The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 55

That is not fair to this couple. Unfortunately credit rules everything today which stinks!
 

 

Robert Reich is power mad.

How to Game Obamacare (And Eventually Collapse It)

 

The thing is, you don't even have to tell people this. What these morons in the White House don't seem to get is that incentives matter. They'll find out soon enough I suppose.

 

If you're lucky.

I finally caught up with what Obamacare is about.

Here are the issues:

1a. It forces people to buy healthcare from private companies. This is a kind of a hack because this is a distortion of single-payer/universal health care. I understand the constitutional issues as well, and it makes sense that people were opposed and the Supreme Court decision. It is a dangerous thing, to force an individual to purchase something from a private entity.

1b. The simplest approach ~would~ have been to simply charge a federal tax to fund all government healthcare. This model works in many other developed countries. "Socialised Medicine" ~ nonsense. Are roads "Socialised Transport"? If anything, there is "Socialised War". Wars fought for the benefit of the very few, but borne in cost by everyone in the US. No democratic country operates as a purely capitalist society. A purely capitalist society would mean no state control whatsoever, no? Representative democracy means you actually need someone to actually ~represent~ you, ie. government.

1c. The US government already spends a massive amount on healthcare, but gets much less than other countries. Again, the issue is utterly overblown privatised healthcare costs. The government spending more on healthcare, or forcing people to buy health insurance does not address the core issue of why the bloody hell all healthcare companies are overpriced, overcharging, and making disgusting amount of profits.

1d. In fact, people are more concerned with government spending because the money is still going to obscene private health companies.

2.
The individual mandate penalty tax ~ where does this money go? Curious. This didn't seem clear.

3.
The regulation of the insurance industry is a good idea, and this is actually where the problem lies. US health insurance has too many clauses, too many loopholes, too much clawbacks and pre-existing exclusions, etc, that even if you pay for it, US health insurance is a lousy, lousy deal. It's like getting a Acer when most other developed countries offer at least a MacBook.

4.
You see, in most developed countries, the government pays for basic services, funded through taxation (general tax or specific tax). A patient may then pay a co-pay with the government, such as Australia. Then there are also private health insurance companies. Private health (generally called hospital + extras) in Australia is mandated to cover a very broad range of people.

The key is both public and private health insurance providers are tightly regulated. This is important because costs are managed. If private health providers are not tightly regulated, then the government itself pays astronomical amounts, like in the US, to private companies. Why would the government want this? You could say "free market is best for healthcare" ~ but for such a basic need, the evidence does not show free market is necessarily a good thing.

Additionally, we know most insurance is bullshit. There's too many "get out of jail free" cards for the insurer. The US private health insurance system has come to the point where it is a oligopoly because you either insure and pray for the best (that you won't be scammed by the insurance company), or you say, f**k it, and hope for the best.

5.
The intention of Obamacare has some good points but as the US government is run for large corporations, this is like putting an SSD in a G3 iBook. No matter how fast the SSD, your G3 iBook won't run Mountain Lion. I believe Obama should be re-elected because he is probably keeping the US from totally falling apart. But the game he is playing is very dangerous.

This is also the main cause of divisiveness in the US, I feel. Both "left" and "right" feel something is not right. Because fundamental issues the "left" and "right" are not being addressed. Forcing everyone to buy private health insurance, where the problem is the decrepit, decadent and revolting health insurance industry itself, is just... not cool.

6.
If nobody has confidence in the federal government to pull off universal health care then it should be ceded to the states.
Edited by sr2012 - 7/12/12 at 3:09am

Bingo. QFT. Free market is all fun and games until there is no more of a free market, instead a government-sponsored oligopoly.

Robert Reich tells the truth and you Republicans do not like it.
 

 

We already have that.  It's called Medicare/Medicaid.  The easiest approach would have been to expand these programs with other common-sense reforms, such as portability, tort-reform, pre-existing conditions (if you are currently insurable or have been recently) and the popular "age 26" provision.  

 

 

 

 

We have the best healthcare in the world.  The problem is how we pay for it.  The issue is not greedy insurance companies, it's that insurance ins't insurance anymore.  With lack of competition for consumers across state lines, lax tort laws (frivolous and excessive lawsuits) and the notion that insurance has to cover EVERYTHING, we see the problem.  Imagine how expensive your car insurance would be if it covered gas, oil changes, car washes and burritos. That's the problem.  Also, the patient has no interest in what his care costs, because it's all third-party.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totally wrong.  Regulation is not the answer.  In fact, regulating that they cover pre-existing conditions (as currently written) destroys the entire concept of what insurance is.  When this language kicks in, one can wait until he's sick to buy insurance.  The carrier can't even charge you much more.  This will be the end of private insurance.  Mark my words.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, the evidence shows quite the opposite.  What makes you thing that tight regulation brings down costs?  It does not.  We already have tight regulation.  What we need is a market-centered approach, where people take personal responsibility.  The government does not owe you healthcare.  The problem is more in the entitlement mindset than anything.  We should provide basic services for those who don't have money, as we already do and can do better.  Moreover, we need to reform what insurance covers as I mentioned above.

 

By the way:  From a certain point of view, the government created many of the problems we have with insurance today.  Prior to the Great Depression, employer health coverage really didn't exist.  But with FDR's wage controls, employers started offering "fringe" benefits to attract workers.  This led to the widespread adoption of employer-paid medical.  As coverage grew, workers were asked to contribute to their premiums.  Because no one cares what their care actually costs, demand goes up, and price goes up.  We're not at the point where many people cannot afford health insurance without having it provided through their jobs.  This needs to change.   The current system is not patient and doctor centered, and will only get worse.  

 

By the way #2:  Another Obamacare lie is "if you like your plan and doctor, you keep them."  False.  Eventually, plans like mine (I'm a teacher, so I do enjoy good benefits) will eventually be taxed as a "Cadillac plan."   In turn, more employers will stop offering approved plans, pushing people into government exchanges.  It's backdoor single-payer.  

 

It's actually much, much worse than that. The decision effectively say that Congress has the absolute and unlimited power to tax for anything...including inactivity.

 

 

 

Whether simpler or not, the better approach would have been for government to get out of the healthcare and health insurance markets completely. You beg the question with regard to whether or not a "representative democracy" is needed or that "no state control whatsoever" is a bad thing.

 

P.S. Yes, the roads are "socialized transport."

 

 

And the problem (as usual) is the government's involvement in this market. Do you have any idea why healthcare costs are so high?

 

 

 

"Obscene private health companies?" I think we're starting to get what your worldview is.

 

 

 

It is interesting the analogy you chose. You have used an analogy from a virtually unregulated industry (personal computers and electronics) to compare to an extremely heavily government-controlled industry. One industry is delivering amazing products with great innovation, quality and ever lower prices. The other sucks. I wonder why.

 

 

 

*sigh* You seem to not see the forest for the trees on this entire issue.

 

 

 

Again, I'm amused with the analogies you've used yet your blindness to the patterns and correlations that are causing the greatness or sucky-ness.

 

 

 

Or the private sector. That's an option also.

But if the private health industry is heavily regulated, then clearly it has been very badly and very wrongly regulated, would you say? That could be the crux of the matter.

The conservative view is always,

If (the private sector is messed up, greedy, successful, not successful, hamstrung, whatever)
{
It is because of too much government regulation
};

But if government sucks, then try to fix it first before throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Surely there must be something good government can do? Many in other developed countries (aka "welfare states") thank their governments (from time to time) for not letting them starve and die on the streets.

Private health can cover pre-existing conditions, and there are ways to prevent abuse. Like waiting periods of 1 or 2 years, loading for pre-existing conditions and so on. But universal health care can reduce the burden on private health to do all the magic.

Entitlement is not the issue. You have a basic human right aka entitlement to basic human needs, provided by the community (in a larger sense the state and federal government). It does not entitle you to sit on your ass all day and do nothing. You have a basic human right to basic human needs that are provided by the government. Of course if you are a drug addict, alcoholic, disabled, lazy, crazy, or whatever then intervention by the community is needed because they want you to get back on your feet so that you can then contribute back to society. I honestly suspect most Americans outside of hardcore right-wing supporters believe this. It's just that there's too much divisiveness on how these things can be done.

Entitlement, yes, but ONLY to get you back on your feet so you can contribute back to society.

Think of it this way. The down-and-outs will never contribute to society if just left to rot, as they are mostly now. The high-achievers could be said to contribute to society, but this appears to be at the expense of the middle class. The middle class is eroding rapidly so they're mostly just worried about covering their own asses at this stage.

So, you have to ask, who is going to get all Americans to contribute to society? Unregulated private sector? That's highly dubious.

A very highly unregulated, or very badly regulated private sector is in my view, just anarchy. It's when you just say, screw it, everyone just do what they want, and let the chips fall where they may. Is this a conscious way of life?

And as for American health care, infant mortality, death due to uninsurance or underinsurance, plus life expectancy is generally more grim than most developed countries. It's certainly one of the best in the world, but in patches. As a whole it's not in good shape compared to most developed countries.

Ask yourself this. A crazy, homeless person who is deranged and has a broken leg. Where can he get treatment for free, not by a charity organisation? 2nd world countries, perhaps. Maybe not inner cities of the US. Am I wrong?

And through it all I have not ever seen a reasonable argument from the conservatives about people that simply will not be insured by the private health industry. What happens to them? Does nobody care anymore?

Cigna's retiring CEO got 73 million dollars.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/january/denial-of-care-profits-73-million-for-cigna%E2%80%99s-retiring-ceo

The nation's five largest for-profit insurers closed 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion, according to a report by the advocacy group Health Care for American Now (HCAN).

12 billion dollars in the worst recession in recent history, and all with seeing many of your fellow man or woman fail to get basic health services.

What are the conservatives' answers to this? Do they welcome this? If health insurers were given a totally unregulated blank slate, would any rational human being expect them to not get more greedy?

The shift in the US is happening because many now see that the golden promise of capitalism has sort of reached a use-by date. Either because that promise was unrealistic, or because the original idea of capitalism has been seriously deformed in practice around the world.

There are some fundamental human reasoning and feelings, no doubt, that say, something is very, very wrong. Can someone earn 1 million dollars per person that they kill from denying them their insurance claim? Is that fundamentally right?

If the "free market" gives this, then is it something you would really want?

Don't get me wrong, I like the US. But with China overtaking in the next 25 years in many aspects (and they already are), what happens when the things you thought were really great actually ends up causing more suffering, and the country starts to lose their podium position. Surely then, many will question, "Well, maybe we got some things wrong".
Edited by sr2012 - 7/13/12 at 10:37am

This I agree. Why didn't they just expand Medicare to cover more people? Certainly the Age 26 provision is great stuff.

Sadly this is where Obama simply colluded with the health industry.

So it is an example of the double whammy I mentioned. Rubbish government decisions combined with very much less-than-benevolent industries.

But remember, even if you totally remove the rubbish government you're still stuck with a pretty nasty industry.

But if government was better, and the industry was better, wouldn't this improve things?

Put it simply:

bad government + bad industry = bad
bad government + good industry = bad
no government + bad industry = bad
no government + good industry = rare
good government + bad industry = well, maybe things can improve
good government + good industry = definitely things can improve

 

It is not a question of "if". It is heavily regulated and, yes, badly so. But this is the nature of regulation. Read up a bit on the concept of regulatory capture for a primer on, at least partly, why.

 

 

 

Well, generally, yeah. Government involvement in the private sector distorts the private sector. It is inherent in the nature of what government is and does.

 

 

 

You assume it is fixable. I disagree. It appears to be that the corruption we see is part and parcel of government action.

 

 

 

Not sure.

 

 

 

OK.

 

 

 

I disagree.

 

 

 

You may be right, but that's irrelevant.

 

 

 

Appearances can be deceptive, as in this case.

 

 

 

That's a straw man.

 

 

 

Thanks for providing the in-depth analysis of the situation. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Yes, you are wrong.

 

 

 

Sorry that the arguments have not convinced you. I don't know what arguments you've heard, nor how reasonably open you are to them.

 

 

 

Why would you assume that would happen?

 

 

 

 

Yes. Crony capitalists benefit the cronies. You've cited examples from a crony-capitalist industry.

 

 

 

Don't know. You'll have to ask a conservative. I'm an anarcho-capitalist or libertarian.

 

 

 

 

Probably not. However, they'd be forced to compete more. So that would be a limiting factor on their greed.

 

 

 

I believe you're profoundly mistaken. What is failing in the US is the quasi-socialist/quasi-fascist arrangement.

 

 

 

No. But I dispute that the free market would. This is merely your distopian vision of the free market.

 

 

 

You ought to ask yourself the very same question about your government-based prescriptions.

Edited by MJ1970 - 7/13/12 at 12:16pm

 

In a voting society? Uh no it's not.

 

It's unsurprising you didn't get my meaning from the context. I should have been more specific: It's irrelevant to whether the proposed ideas are right or workable.

 

Millions of people can believe something to be right or workable and they could be wrong. Their belief (and the number of them believing it) doesn't confer rightness or workability onto something. You seem to be consistently oblivious to this basic logical truism.

 

It's true that in a voting society the majority can believe lots of incorrect things and vote accordingly to implement those things.

 

I notice you don't give your evaluation of what would happen in this circumstance. You only declare it to be rare.

 

 

 

Here you don't assume that "good government" might be rare (or even non-existent).

 

Your biases are showing...which is fine...except that you pass them off as facts.

Or it could be that the majority is right and one small minority is wrong. That's why we have a voting society. Most of the people get what they want and you don't have one small faction controling things. If you do it becomes something other than a democracy.Given the ultra rich's lobbying power that's something that's always in danger here.

 

Yes, it could be that way. My point is that the number of people that believe a certain thing is right or workable does not make it so. Try to follow along. Read more slowly if necessary. This is an important point which seems to elude your understanding.

 

 

 

Actually that's not why we have a voting society. We have a voting society because some people, a long time ago, felt that it was important for people to have a choice in how they are governed and by whom.

 

 

 

Aside from your appeal to the tyranny of the majority (one the major failings of democracy), it turns out that what happened is that a small faction does control things. Oops.

 

 

 

Yeah. It's what we have now. It's called an aristocracy. And it isn't just about the rich, it is about special interested in general using the lever of the state and its power of force to impose on everyone their values and will.

So the solution is dissolve government and just let everyone do whatever they want?

 

Do you believe that, absent the state, everyone would a) have the right to do whatever they wanted, and/or b) be able to get away with doing whatever they wanted?

 

Do you believe that, absent the state, everyone would do whatever they want?

 

Do you believe that the state is the only limit on people's behavior and conduct?

Edited by MJ1970 - 7/20/12 at 1:21pm

Well, I'm asking you ~ so without the State, what is your solution?

 

Solution to what?

I suspect you're purposely being obtuse, chanting "no government", yet do not say what this would achieve.

 

Not at all. You said:

 

 

I'm asking you to tell me what I'm supposed to be a proposing a solution to. Solutions are for problems. You appear to implying that not having a state is the problem itself. But why? What is the problem with not having a state? Once you've clarified that I can discuss solutions.

 

You also have said:

 

 

To which I asked you:

 

 

 

 

Greater freedom, peace and prosperity for everyone.

Edited by MJ1970 - 7/24/12 at 7:07am

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. So, without government, we can have greater freedom, peace and prosperity for everyone.

How so? Now I'm curious. Is this in your other thread?

 

1. I subscribe to the non-aggression principle and believe this principle applies to everyone at all times.
2. The state is an institution that claims the "right" and authority to violate the non-aggression principle. I believe this is wrong. However...
3. If there is legitimate moral justification for an entity to have this power and authority, its use should be substantially limited for strictly moral purposes in which no other options exist. This might primarily be for the purpose of protecting people's basic rights of life, liberty and property. When this entity exceeds this boundary by using its power to infringe on people's rights of liberty, control their lives and take their property; the use of this power is no longer moral, legitimate or justifiable.
4. I believe history has demonstrated that it's impossible to restrain an entity like this from exceeding this boundary.
5. I believe it's possible for individuals (alone or in voluntary groupings) to act as their own agents in defense of their life, liberty and property.

 

These are my basic premises. If you disagree with these, you'll likely disagree with the rest of what I say. Even if you do agree with these, you may still disagree with what I claim next.

 

Given all of this:

 

1. I believe a society lacking an institution that claims (or is given...by some) the"right" and authority to violate the non-aggression principle would be a society in which people have  greater security of person and property, greater freedom and is more inclined toward peaceful and productive activity vs. violent and destructive.
2. In turn this would lead to a society that produces and accumulates greater wealth (and corresponding well-being) and engages in fewer violent conflicts and infringes less on people's liberty, steals less of people's property, etc.

 

I've tried to explain my view as clearly and succinctly as possible. I hope that helps. All of that said, I hope you'll answer some of my previous questions. Furthermore, if you disagree with what I've said here, please tell me why you think some (or all) of my premises (or conclusions) are wrong (and why).

Edited by MJ1970 - 7/24/12 at 8:02am

OK good now I'm understanding you. I will have to look at your points and get back to you when I have time or in future threads/posts.

Medicare Rx Rationing begins.  

 

 

Hmmmm.  We told you so?  

Maybe that will work out pretty well for some people-

"Over the last 10 years, prescription drug abuse – abuse of medications which are legal for distribution – has become a national epidemic. Prescription drugs now surpass motor vehicle accidents as the No 1 cause of accidental death in almost half the states in this country. Last year, nearly 30,000 Americans died from an overdose, with at least half of these deaths related to legally controlled substances that were misused, abused, prescribed incorrectly, or simply just in the wrong person's hands.

Among the startling statistics, the United States now consumes 80% of the world's opioid pain medications and 99% of the world's hydrocodone (semi-synthetic opioid). The milligram per person use of prescription opioids in the United States increased from 74mg to 369mg, an increase of 402%, between 1997 and 2007. Prescription medication abuse is now only second to marijuana in terms of frequency. Prescription pharmaceuticals have become the newest – and seemingly, deadliest – gateway drug we have seen yet; nearly a third of people aged 12 and over who used drugs "recreationally" for the first time in 2009 began by using a prescription drug non-medically."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/10/prescription-drug-abuse

 

Wow.  Only you could try to spin this into a positive.  

The biggest threat to the GOP's idea that Obamacare is a bad thing. Romney! Their own candidate.

 

Unfortunately, for you, right and wrong, good and bad, workable and unworkable, effective or ineffective are not actually determined by political parties and ideologies.

 

What this means is that Obamacare is bad, unworkable, ineffective no matter who supports it or what name is flies under.

 

True.  But we don't even have to get there, because Romneycare ≠  Obamacare.  

The Disaster That Romneycare is Becoming

Waiting for ObamaCare II

Health insurance premiums were rising at a faster rate before Romneycare was introduced. Romneycare has slowed down the pace of rising premiums, as will Obamacare. For most people who actually need care, the benefits are much bigger than before, because they're properly insured, as opposed to the insurance companies not actually providing the coverage. 

 

What the US really needs though is a fully run government healthcare system, completely taking out the main middleman, the insurance companies, like the system the UK has, and the government would spend half of what it does now. That's a massive saving. Separate private insurance could then be offered to those who want it with no government intervention. Hopefully Americans will figure this out before they spend every penny they have on their health.

 

This is pretty typical of you. You fail see to the bigger picture even though it was fairly clearly laid out for you in that article:

 

 

 

All that's happened is that costs have shifted. As they've shifted to government, the costs have risen faster. This is not at all surprising to anyone with an ounce of logic let alone the ability to observe historical precedent.

 

 

 

That would be a disaster. Massachusetts is the experiment and it's failing...badly.

 

The better option would be a fully privatize system where people could buy insurance across state lines and the specific tax advantage of employer-provided health insurance is eliminated. The best option would include the elimination of all government mandates on pricing, coverage, etc. But I suspect nothing anyone could say will convince you of this.

Edited by MJ1970 - 8/22/12 at 10:11am

Why It Is Going to Be Much More Difficult to See a Doctor Beginning in 2014

18 pages to define 'full-time' for Obamacare

 

This will be a fun ride.

 

Obamacare: All the efficiency of the DMV with the compassion of the IRS.

Have you guys covered the fact the majority of our health care dollars go to treating the chronic conditions of diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension? Why can't doctors prescribe weight loss, but they can prescribe a lifetime of medication?

 

--and--

 

What the hell does happen when everyone gets the "oh f--- it, insurance will pay for it" attitude?

Wait, dmz. Are you actually saying people should take responsibility for their own health?