Obamacare UPHELD

[Brandon Rhea]

If the government isn't making money, then it will increase debt, the taxes they are collecting will never be 'just enough' to cover everyone needing medical care. Now I'm not saying **** the people who can't pay, I'm only saying that it will increase the government's total debt.

And I understand the second part of your argument. I personally don't see why anyone wouldn't buy healthcare in the first place without this being in existence(outside of not being able to pay). And yes, a tax is a societal responsibility, that's a given.

I don't understand your debt argument. Remember, this isn't government health care. The government isn't providing the health care coverage, since it's not a government health plan. It's still a private, for-profit system where private insurance companies provide the insurance company. The ACA is projected to reduce the long-term costs of health care, which are consistently on the rise.

Additionally, if you want to look at other countries that DO have a government health plan compared to the United States, our health care costs are one of the highest (if not the highest) in the western world. Our private, for-profit system is up at the top. Then, there’s a significant drop in costs if you implement the German, Bismarckian-style health care system (which retains private, non-profit companies but the funds are dispersed from a general fund collected via payroll taxes). In general, there’s an even bigger drop if you have a single payer system. So the so-called horrible socialist debt-creating systems pay astronomically less than our “free” system. One of the benefits to single payer also is that businesses no longer have to provide health insurance.

As for people who can afford insurance but don’t buy it, there are two main kinds of people there. The first are younger people who think they’re invincible and won’t get sick. They’re probably right in that they won’t get sick. That doesn’t mean they won’t be in a car accident or get hit by a bus, though.

The second group are wealthy people who don’t need health insurance, because they can pay for themselves. I know people like that (good people, mind you, don't get me wrong on that). Every year, they set aside a certain amount of their money to use on any health care costs that may arise.

The trouble with those two kinds of people is that they can afford it, and they’re taking money out of the risk pool that can and should be in the risk pool. The less people that are in the pool, and the more an insurance company has to cover, the greater the costs are going to be for the people who are in the pool. That’s what the mandate was all about, getting those types of people into the pool to reduce costs.

Fun fact: the individual mandate was a Republican idea created by (I believe) the Heritage Foundation. Funny how things work out.

 

[Black Noise]

I don't understand your debt argument. Remember, this isn't government health care. The government isn't providing the health care coverage, since it's not a government health plan. It's still a private, for-profit system where private insurance companies provide the insurance company. The ACA is projected to reduce the long-term costs of health care, which are consistently on the rise.

Additionally, if you want to look at other countries that DO have a government health plan compared to the United States, our health care costs are one of the highest (if not the highest) in the western world. Our private, for-profit system is up at the top. Then, there’s a significant drop in costs if you implement the German, Bismarckian-style health care system (which retains private, non-profit companies but the funds are dispersed from a general fund collected via payroll taxes). In general, there’s an even bigger drop if you have a single payer system. So the so-called horrible socialist debt-creating systems pay astronomically less than our “free” system. One of the benefits to single payer also is that businesses no longer have to provide health insurance.

As for people who can afford insurance but don’t buy it, there are two main kinds of people there. The first are younger people who think they’re invincible and won’t get sick. They’re probably right in that they won’t get sick. That doesn’t mean they won’t be in a car accident or get hit by a bus, though.

The second group are wealthy people who don’t need health insurance, because they can pay for themselves. I know people like that (good people, mind you, don't get me wrong on that). Every year, they set aside a certain amount of their money to use on any health care costs that may arise.

The trouble with those two kinds of people is that they can afford it, and they’re taking money out of the risk pool that can and should be in the risk pool. The less people that are in the pool, and the more an insurance company has to cover, the greater the costs are going to be for the people who are in the pool. That’s what the mandate was all about, getting those types of people into the pool to reduce costs.

Fun fact: the individual mandate was a Republican idea created by (I believe) the Heritage Foundation. Funny how things work out.

Ah, I see. Thank you for clearing up my misinformation. I have always been told(and upon viewing for myself, assumed) that Obamacare was something the government paid for.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Ah, I see. Thank you for clearing up my misinformation. I have always been told(and upon viewing for myself, assumed) that Obamacare was something the government paid for.

The mandate tax will go to the insurance companies basically as a subsidy. There are other things that government will pay for, i.e. there's an expansion of Medicaid in the bill, but the thrust of the ACA is providing private health insurance to more people. In that case, health insurance is still attached to your job and so forth.

 

[Shiuzu]

I'm happy to hear this. And I do hope that it will help the people and not just line pockets and the medical system has done for quite some time.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Another thing I’ll point out is that the Affordable Care Act is 100% temporary. The single most important provision of that law is one that says that 80% of money from health insurance premiums must be spent on health care coverage—not on administrative costs and not to be used for profit. That’s a ticking time bomb. For a private, for-profit enterprise, such a provision is unsustainable; they can’t spend 80% on health costs AND cover administrative costs AND make a profit at the same time.

I have to imagine that’s a deliberate provision, because it will very clearly destroy the current for-profit health care model. Not that I’m against that, mind you. I welcome it. So when I say that the ACA is temporary, it's because it's only a matter of time until the current model is reduced to rubble. Then we can have genuine health care reform and not a band aid for the current broken system. Because, as good as it is that the ACA will cover millions of more people and reduce health costs, it's still a band aid over the real problem.

 

[BLADE]

Which, all due respect, lowers the standard across the board.

A lot of Americans are against it simply because it forces them to have health insurance. I am (somewhat) American, and really I think it comes down to the fact that very few people want to be forced to do anything. Essentially, who does the government think they are, to fore people to do something (in this case, healthcare).

Gee, it's almost like the idea of government itself is predicated on limiting some freedoms in exchange for social order. But no. That would be utterly silly.

The problem is that there are a lot of things within the bill that are controversial. For one thing, there are (proposed) committees for things such as elder care. It is possible now to simply cut off health care for a person if they are deemed a 'financial drain' by the government. Private healthcare becomes much more difficult. Which, really, is restricting freedoms in several ways. Which in itself is un-constitutional.

1. You should not take your information from Sarah Palin. She's stupid. The stupidity rubs off. What I mean to say is that you sound stupid. The elder care portions of the bill deal with the government establishing voluntary guidelines that families can use in cases of terminal care. There's a kernel of truth there in that all health care systems involve rationing, but...

2. The government-run systems do better. Whether it be Tricare or Medicare here, or their European counterparts, on nearly every dimension these systems are far better than the corporate American system.

3. You do realize the constitution itself enumerates and delineates certain powers to the government which necessarily proscribe absolute freedom, right?

As for your other post:

Anecdotal evidence isn't worth a damn unless it's coloring some empirical evidence. Other Britons here have already weighed in on their experiences with the NHS.

I'm not very surprised. Both Roberts and Kennedy could have gone either way, though I expected the latter to flip rather than the former. The ruling on the commerce clause was stupid (there are four basis on which the commerce clause is circumscribed), and could be used by conservatives to attack other areas of the governmental regulatory apparatus. I'll save the legalese unless anyone is really interested.

Politically, I think it's a wash. Liberals will be mindful of how close the Supreme Court is to being completely dominated by conservatives, and conservatives (who have long since woven a victimhood narrative for themselves) will see their movement as under siege and thus turn out more. My suspicion is that this election increasingly looks like 2004, but in reverse. '

And yes. The ACA will likely gut the private system. Good riddance.

 

[Sovereign]

The Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare will reduce the deficit.

The US needs a single payer system. I can't believe people have to get in debt and mortgage their homes to pay for things like cancer treatment. It's a basic human right. I'm glad the law passed because health insurances are going to go down now. It's not perfect but it's still something.

 

[BLADE]

The Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare will reduce the deficit.

Over ten years given certain macroeconomic assumptions (growth over a certain percentage, revenue as a certain percentage of GDP, etc.) Their models are alright, but relatively unimaginative and don't deal with the knock-on effects of health-care very well. My view is that this will bend the cost curve initially and then spin out of control. In a certain sense, the insurance industry titans will be able to benefit as current corporate governance rules means that management and all the other power players will be able to reap massive dividends from the initial customer boon due to the individual mandate.

In any case, I'm not particularly worried about the deficit. It's only a salient economic concern over a very long-term window (decades, not years), and for the most part, even the ACA is a very weak-tea solution to it. A national health care system, as you said, would be best. But this is about the best we're going to get now.

It isn't surprising that it sucks. The Heritage Foundation (like most conservative "think tanks") has managed to be wrong on nearly everything ever. That their cockamamie plan is badly thought-out is not particularly surprising.

 

[Ush]

If anyone doesn't vote for Obama here I'll rip your throats out and feed them to my neighbors ant farm.

 

[Johnnysaurus Rex]

I'd advise against such talk.

 

[Ush]

Why would anyone want to vote for a bully that wants to strip you of your basic rights?

 

[Johnnysaurus Rex]

That's not really a good question, sir. From your standpoint Romney is such a thing, but others say the same thing about Obama.

 

[Ush]

No, Romney is an actual, standard bully. I'm pretty sure their is an article about it...

Boom.

 

[Kaeb]

I apologise for my fellow Irishman, he has no idea what he's talking about....

 

[Sovereign]

Over ten years given certain macroeconomic assumptions (growth over a certain percentage, revenue as a certain percentage of GDP, etc.) Their models are alright, but relatively unimaginative and don't deal with the knock-on effects of health-care very well. My view is that this will bend the cost curve initially and then spin out of control. In a certain sense, the insurance industry titans will be able to benefit as current corporate governance rules means that management and all the other power players will be able to reap massive dividends from the initial customer boon due to the individual mandate.

In any case, I'm not particularly worried about the deficit. It's only a salient economic concern over a very long-term window (decades, not years), and for the most part, even the ACA is a very weak-tea solution to it. A national health care system, as you said, would be best. But this is about the best we're going to get now.

It isn't surprising that it sucks. The Heritage Foundation (like most conservative "think tanks") has managed to be wrong on nearly everything ever. That their cockamamie plan is badly thought-out is not particularly surprising.

Healthcare was already spiralling out of control. Without a doubt, Obamacare will be less expensive. Healthcare costs were growing at a nearly exponential rate.

 

[BLADE]

Healthcare was already spiralling out of control. Without a doubt, Obamacare will be less expensive. Healthcare costs were growing at a nearly exponential rate.

Sure. But it doesn't really solve the problem and with the lack of corporate governance in the US, will drive the private insurers out of business. Which will be good. In the long-run. But there will be some suffering too.

Ush: Yes. Romney is a bully. Yes, conservatism is (generally, though I too lurve nuclear power) stupid. No, you really shouldn't threaten people about what they believe, however wrong you may believe it to be.

 

[Sovereign]

Why would it drive private insurers out of business and why should we care?

 

[Ush]

I know dam well what I'm talking about because I had to put up with the same crap for at least three years. Back when I was... Only 9 or 10 I reckon. Had no idea what gay was. No idea why they were calling me it. And you know the best thing? One of them is openly homosexual and I'm completely hetrosexual. It sickens me to think a country would vote someone like Romney anywhere.

 

[BLADE]

Why would it drive private insurers out of business and why should we care?

1. Because corporate governance and the regulatory apparatus in the United States is so lacking to save these companies from themselves that they will not be able to maintain one of the law's provisions regarding the limitations on administrative overhead (twenty percent, as opposed to the average of around thirty-five percent for the big insurers.) This is also ignoring the demographic time bomb as well as the lack of economies of scale that even the largest private insurers lack compared to a robust national system.

2. I don't. Blue Cross et. all can go **** themselves. I do however, understand that a lot of people do rely on their awful insurance and that when these companies go under, there will be a period in which lots of people will be without insurance, even more so than are now, potentially. Hopefully we will be able to address the crossing of that bridge when we come to it.

 

[Kaeb]

I know dam well what I'm talking about because I had to put up with the same crap for at least three years. Back when I was... Only 9 or 10 I reckon. Had no idea what gay was. No idea why they were calling me it. And you know the best thing? One of them is openly homosexual and I'm completely hetrosexual. It sickens me to think a country would vote someone like Romney anywhere.

Voting for someone based solely on their social policies is a mistake and downright idiotic.

What does the election of the US President have to do with YOUR rights, you're Irish and our government won't be legalising gay marriage any time soon.