Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

Carl please explain how ObamaCare looks pretty conservative.

The core idea in the ACA is the individual mandate.

The individual mandate was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989. Republican Senators in 1993 proposed an individual mandate health care law. The most recent GOP presidential candidate championed and ultimately passed a successful individual mandate health care law.

Essentially, the individual mandate is an attempt at nearly universal health care coverage through the free market. In the most general of terms it's supposed to be an alternative to a single payer system. Unsurprisingly, the GOP ran from the idea when it was embraced by the DNC.

What would you do different to make it less conservative?

The "less conservative" alternative would be single payer. I suspect that we'll join the rest of the first world countries someday.

 

[TGHusker]

Excellent clarification Carl.

Maybe the whole Obama Care would have been less complex if we just extended Medicare to everyone below 65. I think a lot of the discomfort is that it is administrated by the Feds - we know how efficient they run the Post office and the Veteran System of health care. Maybe the state exchanges is an effort to make it more local. Then again, there are great inefficiencies in the current system as well - multiple HMOs, all with admin overhead, etc.

Here are a couple of links wt pros and cons on single payer

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-single-payer-government-funded-free-universal-health-care-a-good-idea

Here is an old pros and cons discussion on Calif single payer - old from 2003

http://www.camft.org/ScriptContent/CAMFTarticles/Insurance/ProsConsSinglePayerSytem.htm

 

[carlfense]

I think a lot of the discomfort is that it is administrated by the Feds - we know how efficient they run the Post office and the Veteran System of health care.

Eh?

 

[sd'sker]

Carl please explain how ObamaCare looks pretty conservative.

The core idea in the ACA is the individual mandate.

The individual mandate was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989. Republican Senators in 1993 proposed an individual mandate health care law. The most recent GOP presidential candidate championed and ultimately passed a successful individual mandate health care law.

Essentially, the individual mandate is an attempt at nearly universal health care coverage through the free market. In the most general of terms it's supposed to be an alternative to a single payer system. Unsurprisingly, the GOP ran from the idea when it was embraced by the DNC.

What would you do different to make it less conservative?

The "less conservative" alternative would be single payer. I suspect that we'll join the rest of the first world countries someday.

not to mention that obamacare is really a huge boon to the insurance business.

 

[carlfense]

not to mention that obamacare is really a huge boon to the insurance business.

No! They hate it. *wink*

 

[KJ.]

Depending on what you want to define as "liberal" or "conservative" the ACA is definitely not conservative, I would say. At a high level, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from a group of individuals with more money (those who are healthy and have lower premiums) to a group of individuals with less money (those who aren't healthy and have higher premiums).

It's pretty similar to taxes, and that doesn't sound conservative to me. It may have been backed by conservatives years ago, but I don't think the idea is all that conservative.

 

[HUSKER 37]

Every time I've gone to a Dr. as an adult, I swear it will be the last time..This time I mean it!! (7 years since last visit).

Realistically, I probably won't live much more than 5 more years if I'm lucky and I'd rather put the money I'd pay for premiums toward preventive measures or a health club membership.

I've had Biochemistry and Microbiology professors that stressed that the human body is the best at healing itself..I just hope there's a way of opting out of having to pay big insurance companies for something I'd never use (even when I had it)...

 

[sd'sker]

Depending on what you want to define as "liberal" or "conservative" the ACA is definitely not conservative, I would say. At a high level, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from a group of individuals with more money (those who are healthy and have lower premiums) to a group of individuals with less money (those who aren't healthy and have higher premiums).

It's pretty similar to taxes, and that doesn't sound conservative to me. It may have been backed by conservatives years ago, but I don't think the idea is all that conservative.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

also, it is just as much about protecting those with insurance than those without. it is odd how you equate more money with being healthier and lower premiums. a poor person can be healthy with low premiums and the inverse can be true as well.

 

[KJ.]

Depending on what you want to define as "liberal" or "conservative" the ACA is definitely not conservative, I would say. At a high level, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from a group of individuals with more money (those who are healthy and have lower premiums) to a group of individuals with less money (those who aren't healthy and have higher premiums).

It's pretty similar to taxes, and that doesn't sound conservative to me. It may have been backed by conservatives years ago, but I don't think the idea is all that conservative.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

I would say you're completely wrong.

 

[sd'sker]

Depending on what you want to define as "liberal" or "conservative" the ACA is definitely not conservative, I would say. At a high level, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from a group of individuals with more money (those who are healthy and have lower premiums) to a group of individuals with less money (those who aren't healthy and have higher premiums).

It's pretty similar to taxes, and that doesn't sound conservative to me. It may have been backed by conservatives years ago, but I don't think the idea is all that conservative.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

I would say you're completely wrong.

well with such a compelling argument you must be right. also, i edited the post you responded to. anyway, the idea with insurance is that the bigger the pool, the better for everyone. not to mention the additional competition that obamacare creates.

 

[KJ.]

Sigh. Ok, let's see here.

well with such a compelling argument you must be right. also, i edited the post you responded to. anyway, the idea with insurance is that the bigger the pool, the better for everyone. not to mention the additional competition that obamacare creates.

No, it isn't. It isn't at all. When you increase the size of an insurance pool, that's only good if the additional insureds are going to cost less than the pool average. If they cost more, insurance becomes more expensive for everyone. Bigger pools are only really beneficial in that those losses become more predictable, but says nothing about the value of those losses.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

also, it is just as much about protecting those with insurance than those without. it is odd how you equate more money with being healthier and lower premiums. a poor person can be healthy with low premiums and the inverse can be true as well.

It's odd that you don't understand that having lower premiums is the exact same thing as having more money.

 

[sd'sker]

Sigh. Ok, let's see here.

well with such a compelling argument you must be right. also, i edited the post you responded to. anyway, the idea with insurance is that the bigger the pool, the better for everyone. not to mention the additional competition that obamacare creates.

No, it isn't. It isn't at all. When you increase the size of an insurance pool, that's only good if the additional insureds are going to cost less than the pool average. If they cost more, insurance becomes more expensive for everyone. Bigger pools are only really beneficial in that those losses become more predictable, but says nothing about the value of those losses.

why would a healthy person who cannot afford health insurance purchase an expensive policy? the point was to make it more competitive to drive down prices and create a mandate so everyone is in the pool. you can only afford to get rid of preexisting conditions if you have a big enough pool. also, the law of averages says the bigger the pool the better and with a mandate, the pool is as big as it can get.

it is about healthy people who cannot afford it so they risk it and do not have insurance. then they go bankrupt with even minor medical emergencies or avoid all preventative care. then you have people with a preexisting condition who could never afford healthcare regardless how much money they have.

i would say the underlined part demonstrates a rather poor understanding of health insurance and obamacare.

also, it is just as much about protecting those with insurance than those without. it is odd how you equate more money with being healthier and lower premiums. a poor person can be healthy with low premiums and the inverse can be true as well.

It's odd that you don't understand that having lower premiums is the exact same thing as having more money.

i get that, but you assume that premiums will go up just because the pool is bigger. nothing is being redistributed. if i am wrong, i would surely enjoy seeing the link.

what was really odd about what i found odd that you found odd that i found it odd was that equation with health. health should not be a commodity. a healthy person has no need for insurance (with raising premiums, the risk is sometime worth it) and unhealthy people had no way to acquire insurance. those were the too big issues.

and if it is not true the the bigger the pool the better, does that mean the inverse is true? the smaller the pool the better? or the healthiest the pool, the better? but then who does that help and is that not the whole problem with unregulated insurance?

also, what would have been a 'conservative' solution to the healthcare issue?

finally, do not feel compelled to answer. i think you are perfectly intelligent, but i no longer want to discuss insurance and obamacare like this anymore. i regret my post that started this.

 

[KJ.]

the healthiest the pool, the better

finally, do not feel compelled to answer.

 

[TGHusker]

Ouch - Obama Care $20k per family of 4 or 5 in 2016 per IRS model.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family

 

[carlfense]

Ouch - Obama Care $20k per family of 4 or 5 in 2016 per IRS model.

http://cnsnews.com/n...be-20000-family

Ouch . . . CNSNews ("The Right News. Right Now."). Click the source link and you'll see that these are all hypothetical numbers used to "provide guidance on the liability for the shared responsibility payment . . .". The IRS proposed regulation (not final regulation as claimed in the very first sentence) does NOT assume that the cheapest family plan is $20,000. That's flat out false . . . and they provide the link disproving their own claims.

I guess they know that their readers won't bother checking the facts.