Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Healthcare Reform

  1. #1
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,453
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default Healthcare Reform

    So, there is a lot of discussion about healthcare reform, Obamacare's viability, etc. out there these days, but none in here. Basically, I want to get the ball rolling on a discussion of the issues (insurance specific, economic, philosophic) to get some lively debate and exchange of ideas going. Since I'm in the industry and my knowledge of the subject is pretty deep I'll save my response for later (if anyone posts in this thread).

    Let's start with some basic questions for prompt: What do you think about Obamacare? Should more be done? Should less be done? Alternatives? Is health insurance a right? Does the government have the right to enforce an individual mandate? What about anti-selection? Penalties? Concerns about upward pressure on premiums? Employers choosing to pay instead of play? The effect on the ever-shrinking middle class? Healthcare costs and HCR's effect on family practice?

    I'm leaving this broad, so if you came into this thread you have no excuse not to say something.

    (This is my attempt at content generation)
    Quote Originally Posted by gina View Post
    i can't tell if we're in the throes of a troll toll (to get into the boy's soul) or if there's just one more big floppy douchebag pussywhipped idiot walkin around out there

  2. #2
    sponge sponge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    sponge
    Posts
    3,788
    Credits
    848
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What do you think about Obamacare?
    It's shit and the living definition of a corporate handout.
    Should more be done?
    Yes, but in a radically different direction.
    Should less be done?
    In the sense that there should be less corporatism, yes.
    Alternatives?
    Public option or single-payer.
    Is health insurance a right?
    If life is a right (as asserted in the Declaration, not the Constitution -- but most people will accept the Declaration as a 'base' of American values), then it follows that the preservation of life, and therefore health insurance (as without it preservation of life would be even more prohibitively expensive) is also a right.
    Does the government have the right to enforce an individual mandate?
    The government has a right to levy a tax on income by whatever amendment. As that's how the PPACA mandate is enforced (no proof of insurance and your income is taxed additionally), then yes, the government has that right.
    What about anti-selection?
    What, as in the ability to opt out?
    Penalties?
    The mandate would have no teeth if it weren't for penalties, so yes, penalties are ultimately necessary.
    Concerns about upward pressure on premiums?
    That's the cost of operating a modern, western society where we value the 'right to life' of citizens. The upward pressure would be less if there was any real upper bound aside from the "minimum medical loss ration", i.e. real competition in the health services industry.
    Employers choosing to pay instead of play?
    Erm, I mean, I guess if it makes business sense, then sure. Probably means the penalities need to be raised, though, as it does defeat the 'purpose' of the bill.
    The effect on the ever-shrinking middle class?
    At least the rate of people from the middle class declaring bankruptcy under medical expenses because he either didn't have insurance (by choice or not) or was dropped by his provider and subsequently dropping to the lower class will decrease. Otherwise, I guess you're referring to the middle class becoming smaller because suddenly they have a [higher?] insurance premium to pay? One side to that coin is that they weren't previously really middle class as they likely had negative externalities which they weren't accounting for, and now they're just accounting for it.
    Healthcare costs and HCR's effect on family practice?
    No idea what this is about honestly.

    The number one failure of this bill was to not implement a public option that can create mass pressure on health and pharma providers to keep prices lower. Mind you, NOT Medicare, which is unable to do something as monumental as negotiate drug prices for the large purchases they can coordinate. This is directly opposite the interests of pharma and health care providers, whose margins have allowed them healthy lobbying budgets.
    Last edited by sponge; 06-25-2011 at 02:05 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear View Post
    scarf wasn't man enough to do it so queendork pushed herself down the stairs.

  3. #3
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,453
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sponge View Post
    What do you think about Obamacare?
    It's shit and the living definition of a corporate handout.
    It is terrible, but I don't see how you could call it a corporate handout. If anything, with the guaranteed issue and small business and consumer subsidies it is more of a social handout.

    Should more be done?
    Yes, but in a radically different direction.
    I agree

    Should less be done?
    In the sense that there should be less corporatism, yes.
    Again, the corporatism isn't the problem I wouldn't say. If by corporatism you are admonishing PPACA for not creating a public option or single-payer, well, I'll get to that.

    Alternatives?
    Public option or single-payer.
    A public option wouldn't be the worst idea, but single payer will never be viable in America. Anti-selection against a single-payer pool would be ludicrous (due to the culture, not due to any innate lack of viability), and taxes and/or premiums would have to skyrocket to account for the losses. The already fragile condition of the government's finances couldn't handle the strain.

    Is health insurance a right?
    If life is a right (as asserted in the Declaration, not the Constitution -- but most people will accept the Declaration as a 'base' of American values), then it follows that the preservation of life, and therefore health insurance (as without it preservation of life would be even more prohibitively expensive) is also a right.
    Fair enough, though if preservation of life is a right it creates an icky double standard on abortion, assisted suicide, and pulling the plug on people (I assume you're coming from a left-of-center perspective given the opinions you've voiced)

    Does the government have the right to enforce an individual mandate?
    The government has a right to levy a tax on income by whatever amendment. As that's how the PPACA mandate is enforced (no proof of insurance and your income is taxed additionally), then yes, the government has that right.
    Well, it isn't really a tax on income, as even those without income will be penalized for not having health insurance and it isn't relative to income in any way.

    What about anti-selection?
    What, as in the ability to opt out?
    By this, I'm saying that the people in the middle and upper class who are wealthy enough to afford the penalty but don't want the additional burden that premiums would place on their finances could just pay the penalty and get insurance when they get sick. Due to guaranteed issue they couldn't be denied, so they'd be taking advantage of the pool. Basically, anyone who can afford the penalty can game the system.

    Penalties?
    The mandate would have no teeth if it weren't for penalties, so yes, penalties are ultimately necessary.
    Indeed, but it is deeper than that. I think, if anything, the penalties need to be increased. There is too great of an incentive to select against the pool the way the law is written right now, and it will make everyone suffer.

    Concerns about upward pressure on premiums?
    That's the cost of operating a modern, western society where we value the 'right to life' of citizens. The upward pressure would be less if there was any real upper bound aside from the "minimum medical loss ration", i.e. real competition in the health services industry.
    Your argument here, which is similar to many I've heard, ignores the main source of the problem. There are some bad guy insurance companies, yes, but they aren't all that way. Premiums aren't at the levels they are because of insurer greed, they are at the levels they are at because of super inflated provider costs. Sure, there are issues of member selection and provider-side fraud, but it is deeper than that. Due to the condition of malpractice law, doctors are charging ridiculous fees for the services they provide and running the gamut of unnecessary tests just to avoid missing something and getting sued, and it is an industry wide problem. Hospitals are making a killing, which puts upward pressure on premiums, which makes members suffer. I think there needs to be Provider Cost of Care reform before anything PPACA does.

    Guaranteed issue itself violates one of the basic principles of insurance, fortuitous loss. For now the effects of that will be minimal (so long as the scenario where masses of people select against insurance companies due to insufficient penalties doesn't occur), but our society is aging. It is the same as the problem that social security and Medicare are going to face. Premiums are going to go up exponentially as time goes on due to a lack of enough healthy people paying into the pool. This is a problem that will outgrow the subsidies and eventually price people out, on top of shooting all insurance products into the range of "Cadillac" plans, subjecting everyone who is insured to a tax as the bill is written today.

    Employers choosing to pay instead of play?
    Erm, I mean, I guess if it makes business sense, then sure. Probably means the penalities need to be raised, though, as it does defeat the 'purpose' of the bill.
    I agree. Employers could really screw over employers if they wanted to. However, I theorize that most businesses will keep offering health insurance benefits to incentivize the current workforce and prospective hires, especially as small businesses begin dropping that benefit.

    The effect on the ever-shrinking middle class?
    At least the rate of people from the middle class declaring bankruptcy under medical expenses because he either didn't have insurance (by choice or not) or was dropped by his provider and subsequently dropping to the lower class will decrease. Otherwise, I guess you're referring to the middle class becoming smaller because suddenly they have a [higher?] insurance premium to pay? One side to that coin is that they weren't previously really middle class as they likely had negative externalities which they weren't accounting for, and now they're just accounting for it.
    I have two issues with your argument here, in that 1: The rate of middle class people being bankrupted by medical bills is not particularly high anyway, and 2: In most states (and by that I mean states I've worked with the insurance laws of, which is about 14 of them) insurers aren't allowed to just randomly drop people to avoid covering their claims anyway. I do believe that the middle class is the group that this law hurts the most. They make too much money to get subsidies, but not enough to support what will be exponentially increasing premiums and eventual taxes based upon what I've explained before. That doesn't even take into account positive cost of care trending. Worst case scenario this could put the final nail in the coffin of the middle class.

    Healthcare costs and HCR's effect on family practice?
    No idea what this is about honestly.
    What I meant by this is that the way the bill is written it is going to make trend go crazy. Believe it or not, it is not good for insurance companies when this happens. Between reserve requirements, MLRs, and premium refunding guidelines this could be a mess for them. They are going to want to keep premiums as low as they can, which will make them hardball provider contracts. Private practice is going to struggle to function under a hardball contract and have no leverage for counter-bargaining. If they are kicked off of networks they will not be able to survive, which is bad for them and the communities around them.

    The number one failure of this bill was to not implement a public option that can create mass pressure on health and pharma providers to keep prices lower. Mind you, NOT Medicare, which is unable to do something as monumental as negotiate drug prices for the large purchases they can coordinate. This is directly opposite the interests of pharma and health care providers, whose margins have allowed them healthy lobbying budgets.
    This bill has no effect on providers whatsoever, and neither would the creation of a private option (unless the private option would come with private hospitals and private doctors who would work for less because they are good people?). Health insurers and health providers are not the same, and this bill cripples one while leaving the other out of check. Insurers can't just start kicking large providers out of their network due to accessibility requirements, so in some areas there is just going to be no bargaining with them. Granted, these increased costs will be spread across more people, but the costs will increase by a greater margin than they are dispersed.

    Those are my opinions of your opinions. Huzzah content!
    Quote Originally Posted by gina View Post
    i can't tell if we're in the throes of a troll toll (to get into the boy's soul) or if there's just one more big floppy douchebag pussywhipped idiot walkin around out there

  4. #4
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,570
    Credits
    2,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Regarding cost of healthare and the middle class in general, I'll just say this much. During the Bush administration, if one looks at the statistics naively, it appears incomes didn't rise at all. However, that's not the case: effective incomes did indeed rise, but all the increase went into paying for healthcare benefits.


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

  5. #5
    Merry fucking Christmas Atmosfear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,675
    Credits
    2,035
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    That's what happens when baby boomers stop working and start getting older.

  6. #6
    Senior Member John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley, CO
    Posts
    67
    Credits
    532
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    Let's start with some basic questions for prompt: What do you think about Obamacare?
    I think it's an unconstitutional piece of crap, enacted under an irresponsible veil of "we have to pass it to find out what's in it."

    Should more be done? Should less be done? Alternatives?
    I'm not an expert by any means on the intricasies of health care or health care law. I don't have any alternatives besides "leave me the hell alone."

    Is health insurance a right?
    There is no such thing as the right to someone else's labor, so no.

    Does the government have the right to enforce an individual mandate?
    Hells no. This is an unprecedented (there is literally no precedent) use of power under the commerce clause, and if it's a valid use of the power, there is really no end to the government's authority. Any time the economy gets a little slow they can just make a new law requiring everyone to buy another LED TV or a new computer. Think the public would be better off if they read more newspapers? Require a subscription to the New Yor Times. Think people are too fat? Mandate they purchase five servings of fruits per day. Where does it end? There has been no limiting principle on this newly-invented power other than "this is a special case." Which is BS. The trend of government is to expand its power, not to limit it, and there's no reason to believe this power would be any different.

    As far as non-compliance with the mandate is concerned, penalties for not doing so are clearly unconcstitutional as well, insofar as they are considered a "tax." There are three methods of taxation authorized by the Constitution, and this scheme complies with none of them. First, it is not a tax on income because it is not based on income. It cannot be classified as a capitation tax because it is not apportioned. And it cannot be labeled an excise because the rate is not uniform across the states.

    Purely unconstitutional.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •