New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

[wegs]

wegs



Because big pharma and the insurance companies have bought the Republican politicians outright and have made substantial down payments on some of the Democrats as well. What do you think the Shutdown was all about? Our government has been corrupted by cash, thanks Supreme Court.

Grumpy

So, might there still be many Americans left without insurance, when it's all said and done?

 

[wegs]

Because many younger people avoid getting insurance. The only way it can work is if everyone is involved. Hence the fines for not having insurance.

The government could have worked out an arrangement with the individual carriers, etc...in much the same way, though. Taking greed out of the insurance equation for a minute (but sadly, that's what is driving this bus), I think a feasible compromise could have been arrived at, had the government worked it out directly with the insurance carriers. People are having their policies canceled, and to reinstate them, they will be paying higher premiums than before. So, Obamacare solves a problem at the front end, but now you have a gaping hole at the back end. Understandably, this needs time to work itself out, but at whose expense?

If this plan covers people who were originally uninsured, and displaces those who were once insured...what did it really accomplish?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

At the moment it is a big sprawling mess, mainly due to financing it without extra taxation.
That would have been a hell of a lot easier, but is communism or something.

Big software packages never work right.
Give it 6 months, and it will be OK.

Fox News is loving the problems.
They are reporting on it constantly.

 

[spidergoat]

The government could have worked out an arrangement with the individual carriers, etc...in much the same way, though. Taking greed out of the insurance equation for a minute (but sadly, that's what is driving this bus), I think a feasible compromise could have been arrived at, had the government worked it out directly with the insurance carriers. People are having their policies canceled, and to reinstate them, they will be paying higher premiums than before. So, Obamacare solves a problem at the front end, but now you have a gaping hole at the back end. Understandably, this needs time to work itself out, but at whose expense?

If this plan covers people who were originally uninsured, and displaces those who were once insured...what did it really accomplish?

That's actually not the case. Those people who thought they were insured actually had junk plans that were informally subsidized by everyone else. Furthermore, individual plans are regularly canceled every single year and they raise their rates. The ACA was the reasonable compromise.

 

[wegs]

That's actually not the case. Those people who thought they were insured actually had junk plans that were informally subsidized by everyone else.

Ah, ok. Now, that makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Tiassa]

It Has Wheels. It Goes.

If this plan covers people who were originally uninsured, and displaces those who were once insured...what did it really accomplish?

It's not quite that grim.

Think of it this way: Do you own a bicycle?

Actually, the answer to that doesn't matter; the example works well enough:

• Imagine, please, if you would ... the government has just passed a new set of laws including quality standards on cars. An opponent of the law appeals to you that the government is going to make you get rid of your car. Oh, my goodness, is the sky falling? Well, okay, so, what it turns out that means is that if you "own a car", you actually have to "own a car". That is, there is no good reason, liberty or otherwise, to make you pedal your two-wheeled velocipede down to the department of motor vehicles, make you pay the excise tax or licensing fee for the "car" you rode to the office. Indeed, the businesses the government is cruelly closing are good car dealers like the one where you spent several thousand dollars to buy your used Schwinn.​

Wait, what? What the hell am I talking about? Am I talking about a car or a bicycle?

Well, that's the point. Part of the question, metaphorically, is whether some insurance plans are really insurance plans. One of the Molina plans rejected in the state of Washington for the insurance exchange failed because its provider network was insufficient. Sure, you have insurance to cover that referral to a cardiologist, but your insurance company is going to make you travel two hundred miles to see that doctor, since they don't have any in their provider network any closer to you. In other words, it's not really an insurance plan of any useful effect. I got a letter from my insurance provider back in September; my plan is compliant, and while it will technically remain in effect for the next policy cycle, it will, in fact change, and as near as I can tell from the detail, it is as the political reality would suggest—my plan is about to get better, and it's about to get less expensive.

The problem with people still not having insurance is that's how the individual mandate is designed. While it is true that unemployment is running a bit high right now, we can think of it in context in order to see that point. There is no time when American political conservatives won't rip on public benefits as provender for the lazy. But the truth is that our economy is executed in such a manner that unemployment can get too low. We actually need willing workers unemployed; as the saying goes, it's a feature, not a bug.

Many get distracted in the political discourse by complaints that Democrats aren't compromising. In order to pass the individual mandate, the Republican-devised plan designed as an alternative to universal health coverage, Democrats gave up any pretense of universal health coverage.

Remember, the whole point of this plan from the time it was devised was to forestall single-payer and use force of law to herd people into the private sector insurance rolls. That's never changed. How do you think Obama managed what concessions he did from hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry? He traded away single-payer. Meanwhile, it is true that about three percent of people already insured will see their current plan canceled and their basic premium rise. These are the ones who aren't going to be allowed to keep paying their motor vehicle excise tax for their Schwinn brand "car".

 

[wegs]

It's not quite that grim.

Think of it this way: Do you own a bicycle?

Actually, the answer to that doesn't matter; the example works well enough:

• Imagine, please, if you would ... the government has just passed a new set of laws including quality standards on cars. An opponent of the law appeals to you that the government is going to make you get rid of your car. Oh, my goodness, is the sky falling? Well, okay, so, what it turns out that means is that if you "own a car", you actually have to "own a car". That is, there is no good reason, liberty or otherwise, to make you pedal your two-wheeled velocipede down to the department of motor vehicles, make you pay the excise tax or licensing fee for the "car" you rode to the office. Indeed, the businesses the government is cruelly closing are good car dealers like the one where you spent several thousand dollars to buy your used Schwinn.​

Wait, what? What the hell am I talking about? Am I talking about a car or a bicycle?

Well, that's the point. Part of the question, metaphorically, is whether some insurance plans are really insurance plans. One of the Molina plans rejected in the state of Washington for the insurance exchange failed because its provider network was insufficient. Sure, you have insurance to cover that referral to a cardiologist, but your insurance company is going to make you travel two hundred miles to see that doctor, since they don't have any in their provider network any closer to you. In other words, it's not really an insurance plan of any useful effect. I got a letter from my insurance provider back in September; my plan is compliant, and while it will technically remain in effect for the next policy cycle, it will, in fact change, and as near as I can tell from the detail, it is as the political reality would suggest—my plan is about to get better, and it's about to get less expensive.

The problem with people still not having insurance is that's how the individual mandate is designed. While it is true that unemployment is running a bit high right now, we can think of it in context in order to see that point. There is no time when American political conservatives won't rip on public benefits as provender for the lazy. But the truth is that our economy is executed in such a manner that unemployment can get too low. We actually need willing workers unemployed; as the saying goes, it's a feature, not a bug.

Many get distracted in the political discourse by complaints that Democrats aren't compromising. In order to pass the individual mandate, the Republican-devised plan designed as an alternative to universal health coverage, Democrats gave up any pretense of universal health coverage.

Remember, the whole point of this plan from the time it was devised was to forestall single-payer and use force of law to herd people into the private sector insurance rolls. That's never changed. How do you think Obama managed what concessions he did from hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry? He traded away single-payer. Meanwhile, it is true that about three percent of people already insured will see their current plan canceled and their basic premium rise. These are the ones who aren't going to be allowed to keep paying their motor vehicle excise tax for their Schwinn brand "car".

This is nothing short of... delightful. Thank you; it really helps to sort through some of the confusing issues I've noted, in watching/reading the various news stories on the subject. I'd like to explore a wee bit more, as to your point ''we actually need willing workers unemployed,'' (that comment made me cringe, slightly ) but, perhaps another time--another thread.

Thanks for the clarification, Tiassa.

 

[brucep]

That's actually not the case. Those people who thought they were insured actually had junk plans that were informally subsidized by everyone else. Furthermore, individual plans are regularly canceled every single year and they raise their rates. The ACA was the reasonable compromise.

Those folks will be so happy to find out 'they' got rid of garbage and replaced it with good stuff. Standards. Setting and improving standards for the American peoples health care. Into the future for everybody. This is something I can be patriotic about. Been a long time since I felt like that. What am I saying? I never felt like that since we landed on the moon.

 

[Ghostwriter]

You need to get out more.

Ghostwriter



There is no lessons learned by the second kick of a mule. We are replacing very very expensive Emergency Room primary care with insurance for all, it will save BILLIONS over the next decade. What part of that arte you incapable of getting? The only people who lost their insurance lost it because the Insurance companies dropped all their substandard, non-ACA compliant, huge deductible policies. Those policies were a complete ripoff and every one who had them can get much better policies at a lower price thanks to the ACA. All those dweebs on Fox boo-hooing about losing their policies were shown to be lying, the ACA didn't cancel those policies, it grandfathered every one of them in(thus the President did not lie). It was the Insurance companies that canceled those substandard policies. If your insurance has 10s of thousands as deductible, no hospitalization coverage, can be canceled if you actually get sick, doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, has yearly or lifetime caps, etc. it can no longer be sold as new insurance but you can keep it if your insurance company sells it. You would be a fool to do so, or cry about losing it and getting a better policy at a lower price, but people STILL vote Republican, so...

Grumpy

 

[Michael]

American Health Care Killed My Father

Here's a timely discussion on Reason TV, that I think may answer some of your questions:

[video=youtube;GvSa9nC4JcQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvSa9nC4JcQ[/video]


I'd also note, in a free-market with sound money, law and private property, younger adults would buy cheap health insurance for that once-off catastrophic event (like being hit by a car on your bike) and would pay for routine health expenses out of pocket (because this would be much cheaper). Boys and girls would pay for different types of insurance. Boys are generally more likely to do something stupid, and girls often require more maintenance care. Actuarial scientists/mathematicians would work out the fairest price through free-market mechanisms. That's the way the market works. This would ensure everyone was afforded cheap high quality healthcare.

Of course, if we truly lived in a free society, we'd be on an average salary of $350,000 per year and have an extra $40 Trillion in GDP. Instead of worrying about this, we'd probably be discussing investment plans on Mars. Oh well, instead of Mars colonies, we get overly expensive OblamaCare that's going to run most Americans roughly 30% of their income through hidden costs.

 

[Tiassa]

Honestly? Ask a capitalist, who could tell you much better than I can explain it.

I'd like to explore a wee bit more, as to your point "we actually need willing workers unemployed," (that comment made me cringe, slightly ... ) but, perhaps another time--another thread.

True, it requires its own thread, but full employment is considered anywhere between 2-4% unemployment; below that, and economists fear—rightly or wrongly—inflation; some formulae put full employment at up to 13% unemployment, but such definitions are, as you might imagine—or, perhaps, see outright—unstable and dependent on context assigned to extraordinary conditions.

Ask any capitalist what happens if you achieve zero unemployment. By any measure, it's a bad sign.

 

[pjdude1219]

Of course, if we truly lived in a free society, we'd be on an average salary of $350,000 per year and have an extra $40 Trillion in GDP. Instead of worrying about this, we'd probably be discussing investment plans on Mars. Oh well, instead of Mars colonies, we get overly expensive OblamaCare that's going to run most Americans roughly 30% of their income through hidden costs.

more of the same Micheal standard lies and ultracrepidarianism. there is no way average( median ) income would ever reach 350k in your "free" market utopia. thats even discounting none of the money would ever reach the common man. it be the gilded age all over but with an even bigger gap. that you even think this is possible shows a gross lack of knowledge of economics. and really you think letting the crooks have an even free reign to fuck people is going to quadruple the GDP? and the affordable care act aka romneycare is not overly expensive. though compared to a universal single payer system it is but than again nothing compares well to that. and there is no way any private for profit entity would go for a mission to mars. its costs to much with nothing to market to offset the costs. Really why do you continue to insist on making yourself look like a fool

 

[wegs]

True, it requires its own thread, but full employment is considered anywhere between 2-4% unemployment; below that, and economists fear—rightly or wrongly—inflation; some formulae put full employment at up to 13% unemployment, but such definitions are, as you might imagine—or, perhaps, see outright—unstable and dependent on context assigned to extraordinary conditions.

Ask any capitalist what happens if you achieve zero unemployment. By any measure, it's a bad sign.

While socialism is sensible, as we know it can't "survive" in any country independent of some form of capitalism. That said, do you think there is a way to have a free market economy, sans capitalism? (The basic idea of capitalism I like, it is investor greed and over-competition that has tainted capitalism as it was intended.)

(My apologies in advance, I haven't read through this entire thread so not sure if this has been discussed.)

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The problem with modern capitalism is the ability to make money through leveraging and other financial instruments
which make money for people without creating anything of value.
The older form of capitalism entailed risk and created jobs and wealth.
This was the capitalism that built roads and railways, factories and houses.
Thank God for the Victorians. An age of engineering giants.
This new form is a worm in the apple, eating out its insides,
leaving the appearance of a healthy apple, until you bite into it and realise that the inside is worthless and rotten.
The new schemes make so much money that the corporations who run them can buy whole countries and governments.

 

[quinnsong]

True, it requires its own thread, but full employment is considered anywhere between 2-4% unemployment; below that, and economists fear—rightly or wrongly—inflation; some formulae put full employment at up to 13% unemployment, but such definitions are, as you might imagine—or, perhaps, see outright—unstable and dependent on context assigned to extraordinary conditions.

Ask any capitalist what happens if you achieve zero unemployment. By any measure, it's a bad sign.

I remember my economics teacher saying 5% unemployment was too low. Why is this even acceptable? Why scapegoat that percentage of the population when ideally you need a portion of the population unemployed? For me it is a flawed economic formula and I find it hard to believe we cannot do better.

 

[wegs]

The problem with modern capitalism is the ability to make money through leveraging and other financial instruments
which make money for people without creating anything of value.
The older form of capitalism entailed risk and created jobs and wealth.

Excellent point...I agree. The 'rich' keep getting richer, in essence. There are not enough 'fair' opportunities to go around, it seems, which in its purest sense, is what capitalism was intended to do...provide fair opportunities in the private sector so everyone could experience the fruits of their labor.

This was the capitalism that built roads and railways, factories and houses.
Thank God for the Victorians. An age of engineering giants.
This new form is a worm in the apple, eating out its insides,
leaving the appearance of a healthy apple, until you bite into it and realise that the inside is worthless and rotten.
The new schemes make so much money that the corporations who run them can buy whole countries and governments.

I like how you put this!

I remember my economics teacher saying 5% unemployment was too low. Why is this even acceptable? Why scapegoat that percentage of the population when ideally you need a portion of the population unemployed? For me it is a flawed economic formula and I find it hard to believe we cannot do better.

Agree.

Of course, if we truly lived in a free society, we'd be on an average salary of $350,000 per year and have an extra $40 Trillion in GDP. Instead of worrying about this, we'd probably be discussing investment plans on Mars. Oh well, instead of Mars colonies, we get overly expensive OblamaCare that's going to run most Americans roughly 30% of their income through hidden costs.

haha, Some extreme view points in this thread, I see. I agree with your thoughts about a free market, but there needs to be a way to create such a market whereby captialism isn't at its core. Do you agree? (Posed another way, is there an economic approach where we can take the positive points of socialism and capitalism, and create a new ''model'' for the U.S.?)

An informative read, if anyone is interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

 

[joepistole]

True, it requires its own thread, but full employment is considered anywhere between 2-4% unemployment; below that, and economists fear—rightly or wrongly—inflation; some formulae put full employment at up to 13% unemployment, but such definitions are, as you might imagine—or, perhaps, see outright—unstable and dependent on context assigned to extraordinary conditions.

Ask any capitalist what happens if you achieve zero unemployment. By any measure, it's a bad sign.

Well the estimated full employment rate varies by country. For the US the estimated full unemployment rate is currently generally considered to be 5.5%. But it’s a soft number.

“For the United States, economist William T. Dickens found that full-employment unemployment rate varied a lot over time but equaled about 5.5 percent of the civilian labor force during the 2000s.[2] Recently, economists have emphasized the idea that full employment represents a "range" of possible unemployment rates.” Wikipedia

A growing economy requires more workers. Employers need unemployed people seeking employment; else labor shortages could restrain economic growth - just as any other resource shortage could restrain economic growth. Remember new people coming into the labor pool usually begin as unemployed. A growing economy needs some level of unemployment so employers can fill their need for labor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment

Zero unemployment would be analogous to all oil producers freezing oil production levels during a period of economic growth.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Splinter Note

Mod Hat — Splinter Note ("Full Employment")

I have copied eight posts to a splinter thread in B&E where we might discuss notions of "Full Employment".

It is a fascinating question, deserving of its own discussion, and exceeds my personal ability to answer in any color ink. Thus, this notice and invitation.

Thank you.

We now return you to the regularly-scheduled discussion.

 

[wegs]

Mod Hat — Splinter Note ("Full Employment")

I have copied eight posts to a splinter thread in B&E where we might discuss notions of "Full Employment".

It is a fascinating question, deserving of its own discussion, and exceeds my personal ability to answer in any color ink. Thus, this notice and invitation.

Thank you.

We now return you to the regularly-scheduled discussion.

cool, thanks!

 

[Michael]

more of the same Micheal standard lies and ultracrepidarianism. there is no way average( median ) income would ever reach 350k in your "free" market utopia. t

Firstly, even under the weight of uncountable volumes of ridiculous and perverse unnecessary regulations and a State that, when it's not wasting money like a drunken sailor at port on idiotic lost Wars, is lavishing what's left on benefits and pay for itself - still, with this massive State boot on the collective carotid, the average wage in the private sector for the USSA is $50K. Unless you work for the State. Yes, you see, the Tax Cattle, not only has to make enough money through voluntary trade to keep the doors open - we also generously pay our public masters 8% MORE than we get. Isn't that nice of us. Oh, and we're just such good little Citizens we pay the State, not voluntarily (like we do our business) but by having a gun pointed to our collective heads - which we pay for that too.

Of course, in Singapore where they *gasp* have NO minimum wage the average salary is $61,000. That's interesting. Remove even a bit of regulation/State pressure on the neck and *gasp* people are free to interact with one another and through those voluntary free-trades *GAAASP* gain prosperity.

So, yes, if we didn't have all the EXTRA regulations and had just stuck to those regulations of 1949, we'd be complaining about some other bullshit - like Mars colonies and why we only get to vacation there 3 years and not 5. Luckily, we get to bail out criminal Bankers and they give us ObamaCare as a consultation prize. Isn't life swell.

Ultracrepidarianism, I like the word. But it's a logical fallacy to think 'expertise' has anything to do with truth. All the 'experts' at the Federal Reserve were 'sure' the economy was doing fan-f*cking-tastic, until it wasn't. All the 'experts' in the Pentagon were 'sure' they were going to wrap up the Wars in short-order, there'd be celebrations in the the street. "Experts" thought the Earth was flat, and still other "Experts" thought the sun revolved around the earth. The whole point in thinking logically, if one is so inclined, is NOT to rely on 'experts' but instead on logic. In many ways, experts are trapped in their own way of thinking. Which is why, in the brain science, neurogenesis was discovered in the late 1960s and promptly ignored by ALL the expert neuroscientists because the dogma was the brain can not grow new neurons. Reliance on 'expertise' is one of the reasons why societies suck. The idea that the 'betters' know best and will take care of the thinking for you, is exactly NOT what you want to do.