D.C. Circuit guts ObamaCare

Sorry... I don't understand your question.

I'm asking what exactly the problem you are trying to point out is. You say "the taxpayers are on the hook for this, where they used to be on the hook for that"...rather than argue about whether the taxpayers really are on this hook of which you speak, I'm pointing out that it is still a better hook to be on, which was the point. At the same time that it shifts the taxpayers to a better hook, it provides better health care to people who previously were stuck with the ER plan. So, taking your complaint at face value, I am left asking so where is the down side?
 
No, you have a fat, smoking, high blood pressure Jag that you are charging the same premium as a healthy, regular sized Buick.

When there is a problem it will take much more to fix the Jag than the Buick. The difference will have to be made up by someone (taxpayers).

If the fat, smoking, high blood pressure Jag had been charged appropriately... there would be no need for any reinbursing.

Socialism doesn't work... here.
 
So your position is that a private US foundation which has existed since 1918, has a current endowment of over $700 million, does not even typically accept donations, and whose purpose is to "promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable", is intentionally lying to make conservatives look bad?

That Forbes Magazine is also behind this sinister plot?

My position is that the survey/study is subjective.

and that ObamaCare sucks.
 
No, you have a fat, smoking, high blood pressure Jag that you are charging the same premium as a healthy, regular sized Buick.

When there is a problem it will take much more to fix the Jag than the Buick. The difference will have to be made up by someone (taxpayers).

If the fat, smoking, high blood pressure Jag had been charged appropriately... there would be no need for any reinbursing.

Socialism doesn't work... here.

Who was on the hook when that Jag pulled into the emergency room uninsured?
 
My position is that the survey/study is subjective.

and that ObamaCare sucks.
It is largely qualitative, instead of quantitative, except for the cost because there is no other way to assess and rank these criteria.

However, you can hardly call it "subjective" unless an expert in such matters examined their study it in great detail, and they found at least one serious flaw with their approach which rendered it not to be objective instead. Do you have any such criticism you can provide to lend credence to your personal opinion?

But thanks for providing such an excellent example of one likely subjective opinion and another clearly subjective one to properly compare and contrast the two.

Also, your original statement even suggests that you thought the study must have been done in the UK because of the word "commonwealth". That this was the reason you decided that the UK was selected as the best overall.

What? The Commonwealth Fund did a survey and found that Great Britain's was the best. You don't say. Yes, facts are tricky/pesky sometimes.
 
Obamacare won't work because it doesn't address the principle issue here and that is skyrocketing costs. Oh it got a few things right with consumer protections, making sure insurance can't just drop you once you get sick, making sure you can get coverage with pre-existing conditions, stuff like that. But it did nothing to stem regulation costs or big pharma costs of end of life care costs. Those are the big three driving medical costs way too high, plus obscene profits by insurance companies. And instead of trying to reign costs in all we did was subsidize those companies and further remove value based decisions from the patient.

There's this old anecdotal story, I don't remember where it comes from, but say you're in your 20s or 30s or whatever and someone comes to you and says hey, someday you are going to die. But if you pay me a million dollars right now I guarantee to add an additional year to the end of your life. You'd probably be like shutup you're nuts, I don't have a million dollars and besides I have plenty of time left. But that's exactly what we do with end of life care now, we pay obscene amounts of money to try to squeeze a couple more years out of people who have already lived a very long time. It just doesn't make sense, but because your insurance covers the costs and you don't directly pay for it of course you're going to take all those procedures. I mean how many cancer patients would give up treatment if instead of spending thousands on their care the insurance company said hey you can give this money to your children instead?

And this issue is not unique to health care. Look at the costs of college. They skyrocketed when the government started providing loans at super low rates. You change who's paying for it, increase the easily available money, and the business (in this case colleges) are going to take full advantage.

And that's what obamacare does, just subsidizes a whole industry. And you can't just say, well price control procedures because doctors will suffer the most from that. Insurance companies aren't going to say it's ok, we'll still pay doctors the same, just give us less premiums, no way. Doctors deserve to make a lot of money because it's a highly skilled and difficult job. We need to somehow get our money back from corporations that basically just push paper and act as giant banks.

Maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about, but the experience is surely real. My premiums went from 100% company paid two years ago to an 80/20 split now where I pay $300 a month. And my out of pocket max went up 25%, which directly affects me since I'll probably have another kid in the next couple years. My first kid cost me a grand total of $3000 to have. My next one including the new premiums will cost around $8000. Over 250% increase in less than 5 years. And my costs are still low compared to most people, I count myself lucky, but premium wise it's basically a ~2700 pay cut since it's pre-tax, and my company did it purely because costs are rising and they can't afford to cover it 100%. Them paying 80% they still pay more today then they did back when they paid 100%.

American health system is broken and if single payer will fix it I'm all for it. Nationalize all the health insurers if that will work, I'm just very skeptical because I envision single payer her not as nationalization but as government simply footing the bill to the insurance companies as they laugh all the way to the bank.




I forgot to comment on the court decision, I think the interpretation was fine but I do find it a bit funny. Gruber one of the chief architects said the whole reason that clause was in there was to pressure governors to setup exchanges by threatening zero subsidies for their states if they didn't. Well a few governors called the feds bluff. I say good for them, since I believe obamacare is basically a huge corporate health insurance subsidy, and the feds are trying to make the costs look smaller by pushing as much as they can onto states.
 
Obamacare won't work because it doesn't address the principle issue here and that is skyrocketing costs.

That's actually the point.

The cost spiral was driven by the demand factors you cited, but it also ran on the indirect pay principle. When the patient is not the payer they will always opt for treatment. Then the insurer is stuck negotiating the payment with the provider. But the insurer doesn't really feel any pressure to negotiate "hard ball," because they just raise premiums to make up for breaking weak. How many patients make the connection between "I say yes to literally any piece of quackery my doctor suggests since I don't have to pay for it anyway" and "my insurance premiums keep going up"?

Enter the government. Yes, they are positioned "in cahoots" with the insurers. The insurers are going to stay profitable. It just is not going to be by passing on premiums endlessly. Why do you think that doctors universally hate this? They talk a steady stream about "quality of care" and "death panels" and all the rest, but their complaint really is that their gravy train is going off the rails.
 
Maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about, but the experience is surely real. My premiums went from 100% company paid two years ago to an 80/20 split now where I pay $300 a month. And my out of pocket max went up 25%, which directly affects me since I'll probably have another kid in the next couple years. My first kid cost me a grand total of $3000 to have. My next one including the new premiums will cost around $8000. Over 250% increase in less than 5 years. And my costs are still low compared to most people, I count myself lucky, but premium wise it's basically a ~2700 pay cut since it's pre-tax, and my company did it purely because costs are rising and they can't afford to cover it 100%. Them paying 80% they still pay more today then they did back when they paid 100%.

Last year, nationwide health premiums went up 2%; mine did not rise. This years price increases have not been gathered, but I've just received notice from my insurer that it is raises its premiums an average of 7.5%. I'm not happy about this, but it's a big improvement over the double-digit increases I saw before Obamacare.

civver, what was your original coverage? Was it one of those catastrophe-only policies? Have you search on your state's exchange to see if the free market can offer you a better plan at less cost?
 
USA #1!

[URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/]U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries[/URL]



Facts are such pesky things.

I see Canada and USA are almost tied :D

And how is Britain #1 in almost every category, but #10 in "healthy lives"?
 
... how is Britain #1 in almost every category, but #10 in "healthy lives"?

"Healthy lives" is not defined anywhere. Not knowing what I'm talking about, I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess it's referring to healthy lifestyles, e.g. the British eat fried, fatty foods, don't excercise, sleep little, and are subject to lots of stress.
 
"Healthy lives" is not defined anywhere. Not knowing what I'm talking about, I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess it's referring to healthy lifestyles, e.g. the British eat fried, fatty foods, don't excercise, sleep little, and are subject to lots of stress.

Pretty much. We're not the best people at looking after ourselves.
 
Obamacare won't work because it doesn't address the principle issue here and that is skyrocketing costs.
Well, let's not forget that it tried to until it got all warped out of shape by Congressional compromise so it would even pass. That it was deliberately morphed by the healthcare "industry" lobbyists to be yet another way for them to get rich.
 
Health insurance stocks are soaring on this news. Sounds like the company in question needs a business consultant.

Naturally. The Stock market hates uncertainty and loves government subsidies.

Health insurance is now a much large part of the 2016 campaign dialog. Ted Cruz had his Christmas come early.

J
 
Health insurance is now a much large part of the 2016 campaign dialog. Ted Cruz had his Christmas come early.

The ACA fight is over. If Cruz still wants to beat a dead horse that's fine but pretending this even remotely helps him is delusional.
 
Naturally. The Stock market hates uncertainty and loves government subsidies.

Health insurance is now a much large part of the 2016 campaign dialog. Ted Cruz had his Christmas come early.

J

:deadhorse: Let us hope Cruz is stupid enough to focus his campaign there. Not unlikely.
 
Christmas at the Presidential level for the ACA came in 2012 and it was a lump of coal for the Cruz side of things.

The ACA fight is over. If Cruz still wants to beat a dead horse that's fine but pretending this even remotely helps him is delusional.

Neither of you thinks any Republican a chance, so I am unsurprised.

It is sufficient to say you are mistaken. It may not be enough, but on this issue Cruz owns the high ground.

:deadhorse: Let us hope Cruz is stupid enough to focus his campaign there. Not unlikely.

He already has. The mantra is "repeal every word."

It is not a dead horse in Republican circles, which is what matters now.

J
 
Neither of you thinks any Republican a chance, so I am unsurprised.

It is sufficient to say you are mistaken. It may not be enough, but on this issue Cruz owns the high ground.



He already has. The mantra is "repeal every word."

It is not a dead horse in Republican circles, which is what matters now.

J

Sure. It's what matters in the primaries. But the wise candidate makes their primary run with at least some eye on not appearing stupid to the majority, ie the people who are not Republicans voting in the primary. Romney tried, but still did too much damage getting nominated to be electable. You seem quite pleased to think Cruz will be doing the same thing. I thought you wanted a Republican to win?
 
Sure. It's what matters in the primaries. But the wise candidate makes their primary run with at least some eye on not appearing stupid to the majority, ie the people who are not Republicans voting in the primary. Romney tried, but still did too much damage getting nominated to be electable. You seem quite pleased to think Cruz will be doing the same thing. I thought you wanted a Republican to win?

We are talking about the primaries, so it's sort of the point.

The majority of the country are broad minded enough that party label is not a liability. Sorry if that leaves you out.


That we can agree. Legalize weed.

J
 
Back
Top Bottom