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 Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
They should have been doing that in the first place. The genie is out of the bottle already.
They should have been doing that in the first place. The genie is out of the bottle already.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Young people are Teflon coated and Lexan lined; they will never get sick or hurt, they don't need health insurance ... or so they believe.
People don't buy something they don't think they need even if it is a super-marvelous
deal. Until the penalty for no insurance is more expensive than the insurance, nothing will change. Put another way, your (Obamacare) carrot is still a carrot; more stick.
Young people are Teflon coated and Lexan lined; they will never get sick or hurt, they don't need health insurance ... or so they believe.
People don't buy something they don't think they need even if it is a super-marvelous
deal. Until the penalty for no insurance is more expensive than the insurance, nothing will change. Put another way, your (Obamacare) carrot is still a carrot; more stick.Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
um, news flash, we had a stable, sustainable marketplace in the 1980s, before state governments started to add all sorts of coverage mandates. There were association plans (i.e., group pricing for individual enrollees as long as they belonged to an association), high-deductible plans (in 1985 dollars, a $5,000 deductible plan was very very affordable). and we had the most effective form of "single payor" anyone could ask for: the patient him/herself was the single payor, then filed paperwork with the insurance company for reimbursement. Major medical insurance and hospitalization insurance were two different kinds of policies, if you wanted, you could get great medical coverage and a high-deductible hospitalization policy (perfect for young people, cover sickness and illness and self-insure for accidents).
State mandated coverage distorted the marketplace, making everyone pay more for niche coverage that only a few people would actually use. And having insurance companies and providers communicate directly removed an essential cost-control element: once you stop seeing the bill, you stop questioning why certain things cost so much.
and of course, once state mandates started distorting the market, then states started adding even more mandates to address market distortions, and so on....
Funny part is, the biggest marketplace distortion was a relic of World War II wage and price controls that left fringe benefit spending uncapped. If self-employed and corporate-employed people had equal tax treatment on premiums....
Did anyone every look closely at itemized hospital bill at checkout? a family member in the past couple of years had a hospital stay, and two acetaminophen tablets were $10. Hospital is happy, insurance company doesn't care one way or the other, patient is just relieved to be discharged and doesn't look closely.....
um, news flash, we had a stable, sustainable marketplace in the 1980s, before state governments started to add all sorts of coverage mandates. There were association plans (i.e., group pricing for individual enrollees as long as they belonged to an association), high-deductible plans (in 1985 dollars, a $5,000 deductible plan was very very affordable). and we had the most effective form of "single payor" anyone could ask for: the patient him/herself was the single payor, then filed paperwork with the insurance company for reimbursement. Major medical insurance and hospitalization insurance were two different kinds of policies, if you wanted, you could get great medical coverage and a high-deductible hospitalization policy (perfect for young people, cover sickness and illness and self-insure for accidents).
State mandated coverage distorted the marketplace, making everyone pay more for niche coverage that only a few people would actually use. And having insurance companies and providers communicate directly removed an essential cost-control element: once you stop seeing the bill, you stop questioning why certain things cost so much.
and of course, once state mandates started distorting the market, then states started adding even more mandates to address market distortions, and so on....
Funny part is, the biggest marketplace distortion was a relic of World War II wage and price controls that left fringe benefit spending uncapped. If self-employed and corporate-employed people had equal tax treatment on premiums....
Did anyone every look closely at itemized hospital bill at checkout? a family member in the past couple of years had a hospital stay, and two acetaminophen tablets were $10. Hospital is happy, insurance company doesn't care one way or the other, patient is just relieved to be discharged and doesn't look closely.....
Last edited:
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
You got a bargain. Not kidding. (Opinion based on father's final hospital bills circa 2011.)
You got a bargain. Not kidding. (Opinion based on father's final hospital bills circa 2011.)
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Even holding your baby will cost you. http://www.syracuse.com/health/inde...charges_couple_3935_to_hold_newborn_baby.html
Even holding your baby will cost you. http://www.syracuse.com/health/inde...charges_couple_3935_to_hold_newborn_baby.html
busterman62
I got a pocket full of kryptonite
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Looks like someone else agrees with Scooby
Looks like someone else agrees with Scooby
ScoobyDoo
NPC
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
It is, as many people have stated -- some out of fear, some simply resigned to the fact, and others almost giddy about it -- the build up to single-payer health insurance, AKA government run health care.
It is, as many people have stated -- some out of fear, some simply resigned to the fact, and others almost giddy about it -- the build up to single-payer health insurance, AKA government run health care.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
PPACA is the greatest gift Republicans will ever receive. Before it everybody complained about the cost of medical care. After it everybody complains about the cost of medical care but now they can blame it all on that rotten gubmint!
PPACA is the greatest gift Republicans will ever receive. Before it everybody complained about the cost of medical care. After it everybody complains about the cost of medical care but now they can blame it all on that rotten gubmint!
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
One thing I find extremely annoying as an empiricist is how people in general (nothing to do with you in this case...) complain about "the" cost of medical care, when "medical care" covers so many different things:
-- as income increases, one would expect elective medical care to be utilized more. If I'm poor, my kids grow up with crooked teeth, and can eat just fine; if I'm rich, my kids get Invisalign. That's an "increase" in the cost of care that has nothing to do with basic care costing more at all. Similar with many situations of elective cosmetic surgery. If someone is mauled by a dog, then cosmetic surgery is not elective but pretty much necessary; if someone is just fine except for a few wrinkles, well, again that "increase" in the cost of care is not "really" a "cost increase" at all, if you know what I mean.
-- suppose improved medical care saves lives. Are we really going to complain that the cost of medical care is increasing because lots of people who'd have died already are now still alive??*
-- in line with the above, suppose innovations in medical care improve people's daily lives: if I lose my legs below my knees, now I can use prosthetics to walk, instead of being in a wheelchair for the rest of my life.
What we really need is not merely an examination of the cost side, but also the benefit side as well. If medical care costs increase by $10 billion but quality of life measures increase by $20 billion, that sounds like a great ROI to me! but nowhere do I see any hard data on what kind of return we get for our improvements in medical care.
* I am reminded of the classic brain teaser about the British army in WWI: they introduce a new innovation for their soldiers, and brain injuries increase by 2,000%. They are delighted! answer in white: the innovation is steel helmets. these soldiers are now alive
One thing I find extremely annoying as an empiricist is how people in general (nothing to do with you in this case...) complain about "the" cost of medical care, when "medical care" covers so many different things:
-- as income increases, one would expect elective medical care to be utilized more. If I'm poor, my kids grow up with crooked teeth, and can eat just fine; if I'm rich, my kids get Invisalign. That's an "increase" in the cost of care that has nothing to do with basic care costing more at all. Similar with many situations of elective cosmetic surgery. If someone is mauled by a dog, then cosmetic surgery is not elective but pretty much necessary; if someone is just fine except for a few wrinkles, well, again that "increase" in the cost of care is not "really" a "cost increase" at all, if you know what I mean.
-- suppose improved medical care saves lives. Are we really going to complain that the cost of medical care is increasing because lots of people who'd have died already are now still alive??*
-- in line with the above, suppose innovations in medical care improve people's daily lives: if I lose my legs below my knees, now I can use prosthetics to walk, instead of being in a wheelchair for the rest of my life.
What we really need is not merely an examination of the cost side, but also the benefit side as well. If medical care costs increase by $10 billion but quality of life measures increase by $20 billion, that sounds like a great ROI to me! but nowhere do I see any hard data on what kind of return we get for our improvements in medical care.
* I am reminded of the classic brain teaser about the British army in WWI: they introduce a new innovation for their soldiers, and brain injuries increase by 2,000%. They are delighted! answer in white: the innovation is steel helmets. these soldiers are now alive
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
... and Obama. It don't count unless you add that.
PPACA is the greatest gift Republicans will ever receive. Before it everybody complained about the cost of medical care. After it everybody complains about the cost of medical care but now they can blame it all on that rotten gubmint!
... and Obama. It don't count unless you add that.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
PS to # 771. Another indication that many of the people behind PPACA didn't quite know what they were doing..... the text of the law itself (ugh) reads like some eager college student interns did a few internet searches and then copied and pasted some of what they found. any professional actuarial expertise obviously was sorely lacking....
PS to # 771. Another indication that many of the people behind PPACA didn't quite know what they were doing..... the text of the law itself (ugh) reads like some eager college student interns did a few internet searches and then copied and pasted some of what they found. any professional actuarial expertise obviously was sorely lacking....
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
We had to pass it to find out what was in there.
PS to # 771. Another indication that many of the people behind PPACA didn't quite know what they were doing..... the text of the law itself (ugh) reads like some eager college student interns did a few internet searches and then copied and pasted some of what they found. any professional actuarial expertise obviously was sorely lacking....
We had to pass it to find out what was in there.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
That's how you make sausage. Or you let lobbyists write it.
PS to # 771. Another indication that many of the people behind PPACA didn't quite know what they were doing..... the text of the law itself (ugh) reads like some eager college student interns did a few internet searches and then copied and pasted some of what they found. any professional actuarial expertise obviously was sorely lacking....
That's how you make sausage. Or you let lobbyists write it.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Hear my favorite Minnesota Republican today on news radio. He is endorsing Hillary. He is asking Weld to drop out of the race cause Johnson is an idiot and we don't need a 3rd party getting Trump elected. And, he agrees with me and Bill Clinton on Obamacare. He blames a complete lack of MANAGEMENT and OVERSIGHT (Hello you Republican ****tards in Congress) for it's problems and possible failure.
Today was a good day. It's good to be validated once in a while.
Hear my favorite Minnesota Republican today on news radio. He is endorsing Hillary. He is asking Weld to drop out of the race cause Johnson is an idiot and we don't need a 3rd party getting Trump elected. And, he agrees with me and Bill Clinton on Obamacare. He blames a complete lack of MANAGEMENT and OVERSIGHT (Hello you Republican ****tards in Congress) for it's problems and possible failure.
Today was a good day. It's good to be validated once in a while.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Even when it's usually by the voices in your head?
Even when it's usually by the voices in your head?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Gov. Mark Dayton (D, MN) says Affordable Care Act has become unaffordable, needs reforms
He stressed it helps many, but has "serious blemishes."
http://www.startribune.com/dayton-s...-become-unaffordable-needs-reforms/396864871/
What do you do when your signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, ... isn't.
Gov. Mark Dayton (D, MN) says Affordable Care Act has become unaffordable, needs reforms
He stressed it helps many, but has "serious blemishes."
http://www.startribune.com/dayton-s...-become-unaffordable-needs-reforms/396864871/
What do you do when your signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, ... isn't.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
You adjust like with every other program in history. But when the other side is obsessed with a repeal drag act that will instantly remove 14 million people from insurance, you have to wait until you control Congress to do it.
Nice try, though.
You adjust like with every other program in history. But when the other side is obsessed with a repeal drag act that will instantly remove 14 million people from insurance, you have to wait until you control Congress to do it.
Nice try, though.
- Status