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?

how is that relatable? does lasik have to do twice as much as it used to like insurance does now? there used to be exclusions to what was covered and lifetime limits on your coverage for insurance that obama put an end to.

It's a low regulated medical procedure. That's how it's relatable. It's recent and glaring proof of the free market system at work. Competition in the marketplace drives prices down. For some reason that gets lost...

what you want is health care with no insurance to mess up the free market?

Does your car insurance mess up the free market of the auto repair industry?

[funhusker]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

how is that relatable? does lasik have to do twice as much as it used to like insurance does now? there used to be exclusions to what was covered and lifetime limits on your coverage for insurance that obama put an end to.

It's a low regulated medical procedure. That's how it's relatable. It's recent and glaring proof of the free market system at work. Competition in the marketplace drives prices down. For some reason that gets lost...

what you want is health care with no insurance to mess up the free market?

Does your car insurance mess up the free market of the auto repair industry?

 

In the fact that they require a person to go to a certified body shop with their approval, instead of some random joe, and the auto-insurance decides how much they will pay for repairs or if they will repair the car at all, yes they do.

 

Have you every been involved in an accident? Their is nothing involved in the process that makes a person feel like they are in control. You are at the mercy of the auto-insurance companies. Both your's and the other person's involved in the wreck.

[commando]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

how is that relatable? does lasik have to do twice as much as it used to like insurance does now? there used to be exclusions to what was covered and lifetime limits on your coverage for insurance that obama put an end to.

It's a low regulated medical procedure. That's how it's relatable. It's recent and glaring proof of the free market system at work. Competition in the marketplace drives prices down. For some reason that gets lost...

what you want is health care with no insurance to mess up the free market?

Does your car insurance mess up the free market of the auto repair industry?

 

obviously it does according to your logic

[RedDenver]

 

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.

[commando]

 

 

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.

 

I can't stress enough how good that post is.

[BigRedBuster]

Come on....people have DIED because they didn't get eye surgery.

[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?

how is that relatable? does lasik have to do twice as much as it used to like insurance does now? there used to be exclusions to what was covered and lifetime limits on your coverage for insurance that obama put an end to.

It's a low regulated medical procedure. That's how it's relatable. It's recent and glaring proof of the free market system at work. Competition in the marketplace drives prices down. For some reason that gets lost...

what you want is health care with no insurance to mess up the free market?

Does your car insurance mess up the free market of the auto repair industry?

In the fact that they require a person to go to a certified body shop with their approval, instead of some random joe, and the auto-insurance decides how much they will pay for repairs or if they will repair the car at all, yes they do.

 

Have you every been involved in an accident? Their is nothing involved in the process that makes a person feel like they are in control. You are at the mercy of the auto-insurance companies. Both your's and the other person's involved in the wreck.

I'd advise you to explore the free market for a better insurer. I've had nothing but good experiences with insurance claims. Granted, I've never totaled a vehicle and had to go through that, but I've had one occasion where we were awarded more money to make the repair than it actually cost.

[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.

[funhusker]

 

.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

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.

[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.

[commando]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

[BigRedBuster]

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?

[NM11046]

And Id challenge you to read up on all the medical charities and drug companies who are facing prosecution for providing the exact benefits you speak of.

 

From an ethics standpoint the government views any assistance like this as potentially swaying a prescriber/patient to choose a certain drug/hospital/charity etc.

 

They are great tools ro use - but they can not possibly cover the gaps that would be created with a disolution of insurance.

 

And let me ask, if those with money or good incomes are in your mind not responsible for contributing toward the healthcare of those less fortunate via insurance markets how far do you think we'd get depending on those people to actually donate funds to these sort of charities to help those in need?

[BigRedBuster]

So....if you don't take other people's insurance away, I'm going to take yours away.

 

That's an interesting motivation.

 

Let's see if that works.