Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests
Re: 2017 | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:10 pm | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
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 | |
---|---|
by Imaginos1892 » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:11 pm | |
Imaginos1892
Posts: 1332
|
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 | |
---|---|
by gcomeau » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:13 pm | |
gcomeau
Posts: 2747
|
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 | |
---|---|
by gcomeau » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:15 pm | |
gcomeau
Posts: 2747
|
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 | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:27 pm | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
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 | |
---|---|
by gcomeau » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:39 pm | |
gcomeau
Posts: 2747
|
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 | |
---|---|
by Eyal » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:14 pm | |
Eyal
Posts: 334
|
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.
Non-profit private companies exist, and do provide healthcare in some UHC models.
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 | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:18 pm | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
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 | |
---|---|
by The E » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:17 pm | |
The E
Posts: 2683
|
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 | |
---|---|
by Annachie » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:22 pm | |
Annachie
Posts: 3099
|
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 |