|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism.
Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though.
There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition.
|
On October 30 2013 11:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 10:10 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Whatever the mastermind's ideal is, of course. farvacola
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. And so I suppose the administration is right when it demands citizens to pay more than THEY want to pay? Obama didn't say "IF we get single payer/public option but you like your current plan, you can keep it." No, he said about HIS bill that was passed "if you like your healthcare/doctor, you can keep it." That was a lie, and now everyone here is rushing to justify it as ok because "those plans they don't get to keep were crappy anyway." Besides the fact that it's a flat out lie, it also doesn't matter what type of coverage you can get if you can't pay for it. So much for choice. Money or coverage? It's ok, Obama has decided for you. (and there isn't even any evidence that it will do what it was intended to do.) Pffff. Obama has lied about a hell of a lot more than that. I don't really care about justifying that lie. Citizens are already paying a hell of a lot more than they want to pay. By that logic, any action taken by the government is bad. And this is also the bizarre idea of "choice." The "choice" to be without healthcare? Should we get rid of food stamps because otherwise people don't have the choice to starve? This is one of those freedoms that is literally antithesis to freedom. Having healthcare is a massive boon to freedom. With subsidies, people may even be able to not go through their employer. Which means that people can leave their company and finally create that start-up company they always wanted but that healthplan was stopping them. That's freedom. Bankruptcy, debt, and living on the edge is not freedom. Stop pretending like it is.
Ok, let's try this angle: "if you like your current insurance you can keep it" was a fundamental aspect of the law. One of those things that made it so great for everyone. So, more than the fact he lied, is the fact that now millions will be FORCED into a different program in which the benefits do no justify the costs (considering that these people want to KEEP what they have).
I suppose what you said is one way to get the entirely wrong conclusion from what I said. Let's say now someone pays $350. Under this new, great program, they must pay $600 for equal or less benefits (or useless benefits). That is an example of stupid government action that adds to the long list of Obamacare failure. What you WANT it to be is unimportant, what it does should be how we judge programs. In this case, it fails. How's that for a perspective?
Your comparison is ridiculous. Forcing people to buy things they can't afford isn't the same as foodstamps and death, nor is it freedom. If you want to stave, you stop eating. If you want to obey the law, you have give up an even larger % of each paycheck to buy it. Government forcing detrimental action IS the antithesis of freedom. Which is what you constantly advocate. You say "everyone should want/have this and this, therefore we are going to force it on everyone and take from others to get there." Nothing free about that.
This is the fundamental point: You talk about increasing freedom with government action, but that's NOT what the government is actually doing. It's actually doing the opposite!
Maybe we are talking past each other. You are talking about some alternate world where subsidized healthcare is good for people, I'm talking about this Obamacare bill, at this moment in time, in this world. Not some ideal society.
EDIT:
btw, the article I first put up talked about increasing premiums. It's NOT lowering them across the board, at least for the people formerly on private insurance, nor is it fulfilling its promises.
|
On October 30 2013 11:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's exactly my point Johnny boy. Thanks. Overspending is not unique to Healthcare.gov. In fact, the 'debacle' with regard to Healthcare.gov is utterly unremarkable given the existence of such failures like the JSF program
Oh and clearly the comparison was not to examine the resemblance between attack planes and websites -- let's not play dumb. The little issue being touched upon is that they both count as examples of 'terrible government waste'/etc. Yet certain double-thinking individuals only erupt in response to Healthcare.gov, while not giving a single fuck about far more massive facepalms
Well, glad we agree 
I guess I missed it where the big deal over healthcare.gov was the overspending.
On October 30 2013 11:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 11:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:Hundreds of problems continue to plague the troubled Joint Strike Fighter, potentially calling into question the basic performance and reliability of the costliest weapons program in U.S. history, the Defense Department's inspector general charges in a new report.
In a 16-month investigation that began in February 2012, the inspector general's office — an agency within the Pentagon responsible for investigating allegations of waste, fraud, security lapses and other misconduct — identified more than 360 quality "issues" with the F-35 Lightning II — with 147 of them classified as "major."
The report, which was published Monday — hours before the U.S. government shut down because of congressional infighting — blames "ineffective" oversight by the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office and the Defense Contracts Management Agency that failed to catch lapses by chief contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. and numerous subcontractors — issues it said "could adversely affect aircraft performance, reliability, maintainability and ultimately program cost." Source
If you think of the most high-profile federal procurement debacles in recent memory, two things come to mind: the wildly over-budget F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and now HealthCare.gov.
The differences between them, of course, are obvious. The health-care Web site's cost is microscopic compared with the scale of the F-35, which has already cost $87.5 billion and is expected to need another $12.6 billion annually until 2037. You could pay for the entire HealthCare.gov procurement process with the cost of two planes. With the F-35, there is a clear lead contractor in Lockheed Martin; it's hard for the company to avoid blame as have the several contractors involved in building the health-care site. A completely virtual product like a Web site requires different development processes than does a physical product with high capital costs, like an airplane.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference is deadlines: HealthCare.gov had a hard date when it was expected to be fully operational, while the F-35 program has dragged on for a decade longer than planned because the military had other systems it could use (even if it cost more to extend their lifespans).
Source
WASHINGTON — A report from the Pentagon’s internal watchdog strongly criticizes managers and workers at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth plant, which makes the F-35 fighter jet, saying a lackadaisical attitude has led, on average, to more than 200 repairs for each aircraft and has cost taxpayers millions.
The Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General, which assesses the department’s performance from within the massive federal agency, also criticized two internal Defense Department offices responsible for overseeing the F-35 project, saying their oversight has been weak to nonexistent.
“Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, quality-management system and the integrity of the F-35 product are jeopardized by a lack of attention to detail, inadequate process discipline and a ‘we will catch it later’ culture,” the report concluded. “We believe the quality-assurance culture at [the F-35 plant] must improve and that robust technical oversight by the government is required to ensure program performance and mission success.”
Source The government wastes a lot of money on a lot of things: I'm not sure why we've decided to compare a healthcare website with an attack plane. Seems like an odd comparison. I wonder how this compares to the private sector, actually. It's not like they don't have overruns. Maybe we're just really bad at everything. But of course, this isn't an argument against government spending. It's more just an argument for government competence.
The private sector has cost overrun issues too - often with IT projects! There's a strong system of analysis and discipline which helps to mitigate the error and breed trust with funding sources though.
One difficulty with overruns is that you don't know where the incompetency came from. Was it an error in forecasting the cost or an error in managing the project? If you don't know than it's harder to improve next time.
|
On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition.
Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered.
There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that
|
On October 30 2013 12:29 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition. Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered. There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that
Uhm. No, that is not obvious. Sorry. It could come out of corporate profits. Or it could be more efficient, in this case through centralization. Or healthcare companies could rely on fewer lawyers to avoid doing their job. Or it could prevent people getting into debt so hospitals aren't forced to pay it.
There's plenty of ways of premiums getting lowered while mandating more coverage.
"Classic government tactics"? Interestingly enough, Medicaid is far more efficient than private insurance. So... yea.
|
On October 30 2013 12:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 12:29 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition. Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered. There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that Uhm. No, that is not obvious. Sorry. It could come out of corporate profits. Or it could be more efficient, in this case through centralization. Or healthcare companies could rely on fewer lawyers to avoid doing their job. Or it could prevent people getting into debt so hospitals aren't forced to pay it. There's plenty of ways of premiums getting lowered while mandating more coverage. "Classic government tactics"? Interestingly enough, Medicaid is far more efficient than private insurance. So... yea.
Uh, none of those things have happened or changed. Why are you bringing up pointless hypotheticals? In the current case, premiums are higher, and we'd expect them to be higher because we've mandated more coverage.
|
On October 30 2013 12:40 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 12:37 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:29 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition. Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered. There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that Uhm. No, that is not obvious. Sorry. It could come out of corporate profits. Or it could be more efficient, in this case through centralization. Or healthcare companies could rely on fewer lawyers to avoid doing their job. Or it could prevent people getting into debt so hospitals aren't forced to pay it. There's plenty of ways of premiums getting lowered while mandating more coverage. "Classic government tactics"? Interestingly enough, Medicaid is far more efficient than private insurance. So... yea. Uh, none of those things have happened or changed. Why are you bringing up pointless hypotheticals? In the current case, premiums are higher, and we'd expect them to be higher because we've mandated more coverage.
Pointless hypotheticals? Have you checked any of those things? I have no idea.
We also mandated that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% on actual healthcare, for instance. That's not exactly corporatism.
|
On October 30 2013 12:43 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 12:40 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:37 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:29 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition. Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered. There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that Uhm. No, that is not obvious. Sorry. It could come out of corporate profits. Or it could be more efficient, in this case through centralization. Or healthcare companies could rely on fewer lawyers to avoid doing their job. Or it could prevent people getting into debt so hospitals aren't forced to pay it. There's plenty of ways of premiums getting lowered while mandating more coverage. "Classic government tactics"? Interestingly enough, Medicaid is far more efficient than private insurance. So... yea. Uh, none of those things have happened or changed. Why are you bringing up pointless hypotheticals? In the current case, premiums are higher, and we'd expect them to be higher because we've mandated more coverage. Pointless hypotheticals? Have you checked any of those things? I have no idea. We also mandated that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% on actual healthcare, for instance. That's not exactly corporatism.
Oh come on, that's a pointless political stunt for the ignorant populists. Health insurance profits have been around 3-4% on average. Way to stick it to them! lol
|
On October 30 2013 12:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 12:29 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:On October 30 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Is there a good way to figure optimal health insurance coverage? Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition. Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered. There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that Uhm. No, that is not obvious. Sorry. It could come out of corporate profits. Or it could be more efficient, in this case through centralization. Or healthcare companies could rely on fewer lawyers to avoid doing their job. Or it could prevent people getting into debt so hospitals aren't forced to pay it. There's plenty of ways of premiums getting lowered while mandating more coverage. "Classic government tactics"? Interestingly enough, Medicaid is far more efficient than private insurance. So... yea.
iirc you posted a link that showed medicare rates rising slower than private insurance. The numbers were pretty close though. Given the differences between government rules and accounting I don't think you can say for sure one is more efficient than the other.
There's also an issue of medicare. with regards to pricing, playing the role of industry leader - setting the standard price then all the other smaller players follow suit.
|
|
|
On October 30 2013 12:47 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 12:43 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:40 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:37 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:29 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 10:11 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Not for the average Joe. Too much information, too much statistics, too much game theory. On October 30 2013 09:54 farvacola wrote:
The consumer's "right" to choose sub optimal health insurance is part of why the costs in the US are so high. Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear.... Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over. After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition. Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered. There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that Uhm. No, that is not obvious. Sorry. It could come out of corporate profits. Or it could be more efficient, in this case through centralization. Or healthcare companies could rely on fewer lawyers to avoid doing their job. Or it could prevent people getting into debt so hospitals aren't forced to pay it. There's plenty of ways of premiums getting lowered while mandating more coverage. "Classic government tactics"? Interestingly enough, Medicaid is far more efficient than private insurance. So... yea. Uh, none of those things have happened or changed. Why are you bringing up pointless hypotheticals? In the current case, premiums are higher, and we'd expect them to be higher because we've mandated more coverage. Pointless hypotheticals? Have you checked any of those things? I have no idea. We also mandated that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% on actual healthcare, for instance. That's not exactly corporatism. Oh come on, that's a pointless political stunt for the ignorant populists. Health insurance profits have been around 3-4% on average. Way to stick it to them! lol
By 3-4% I assume you mean 7-9%...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/health-insurer-profit-rises-as-obama-s-health-law-supplies-revenue-boost.html
And you do realize that it's not just healthcare and profit, right?
|
On October 30 2013 13:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 12:47 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:43 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:40 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:37 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:29 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 11:57 Thomas Sowell wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Before we jump into that, I just wanna get something clear....
Did Obama lie, or are we chalking this up yet again to ignorance/incompetence? Because now that we know they had this information since at least 2010, this point keeps getting skipped over.
After that is settled, I will ask if a male paying for maternity coverage qualifies as "sub optimal insurance" or not. Well, that's rhetorical, of course it is. We can tell him it's "optimal for the public on average" I suppose, but if he can no longer afford his premium I don't know how much consolation that will be. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. ??? But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition. Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered. There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that Uhm. No, that is not obvious. Sorry. It could come out of corporate profits. Or it could be more efficient, in this case through centralization. Or healthcare companies could rely on fewer lawyers to avoid doing their job. Or it could prevent people getting into debt so hospitals aren't forced to pay it. There's plenty of ways of premiums getting lowered while mandating more coverage. "Classic government tactics"? Interestingly enough, Medicaid is far more efficient than private insurance. So... yea. Uh, none of those things have happened or changed. Why are you bringing up pointless hypotheticals? In the current case, premiums are higher, and we'd expect them to be higher because we've mandated more coverage. Pointless hypotheticals? Have you checked any of those things? I have no idea. We also mandated that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% on actual healthcare, for instance. That's not exactly corporatism. Oh come on, that's a pointless political stunt for the ignorant populists. Health insurance profits have been around 3-4% on average. Way to stick it to them! lol By 3-4% I assume you mean 7-9%... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/health-insurer-profit-rises-as-obama-s-health-law-supplies-revenue-boost.htmlAnd you do realize that it's not just healthcare and profit, right?
Wait, you argued this wasn't corporatism and then you post a story saying their profits rose due to Obamacare? You are honestly all over the place here.
|
On October 30 2013 13:09 Thomas Sowell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 13:06 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:47 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:43 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:40 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:37 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:29 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:13 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
???
But if she can't afford her premium, that's perfectly fine? She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare. Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates. I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition. Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered. There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that Uhm. No, that is not obvious. Sorry. It could come out of corporate profits. Or it could be more efficient, in this case through centralization. Or healthcare companies could rely on fewer lawyers to avoid doing their job. Or it could prevent people getting into debt so hospitals aren't forced to pay it. There's plenty of ways of premiums getting lowered while mandating more coverage. "Classic government tactics"? Interestingly enough, Medicaid is far more efficient than private insurance. So... yea. Uh, none of those things have happened or changed. Why are you bringing up pointless hypotheticals? In the current case, premiums are higher, and we'd expect them to be higher because we've mandated more coverage. Pointless hypotheticals? Have you checked any of those things? I have no idea. We also mandated that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% on actual healthcare, for instance. That's not exactly corporatism. Oh come on, that's a pointless political stunt for the ignorant populists. Health insurance profits have been around 3-4% on average. Way to stick it to them! lol By 3-4% I assume you mean 7-9%... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/health-insurer-profit-rises-as-obama-s-health-law-supplies-revenue-boost.htmlAnd you do realize that it's not just healthcare and profit, right? Wait, you argued this wasn't corporatism and then you post a story saying their profits rose due to Obamacare? You are honestly all over the place here.
Well, I hadn't read that article yet! But when I look stuff up, I find out information. That's generally how information works.
So yea, fine. It's corporatist bullshit (that will be a necessary stepping stone to single payer). Happy?
|
On October 30 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 13:09 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 13:06 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:47 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:43 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:40 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:37 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:29 Thomas Sowell wrote:On October 30 2013 12:23 DoubleReed wrote:On October 30 2013 12:17 Thomas Sowell wrote:
[quote]
She is also paying for mandated coverage that won't apply to her so long as she is birthing age. Her premiums are also rising due to Obamacare.
Look, Obamacare isn't your socialist redistributive dream. It is government forcing people to buy a product from private companies and forcing private companies to charge people higher rates.
I've never seen so many "leftists" running to the defense of blatant corporatism. Obamacare is lowering premiums all across the board. The reports of rising premiums are almost always not factoring in the massive subsidies. The statistics on Obamacare are looking pretty goddamn good. Much better than I expected. The website problems are pretty severe though. There's a lot to like about Obamacare. More than I expected actually. Plus, I think once people get used to healthcare.gov for a couple years, it will be a stepping stone to single payer. People will be like "Why don't we just purchase directly from the government anyway? We're using a government website to handle everything already." and it will be an essentially seamless transition. Classic government tactics, hide the true costs by subsidizing them and then claim credit for lower prices. Just because the tab is being paid indirectly through taxation doesn't mean premiums have been lowered. There is no possible way premiums could be lowered when we are mandating more coverage, that much is obvious. Whether or not costs decrease in the future, well, we will have our own speculations on that Uhm. No, that is not obvious. Sorry. It could come out of corporate profits. Or it could be more efficient, in this case through centralization. Or healthcare companies could rely on fewer lawyers to avoid doing their job. Or it could prevent people getting into debt so hospitals aren't forced to pay it. There's plenty of ways of premiums getting lowered while mandating more coverage. "Classic government tactics"? Interestingly enough, Medicaid is far more efficient than private insurance. So... yea. Uh, none of those things have happened or changed. Why are you bringing up pointless hypotheticals? In the current case, premiums are higher, and we'd expect them to be higher because we've mandated more coverage. Pointless hypotheticals? Have you checked any of those things? I have no idea. We also mandated that insurance companies have to spend at least 80% on actual healthcare, for instance. That's not exactly corporatism. Oh come on, that's a pointless political stunt for the ignorant populists. Health insurance profits have been around 3-4% on average. Way to stick it to them! lol By 3-4% I assume you mean 7-9%... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/health-insurer-profit-rises-as-obama-s-health-law-supplies-revenue-boost.htmlAnd you do realize that it's not just healthcare and profit, right? Wait, you argued this wasn't corporatism and then you post a story saying their profits rose due to Obamacare? You are honestly all over the place here. Well, I hadn't read that article yet! But when I look stuff up, I find out information. That's generally how information works. So yea, fine. It's corporatist bullshit (that will be a necessary stepping stone to single payer). Happy?
I am actually a little happy. Thanks for the birthday present.
|
Yes, those two links really show what exactly is going on here. If only the government had all this info/power to make the right decision! Oh wait a minute, they DID. And they still screwed people over.
And in what situation does the consumer ever know all the details?
On a more general note, I must assume that it is "all for the greater good". Tax the rich, subsidize the poor, etc. All so things can be more equal. Instead of trying the make the system better for everyone, the government asks "hmm, what can I do to subsidize this group, and how much can I take from those who have more."
The government passed a law that can't deliver on most, if not all of what it promised, but, by the good Lord, it gives out subsidizes so it must be a success!
I love how the arguments change."Well, it's not single payer, but it's as close as we can get! And that's good!" To: "This law is fine because it only affects those who don't have insurance!" To: "Well yea, several million people are screwed, but it's all for the greater good!" Then, when it fails in almost every single category (as it is doing) they say "If those Republicans had let us have single payer, would be fine! This law is doing badly because it didn't go far enough!"
They keep lowering the standards. So hard to admit it's just a bad law.
The only argument left in its defense are:
1) It subsides the poor. (At the expense of the millions of middle class citizens who see their rates hiked, as well as businesses)
2) It "shows the need" for single payer.
|
On October 30 2013 13:33 Introvert wrote:Yes, those two links really show what exactly is going on here. If only the government had all this info/power to make the right decision! Oh wait a minute, they DID. And they still screwed people over. And in what situation does the consumer ever know all the details? On a more general note, I must assume that it is "all for the greater good". Tax the rich, subsidize the poor, etc. All so things can be more equal. Instead of trying the make the system better for everyone, the government asks "hmm, what can I do to subsidize this group, and how much can I take from those who have more." The government passed a law that can't deliver on most, if not all of what it promised, but, by the good Lord, it gives out subsidizes so it must be a success! I love how the arguments change."Well, it's not single payer, but it's as close as we can get! And that's good!" To: "This law is fine because it only affects those who don't have insurance!" To: "Well yea, several million people are screwed, but it's all for the greater good!" Then, when it fails in almost every single category (as it is doing) they say "If those Republicans had let us have single payer, would be fine! This law is doing badly because it didn't go far enough!" They keep lowering the standards. So hard to admit it's just a bad law. The only argument left in its defense are: 1) It subsides the poor. (At the expense of the millions of middle class citizens who see their rates hiked, as well as businesses) 2) It "shows the need" for single payer.
Cute, I did not remember defending the current law that is Obamacare Just trying to clarify things here. Now on the other hand I know where you stand on the issue, thanks for that. You don't seem tho know antyhing about that now, would you? Stumpled upon it on twitter and it actually confirmed my suspicions.
|
#3 Insurance companies pharma and hospitals will get richer or they wouldnt have allowed it to happen. It's amusing to me to watch peons left and right argue over policy when all you need to know is USA is club big business and usually u aint in it like George Carlin said.
|
On October 30 2013 13:42 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 13:33 Introvert wrote:Yes, those two links really show what exactly is going on here. If only the government had all this info/power to make the right decision! Oh wait a minute, they DID. And they still screwed people over. And in what situation does the consumer ever know all the details? On a more general note, I must assume that it is "all for the greater good". Tax the rich, subsidize the poor, etc. All so things can be more equal. Instead of trying the make the system better for everyone, the government asks "hmm, what can I do to subsidize this group, and how much can I take from those who have more." The government passed a law that can't deliver on most, if not all of what it promised, but, by the good Lord, it gives out subsidizes so it must be a success! I love how the arguments change."Well, it's not single payer, but it's as close as we can get! And that's good!" To: "This law is fine because it only affects those who don't have insurance!" To: "Well yea, several million people are screwed, but it's all for the greater good!" Then, when it fails in almost every single category (as it is doing) they say "If those Republicans had let us have single payer, would be fine! This law is doing badly because it didn't go far enough!" They keep lowering the standards. So hard to admit it's just a bad law. The only argument left in its defense are: 1) It subsides the poor. (At the expense of the millions of middle class citizens who see their rates hiked, as well as businesses) 2) It "shows the need" for single payer. Cute, I did not remember defending the current law that is Obamacare Just trying to clarify things here. Now on the other hand I know where you stand on the issue, thanks for that. You don't seem tho know antyhing about that now, would you? Stumpled upon it on twitter and it actually confirmed my suspicions.
My reply to what you said was the first part, everything after "a general note..." is just that: more general.
Are you accusing me of being a FOX plant, ahaha.
+ Show Spoiler +I told you MM guys to keep a tight lip on this, m'kay?
EDIT: wait, what about Twitter?
|
On October 30 2013 13:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 13:42 Doublemint wrote:On October 30 2013 13:33 Introvert wrote:Yes, those two links really show what exactly is going on here. If only the government had all this info/power to make the right decision! Oh wait a minute, they DID. And they still screwed people over. And in what situation does the consumer ever know all the details? On a more general note, I must assume that it is "all for the greater good". Tax the rich, subsidize the poor, etc. All so things can be more equal. Instead of trying the make the system better for everyone, the government asks "hmm, what can I do to subsidize this group, and how much can I take from those who have more." The government passed a law that can't deliver on most, if not all of what it promised, but, by the good Lord, it gives out subsidizes so it must be a success! I love how the arguments change."Well, it's not single payer, but it's as close as we can get! And that's good!" To: "This law is fine because it only affects those who don't have insurance!" To: "Well yea, several million people are screwed, but it's all for the greater good!" Then, when it fails in almost every single category (as it is doing) they say "If those Republicans had let us have single payer, would be fine! This law is doing badly because it didn't go far enough!" They keep lowering the standards. So hard to admit it's just a bad law. The only argument left in its defense are: 1) It subsides the poor. (At the expense of the millions of middle class citizens who see their rates hiked, as well as businesses) 2) It "shows the need" for single payer. Cute, I did not remember defending the current law that is Obamacare Just trying to clarify things here. Now on the other hand I know where you stand on the issue, thanks for that. You don't seem tho know antyhing about that now, would you? Stumpled upon it on twitter and it actually confirmed my suspicions. My reply to what you said was the first part, everything after "a general note..." is just that: more general. Are you accusing me of being a FOX plant, ahaha. + Show Spoiler +I told you MM guys to keep a tight lip on this, m'kay? EDIT: wait, what about Twitter?
Look, I implied you are a partisan hack. Your posting suggests that. You make some valid criticism but on the other hand mix in some very unreasonable stuff as well.
The only argument left in its defense are:
1) It subsides the poor. (At the expense of the millions of middle class citizens who see their rates hiked, as well as businesses)
2) It "shows the need" for single payer.
Isn't that how insurance works? Spreading the risk? Solidarity is a terrible concept apparently - way too commie.
Perhaps it opened the door to single-payer, which would be the best practice model. You know, like those commies in EU have.
|
On October 30 2013 14:13 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 13:50 Introvert wrote:On October 30 2013 13:42 Doublemint wrote:On October 30 2013 13:33 Introvert wrote:Yes, those two links really show what exactly is going on here. If only the government had all this info/power to make the right decision! Oh wait a minute, they DID. And they still screwed people over. And in what situation does the consumer ever know all the details? On a more general note, I must assume that it is "all for the greater good". Tax the rich, subsidize the poor, etc. All so things can be more equal. Instead of trying the make the system better for everyone, the government asks "hmm, what can I do to subsidize this group, and how much can I take from those who have more." The government passed a law that can't deliver on most, if not all of what it promised, but, by the good Lord, it gives out subsidizes so it must be a success! I love how the arguments change."Well, it's not single payer, but it's as close as we can get! And that's good!" To: "This law is fine because it only affects those who don't have insurance!" To: "Well yea, several million people are screwed, but it's all for the greater good!" Then, when it fails in almost every single category (as it is doing) they say "If those Republicans had let us have single payer, would be fine! This law is doing badly because it didn't go far enough!" They keep lowering the standards. So hard to admit it's just a bad law. The only argument left in its defense are: 1) It subsides the poor. (At the expense of the millions of middle class citizens who see their rates hiked, as well as businesses) 2) It "shows the need" for single payer. Cute, I did not remember defending the current law that is Obamacare Just trying to clarify things here. Now on the other hand I know where you stand on the issue, thanks for that. You don't seem tho know antyhing about that now, would you? Stumpled upon it on twitter and it actually confirmed my suspicions. My reply to what you said was the first part, everything after "a general note..." is just that: more general. Are you accusing me of being a FOX plant, ahaha. + Show Spoiler +I told you MM guys to keep a tight lip on this, m'kay? EDIT: wait, what about Twitter? Look, I implied you are a partisan hack. Your posting suggests that. You make some valid criticism but on the other hand mix in some very unreasonable stuff as well. Show nested quote +The only argument left in its defense are:
1) It subsides the poor. (At the expense of the millions of middle class citizens who see their rates hiked, as well as businesses)
2) It "shows the need" for single payer. Isn't that how insurance works? Spreading the risk? Solidarity is a terrible concept apparently - way too commie. Perhaps it opened the door to single-payer, which would be the best practice model. You know, like those commies in EU have.
Ah yes, partisan hack beacuse I belive the bill is failure, despite the fact everyone went around bragging about it (until now).
I'm not sure which part you are referring to, 1 or 2?
I'm fine with individuals spreading the risk and deciding how they are going to do so. Not for massive government internvention that was bound to fail (and is failing).
I'll make this clear: I'm opposed to overreaching, ill designed government intervention. How you somehow deduced that I oppose all of health insurance is beyond me.
My point about single payer was that this Obamacare bill is going to fail so bad that the Dems are going to use it as an excuse to go to single payer (a system I oppose on philosophical and practical grounds.) That is of course after they paraded through the streets for Obamacare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/overbudget.PNG)
