BigRedBuster Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 edit...and they should be able to give us a statistic of how many are actually insured through the system almost as easily as how many are "signed up". Maybe? Many, many, private insurers with different rates, payment schedules, etc. In truth, single payer is simple compared to our current system. I would think that would be a vital part of the system to track that. I'm not saying the "sign up" number shouldn't be tracked. It's obviously something worth watching. As the article I linked points out, very few people stay in an individual plan very long. If 15% of the sign ups don't ever actually buy insurance and then 53% of those who do drop their insurance within a year, then over time, the "sign up" number becomes more and more skewed. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 I would think that would be a vital part of the system to track that. Vital? I don't think so . . . vital for the private companies . . . not really vital for the federal government. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I would think that would be a vital part of the system to track that. Vital? I don't think so . . . vital for the private companies . . . not really vital for the federal government. So, let's say we get 20,000,000 signed up. That's all you care about? Nothing more? What if only maybe 3,000,000 were actually using an insurance policy they found through the exchange? Does that matter? wouldn't that be an important statistic to see if something needs to be improved in the system? If there isn't a mechanism like I said before dropping people out of the statistic of "signed up" over time, color me less impressed with any "sign up" statistic that comes out as time goes on. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 I would think that would be a vital part of the system to track that. Vital? I don't think so . . . vital for the private companies . . . not really vital for the federal government. So, let's say we get 20,000,000 signed up. That's all you care about? Nothing more? What if only maybe 3,000,000 were actually using an insurance policy they found through the exchange? Does that matter? wouldn't that be an important statistic to see if something needs to be improved in the system? If there isn't a mechanism like I said before dropping people out of the statistic of "signed up" over time, color me less impressed with any "sign up" statistic that comes out as time goes on. I care if they are signed up with valid insurance. When/how the insurer bills is up to them. We could sure simplify it if insurance premium payments went straight to the federal government though . . . then we'd have your stat. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Meh.....we have problems in the current system but I'm not convinced that is the utopia that so many people think it is and the stat could be gathered easily without going that far. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Meh.....we have problems in the current system but I'm not convinced that is the utopia that so many people think it is and the stat could be gathered easily without going that far. I don't think that it would be a utopia, either. The best option? Probably, yeah. Perfect? Absolutely not. Link to comment
tschu Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 No option is ever going to be perfect, but single-payer is the best way to go by a large margin Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 7, 2014 Author Share Posted May 7, 2014 I am not asking opponents of the law to abandon their philosophical opposition to national health insurance. I am not even asking them to concede that the law is certain to work generally as intended. They still have many predictions of doom that cannot be falsified for years and years to come. And some parts of the law will continue to go wrong, just as the launch of the website did. But if they truly believe the arguments they have made — that the law not only should not but cannot work — shouldn’t they be expressing, at minimum, some serious doubts? http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/springtime-for-obamacare.html?mid=twitter_dailyintelligencer Boom. Link to comment
tschu Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 No, no no...Shane Osborn and Ben Sasse tell me that this law is evil and MUST BE REPEALED. They don't really explain why, but one is a war hero and the other has a family, so they must be right. Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Hold up - Ben Sasse has a family? brb - running to the polls to vote for Ben Sasse... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Hold up - Ben Sasse has a family? brb - running to the polls to vote for Ben Sasse... I know absolutely nothing about this dude and already am pretty dang sure I'm not voting for him. Heck, for all I know, his family is fake. Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 The only thing I know about him is how he turned around a dying college with the help of Dana closing. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 7, 2014 Author Share Posted May 7, 2014 Hold up - Ben Sasse has a family? brb - running to the polls to vote for Ben Sasse... I know absolutely nothing about this dude and already am pretty dang sure I'm not voting for him. Heck, for all I know, his family is fake. But think of all the fun portmanteaus! That guy? What a sasse-hole. He needs to pull his head out of his sasse. Etc. Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 So how does everyone feel about rickets cause it looks as though he will get the nod? Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 7, 2014 Author Share Posted May 7, 2014 So how does everyone feel about rickets cause it looks as though he will get the nod? Meh. They're all interchangeable. My money (were I a betting man) is on Bruning though. Link to comment
Recommended Posts