort of system like that if it's still public. Allow emergency rooms to prioritize not only on severity, but also on payment ability. Don't want to opt in but can't pay for something? Just watch the others go past you.
Remember, regulated monopolies are still monopolies. They have only two things to do to be successful: Cut supply, and increase the price.
Every system has its flaws. The biggest flaw with the single payer system is right in front of your nose: the single payer. There's no such thing as a free lunch. One party is paying, and therefore one party determines who does or does not receive care. This party usually also has the tendency to create what I am going to coin as a "regulated monopoly", where instead of pricing competition out via free market, they are using regulations to ensure they are the only person providing this sort of thing. We see it today in Medicare, where it is a felony for a person to pay for some portion of care that is not allocated in that manner through the Medicare plan.
I can't believe I'm actually going to type this, but Vermont actually came up with a halfway decent idea: a hybrid of the two systems. Sure, there's the single payer option for those requiring as such, but then there is also a caveat that if you have the ability to pay for it yourself, you may do so without penalty. With all of this, let's add one more caveat to this plan: the opt out clause. If you don't want to participate in the single payer system for whatever reason, you don't have to opt in. In those cases, bill the people for whatever is done, and actually enforce it. Most ambulance services have been sold off to private companies as it is, consider some sort of system like that if it's still public. Allow emergency rooms to prioritize not only on severity, but also on payment ability. Don't want to opt in but can't pay for something? Just watch the others go past you.
Remember, regulated monopolies are still monopolies. They have only two things to do to be successful: Cut supply, and increase the price.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
First, all long-standing monopolies are regulated into existence. If they weren't protected by law, other large competitors would eventually break the monopoly. It's been proven time and again.
Second, Vermont didn't come up with the idea for the hybrid health care system. The Brits and Australians both utilize versions of said system. During the original PPACA debates, I said that we could go that route based upon the Australian model and make the largest number of people happy, but also said that with class warfare in this country that it would be shouted down for being an unequal system. I was then shouted down.
First, all long-standing monopolies are regulated into existence. If they weren't protected by law, other large competitors would eventually break the monopoly. It's been proven time and again.
Second, Vermont didn't come up with the idea for the hybrid health care system. The Brits and Australians both utilize versions of said system. During the original PPACA debates, I said that we could go that route based upon the Australian model and make the largest number of people happy, but also said that with class warfare in this country that it would be shouted down for being an unequal system. I was then shouted down.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Those are the incentives of a private sector service provider. The reason health insurance has to ultimately have a public sector service provider is the same reason the military does: we are unwilling to leave it to market incentives.
The entire point of public health insurance is that covering people who can't pay for themselves can not be cost effective. There are three solutions:
1. Rely on market incentives and let the poor die.
2. Create a hybrid where rich people pay for their own insurance and poor people are subsidized. Given lobbyist-politician bribery, this leads to cycles of private sector firms amassing fortunes on the backs of the taxpayers followed by reactionary cycles where the subsidized services are cut and the poor suffer because the middle class doesn't care. (This has typically been the American solution to most social programs.)
3. Single-payer, eliminating insurance and directly paying health care costs. This saves money by removing private insurance profiteering. Cost, quality and coverage are more directly under the control of the taxpayer, and we get the configuration we can politically agree on.
Don't worry -- if you can get enough of a public consensus to kill the poor, you can still do it, but democratically.
Those are the incentives of a private sector service provider. The reason health insurance has to ultimately have a public sector service provider is the same reason the military does: we are unwilling to leave it to market incentives.
The entire point of public health insurance is that covering people who can't pay for themselves can not be cost effective. There are three solutions:
1. Rely on market incentives and let the poor die.
2. Create a hybrid where rich people pay for their own insurance and poor people are subsidized. Given lobbyist-politician bribery, this leads to cycles of private sector firms amassing fortunes on the backs of the taxpayers followed by reactionary cycles where the subsidized services are cut and the poor suffer because the middle class doesn't care. (This has typically been the American solution to most social programs.)
3. Single-payer, eliminating insurance and directly paying health care costs. This saves money by removing private insurance profiteering. Cost, quality and coverage are more directly under the control of the taxpayer, and we get the configuration we can politically agree on.
Don't worry -- if you can get enough of a public consensus to kill the poor, you can still do it, but democratically.
JF_Gophers
2147483647
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Just have the middle class pay for the rich and the poors health care. Problem solved.
Just have the middle class pay for the rich and the poors health care. Problem solved.
- Status