Repealing the ACA under Trump

[wutthewut]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a really strange interpretation of my post.

 

Went back and corrected my typos....if that's what was causing the confusion.

To give a relatable example:

 

When Lasik eye surgery first emerged, it was extremely expensive. Today, it's a few thousand dollars. Why did the price fall so drastically?

This is a classic misunderstanding of healthcare. Lasik was forced to drop in price because of supply and demand: when the price was high fewer people got Lasik and as the cost went down the demand went up. But a very key point is that people could get glasses or contacts instead of Lasik. People had the choice to NOT get Lasik.

 

Now think about how that applies to the rest of healthcare. How do people not get treatment for a heart attack? Or cancer? Or liver disease, stroke, high blood pressure?

 

And think about how that is effected by the value of getting well. How much would you pay to save your own life? Or your mom? Or your kid?

 

This completely breaks the concept of a "free" market. That's why healthcare will continue to get worse under libertarian/conservative "free" market economic systems - the fundamental assumptions of those systems don't hold.

Thank you for the response. You're absolutely correct that there are more variables that come into play in regards to healthcare. Absolutely. Here's the issue, continuing with the metaphor:

 

If I'm an 18 year old who has been in 3 car accidents, obviously my insurer would look at me as a high risk driver, and my insurance premium is going to be astronomical. When I'm a more risky driver to insure, that cost doesn't get transferred across the car insurance market. And it shouldn't. But with Obamacare, that's precisely what happens, plus added taxes and subsidies.

 

The morality of providing free healthcare for all is in the right place, but the practicality isn't there. I realize that's a tough pill to swallow, but that's the truth.

 

As far as covering people with pre existing conditions, I've always been a firm believer in charity. There are an abundance of people, organizations, and charity groups in this world who have the means to help and are looking for ways to help.

 

Probably most importantly, we should always be leery about handing total control (and in most cases, even partial control) to the government. Using a specific example of that in regards to healthcare, all you have to do is look at the Gard family in London and what they've had to go through.

You're still not seeing that health is different from virtually all other activities. In your car insurance example, you can still choose not to have car insurance - take the bus, taxi, limo, friends, carpool. You don't have a choice about having health because the only alternative is death. Not driving is super inconvenient but not life-threatening.

 

Your practicality argument is obviously wrong, as every other modern nation has healthcare for it's citizens as a right. I realize that's a tough pill to swallow, but it's actual happening all over the world today and has been for decades.

 

I absolutely agree that we should be leery of handing over control to the government, and whatever we do with healthcare going forward, we should make sure there are checks and balances. But you should also realize that handing over control to corporations isn't any less dangerous than the government. We can vote to change any power or authority given to the government, but we have no power over the insurance companies.

If you actually look at it, we have MUCH more actual control over corporations. Politicians will do what they're lobbied to do no matter what the voters want. If you want a prime example, just look at the Obamacare ordeal right now in the Senate. The 2 reasons Trump was actually elected had to do with 2 key issues of actual substance: the Supreme Court & repealing Obamacare. The citizens have made it abundantly clear they're fed up with the ACA but these politicians in the GOP apparently don't get it. On the other hand, with the free market, businesses provide products and services that people willingly purchase out of their own free will. If businesses put out a product or service that people don't like, another entrepreneur will jump in and provide a better product or service, many times at a better price. Voting with your wallet WILL ALWAYS be more effective than voting in the ballot booth, because you're voting for (in most cases) the biggest liars and scumbags the country has to offer. Only bad things happen when those people are given too much power.

 

Again, I'll bring this one up. Which nation has the led the world by a large margin in medical advancements over the past 100 years? America. Why? Because of incentive. People in general achieve because of incentive. People might not like that most of the time the incentive is profit, but that's reality.

if profits are the main concern and incentive for insurance providers....wouldn't they want to get rid of the people who cost more to provide coverage for? are we as a country going to say only healthy people who can contribute through work are worth trying to keep alive? nazi germany took that attitude in the mid 30's and started exterminating through euthinasia programs the mentally ill and terminally ill as they were a "drain on society" hey...there is no profit or incentive in keeping the sick and poor alive...right?

HAHAHAHA and we've gotten the first Nazi comparison. I knew it'd get thrown out inaccurately eventually. How about this:

 

Hitler was a socialist. He despised capitalism. And going to socialized medicine would give the government the power to fulfill the EXACT scenario that you just laid out.

 

What do people have against freedom?

[wutthewut]

Sooooo.....if I need a triple bypass surgery and I can't afford it and I can't find a charity to help....then what?

If my house crumbles from an earthquake and that's not covered in my policy, then what? I guess we'd better socialize home owners insurance also.

[commando]

freedom!!!! who needs insurance? charity will take care of everything! i am dropping it all tomorrow! thanks for showing us the ;light wutwutwut

[wutthewut]

freedom!!!! who needs insurance? charity will take care of everything! i am dropping it all tomorrow! thanks for showing us the ;light wutwutwut

I appreciate the hyperbole.

[Mike Mcdee]

 

Sooooo.....if I need a triple bypass surgery and I can't afford it and I can't find a charity to help....then what?

If my house crumbles from an earthquake and that's not covered in my policy, then what? I guess we'd better socialize home owners insurance also.

Just so you know, earthquake is typically excluded from your standard home insurance policy. You have to purchase that coverage, at least in Nebraska you do. It's weird, each state has different insurance departments that allow companies to create their own guidelines. Nothing really standardized nationally.

[commando]

 

 

Sooooo.....if I need a triple bypass surgery and I can't afford it and I can't find a charity to help....then what?

If my house crumbles from an earthquake and that's not covered in my policy, then what? I guess we'd better socialize home owners insurance also.

Just so you know, earthquake is typically excluded from your standard home insurance policy. You have to purchase that coverage, at least in Nebraska you do. It's weird, each state has different insurance departments that allow companies to create their own guidelines. Nothing really standardized nationally.

 

flood damage is also a separate coverage and much more likely to hit people.

[wutthewut]

Isn't it crazy how consumers can select coverage based on their individual needs? What a concept...

[zoogs]

I'm uncertain if you realize, but consumers not being able to select coverage at all -- for example, those with pre-existing conditions -- is precisely the sort of problem the ACA tried to address.

 

This problem doesn't get addressed without mandates on insurers; not offering insurance is the cost-effective way to deal with it. Of course, for all this talk of "the people" those on your side of the debate are plainly unconcerned with whether everyone can get coverage or not. Fundamentally, this is and has always been a question of whether healthcare is a human right.

[wutthewut]

I'm uncertain if you realize, but consumers not being able to select coverage at all -- for example, those with pre-existing conditions -- is precisely the sort of problem the ACA tried to address.

 

This problem doesn't get addressed without mandates on insurers; not offering insurance is the cost-effective way to deal with it. Of course, for all this talk of "the people" those on your side of the debate are plainly unconcerned with whether everyone can get coverage or not. Fundamentally, this is and has always been a question of whether healthcare is a human right.

That's because it's not a human right. It's not only a product/service, it's a luxury.

 

Even California couldn't pass socialized medicine because it was going to more than double their state budget.

 

And offering other people's money to pay for things (at gunpoint) is not compassionate. It's morally reprehensible.

[mrandyk]

Health care is a luxury. That's all I need to hear, troll status confirmed. As if it wasn't odd enough that someone would create an account on a Cornhusker forum just to post in the politics threads...

[Cdog923]

 

I'm uncertain if you realize, but consumers not being able to select coverage at all -- for example, those with pre-existing conditions -- is precisely the sort of problem the ACA tried to address.

 

This problem doesn't get addressed without mandates on insurers; not offering insurance is the cost-effective way to deal with it. Of course, for all this talk of "the people" those on your side of the debate are plainly unconcerned with whether everyone can get coverage or not. Fundamentally, this is and has always been a question of whether healthcare is a human right.

That's because it's not a human right. It's not only a product/service, it's a luxury..

 

Holy sh#t, son.

 

Take a lap.

[Landlord]

If my house crumbles from an earthquake and that's not covered in my policy, then what? I guess we'd better socialize home owners insurance also.

 

 

I appreciate the hyperbole.

 

 

The unfortunate hyperbole here is that of comparing losing your house in an earthquake (less than a 1% chance of happening in almost all of America, plus, YOU'RE STILL ALIVE), versus the likelihood of all possible life-threatening medical scenarios combined together, well over 25%?

[commando]

 

I'm uncertain if you realize, but consumers not being able to select coverage at all -- for example, those with pre-existing conditions -- is precisely the sort of problem the ACA tried to address.

 

This problem doesn't get addressed without mandates on insurers; not offering insurance is the cost-effective way to deal with it. Of course, for all this talk of "the people" those on your side of the debate are plainly unconcerned with whether everyone can get coverage or not. Fundamentally, this is and has always been a question of whether healthcare is a human right.

That's because it's not a human right. It's not only a product/service, it's a luxury.

 

Even California couldn't pass socialized medicine because it was going to more than double their state budget.

 

And offering other people's money to pay for things (at gunpoint) is not compassionate. It's morally reprehensible.

 

the poor don't deserve to live.

[NM11046]

I am trying to learn more about why folks are saying that selling insurance across state lines makes things more competitive, because here on the east coast we've tried and it hasn't been a positive. Certainly not a solution. This was a nice succinct article explaining the core challenges:

 

 

... proposals to allow cross-state sales will do nothing to encourage greater competition or address the underlying drivers of health care costs. Just like politics, health insurance is local. Today’s health plans essentially provide enrollees with access to a local network of doctors and hospitals at a discounted price. ... primary barrier for an insurer looking to enter a new market is not the state’s regulations, it’s the cost of building up a provider network at discounted prices.

To date, six states have enacted laws to allow cross-state sales. Yet none of these states has had a single new insurer enter its market because of its law. When asked about their laws, state officials and insurance industry experts in those states agreed that establishing a competitive provider network is the primary barrier to new market entrants.

[BigRedBuster]

This part is BS.

 

Today’s health plans essentially provide enrollees with access to a local network of doctors and hospitals at a discounted price. ...

 

Right now, I know of situations where people with insurance walk into our local hospital and get charged a price. I then know people who will walk in with no insurance and the cost is a fraction of the insured cost.

 

Example:

 

We had an employee who had a heart attack. So, he had cardiac rehab at the local physical therapy facility. It would cost our insurance $500 every time. Meanwhile, I knew an old retired farmer who would go in and pay cash........$50.