Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

2017

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: 2017
Post by PeterZ   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:10 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/

Here is where stats can be used to obfuscate.

The charts shows that premiums have gone up if one disregards the tax credit. That means for all Obamacare enrollees who do not qualify for assistance, their costs have gone up. Including subsidies, costs remained lower than the historic rate of healthcare premium increases. Enough people saw their costs go up that they wanted to change things. This argues costs went up for enough people to make mine and Imaginos1892's point.
Top
Re: 2017
Post by Imaginos1892   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:11 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

gcomeau wrote:It was brain meltingly obvious he was not saying individual insurers could never discontinue or modify THEIR OWN health insurance plans. Which some of them did. Which idiots then started blaming on the ACA even though it had nothing to do with it.

Oh, no, nothing except excluding over half of the existing health-care plans as 'noncompliant' leading the insurance companies to 'voluntarily' discontinue or modify them. Nothing at all to do with 0bamacare, really it wasn't.
Top
Re: 2017
Post by gcomeau   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:13 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:
gcomeau wrote:More appeal to emotion.

No data. No evidence.

Your entire worldview is based on nothing but your feelings isn't it? And you appear to be proud of the fact that many others share your total lack of regard for reality. Yay!


Again you disregard what I posted.


No I directly addressed what you posted. Which was one big "well these people agree with me and vote like I do so there" statement that contained not even a hint that you cared if your view was *factual*. Only that is was *shared* and that those people who shared it acted on that view at the voting booth.

You made it very clear where your concerns lay. And it's not with the truth.
Top
Re: 2017
Post by gcomeau   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:15 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

Imaginos1892 wrote:
gcomeau wrote:It was brain meltingly obvious he was not saying individual insurers could never discontinue or modify THEIR OWN health insurance plans. Which some of them did. Which idiots then started blaming on the ACA even though it had nothing to do with it.

Oh, no, nothing except excluding over half of the existing health-care plans as 'noncompliant' leading the insurance companies to 'voluntarily' discontinue or modify them. Nothing at all to do with 0bamacare, really it wasn't.


They were grandfathered. Meaning the ACA did not require them to be dropped.

https://www.medmutual.com/Healthcare-Re ... tatus.aspx

If the insurance companies chose to drop them they did so ON THEIR OWN. So you can drop those scare quotes around "voluntarily" in your statement.
Top
Re: 2017
Post by PeterZ   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:27 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

gcomeau wrote:
No I directly addressed what you posted. Which was one big "well these people agree with me and vote like I do so there" statement that contained not even a hint that you cared if your view was *factual*. Only that is was *shared* and that those people who shared it acted on that view at the voting booth.

You made it very clear where your concerns lay. And it's not with the truth.


I forgot the truth was what you believe to be true based on the data you think is best to evaluate the question being discussed. Experience is irrelevent.

I am glad you are sticking to your guns here. Please keep it up.
Top
Re: 2017
Post by gcomeau   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:39 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:
gcomeau wrote:
No I directly addressed what you posted. Which was one big "well these people agree with me and vote like I do so there" statement that contained not even a hint that you cared if your view was *factual*. Only that is was *shared* and that those people who shared it acted on that view at the voting booth.

You made it very clear where your concerns lay. And it's not with the truth.


I forgot the truth was what you believe to be true based on the data you think is best to evaluate the question being discussed. Experience is irrelevent.


Deflection from the fact that you have presented no data. So this "oh you think only your data matters" complaint is BS.
Top
Re: 2017
Post by Eyal   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:14 pm

Eyal
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Israel

PeterZ wrote:
Eyal wrote:In insurance, you get paid in advance and provide a service (payout, usually) at a late time. In order to maximize profit, the incentive is to provide the minimal and cheapest service and deny all claims you can get away with. The company actually has a motive not to provide you with service, so long as they can cover themselves sufficiently. Also, "spreading the cost over a larger number of people" is how insurance works; people who don't have incidents (of whatever kind the insurance covers) subsidize those who do.

Agreed. Our system was moved into this pattern by policy makers. Now policy makers want even more control over health care. Now, those policy makers decide who gets service rather than private maintenance plan providers. Hell no! Better to have government acting to compel private providers to provide adequate service. Once government controls everything, who can compel government? Voters? Look at our VA system. That works swell....not!


1) I don't see how what you said refers to my argument. The situation I describe follows logically from free-market principles.
You've argued that private business gives the most efficient health care. But even assuming that's true, efficiency isn't necessarily the most important consideration. After all, the best efficiency would be to take as many premiums as you can while minimizing payouts. That's the free market principle, and while it's quite efficient, it's not [i[effective[/i] if your purpose is to provide health care to the populace. Even if a government programs in't as efficient, it has less built-in incentives to screw people over.
2) People paying directly for health care is feasible for routine visits to the doctor. Once your problems require hospitalization, however, few private people could afford to pay it. Even childbirth can be expensive, must less things like courses of treatment for cancer. Tehre's a reason insurance came into being in the first place, after all.
3) If corruption was proportionate to the size of the revenue stream, third-world coutnries would see little corruption. Human minds don't process large numbers that precisely; I doubt someone whose tempted to steal 10 million dollars would turn down the opportunity to steal 1 million dollars.
Also, bureaucrats aren't the ones you have to worry about here. There are a lot of laws and measures to prevent them from embezzlment and such. The issue is the people who make the laws. And to prevent them from corruption, you need a bunch of steps, some of which I suspect you'd object to (actually, you have objected to some of them on this board), such as aggressive campaign finance reform, strengthening of conflict of interest laws and practises, etc. The biggest issue, however, is that these are elected officials. If you think they're corrupt, vote them out - but there seems to be little interest in that.


The E wrote:Of course, such an insurance can't be run on a profit-oriented basis, which means that turning it into a state-run or state-owned institution makes a lot of sense (since states don't care about profitability, by design).


Non-profit private companies exist, and do provide healthcare in some UHC models.

PeterZ wrote:
gcomeau wrote:
More appeal to emotion.

No data. No evidence.

Your entire worldview is based on nothing but your feelings isn't it? And you appear to be proud of the fact that many others share your total lack of regard for reality. Yay!


Again you disregard what I posted. You insert what you think I said and then act as if i said it. Not helpful in understanding anyone. I pray yuou and your ideological compatriots continue this strategy in future elections.

What I said was that the aggregate experience of those folks adversely impacted by Obamacare resulted in their voting out the Dems. There was an upsurge of voters that did not vote regularly beginning in the elections after Obamacare was passed. TEA party was one element of this. Each of these folks had their own experiences to motivate them. In aggregate, they represented a large enough number to swing elections. They aren't being led by a svegali type into believing BS. They each are voting their experience.

So, please continue to disregard these voters and denegrate their experience as emotionally driven rubbish. Please continue to apease your and the left's need to feel superior. Feed your elitist ego. I pray that you continue.


And yet when it looked like the GOP was going to bring down the ACA last year, there were massive objections including in red states.
Top
Re: 2017
Post by PeterZ   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:18 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Eyal wrote:In insurance, you get paid in advance and provide a service (payout, usually) at a late time. In order to maximize profit, the incentive is to provide the minimal and cheapest service and deny all claims you can get away with. The company actually has a motive not to provide you with service, so long as they can cover themselves sufficiently. Also, "spreading the cost over a larger number of people" is how insurance works; people who don't have incidents (of whatever kind the insurance covers) subsidize those who do.

PeterZ wrote:Agreed. Our system was moved into this pattern by policy makers. Now policy makers want even more control over health care. Now, those policy makers decide who gets service rather than private maintenance plan providers. Hell no! Better to have government acting to compel private providers to provide adequate service. Once government controls everything, who can compel government? Voters? Look at our VA system. That works swell....not!
Eyal wrote:
1) I don't see how what you said refers to my argument. The situation I describe follows logically from free-market principles.
You've argued that private business gives the most efficient health care. But even assuming that's true, efficiency isn't necessarily the most important consideration. After all, the best efficiency would be to take as many premiums as you can while minimizing payouts. That's the free market principle, and while it's quite efficient, it's not [i[effective[/i] if your purpose is to provide health care to the populace. Even if a government programs in't as efficient, it has less built-in incentives to screw people over.
2) People paying directly for health care is feasible for routine visits to the doctor. Once your problems require hospitalization, however, few private people could afford to pay it. Even childbirth can be expensive, must less things like courses of treatment for cancer. Tehre's a reason insurance came into being in the first place, after all.
3) If corruption was proportionate to the size of the revenue stream, third-world coutnries would see little corruption. Human minds don't process large numbers that precisely; I doubt someone whose tempted to steal 10 million dollars would turn down the opportunity to steal 1 million dollars.
Also, bureaucrats aren't the ones you have to worry about here. There are a lot of laws and measures to prevent them from embezzlment and such. The issue is the people who make the laws. And to prevent them from corruption, you need a bunch of steps, some of which I suspect you'd object to (actually, you have objected to some of them on this board), such as aggressive campaign finance reform, strengthening of conflict of interest laws and practises, etc. The biggest issue, however, is that these are elected officials. If you think they're corrupt, vote them out - but there seems to be little interest in that.



1) the current US system is not free market. The restrictions on what doctors can do, can charge and how they can charge their patients makes the market anything but free.

2)Agreed. Getting a well defined plan to address surgical/catastrophic insurance was beneficial. That isn't the same as what is being discussed as health insurance now. What's not working is a healthcare maintenance plan that would include routine doctor's visits. Private insurers are encouraged to hold down costs, while patients are encouraged to use the service as much as possible.

3) Again we largely agree. Recent policy title campaign finance reform sought to limit WHO could give. Unions and labor organizations were largely excluded, while any other organizations were targeted. These sorts of reform were hardly non-partisan or even bi-partisan. So the public employee union could use dues to support those candidates willing to increase their member's salaries, while corporations faced greater scrutiny. Both organizations represented people. I saw a recent report that there are 30,000 federal employees who make a greater salary than any states' governor.

I would much rather focus campaign finance reform on the candidate. What such reform might look like, I don't know.

Limits in how people can organize are protected by the First Amendment. How people can express their views, especially in political discourse, are also protected by the First Amendment. Since artistic expression is also protected by the First Amendment, it follows that any expression of a political nature is protected. Donating money is a political expression and is protected.

At the end of the day, these complex limitations argue that fewer rights would be violated if government was removed from delivering health insurance services. Let them remain as enforcers of the law and goals of our nation and society without being dragged into delivering those services.

Anyway, that's my view.
Top
Re: 2017
Post by The E   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:17 pm

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

Imaginos1892 wrote:People are supposed to be bright enough to do that on their own without the nanny government holding their hands. Passing those expenses through government and/or insurance companies only increases them and invites corruption. Accountability usually gets lost along the way, too. Just like it did in the V.A.


Again: Not what's happening in countries that have socialized health care.

You people are really incapable of actually looking at facts, are you?
Top
Re: 2017
Post by Annachie   » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:22 pm

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Recent report on societal freedoms by a conservative think tank listed America as 20th in the rankings.

Every country above it, the 19 countries listed as being more free, practically all have socialized healthcare. Actually, I think it was all.


Sorry Peter, arguements that government run socialized health care negatively affects freedoms is dubious at best.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top

Return to Politics