The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: TomSea on July 11, 2017, 02:15:12 am
-
Why replacing Obamacare is so hard: It’s fundamentally conservative
By Craig Garthwaite July 10 at 2:22 PM
Craig Garthwaite is an associate professor of strategy and director of the Healthcare Program at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.
Republicans are engaged in a brutal civil war between hard-liners and moderates as they struggle to craft legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare. The episode invites an almost existential question for the GOP: Why, after seven years of nearly endless war against Obamacare, is the party unable to deliver a more conservative policy that provides access to health care to a similar number of Americans?
As a life-long Republican who has spent months contemplating this question, I’ve come to an answer that will be hard for many conservatives to swallow: Passing an Obamacare replacement is difficult because the existing system is fundamentally a collection of moderately conservative policies.
Continued: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-replacing-obamacare-is-so-hard-its-fundamentally-conservative/2017/07/10/c5d64634-6351-11e7-84a1-a26b75ad39fe_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.c79de0ca1777
-
Yes, that's why all the conservative members of the republican party voted for it when it passed 7 years ago.
-
Nothing Conservative about a socialist end run around the Constitution. Nothing.
-
Our resident Leftist will be here in the morning to trumpet this Communist claptrap too.
-
Our resident Leftist will be here in the morning to trumpet this Communist claptrap too.
LOL! Bank on it!
-
See the woman with two heads and the half man half alligator - only a measly two bits ladies and gents. Step right up.
(http://www.sideshowworld.com/13-TGOD/L-K/37-Talkers/tgodgbt2.jpg)
-
Our resident Leftist will be here in the morning to trumpet this Communist claptrap too.
No, INVAR, I'm just the resident old school Republican. I remember as a young man devouring the policy proposals of the Heritage and AEI folks concerning the use of an individual mandate to achieve a workable structure for community rating. It was seen as the effective conservative antidote to single payer, by encouraging an efficient and affordable private insurance market that could cover most able-bodied adults without regard to health or employment status.
Yes, the roots of ObamaCare are indeed conservative. The Dem left preferred single payer, but because the Dems had to achieve unanimity within their caucus, the ACA instead resembled RomneyCare on steroids. That's why I've never had an ideological aversion to fixing what's wrong with the ACA rather than repealing it and returning to the bad old days when folks in their fifties who lost their jobs couldn't get health insurance at any price. Because to return to the bad old days would be to return to the conditions that make single payer so attractive.
I admit to being surprised at the ferocity of the opposition by some conservatives to the GOP reform bills. Both the House and Senate versions would get rid of the hated individual mandate that "forces" free riders to buy insurance, and the employer mandate that keeps small employers from hiring that 51st worker. Instead, conservatives seem to have rose-colored glasses about how life was before the ACA. Sorry, but I have no interest in returning to the status quo ante, which was arbitrary and unjust.
I still think the way ahead is to fix the ACA by encouraging consumerism, offering more choice in the marketplace, eliminating job-killing mandates, encouraging state innovation, and block-granting the Medicaid expansion so as to free up long term tax savings for use in jump-starting economic prosperity. I still think the GOP reform bills are firmly in the conservative tradition of intelligent regulation of private markets.
-
There is a big difference between Environmentalists and Conservationists, but most people don't understand the difference.
There is a big difference between Republicans and Conservatives, but most people don't understand the difference.
There is a big difference between Free Markets and Government Controls, but most people don't understand the difference.
I could go on and on but it wears me out. We have a communications breakdown to the point where it is nearly impossible to have anything resembling a decent conversation. Besides butchering the Queen's English we also fall into the Liberal trap that allows them to redefine the meanings of words at will. For example, my brain is still recovering from someone referring to RomneyCare as a Conservative program.
A lobotomy would be less painful - but it does make for a good comparison because the effects are the same.
Stop Making Sense is not just the name of a film about the Talking Heads.
-
There is a big difference between Environmentalists and Conservationists, but most people don't understand the difference.
There is a big difference between Republicans and Conservatives, but most people don't understand the difference.
There is a big difference between Free Markets and Government Controls, but most people don't understand the difference.
I could go on and on but it wears me out. We have a communications breakdown to the point where it is nearly impossible to have anything resembling a decent conversation. Besides butchering the Queen's English we also fall into the Liberal trap that allows them to redefine the meanings of words at will. For example, my brain is still recovering from someone referring to RomneyCare as a Conservative program.
A lobotomy would be less painful - but it does make for a good comparison because the effects are the same.
Stop Making Sense is not just the name of a film about the Talking Heads.
Old school conservatism was different from TEA party conservatism. Old school conservatism recognizes the role that sound public policy can play in creating the conditions for markets to flourish. Think Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan. TEA party conservatism is essentially just "leave me the hell alone" conservatism. It is pro-individual and anti-community, and in that sense is essentially nihilistic. At least that's my opinion.
-
No, INVAR, I'm just the resident old school Republican.
Yeah... sure you are......whatever you want to call yourself. We however see you as antithetical to every Conservative principle we hold to on this board.
You think and post Communism and Liberal Statism, so you are not deceiving anyone on this board, no matter the lengths or pretzel logic you try to explain yourself as being other than what your own words have revealed you to be.
Yes, the roots of ObamaCare are indeed conservative.
You might as well be trying to teach us that 'From Each According To His Ability To Each According To His Need' was written by Thomas Jefferson.
IOWs, it's bullshit you're peddling as truth.
But that is what we expect from you.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
-
As if WAPO would know conservatism if they saw it.
-
As if WAPO would know conservatism if they saw it.
The views expressed are those of the writer, Craig Garthwaite, not the WAPO. The conservative intellectual roots of the ACA (and RomneyCare) are well known. But I concede that the conservatism of folks like Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan - and the Heritage Foundation in the seventies and eighties - is very different than the conservatism of the TEA party. But that doesn't mean that only TEA partiers can claim the mantle of conservatism. There are several respectable intellectual traditions. And there are still a few of us old-schoolers left.
-
Using your definition, an "old school" conservative would want a solution that solves the problem with the least amount of government influence. ACA is in no imaginable way anything close to meeting that standard. Going deeper, it gave government control of things it had no business in... there is no right way to do the wrong thing.
-
In crafting their health-care plan, Republicans have come to the uncomfortable realization that there simply isn’t much room to the political right of Obamacare for a policy that covers as many people with high-quality insurance. Furthermore, many have realized that there isn’t much political will for a bill that covers meaningfully fewer people or that places low-income individuals in insurance plans with cost-sharing elements they can’t afford.
But before I am drummed out of the party, it’s important that we consider our history. Given current rhetoric, it seems Republican leadership has forgotten that even Ronald Reagan saw a role for the government to provide quality health insurance for those who could not otherwise afford access. At the time, this wasn’t surprising because the Republican Party wasn’t dominated by the purely anti-government ideals of the House Freedom Caucus and the more conservative members of the Senate. Instead, it was a party that at its core supported a limited, well-run and efficient government.
This fact can be seen in the structure of the social insurance policies we’ve historically supported. Rather than embracing unconditional cash transfers or regressive minimum-wage increases, we supported welfare reform and the earned-income tax credit. In areas where government service is needed, we’ve supported the expanded use of government contractors and outsourcing rather than an ever-growing leviathan.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-replacing-obamacare-is-so-hard-its-fundamentally-conservative/2017/07/10/c5d64634-6351-11e7-84a1-a26b75ad39fe_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.a8db95c28d43#comments
-
It is not the function and purpose of the federal government to "provide" anything except national defense and the general welfare of the nation - not provide welfare generally.
Using the government to put a gun to the heads of Americans and rob them of their wealth to redistribute and provide for the 'needs' of others, is Marxism - pure and simple. FROM each according to their ability - TO EACH, according to their need. That's what this entire discussion boils down to. Using government to forcibly rob from those with wealth so it can be given and redistributed at government discretion TO EACH, according to their need, as government defines need.
I don't give two whits if Reagan was all-for government subsidized health insurance for the poor. Government has proven that whatever it touches, it turns to shit and grows that shit into a monstrous pile they force all of us to eat for eternity.
Using government to do charity is not the purpose of government, and robs the individual from their personal obligation to do charity themselves and make provisions for their dependents. They will simply divest themselves of the responsibility and shove it on the shoulders of the taxpayers.
It is past time to abolish the forms to which we have become accustomed.
-
,,,./It is past time to abolish the forms to which we have become accustomed.
You'll need these ....
(http://img.usmagazine.com/social/1436798322_ruby-slippers-zoom.jpg)
-
Using government to do charity is not the purpose of government, and robs the individual from their personal obligation to do charity themselves and make provisions for their dependents.
So, pray tell, if not government, who enforces that "personal obligation?"
Unless you're counting on that Second Coming happening in your lifetime, which every other prophet who claimed as such has been proven wrong, nobody does. Ergo, there is no obligation.
-
Using government to do charity is not the purpose of government, and robs the individual from their personal obligation to do charity themselves and make provisions for their dependents. They will simply divest themselves of the responsibility and shove it on the shoulders of the taxpayers.
It is past time to abolish the forms to which we have become accustomed.
[/quote]
I am amazed at how many people on this forum are discounting this notion.
It is one of the most basic conservative tenets!
I knew that things have been shifting leftward recently, but this far?
The constitution spells out the role of the Federal Government, and it has nothing to do with us sending them money to redistribute as they deem appropriate.
-
Using government to do charity is not the purpose of government, and robs the individual from their personal obligation to do charity themselves and make provisions for their dependents. They will simply divest themselves of the responsibility and shove it on the shoulders of the taxpayers.
:beer:
I find it odd that we know what works and what doesn't work, yet we pretend we just don't know.
If we've tried A before and we've also tried B before, it's not rocket science to determine which is better. I've tried putting my hand near a hot stove and I've tried keeping it away. I can tell you with 100% certainty which I like better. Oddly, many people cannot.
-
Using your definition, an "old school" conservative would want a solution that solves the problem with the least amount of government influence. ACA is in no imaginable way anything close to meeting that standard. Going deeper, it gave government control of things it had no business in... there is no right way to do the wrong thing.
But I'm not advocating for the ACA. I'm advocating to fix the ACA, to bend it in a more conservative direction:
- By encouraging more choice in the marketplace
- By encouraging consumerism
- By eliminating job-killing mandates and addressing free riders by means of premium differentials
- By pricing policies so the young do not have to be unfairly burdened.
- By block-granting the Medicaid expansion
All of these reforms are consistent with conservative tenets. All represent a substantial improvement on the ACA.
-
Using government to do charity is not the purpose of government, and robs the individual from their personal obligation to do charity themselves and make provisions for their dependents. They will simply divest themselves of the responsibility and shove it on the shoulders of the taxpayers.
It is past time to abolish the forms to which we have become accustomed.
I am amazed at how many people on this forum are discounting this notion.
It is one of the most basic conservative tenets!
Not any more.
We have been fundamentally transformed to great applause while Liberal/Marxist Statism is being heralded as Conservatism by those who self-identify as Conservatives and Christians.
It is revealing that when you paraphrase actual segments from the Declaration of Independence, "Conservatives" ridicule it and toss up pics of ruby slippers.
The rot is complete.
-
Not any more.
We have been fundamentally transformed to great applause while Liberal/Marxist Statism is being heralded as Conservatism by those who self-identify as Conservatives and Christians.
It is revealing that when you paraphrase actual segments from the Declaration of Independence, "Conservatives" ridicule it and toss up pics of ruby slippers.
The rot is complete.
If this were another forum, I might understand, but this is TBR.
Are we all now just "better" Democrats/Liberals, the "we do big Government better than they do" crowd?
**nononono*
-
If this were another forum, I might understand, but this is TBR.
Are we all now just "better" Democrats/Liberals, the "we do big Government better than they do" crowd?
**nononono*
Because there are people here who will call themselves conservatives, except they divide themselves out further to being fiscal conservatives. They are too "pragmatic" to be social conservatives.
-
But I'm not advocating for the ACA. I'm advocating to fix the ACA, to bend it in a more conservative direction:
- By encouraging more choice in the marketplace
- By encouraging consumerism
- By eliminating job-killing mandates and addressing free riders by means of premium differentials
- By pricing policies so the young do not have to be unfairly burdened.
- By block-granting the Medicaid expansion
All of these reforms are consistent with conservative tenets. All represent a substantial improvement on the ACA.
This doesn't go nearly far enough, particularly not if you are still putting pre-existings into the regular pool and forcing cadillac plans on Americans.
-
If this were another forum, I might understand, but this is TBR.
Are we all now just "better" Democrats/Liberals, the "we do big Government better than they do" crowd?
That is what now exists as the Republican Party or GOP. Yes. They think and even admit that their philosophy is to do big government better and more fair than the Marxist Left.
That is their new slogan if one listens to what they say about why they cannot do what they promised.
-
Kellogg is the company that, with their partner Kellogg Foundation, is about as liberal as can be.
Does not surprise me whatsoever to hear that from a representative from them.
Kellogg company is in the toilet when competitors prosper.
Just like Target.
-
Old school conservatism was different from TEA party conservatism. Old school conservatism recognizes the role that sound public policy can play in creating the conditions for markets to flourish. Think Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan. TEA party conservatism is essentially just "leave me the hell alone" conservatism. It is pro-individual and anti-community, and in that sense is essentially nihilistic. At least that's my opinion.
Because Ron Bailey said it so well, I'll just quote (http://biblebase.com/its-a-beautiful-thing-the-destruction-of-words-george-orwell/) him:
In George Orwell’s devastating critique of totalitarianism, “1984”, one of the party workers has been given the job of culling the dictionary. The strategy is to make ‘thoughtcrime’ impossible by the removal of words that describe things forbidden by the party. Words like ‘freedom’ and ‘rebellion’. If there are no words then there will be no thoughts, or so the theory goes. As he removes the words the party worker says the words at the head of this blog.
“It’s a beautiful things, the destruction of words.”
That has been in progress for a while now, with the progressive newspeak of identity politics and victimhood walking hand in hand over the crumpled and tortured remains of the English language.
When the Founders penned the phrase, "...among them Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," I doubt their meaning would be recognizable in the carnage of Roe v Wade, the invasive tendrils of government, or the libertine behaviour that wreaks misery that is presented with a smiling face in the media, the camera angled away from the flood of tears that underlie it.
Virtuous behaviour is its own reward, but also avoids much of the misery. Old school Conservatism contained TEA Party conservatism, in that a government that keeps its fingers out of my wallet leaves me the means to do good. "Charity" performed at gunpoint is hardly charity, but coercion. One which impoverishes me with the likes of Obamacare or penalty, taxes me to give someone else a phone, demands an annual tribute for me to 'own' my land, yet gives that money away to their cronies is every bit in the way of those fundamentals of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
One of the most devious tricks perpetrated by the media (and we know whose side they are on), has been to hyphenate Conservatives, equally as effective at causing division as the hyphenation of Americans, it has started a game of identity politics among even Conservatives, and at the same time allowed those who may agree only on a narrow set of issues to claim they are conservative. Whether neo-paleo-so-crunchy-con or not , the same basic principles should apply to all. Otherwise, you aren't.
-
I'm advocating to fix the ACA, to bend it in a more conservative direction
Pure stupidity.
ObamaCare was designed and written to do only one thing: collapse and destroy the existing health insurance market to pave the way for Single Payer.
There is no bending pure Socialism into a Conservative direction because the two are mutually exclusive to one another and antithetical to the other's existence.
-
In a word, no, it's not.
-
In a word, no, it's not.
Exactly, substitution of one unconstitutional program for another unconstitutional program isn't Conservative at all.
-
Pure stupidity.
ObamaCare was designed and written to do only one thing: collapse and destroy the existing health insurance market to pave the way for Single Payer.
There is no bending pure Socialism into a Conservative direction because the two are mutually exclusive to one another and antithetical to the other's existence.
He wouldn't recognize true conservatism if it hit him in the face. He is 100% all about fighting against conservatism, though he does try to steal the label and place it on liberalism a lot.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Speaks_Out_Against_Socialized_Medicine
"Reagan says that "Government has invaded the free precincts of private citizens," stating that the U.S. government owns "1/5 of the total industrial capacity of the United States." Reagan says "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it." Reagan cites the failure of presidentHarry Truman's national health insuranceproposal as evidence of the American people's rejection of socialized medicine.
Reagan describes Representative Aime Forand as having introduced a bill which would institute "compulsory health insurance" for all people of social security age. Forand is quoted as having said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can extend the program after that." Forand is likened to labor union leader Walter Reuther, who is quoted as having said, "It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance." The Forand bill is described as being praised by socialists: "They say once the Forand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned.""
-
This doesn't go nearly far enough, particularly not if you are still putting pre-existings into the regular pool and forcing cadillac plans on Americans.
The funny thing about that is that if you pull pre-existings/high-cost patients out of the regular pool (which is a necessity if it is to operate as a true insurance system), there are many here who will scream about any form of viable coverage for the pre-existings, which by necessity would require some sort of outside funding, being a government handout.
We all know insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions is a recipe for financial disaster. No one wants those types in the insurance pool. Yet the cost to cover the medical expenses of those people is staggering. I posted a story a while back about the $12,000,000 a year hemophiliac who personally bankrupted Iowa's insurance exchanges (and you can bet he's not paying taxes on that in-kind income, but that's another topic altogether). Someone is eventually going to have to pay for it—unless, that is, they die.
-
The funny thing about that is that if you pull pre-existings/high-cost patients out of the regular pool (which is a necessity if it is to operate as a true insurance system), there are many here who will scream about any form of viable coverage for the pre-existings, which by necessity would require some sort of outside funding, being a government handout.
We all know insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions is a recipe for financial disaster. No one wants those types in the insurance pool. Yet the cost to cover the medical expenses of those people is staggering. I posted a story a while back about the $12,000,000 a year hemophiliac who personally bankrupted Iowa's insurance exchanges (and you can bet he's not paying taxes on that in-kind income, but that's another topic altogether). Someone is eventually going to have to pay for it—unless, that is, they die.
One thing we could do is allow pre-tax and tax credits for an insurance company taking pre-existings and subsidizing their premium. You could do this with a policy sold across state lines. Also give tax credits to the purchaser, and make all that health care spending pretax. Tack an HSA onto it pre tax or even with tax credits. Yes it's all double dipping but who cares? The problem is the FedGov doesn't want give up that money.
You could even allow exclusions to reduce it ever further and have the pre-existing treated by Medicare. The govt is also going to have to accept that some are not going to fit into the insurance pool and will have to be on Medicare.
As a compromise with liberals, we could have those who can't or won't buy insurance pay a higher Medicare tax equivalent to an insurance premium to keep it properly funded. But we need to keep the insurance pools clean and voluntary.
-
One thing we could do is allow pre-tax and tax credits for an insurance company taking pre-existings and subsidizing their premium. You could do this with a policy sold across state lines. Also give tax credits to the purchaser, and make all that health care spending pretax. Tack an HSA onto it pre tax or even with tax credits. Yes it's all double dipping but who cares? The problem is the FedGov doesn't want give up that money.
You could even allow exclusions to reduce it ever further and have the pre-existing treated by Medicare. The govt is also going to have to accept that some are not going to fit into the insurance pool and will have to be on Medicare.
As a compromise with liberals, we could have those who can't or won't buy insurance pay a higher Medicare tax equivalent to an insurance premium to keep it properly funded. But we need to keep the insurance pools clean and voluntary.
Without discussing hemophilia, cancer, or dozens of other expensive conditions, there is already a trillion dollar bill coming in for HIV/AIDS infected (currently roughly 1.3 million, at a cost per patient of 600-750K over the next 25 years).
Now you want people to who can't afford insurance because of the mandates present now, to pay taxes out of their paychecks to pay for people who have made (and continue to make) bad decisions (something being promoted daily), and now the system has gone full mark of the beast. Who knew it was an insurance company?
Work for cash, barter, or starve., if you're on the low end of the wage spectrum. If people can't afford health INSURANCE now, how is taxing them more going to fix that?
No new taxes (Still waiting for THAT promise to happen, GHWB).
Get the Government out, except to provide for the 'wards of the state'.
This crap didn't really happen until the civil union folks found out their partner with 'the thins' couldn't get coverage under their ersatz spouses' health plan at work (preexisting condition), then the Dems came looking for everyone to pick up the tab.
We're more in danger of people dying in the streets than ever because the government is fixing something that supposedly fixed something that wasn't broke.
There is no Constitutional authorization for the Federal Government to be messing around with health insurance/care, with the exception of providing for wounded and disabled veterans, and Indian Tribes per Treaty.
Anyone familiar with those systems would have (and did) hold them up as all the more reason the FedGov should stay out of mainstream health care.
-
Without discussing hemophilia, cancer, or dozens of other expensive conditions, there is already a trillion dollar bill coming in for HIV/AIDS infected (currently roughly 1.3 million, at a cost per patient of 600-750K over the next 25 years).
Now you want people to who can't afford insurance because of the mandates present now, to pay taxes out of their paychecks to pay for people who have made (and continue to make) bad decisions (something being promoted daily), and now the system has gone full mark of the beast. Who knew it was an insurance company?
Work for cash, barter, or starve., if you're on the low end of the wage spectrum. If people can't afford health INSURANCE now, how is taxing them more going to fix that?
No new taxes (Still waiting for THAT promise to happen, GHWB).
Get the Government out, except to provide for the 'wards of the state'.
This crap didn't really happen until the civil union folks found out their partner with 'the thins' couldn't get coverage under their ersatz spouses' health plan at work (preexisting condition), then the Dems came looking for everyone to pick up the tab.
We're more in danger of people dying in the streets than ever because the government is fixing something that supposedly fixed something that wasn't broke.
There is no Constitutional authorization for the Federal Government to be messing around with health insurance/care, with the exception of providing for wounded and disabled veterans, and Indian Tribes per Treaty.
Anyone familiar with those systems would have (and did) hold them up as all the more reason the FedGov should stay out of mainstream health care.
True, but, if Congress is so hell bent on insuring these people, then they need to do it without burdening the insurance market. It wouldn't be the way I'd do it, but with the GOP wanting so much to capitulate to the liberals, that's where I'd rather do it than make others pay for people's health care cost by jacking their premiums.
I don't know how else to deal with pre-existings and others, like young people, who won't get insurance.
-
Using government to do charity is not the purpose of government, and robs the individual from their personal obligation to do charity themselves and make provisions for their dependents. They will simply divest themselves of the responsibility and shove it on the shoulders of the taxpayers.
It is past time to abolish the forms to which we have become accustomed.
I am amazed at how many people on this forum are discounting this notion.
It is one of the most basic conservative tenets!
I knew that things have been shifting leftward recently, but this far?
The constitution spells out the role of the Federal Government, and it has nothing to do with us sending them money to redistribute as they deem appropriate.
+1
-
Our resident Leftist will be here in the morning to trumpet this Communist claptrap too.
Pick the "Old school Republican" in this picture...
(https://s3.postimg.org/ffhp7xc3n/150804_gordon_buckleyvidal-gty.jpg)
The other one is Jazzhead.
-
True, but, if Congress is so hell bent on insuring these people, then they need to do it without burdening the insurance market. It wouldn't be the way I'd do it, but with the GOP wanting so much to capitulate to the liberals, that's where I'd rather do it than make others pay for people's health care cost by jacking their premiums.
I don't know how else to deal with pre-existings and others, like young people, who won't get insurance.
You're a young people. Your take home is about 1400 a month. Exchanges want more than that for insurance. It isn't a 'won't', it's a 'can't'. Not and eat, too.
You're a young couple. Let's say you're bringing in 60K gross, 50K after taxes, 1K per month rent, 1K between utilities and car payments/insurance. Leaves 26K, not counting clothes, food, utilities, etc. The 20K in insurance premiums aren't going to leave much to eat on. You make too much for a subsidy, to little to afford Cadillac insurance. You would have likely bought a lesser major medical plan, but they're gone with the Obama.
Hmmmmm. Do you dress well, eat decent food go to the dentist out of pocket, keep those disposable contacts coming, or do you pay for insurance and be broke at every turn? You take your chances.
It isn't obstinacy, it's a good gamble, even if some don't come out winners.
Get the plans out of lala land and the rates out of the stratosphere, to where young people are more afraid of losing what they have than having nothing to lose, and participation will pick up.
-
+1
+2
-
There is no justification in proclaiming a conservative bent on Obamacare.
Simply put, it is beyond the Conservative interpretation of the Constitution.
Period.
-
There is no justification in proclaiming a conservative bent on Obamacare.
Simply put, it is beyond the Conservative interpretation of the Constitution.
Period.
Trying to sell us on the idea that Communist Health Insurance (AKA: ObamaCare) is "fundamentally Conservative" is like attempting to sell fundamentalist Christians on the idea that Jesus himself was a homosexual.
-
Trying to sell us on the idea that Communist Health Insurance (AKA: ObamaCare) is "fundamentally Conservative" is like attempting to sell fundamentalist Christians on the idea that Jesus himself was a homosexual.
Well, he was 33 when he died and had never married, so it's not really that far fetched. *****rollingeyes*****
-
You're a young people. Your take home is about 1400 a month. Exchanges want more than that for insurance. It isn't a 'won't', it's a 'can't'. Not and eat, too.
You're a young couple. Let's say you're bringing in 60K gross, 50K after taxes, 1K per month rent, 1K between utilities and car payments/insurance. Leaves 26K, not counting clothes, food, utilities, etc. The 20K in insurance premiums aren't going to leave much to eat on. You make too much for a subsidy, to little to afford Cadillac insurance. You would have likely bought a lesser major medical plan, but they're gone with the Obama.
Hmmmmm. Do you dress well, eat decent food go to the dentist out of pocket, keep those disposable contacts coming, or do you pay for insurance and be broke at every turn? You take your chances.
It isn't obstinacy, it's a good gamble, even if some don't come out winners.
Get the plans out of lala land and the rates out of the stratosphere, to where young people are more afraid of losing what they have than having nothing to lose, and participation will pick up.
Well if we put the insurance market back to the way it was plus improvements, for the most part alot of people will come back.
The problem is that there will be people who won't get insurance and a number who can't. Which makes it a political wedge for the media and the Dems to drive. Somehow that's what the GOP has to deal with. And I don't think there are alot of good answers, and the GOP doesn't seem to want to find them.
-
Well if we put the insurance market back to the way it was plus improvements, for the most part alot of people will come back.
The problem is that there will be people who won't get insurance and a number who can't. Which makes it a political wedge for the media and the Dems to drive. Somehow that's what the GOP has to deal with. And I don't think there are alot of good answers, and the GOP doesn't seem to want to find them.
The problem is that the Dems drove that wedge into the heart of the middle class. The same people who start and run small businesses which occasionally become large businesses, who make the kinds of community donations which move things along and improve everyone's lot. When that group hurts, everyone (except for those insulated by special consideration under the law or enough money) hurts.
The Dems set out to (in keeping with the Communist Manifesto) eliminate the middle class by forcing them to be poor, and attacking their very means of being middle class--small business. The damage has been widespread, and the attack effective. They are trying to force more people onto their plantation, only these aren't the folks who will welcome it, but who will bear a burden of shame and resentment for what has been done TO them, not for them.
If the GOP doesn't set this right, eliminate the damaging provisions of Obamacare, they, too will own this.
I have said more than once if America has another 'revolution', this will look more like The Terror than 1776. The Democrats laid the brick, the GOP is tuck pointing the foundations of that now, instead of tearing them apart.
-
I have said more than once if America has another 'revolution', this will look more like The Terror than 1776. The Democrats laid the brick, the GOP is tuck pointing the foundations of that now, instead of tearing them apart.
Anyone who has studied that time in history should recognize the frightening fact that this is exactly where we have arrived.
France in the 1790s is where Marx and Engels conceived the very blueprint for Socialism and Communism's need for bloody revolution and the necessity to eradicate the Bourgeoisie via class and race warfare.
-
Anyone who has studied that time in history should recognize the frightening fact that this is exactly where we have arrived.
France in the 1790s is where Marx and Engels conceived the very blueprint for Socialism and Communism's need for bloody revolution and the necessity to eradicate the Bourgeoisie via class and race warfare.
The American Middle class has two things the French did not. Numbers, and arms.
I believe we are resilient enough to even endure enough of the economic strictures that we will survive in numbers which will require forcible elimination, if they dare to try. (Bill Ayres' 25 million who will not be reeducated have grown). If that were to happen, the outcome would make the War Between the States look like a schoolyard knuckle duster.
-
There is no justification in proclaiming a conservative bent on Obamacare.
Simply put, it is beyond the Conservative interpretation of the Constitution.
Period.
ObamaCare isn't conservative. It wreaks too much havoc with private markets and consumer choice for that. In many places, it's devolved so there's only one insurer in the market. That's not competition, that's not conservative.
It's roots are conservative, in the sense that it addresses the free rider issue by taxing those who do not participate in the insurance marketplace, thereby expanding the risk pool sufficiently to (theoretically) make community rating coverage affordable. There are fewer folks with "pre-existing" conditions since more people are part of the pool in the first place. The costliest folks' expenses are spread among a wider group. Remember, of course, that the idea of individual mandates to achieve affordable community rating coverage has always been proposed in the context of the alternative of single payer. The conservative rationale of the individual mandate has always been to preserve private markets and avoid single payer.
But the ACA goes about it all wrong - principally, in my view, by forcing the young to subsidize the old (effectively driving those healthier lives out of the pool), and by eliminating competition with respect to the scope of coverage. The only policies in the marketplace are gold-plated, with competition coming in the form of deductibles/copays and the skinny-ness of provider networks.
Yes, the ACA can be reformed in a more conservative direction, as both the House and Senate bills attempt to do. But the ship has sailed with respect to scrapping it altogether, and returning to the bad old days when folks with preexisting conditions had no access to coverage, and imposed their costs on hospitals. Some have proposed the alternative of high risk pools for the most expensive lives, or slicing off that population and simply providing them with Medicare. Such approaches also have merit, so long as those outside the pools have access to affordable coverage that fits their needs, and effective penalties exist for the free riders.
-
But the ship has sailed with respect to scrapping it altogether, and returning to the bad old days when folks with preexisting conditions had no access to coverage, and imposed their costs on hospitals.
You really do not know what the term "insurance" means, do you? Where do you read one must insure 'pre-existing'?
in·sur·ance
1.a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.
"many new borrowers take out insurance against unemployment or sickness"
synonyms: indemnity, indemnification, assurance, (financial) protection, security, coverage
"insurance for his new car"
2.a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.
"adherence to high personal standards of conduct is excellent insurance against personal problems"
synonyms: protection, defense, safeguard, security, hedge, precaution, provision, surety; More
-
You really do not know what the term "insurance" means, do you? Where do you read one must insure 'pre-existing'?
You're the one revealing your ignorance. The whole point of an individual mandate is to encourage everyone to be part of the insurance pool. Then you've got true insurance - folks part of the risk pool before their health problems start.
Resentment of the individual mandate among conservatives is puzzling to me. Folks resent the imposition on their liberty - their liberty to be free riders, to develop health problems in the absence of insurance and then dump those costs on others - on hospitals, on their neighbors who've purchased insurance, and on the government.
If you oppose the individual mandate (or something like it that punishes free riders), then what you must advocate instead is the government stepping in and providing welfare to folks who cannot get insurance in a private marketplace, or to their providers. That is, of course, the premise of single payer - fund health care as a right regardless of individual condition.
But if you believe in private markets, if you believe in private insurance, then you need to address how the insurance pool is created. If you can put off buying insurance until you need it, that will collapse the market - because THAT is not insurance. But the individual mandate is the essence of insurance - healthy folks can no longer shirk their responsibility to insure themselves against future events and force the rest of us to pay for their selfishness.
-
You're the one revealing your ignorance. The whole point of an individual mandate is to encourage everyone to be part of the insurance pool. Then you've got true insurance - folks part of the risk pool before their health problems start.
Resentment of the individual mandate among conservatives is puzzling to me. Folks resent the imposition on their liberty - their liberty to be free riders, to develop health problems in the absence of insurance and then dump those costs on others - on hospitals, on their neighbors who've purchased insurance, and on the government.
If you oppose the individual mandate (or something like it that punishes free riders), then what you must advocate instead is the government stepping in and providing welfare to folks who cannot get insurance in a private marketplace, or to their providers. That is, of course, the premise of single payer - fund health care as a right regardless of individual condition.
But if you believe in private markets, if you believe in private insurance, then you need to address how the insurance pool is created. If you can put off buying insurance until you need it, that will collapse the market - because THAT is not insurance. But the individual mandate is the essence of insurance - healthy folks can no longer shirk their responsibility to insure themselves against future events and force the rest of us to pay for their selfishness.
Your continued and obstinate refusal or inability to understand that says it all.
-
Your continued and obstinate refusal or inability to understand that says it all.
At this point I accept it, Sanguine. I support the GOP reform bills that will jettison the individual mandate in favor of different forms of incentives against free-ridership. I prefer the House version, where the insurer must accept the free rider, but can charge a substantially higher premium. (In the Senate version, the free rider can be denied insurance altogether for six months.)
But from the standpoint of efficiency and fairness, I think an individual mandate is better, provided that the mandate is enforced with respect to an insurance marketplace that is affordable and provides choices that people want. Under ObamaCare, the choice was between paying the mandate tax and paying for completely unaffordable insurance - especially for younger Americans, for whom rates are set arbitrarily high to support lower premiums for older folks. It is perfectly rational for a millennial to pay the tax and go without insurance coverage - and that has led to the huge premium spikes as the insurance companies face ruin because the younger, healthier lives that were supposed to be in the pool aren't there.
-
The American Middle class has two things the French did not. Numbers, and arms.
I believe we are resilient enough to even endure enough of the economic strictures that we will survive in numbers which will require forcible elimination, if they dare to try.
The Numbers are being diminished via government redistribution and the consequences of Socialism's debt. By design - crushing the middle class via redistributive economics, it shoves the greater bulk of the Bourgeoisie into government dependence of one sort or another. Elimination in total will be as easy as shutting off the free shit subsidies and denying health care. I got that from a horse's mouth (or ass) operative of the DNC some time ago.
They are very aware of the Second Amendment 'problem' and they really believe that causing economic desperation, instigating class and race warfare to go hot while the State grows and redistributes wealth and limits liberty in the name of fairness - is going to thin the bulk of the people they want to eliminate.
Look at the growing meme and zeitgeist among their followers that are suggesting eliminating Whites, punishing the wealthy by confiscating and redistributing what they have to government-approved constituencies.
Indoctrinating the country to accept Marxism as better than or more fair has been going on for decades and they think enough of the population having accepted it incrementally will embrace, rather than take up arms against their fundamental transformation. As the pain begins to be felt, they will turn to the state for provision and those angry at the state for causing the problems will be told they are an enemy to fairness while growing government.
That plan is working.
Look how many imbecilic morons who claim to be Conservative are supporting and promoting government-mandated and run healthcare.
Then there are the truly deceitful ones among the leftovers of the Conservative herds trying to convince them that Communism has always been at it's root - a Conservative position.
-
ObamaCare isn't conservative. It wreaks too much havoc with private markets and consumer choice for that. In many places, it's devolved so there's only one insurer in the market. That's not competition, that's not conservative.
It's roots are conservative, in the sense that it addresses the free rider issue by taxing those who do not participate in the insurance marketplace, thereby expanding the risk pool sufficiently to (theoretically) make community rating coverage affordable. There are fewer folks with "pre-existing" conditions since more people are part of the pool in the first place. The costliest folks' expenses are spread among a wider group. Remember, of course, that the idea of individual mandates to achieve affordable community rating coverage has always been proposed in the context of the alternative of single payer. The conservative rationale of the individual mandate has always been to preserve private markets and avoid single payer.
But the ACA goes about it all wrong - principally, in my view, by forcing the young to subsidize the old (effectively driving those healthier lives out of the pool), and by eliminating competition with respect to the scope of coverage. The only policies in the marketplace are gold-plated, with competition coming in the form of deductibles/copays and the skinny-ness of provider networks.
Yes, the ACA can be reformed in a more conservative direction, as both the House and Senate bills attempt to do. But the ship has sailed with respect to scrapping it altogether, and returning to the bad old days when folks with preexisting conditions had no access to coverage, and imposed their costs on hospitals. Some have proposed the alternative of high risk pools for the most expensive lives, or slicing off that population and simply providing them with Medicare. Such approaches also have merit, so long as those outside the pools have access to affordable coverage that fits their needs, and effective penalties exist for the free riders.
Screw the penalties. That amounts to a tax on the healthy for breathing. NO!
If you aren't on the train (not requiring medical care) you aren't riding, so you can not be a "free rider". That would be someone who uses the service and doesn't pay.
If you want that look for illegals. Look for the welfare crowd who go to the ER for skinned knees and sniffles.
Get off the working man's back with the rules and penalties that not only don't improve his health care, just add another burden to pay for those who are getting better than he can afford for himself. And just because folks don't have insurance doesn't mean they don't pay their bills. I can write a check quicker than the insurance company can process the bill.
-
Screw the penalties. That amounts to a tax on the healthy for breathing. NO!
If you aren't on the train (not requiring medical care) you aren't riding, so you can not be a "free rider". That would be someone who uses the service and doesn't pay.
If you want that look for illegals. Look for the welfare crowd who go to the ER for skinned knees and sniffles.
Get off the working man's back with the rules and penalties that not only don't improve his health care, just add another burden to pay for those who are getting better than he can afford for himself. And just because folks don't have insurance doesn't mean they don't pay their bills. I can write a check quicker than the insurance company can process the bill.
It is a waste of time to attempt to argue the egregious faults and wrongness of Communism with a Communist. Logic is not going to affect their thinking, because they are ideologues first and foremost.
Which necessitates an equal resistance.
The fact is, government EFFS up or creates chaos and imposes tyranny upon anything it touches. Those are matters of undeniable fact to anyone who is honest and understands what was intended for us versus someone who will argue fundamental transformation into slavish despotism. That is government's nature. Like fire, unless constrained and controlled in it's very limited and beneficial use, it will grow to consume everything and burn it to ash. People pushing for more government statism see what is as yet unburnt and will demand the fire be accelerated and given more resources to consume.
This is why we are in debt to the tune of trillions upon trillions without any mathematical ability to pay those debts back.
Still, the fire of government is sought to consume what is as yet still standing.
People pushing Communism and arguing it's benefits and citing them to be 'fundamentally Conservative' will indeed argue the 'fairness' and 'need' to tax the air you breath and tax each beat of your heart.
Stopping your heart from beating and eliminating your breath is exactly what those who make these arguments for Communism will do to those who refuse to comply with their demands.
Because all life, wealth, and power is but a grant of government to those who have embraced Collectivism - whether by the hand of a dictator, or by the hands of millions in a mobocracy .
-
Hmmmmm. Do you dress well, eat decent food go to the dentist out of pocket, keep those disposable contacts coming, or do you pay for insurance and be broke at every turn? You take your chances.
It isn't obstinacy, it's a good gamble, even if some don't come out winners.
@Smokin Joe
Protip: Insurance is a bad bet
(http://mycasinostrategy.com/language/en/uploads/img_big/games__1/_BLACKJACK_INSURANCE_BET.jpg)
(P.S. Always split 8s. Never split 5s or 10s)
You're welcome.
-
You're the one revealing your ignorance. The whole point of an individual mandate is to encourage everyone to be part of the insurance pool. Then you've got true insurance - folks part of the risk pool before their health problems start.
Please reread the definition. Insurance is to mitigate future events, not past events.
Just like you like to redefine what a conservative is, you try to redefine insurance.
It doesn't work and you are called out on both.
-
You're the one revealing your ignorance...what you must advocate instead is the government stepping in and providing welfare to ...fund health care as a right regardless of individual condition.
Please reread the definition. Insurance is to mitigate future events, not past events.
Just like you like to redefine what a conservative is, you try to redefine insurance.
It doesn't work and you are called out on both.
I'm glad I'm not the only member here who knows what this person really is, despite his insistences to the contrary.
He provides a great service to us, in helping us combat Socialism and Communism disguised as Conservatism.
-
@Smokin Joe
Protip: Insurance is a bad bet
(http://mycasinostrategy.com/language/en/uploads/img_big/games__1/_BLACKJACK_INSURANCE_BET.jpg)
(P.S. Always split 8s. Never split 5s or 10s)
You're welcome.
A lot depends on how the cards are running. Dealer has a face/ten up changes things from 4-5-6, too.
Best I have ever done on a Blackjack table was as the Dealer, though.
-
If you aren't on the train (not requiring medical care) you aren't riding, so you can not be a "free rider". That would be someone who uses the service and doesn't pay.
Pray you stay healthy. Pray you stay wealthy. It could all change in an instant.
Free riders will usher in socialism in this country. Once the costs of selfishness and greed become intolerable, socialism will demanded by the community. Liberty is not a right. It must be earned, and exercised with responsibility.
Pray you stay healthy. Pray you stay wealthy. It could all change in an instant.
-
I'm glad I'm not the only member here who knows what this person really is, despite his insistences to the contrary.
He provides a great service to us, in helping us combat Socialism and Communism disguised as Conservatism.
Jazzhead - exposing batshit craziness on a daily basis. :patriot:
-
Pray you stay healthy. Pray you stay wealthy. It could all change in an instant.
Free riders will usher in socialism in this country. Once the costs of selfishness and greed become intolerable, socialism will demanded by the community. Liberty is not a right. It must be earned, and exercised with responsibility.
Pray you stay healthy. Pray you stay wealthy. It could all change in an instant.
"Free riders" won't usher in anything.
It's the gibsmedats and others who won't take responsibility for what they do who are ushering in socialism.
And, again I heartily object to the term 'free riders' for people who aren't riding at all or are paying cash for their ticket.
I know one thing for sure, If I had paid Obamacare rates for insurance the last two years we would have starved to death. How's that for "healthy"? All our bills are paid, instead--including medical bills.
Kill Obamacare now.
-
ObamaCare isn't conservative. It wreaks too much havoc with private markets and consumer choice for that. In many places, it's devolved so there's only one insurer in the market. That's not competition, that's not conservative.
It's roots are conservative, in the sense that it addresses the free rider issue by taxing those who do not participate in the insurance marketplace, thereby expanding the risk pool sufficiently to (theoretically) make community rating coverage affordable. There are fewer folks with "pre-existing" conditions since more people are part of the pool in the first place. The costliest folks' expenses are spread among a wider group. Remember, of course, that the idea of individual mandates to achieve affordable community rating coverage has always been proposed in the context of the alternative of single payer. The conservative rationale of the individual mandate has always been to preserve private markets and avoid single payer.
But the ACA goes about it all wrong - principally, in my view, by forcing the young to subsidize the old (effectively driving those healthier lives out of the pool), and by eliminating competition with respect to the scope of coverage. The only policies in the marketplace are gold-plated, with competition coming in the form of deductibles/copays and the skinny-ness of provider networks.
Yes, the ACA can be reformed in a more conservative direction, as both the House and Senate bills attempt to do. But the ship has sailed with respect to scrapping it altogether, and returning to the bad old days when folks with preexisting conditions had no access to coverage, and imposed their costs on hospitals. Some have proposed the alternative of high risk pools for the most expensive lives, or slicing off that population and simply providing them with Medicare. Such approaches also have merit, so long as those outside the pools have access to affordable coverage that fits their needs, and effective penalties exist for the free riders.
The young subsidizing the old essence of insurance, as the young tend to be healthy. As compensation they tend to pay lower premiums. Thing is whether you force them in the pool or not, they're still subsidizing the old. I'd rather deal with 'free riders' by at least giving them the choice of buying insurance or being taxed for Medicare or something.
I would also allow companies the choice of taking high risks and pre-existings, with some incentive like tax credits for subsidizing their premiums. There is a big difference between a guy with an old football injury to the knee and needs a massage twice a month, and state 4 cancer. We could do this with national policies fairly easily.
I don't know how else to deal with high risk/pre-existings and 'free riders' other than to have a dual system that allows for some choice and doesn't mix two different types of health care needs and force square pegs into round holes.
-
Obamacare is hard to repeal because the big money boys over on K street don't want it repealed and for no other reason!
-
The young subsidizing the old essence of insurance, as the young tend to be healthy. As compensation they tend to pay lower premiums. Thing is whether you force them in the pool or not, they're still subsidizing the old. I'd rather deal with 'free riders' by at least giving them the choice of buying insurance or being taxed for Medicare or something.
I would also allow companies the choice of taking high risks and pre-existings, with some incentive like tax credits for subsidizing their premiums. There is a big difference between a guy with an old football injury to the knee and needs a massage twice a month, and state 4 cancer. We could do this with national policies fairly easily.
I don't know how else to deal with high risk/pre-existings and 'free riders' other than to have a dual system that allows for some choice and doesn't mix two different types of health care needs and force square pegs into round holes.
You're only looking at part of the picture. The old tend to tone down their lifestyle a little. At this age, I wouldn't live through half the stuff I did when I was younger. Older drivers (to a point) tend to be better, too.
What does shift is the type of medical expense and the cause of the expense. I still look around in amazement at all the 'healthy' folks half my age who have had shoulder or knee surgery, etc. mostly sports injuries.
Bottom line is that an honest assessment of risk would lead to some level of coverage for an individual, and the catastrophic care plans covered the worst-case scenarios. That, thanks to Obamacare, is no longer an option, but would have balanced personal perception of risk versus cost. If a person is healthy, that would cover most of the major stuff, and leave them the resources they need to eat well and do the rest of that "healthy" stuff to avoid larger problems later.
Demanding that people be divested of resources forcibly without letting them assess their needs, real and potential, and allocate those resources as they see fit is totalitarian, and has absolutely no flexibility for individual situations. But forcing them to spend money on insurance that might have put new tires on the car will at least have them covered when they hydroplane into a bridge abutment, right?
All my young life I was told to "Grow up, be responsible!". I did. Now that I am there, I have some pencil necked pinhead two thousand miles away that hasn't been within a thousand miles of where live at ground level telling me to do things which go contrary to common sense, with the force of law behind them.
No wonder we're becoming a nation of snowflakes. Too damned much cognitive dissonance out there.
Under the current "health care" system post-menopausal nuns are required to carry coverage for contraceptives. That isn't covering people who might need some service, it is just a ludicrous abuse of power.
-
You're only looking at part of the picture. The old tend to tone down their lifestyle a little. At this age, I wouldn't live through half the stuff I did when I was younger. Older drivers (to a point) tend to be better, too.
What does shift is the type of medical expense and the cause of the expense. I still look around in amazement at all the 'healthy' folks half my age who have had shoulder or knee surgery, etc. mostly sports injuries.
Bottom line is that an honest assessment of risk would lead to some level of coverage for an individual, and the catastrophic care plans covered the worst-case scenarios. That, thanks to Obamacare, is no longer an option, but would have balanced personal perception of risk versus cost. If a person is healthy, that would cover most of the major stuff, and leave them the resources they need to eat well and do the rest of that "healthy" stuff to avoid larger problems later.
Demanding that people be divested of resources forcibly without letting them assess their needs, real and potential, and allocate those resources as they see fit is totalitarian, and has absolutely no flexibility for individual situations. But forcing them to spend money on insurance that might have put new tires on the car will at least have them covered when they hydroplane into a bridge abutment, right?
All my young life I was told to "Grow up, be responsible!". I did. Now that I am there, I have some pencil necked pinhead two thousand miles away that hasn't been within a thousand miles of where live at ground level telling me to do things which go contrary to common sense, with the force of law behind them.
No wonder we're becoming a nation of snowflakes. Too damned much cognitive dissonance out there.
Under the current "health care" system post-menopausal nuns are required to carry coverage for contraceptives. That isn't covering people who might need some service, it is just a ludicrous abuse of power.
Even if we'd strip out all the mandated coverages, we still have a cost that's going to exist to make insurance more expensive - the uninsured. We have created the mess of forcing hospitals to care for the uninsured by law, so there is always this existing pool of people that run up the tab. The cost is not going away, and the American people politically will not let it be ignored.
So how do we deal with it? I don't know how to dig ourselves out of the hole other than by some sort of dual system, for now. I think we could get that pretty low by doing the right things to make insurance more affordable, first.
-
Well, he was 33 when he died and had never married, so it's not really that far fetched. *****rollingeyes*****
Watch it... *look*
(yes, I know that was sarcasm and I'm just playing along)
-
Good post, all around.
The young subsidizing the old essence of insurance, as the young tend to be healthy. As compensation they tend to pay lower premiums.
Yes, exactly. But insurance companies left to their own actuarial devices would price policies for younger workers about five times less than polices for over 60-types, but the ACA requires they be charged only three times less. The young are unfairly subsidizing the old, IMO - and in the eyes of a lot of rational millennials, who are paying the tax and refusing a bad deal.
Thing is whether you force them in the pool or not, they're still subsidizing the old. I'd rather deal with 'free riders' by at least giving them the choice of buying insurance or being taxed for Medicare or something.
Interesting idea. Let 'em enroll in Medicare and impute taxable income equal to the value of the subsidized benefit provided. Some folks could be subsidized more than others.
I would also allow companies the choice of taking high risks and pre-existings, with some incentive like tax credits for subsidizing their premiums. There is a big difference between a guy with an old football injury to the knee and needs a massage twice a month, and state 4 cancer. We could do this with national policies fairly easily.
The lack of policy flexibility and consumer choice is ObamaCare's fatal flaw. If Medicare were to be an option alongside private insurance, no reason why this couldn't work.
don't know how else to deal with high risk/pre-existings and 'free riders' other than to have a dual system that allows for some choice and doesn't mix two different types of health care needs and force square pegs into round holes.
I keep thinking about the idea of national stop loss insurance. Let government take care of the catastrophic stuff for everybody on a simple stop loss basis, and let a private insurance market flourish for everything else.
-
Bottom line is that an honest assessment of risk would lead to some level of coverage for an individual, and the catastrophic care plans covered the worst-case scenarios. That, thanks to Obamacare, is no longer an option, but would have balanced personal perception of risk versus cost. If a person is healthy, that would cover most of the major stuff, and leave them the resources they need to eat well and do the rest of that "healthy" stuff to avoid larger problems later.
Demanding that people be divested of resources forcibly without letting them assess their needs, real and potential, and allocate those resources as they see fit is totalitarian, and has absolutely no flexibility for individual situations. But forcing them to spend money on insurance that might have put new tires on the car will at least have them covered when they hydroplane into a bridge abutment, right?
[/quote]
I agree. IMO, the problem with ObamaCare isn't the mandate tax per se, but the reality that, in the individual market, the plans you have to get to avoid the tax are just ridiculously over-comprehensive and expensive for a lot of folks.
As this point the mandate tax has been discredited, and I think other ways can be found to more specifically target free riders. But choice in the marketplace will alleviate a lot of the problem.
-
I agree. IMO, the problem with ObamaCare isn't the mandate tax per se, but the reality that, in the individual market, the plans you have to get to avoid the tax are just ridiculously over-comprehensive and expensive for a lot of folks.
As this point the mandate tax has been discredited, and I think other ways can be found to more specifically target free riders. But choice in the marketplace will alleviate a lot of the problem.
If you don't need the service why should you insure for it?
I still strenuously object to the terminology "free riders".
It isn't medical care that is so expensive, it is the doctors paying up to half their income for malpractice insurance, the government mandating insurance for services people may never or definitely never need.
There is a word that keeps coming up there. Armies of people are engaged in this process and making very good livings at it who have nothing to do with diagnosing or treating disease.
They are in one end or the other of the insurance business.
Aside from tort reform, find ways for people to more directly pay their providers and eliminate the paperwork that makes the whole process so costly. This started with HIPAA and just got progressively worse.
-
If you don't need the service why should you insure for it?
How do you know you won't need medical services? The essence of a free rider is someone who doesn't purchase health insurance when he's healthy, and then forces others to pay when he eventually and inevitably gets sick. As many have pointed out, if you can hold off purchasing insurance until when you get sick, that's not insurance. It's welfare. And I resent having to provide welfare to free riders who coasted all those years when I was paying premiums to stay insured like a responsible adult.
-
How do you know you won't need medical services? The essence of a free rider is someone who doesn't purchase health insurance when he's healthy, and then forces others to pay when he eventually and inevitably gets sick. As many have pointed out, if you can hold off purchasing insurance until when you get sick, that's not insurance. It's welfare. And I resent having to provide welfare to free riders who coasted all those years when I was paying premiums to stay insured like a responsible adult.
That is a clear, outright distortion of what insurance is.
Insurance is only what you get prior to a sickness, not afterwards.
Keep it up with the distortions, it will not help your case and you expose yourself for the liberal you are.
-
That is a clear, outright distortion of what insurance is.
Insurance is only what you get prior to a sickness, not afterwards.
Keep it up with the distortions, it will not help your case and you expose yourself for the liberal you are.
Get a grip sir. I was agreeing with you. Read what I wrote. Read it twice if you need to: As many have pointed out, if you can hold off purchasing insurance until when you get sick, that's not insurance. It's welfare.
-
I don't know what's so Conservative about Socialism.
-
ObamaCare has nothing to do with insurance - it is a tax designed to redistribute income.
And at its root ObamaCare has very little to do with healthcare - it's about power and control. ObamaCare just happens to have chosen the healthcare industry to assert that power and control. They could have chosen the coffee industry or the sugar industry to assert that power and control but they chose the healthcare industry instead.
-
ObamaCare has nothing to do with insurance - it is a tax designed to redistribute income.
And at its root ObamaCare has very little to do with healthcare - it's about power and control. ObamaCare just happens to have chosen the healthcare industry to assert that power and control. They could have chosen the coffee industry or the sugar industry to assert that power and control but they chose the healthcare industry instead.
QFT.
-
How do you know you won't need medical services? The essence of a free rider is someone who doesn't purchase health insurance when he's healthy, and then forces others to pay when he eventually and inevitably gets sick. As many have pointed out, if you can hold off purchasing insurance until when you get sick, that's not insurance. It's welfare. And I resent having to provide welfare to free riders who coasted all those years when I was paying premiums to stay insured like a responsible adult.
I'm pretty damned sure my wife is not going to become pregnant!
-
ObamaCare has nothing to do with insurance - it is a tax designed to redistribute income.
And at its root ObamaCare has very little to do with healthcare - it's about power and control. ObamaCare just happens to have chosen the healthcare industry to assert that power and control. They could have chosen the coffee industry or the sugar industry to assert that power and control but they chose the healthcare industry instead.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! A Fact which has been pointed out here many times previously!
-
Get a grip sir. I was agreeing with you. Read what I wrote. Read it twice if you need to:
No, you just do not get it at all.
You believe someone should be insured for something which happens in the past. Insurance is only for future events. No one insures a past event. It is not insurance.
Go back one more time and try to understand the definition of insurance.
I spelled it out for you but for some reason you are not reading it.
-
I give up, sir. You and I have a failure to communicate that cannot be resolved.
-
I give up, sir. You and I have a failure to communicate that cannot be resolved.
Oddly enough, so do you and I.
-
Oddly enough, so do you and I.
Over what?
-
Over what?
Exactly!
-
Exactly!
LOL! Sanguine, I know we disagree about things, but I assume we understand each other's positions. If my position is unclear, I'm always happy to try to explain. What's frustrating about ISAFFR is that even when I agree with him, he won't accept it!
-
LOL! Sanguine, I know we disagree about things, but I assume we understand each other's positions. If my position is unclear, I'm always happy to try to explain. What's frustrating about ISAFFR is that even when I agree with him, he won't accept it!
I understand, Jazz. You and I don't have that problem.
-
(http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=558606&d=1332454295)
-
It's roots are conservative, in the sense that it addresses the free rider issue by taxing those who do not participate in the insurance marketplace [...]
There is *no* Conservative solution that supports anything but free marketplace by the very nature of Conservatism.
There is *no* Conservative solution that supports this overweening regulation, and especially at the federal level...
There is *no* Conservative solution that advocates for mandated purchase of anything.
And: The concept of a 'free rider' is a socialist one.
-
There is *no* Conservative solution that supports anything but free marketplace by the very nature of Conservatism.
There is *no* Conservative solution that supports this overweening regulation, and especially at the federal level...
There is *no* Conservative solution that advocates for mandated purchase of anything.
And: The concept of a 'free rider' is a socialist one.
And now with some of the news out today we actually are hearing why it's so hard to replace Obamacare; not enough payoffs yet for some of the people in Congress.
-
And now with some of the news out today we actually are hearing why it's so hard to replace Obamacare; not enough payoffs yet for some of the people in Congress.
It's all bull poop and unicorn dreams.
Anything other than a full repeal with a roll call vote is just cover for single payer.... watch and see.
-
LOL! Sanguine, I know we disagree about things, but I assume we understand each other's positions. If my position is unclear, I'm always happy to try to explain. What's frustrating about ISAFFR is that even when I agree with him, he won't accept it!
You have a fundamentally flawed argument when you define insurance as taking care of pre-existing conditions. Here's your own quote on the subject:
But the ship has sailed with respect to scrapping it altogether, and returning to the bad old days when folks with preexisting conditions had no access to coverage, and imposed their costs on hospitals.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,271268.msg1385444.html#msg1385444
You say here that you want insurance on people with pre-existing conditions. That is not insurance.
-
ObamaCare isn't conservative. It wreaks too much havoc with private markets and consumer choice for that. In many places, it's devolved so there's only one insurer in the market. That's not competition, that's not conservative.
It's roots are conservative, in the sense that it addresses the free rider issue by taxing those who do not participate in the insurance marketplace, thereby expanding the risk pool sufficiently to (theoretically) make community rating coverage affordable. There are fewer folks with "pre-existing" conditions since more people are part of the pool in the first place. The costliest folks' expenses are spread among a wider group. Remember, of course, that the idea of individual mandates to achieve affordable community rating coverage has always been proposed in the context of the alternative of single payer. The conservative rationale of the individual mandate has always been to preserve private markets and avoid single payer.
But the ACA goes about it all wrong - principally, in my view, by forcing the young to subsidize the old (effectively driving those healthier lives out of the pool), and by eliminating competition with respect to the scope of coverage. The only policies in the marketplace are gold-plated, with competition coming in the form of deductibles/copays and the skinny-ness of provider networks.
Yes, the ACA can be reformed in a more conservative direction, as both the House and Senate bills attempt to do. But the ship has sailed with respect to scrapping it altogether, and returning to the bad old days when folks with preexisting conditions had no access to coverage, and imposed their costs on hospitals. Some have proposed the alternative of high risk pools for the most expensive lives, or slicing off that population and simply providing them with Medicare. Such approaches also have merit, so long as those outside the pools have access to affordable coverage that fits their needs, and effective penalties exist for the free riders.
You can't put on a fig leaf of conservativism by creating the free rider issue and then pretending to solve it. A conservative solution would not have created the free rider issue in the first place.
-
How do you know you won't need medical services? The essence of a free rider is someone who doesn't purchase health insurance when he's healthy, and then forces others to pay when he eventually and inevitably gets sick. As many have pointed out, if you can hold off purchasing insurance until when you get sick, that's not insurance. It's welfare. And I resent having to provide welfare to free riders who coasted all those years when I was paying premiums to stay insured like a responsible adult.
Well, for starters, I'm not plumbed for a pap smear, there is no way in Hell I'll ever be pregnant (and if I am, by golly, I'll make enough to pay the bills off the book rights alone), and unless my wife and I have a moment like Abraham and Sarah (which, considering the damage her second pregnancy did, the ligation, and age, really would require a miracle) I can safely say there are services required to be covered by Obamacare we simply will not need. I don't have to be the amazing Kreskin, just have a little knowledge of biology and medicine.
Likelihood of one of us coming down with HIV/AIDS? I'm not sure I can express that as an appropriate fraction without using exponents, so let's simply say 1*10^-4000 for a wildeyed guess.
Now, I HAD catastrophic health care to cover any really big expenses, and savings to cover the deductibles, but your cherished ACA took that insurance off the table. I have gone over the crippling downside of the economics of a Cadillac plan which simply provides coverage which we will not need, at a rate that is prohibitively expensive on more than one thread, and will spare you a reiteration you obviously didn't comprehend, if you even read it.
So fine me. Use the IRS to seize all I own, my home to auction for pennies on the dollar and put my ass on the street so I can die there? Is that my reward for paying my bills AND picking up the tab for others all my life by paying taxes, too?
That scenario would meet with resistance that will incur medical costs.
Just get the damned government out from between the patients and their doctors.
It'll save a lot of money, we'll get better care.
The ACA needs to go.
-
I don't know what's so Conservative about Socialism.
Nothing to know; there is nothing at all.
-
ObamaCare has nothing to do with insurance - it is a tax designed to redistribute income.
And at its root ObamaCare has very little to do with healthcare - it's about power and control. ObamaCare just happens to have chosen the healthcare industry to assert that power and control. They could have chosen the coffee industry or the sugar industry to assert that power and control but they chose the healthcare industry instead.
You are correct. It is about taking from the 'rich straight white man' and giving it away.
It is the "paybacks" Valerie Jarrett was talking about. It is class warfare, waged on the breeders and middle class by the Government. It has to go.
-
No, INVAR, I'm just the resident old school Republican. I remember as a young man devouring the policy proposals of the Heritage and AEI folks concerning the use of an individual mandate to achieve a workable structure for community rating. It was seen as the effective conservative antidote to single payer, by encouraging an efficient and affordable private insurance market that could cover most able-bodied adults without regard to health or employment status.
Yes, the roots of ObamaCare are indeed conservative.
Late to the party here, but I just have to respond to this point because I see Democrats making this argument all the time and it is frustrating as hell.
Cherry-picking the policy preferences of a few conservative intellectuals and then labelling them "conservative ideas" as if conservatives or Republicans in general supported them is bogus as hell. If these were truly "conservative" ideas that "conservatives" supported, you'd think that they'd have actually been passed at some point during the Reagan or either Bush Administration. After all, they're ideas that Democrats always would have supported in preference to the status quo.
The idea for an individual mandate was floated back in the days of the debate over HillaryCare by a few guys at Heritage, but there was never significant support for it within the GOP caucus, or among conservatives in general other than those Heritage guys. It was used not as an "antidote" to single-payer, but simply a disingenuous, politically-clever tool to kill HillaryCare. And as soon as HillaryCare died, the very few GOP members of Congress who liked the idea (all moderates) were swamped by all the Republicans (including all the conservatives) who wanted nothing to do with a mandate. That's why it never went anywhere until Democrats got 60 votes in the Senate, control of the House, and the Presidency.
It's a fundamentally liberal idea pushed by a couple of conservatives who overthought the issue. The rest of us rejected it out of hand by seeing it for what it was.
-
There is *no* Conservative solution that supports anything but free marketplace by the very nature of Conservatism.
There is *no* Conservative solution that supports this overweening regulation, and especially at the federal level...
There is *no* Conservative solution that advocates for mandated purchase of anything.
And: The concept of a 'free rider' is a socialist one.
If he wants to see 'free riders' they are the people (like the 1.3 million I keep mentioning) who did not have insurance but who want to be covered for 'preexisting conditions'. The insurance that I HAD covered my basal cell carcinoma, as I had had that insurance for years before the cancer. Now, thanks to the ACA, my being a cancer survivor will be factored into whatever insurance eventually replaces the insurance I HAD. Why? Because the pool I paid into all those years is gone, dried up by the sponges who will suck the life out of any insurance in the future as long as the ACA is in effect.
The free riders are the infected GLBTs and needle-sharing junkies and otherwise promiscuous types who have laid a trillion dollars in present and future medical payments on the people who would not engage in their behaviour by forcing them to 'share the burden' in order to get little Johnny's cut foot sewed up or little Suzie's arm set when she falls off her bicycle, not to mention the millions who lost their full time jobs over coverage rules, often people who could least afford it. They're the ones raking in wild profits in scam artist 'treatment programs' for addicts that were never intended to work, only rake in the Gubmint money.
That's just wrong.
So, let's tap into Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/10/28/obamacare-penalties-and-exemptions/#722c18d555aa) to see who is exempt from Obamacare's tender ministrations:
Certain individuals will be exempt from Obamacare. According to the website, healthcare.gov, you may qualify for an exemption if:
You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year;
The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income;
You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low;
You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider;
You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry;
You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare;
You’re incarcerated, and not awaiting the disposition of charges against you; and
You’re not lawfully present in the U.S.
It should also be noted that if your income is less than 133% of the federal poverty level, you will be relieved of this penalty. At first blush, the exemptions seem to focus on the poor, those in prison, Native Americans, and illegal immigrants. There is, however, another list of qualified exemptions.
Hardship Exemptions
This is the list I suspect holds the greatest potential for loop-hole abuse. You may qualify for a hardship exemption if:
You were homeless; (You get to die in the streets anyway! sj)
You were evicted in the past 6 months or were facing eviction or foreclosure;
You received a shut-off notice from a utility company;
You recently experienced domestic violence;
You recently experienced the death of a close family member;
You experienced a fire, flood, or other natural or human-caused disaster that caused substantial damage to your property;
You filed for bankruptcy in the last 6 months;
You had medical expenses you couldn’t pay in the last 24 months;
You experienced unexpected increases in necessary expenses due to caring for an ill, disabled, or aging family member;
You expect to claim a child as a tax dependent who’s been denied coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, and another person is required by court order to give medical support to the child. In this case, you do not have the pay the penalty for the child;
As a result of an eligibility appeals decision, you’re eligible for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Marketplace, lower costs on your monthly premiums, or cost-sharing reductions for a time period when you weren’t enrolled in a QHP through the Marketplace; and
You were determined ineligible for Medicaid because your state didn’t expand eligibility for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
And let's not leave out the Congress and their staffers, who are also exempt.
Now, I reckon none of those people are going to get sick, right?
Folks have a lot of damned gall calling people who can no longer afford insurance because of stupid government decrees 'free riders'. We're not riding at all, the Government shot our horses.
-
The rest of us rejected it out of hand by seeing it for what it was.
You rejected it out of hand because you didn't think there was a problem. It is a consequence of our current system, where most of the able-bodied population is covered by employer-provided group insurance, that those between jobs or who work for smaller employers are faced with the reality of no protection from catastrophe. That used to be seen by conservatives as that's-life unfortunate, but nothing that government was obligated to try to fix. It's still seen that way by many, but ObamaCare represents the creation of an entitlement for which there is no precedent for dismantling.
Working people want affordable health insurance. While ObamaCare is a failure, I'd like to see what the states can do to remedy the scandal of millions of uninsured.
-
You rejected it out of hand because you didn't think there was a problem.
No, we reject it out of hand, because 'We're from the government and we're here to help' is never, ever the solution.
-
Folks have a lot of damned gall calling people who can no longer afford insurance because of stupid government decrees 'free riders'. We're not riding at all, the Government shot our horses.
Damn straight.
-
Working people want affordable health insurance.
They can pay for it themselves instead of mooching off the rest of us. Make payment arrangements like the rest of us.
Screw your Communism.
ObamaCare represents the creation of an entitlement for which there is no precedent for dismantling.
There's plenty of precedent for resisting tyranny and refusing to comply with despotism.
-
Working people want affordable health insurance.
How about affordable HEALTHCARE?
-
Quote from: Jazzhead on July 14, 2017, 09:30:27 PM
Working people want affordable health insurance.
How about affordable HEALTHCARE?
Either way, as long as the government is handling it we will get neither.
-
How about affordable HEALTHCARE?
Either way, as long as the government is handling it we will get neither.
I would say that is a 100% certainty!
-
They can pay for it themselves instead of mooching off the rest of us.
There's that Christian spirit! :seeya:
-
How about affordable HEALTHCARE?
Either way, as long as the government is handling it we will get neither.
There is a difference between government running healthcare FINANCING, and the government regulating it. The former is single payer, and perhaps something we may want to avoid. Sensible, market-centric regulation is the best way to avoid it.
The GOP bill deserves support not because it uproots an entitlement and stomps it to death, as viscerally satisfying as that may be to those who think only others will be affected by it. It deserves support because it represents a big step in the direction of better, more market-centric regulation of a complex subject that affects all of us. You think healthcare financing is easy? What the GOP bills do is allow a change in philosophy toward consumer choice, and the concomitant increase in consumer responsibility that comes with it. It's the latter that liberals simply don't trust the people with.
-
There's that Christian spirit! :seeya:
He read 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.
-
There is a difference between government running healthcare FINANCING, and the government regulating it. The former is single payer, and perhaps something we may want to avoid. Sensible, market-centric regulation is the best way to avoid it.
The GOP bill deserves support not because it uproots an entitlement and stomps it to death, as viscerally satisfying as that may be to those who think only others will be affected by it. It deserves support because it represents a big step in the direction of better, more market-centric regulation of a complex subject that affects all of us. You think healthcare financing is easy? What the GOP bills do is allow a change in philosophy toward consumer choice, and the concomitant increase in consumer responsibility that comes with it. It's the latter that liberals simply don't trust the people with.
Yep. And, that's why I chose the word "handling". My statement stands as is.
-
My statement stands as is.
I wasn't attacking your statement. I was using it as a springboard for my comment.
It is common enough to refer to "health care reform" when what's being reformed is the system for financing health care. Policy choices regarding financing will, of course, ultimately affect the quality of health care. That's a subject I hear far more discussion about on the left than on the right.
-
I wasn't attacking your statement. I was using it as a springboard for my comment.
It is common enough to refer to "health care reform" when what's being reformed is the system for financing health care. Policy choices regarding financing will, of course, ultimately affect the quality of health care. That's a subject I hear far more discussion about on the left than on the right.
And, I was just pointing out that there was no wiggle-room, or room to spring from in my statement.
-
There's that Christian spirit!
What is the Eighth Commandment there Jazzy?
Unless you want to assert Jesus was okay with it as long as you use government to do it on your behalf.
If you are sooooo moved with compassion to provide healthcare insurance for these 'poor' you are so concerned about - YOU can use your own wealth to provide it for them and thus fulfill your obligation to do charity.
Empowering the state to put guns to our heads to provide it, is breaking the 8th Commandment.
-
I wasn't attacking your statement. I was using it as a springboard for my comment.
It is common enough to refer to "health care reform" when what's being reformed is the system for financing health care. Policy choices regarding financing will, of course, ultimately affect the quality of health care. That's a subject I hear far more discussion about on the left than on the right.
You can't reform the financing by decree without reforming the actual care. But I have learned a lot about what antibiotics are good for what and where to get them.