ObamaCare Cancelled Your Health Insurance.

[wmw999 2,123]

If you look at some of the crap that's been sold as insurance within some states, frankly, I'll take my chances with the same kind of advisers who are considered to be qualified to advise people on Medicare supplement plans.

There are valid things to fight with ACA about. Picking on the sound bite of the day and posting drive-by comments doesn't usually address them.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

wmw999

If you look at some of the crap that's been sold as insurance within some states, frankly, I'll take my chances with the same kind of advisers who are considered to be qualified to advise people on Medicare supplement plans.

There are valid things to fight with ACA about. Picking on the sound bite of the day and posting drive-by comments doesn't usually address them.

Wendy P.

So Wendy, link us to a crap policy
Or, link us to a story that demonstrates your point

Or it this just a talking point drive by post you are talking about?

Also, WHAT is a valid thing in the ACA?

and dont use pre-conditions. this was being addressed fairly quickly across the country

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,123]

Here is an article in Consumer Reports about crap policies. It's from 2009, before ACA was passed. There aren't a lot of them left, because, after all, they're not being offered any more.

I would say that the handling of preconditions is a valid objection; I'd also say that the lack of a low-benefit policy is (but I do understand that one -- no one ever thinks they're going to need insurance -- if they know they will, they probably can't afford the insurance coverage). Obviously the roll-out has been awful.

One of the biggest objections I have is that ACA does nothing to address the fact that hospitals and doctors are paid for doing more, rather than for keeping people healthy. Imagine what your police department would be like if they were paid by the crime? Do you think that would incentivize them to keep crime down, or just to catch it as it happens, and prove they're valuable?

As far as talking points, I addressed that in the original post. Holding up the current system of insurance delivery as an example of how to do it is ludicrous.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 622]

Some years ago I believed the low-benefit policies were created to aide in child support compliance.


No, I didn't.

[rushmc 18]

wmw999

Here is an article in Consumer Reports about crap policies. It's from 2009, before ACA was passed. There aren't a lot of them left, because, after all, they're not being offered any more.

I would say that the handling of preconditions is a valid objection; I'd also say that the lack of a low-benefit policy is (but I do understand that one -- no one ever thinks they're going to need insurance -- if they know they will, they probably can't afford the insurance coverage). Obviously the roll-out has been awful.

One of the biggest objections I have is that ACA does nothing to address the fact that hospitals and doctors are paid for doing more, rather than for keeping people healthy. Imagine what your police department would be like if they were paid by the crime? Do you think that would incentivize them to keep crime down, or just to catch it as it happens, and prove they're valuable?

As far as talking points, I addressed that in the original post. Holding up the current system of insurance delivery as an example of how to do it is ludicrous.

Wendy P.

Wendy, you do know the current system is here because of regulation, right?


Fix it this way
I have no problem with defining a minimum policy. What that minimum is would be highly debatable but, for the sake of our debate, lets say one is defined that we can both agree on for the most part.

So, the minimum is defined
At this point, let states establish minimum requirements for insurance sales people

Eliminate state barriers to all insurance carriers

Tort reform would also be needed

At this point, let the carriers fight for the business

Prices and costs would drop like a rock from this point forward

Very little government needed
Let the consumer buy what they want

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,123]

Marc, the current system is here in part because of regulation. But it's also here because medical care costs money, and because the more sophisticated it gets, the more expensive it gets.

50-60 years ago some people could just pay for most of their care; if anything really complicated happened, you were going to die. There weren't MRIs, cat scans were very rare, only kidneys and corneas were transplanted (and only rarely), broken limbs generally were set and casted (no surgery), vascular surgery barely existed, you just rested for a heart attack, etc.

Not to mention that since prescription meds and medical practices etc. couldn't be advertised, those costs were also much smaller.

So insurance was also less expensive.

All the money pouring into pharma does help to develop new drugs (mostly for profitable conditions, of course). It's not without an upside.

But virtually nothing is less expensive in medicine with all the advances. Nearly everything else becomes less expensive in some ways with increased automation.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

And cost of care is going up mainly because insurance carriers for Drs require multiple test so to cover their asses from law suits and advancements. But only the most effeicent advancments would survice in a less regulated and less letigious environment.

Also, consider the following from Forbes
As another big ACA lie may be coming to light

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/10/08/lying-with-statistics-obamas-pre-existing-conditions-crisis/

Quote

Obama's Pre-existing Conditions Whopper

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Don't discourage him, I want to see what a coach potato is.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Or you could just assume that my auto correct got me and I didn't notice.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I'm not sure that not upsetting people is part of your posting style.

Oh, playing the player?

That is not your style... Till you just did it.

[wmw999 2,123]

You're right -- and I had intended to put a winkie there. Not that it would have changed the post, though. Ah well.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 622]

AWESOME!!


thanks for that!

[rushmc 18]

Hmm
Interesting how many of the concerns of the "extreme" right racists (for opposing Obama) are being shown to be correct

Quote

Cardin said, via the Washington Free Beacon:


The Affordable Care Act contains many provisions. I strongly supported the bill itself. But in terms of that particular provision, I agree, there are certain concerns that I have. The purpose of the board is to make sure that health care costs are maintained at a reasonable level and that there is an objective review of the payments made under the healthcare system. That was the main purpose of this board in its report. It comes into effect under certain circumstances. It has not been implemented yet, but it is a provision in the law that needs to be revisited to make sure the concerns you expressed do not occur.

Former Gov. Sarah Palin once called the IPAB a "death panel," and was mocked for doing so. Now, however, it appears that Democrats are worrying about political backlash against the IPAB from their constituents.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Interesting how many of the concerns of the "extreme" right racists (for opposing Obama)

Your tribe constantly complains that people opposing Obama are immediately called racist. Can you give me a single example of that, preferably not from another racist like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

Interesting how many of the concerns of the "extreme" right racists (for opposing Obama)

Your tribe constantly complains that people opposing Obama are immediately called racist. Can you give me a single example of that, preferably not from another racist like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

My tribe??

and you are serious???

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

My tribe??

and you are serious???

That's what Ron calls it. Use whatever word you want.

How about that example?

- Dan G

[DaVinci 0]

DanG

Quote

Interesting how many of the concerns of the "extreme" right racists (for opposing Obama)

Your tribe constantly complains that people opposing Obama are immediately called racist. Can you give me a single example of that, preferably not from another racist like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

How about almost any post from Kallend?

[DanG 1]

Quote

How about almost any post from Kallend?

Nice try.

Fail.

- Dan G

[DougH 270]

rushmc

***Here is an article in Consumer Reports about crap policies. It's from 2009, before ACA was passed. There aren't a lot of them left, because, after all, they're not being offered any more.

I would say that the handling of preconditions is a valid objection; I'd also say that the lack of a low-benefit policy is (but I do understand that one -- no one ever thinks they're going to need insurance -- if they know they will, they probably can't afford the insurance coverage). Obviously the roll-out has been awful.

One of the biggest objections I have is that ACA does nothing to address the fact that hospitals and doctors are paid for doing more, rather than for keeping people healthy. Imagine what your police department would be like if they were paid by the crime? Do you think that would incentivize them to keep crime down, or just to catch it as it happens, and prove they're valuable?

As far as talking points, I addressed that in the original post. Holding up the current system of insurance delivery as an example of how to do it is ludicrous.

Wendy P.

Wendy, you do know the current system is here because of regulation, right?


Fix it this way
I have no problem with defining a minimum policy. What that minimum is would be highly debatable but, for the sake of our debate, lets say one is defined that we can both agree on for the most part.

So, the minimum is defined
At this point, let states establish minimum requirements for insurance sales people

Eliminate state barriers to all insurance carriers

Tort reform would also be needed

At this point, let the carriers fight for the business

Prices and costs would drop like a rock from this point forward

Very little government needed
Let the consumer buy what they want

Disagree, tort reform although absolutely necessary, hasn't driven a statistically significant drop in states where it has been instituted.

Cost savings aren't going to come because pharma, device makers, and hospitals still have inelastic demand for their products.

All the insurers need to band together and tell the health care industry collectively, f off, we aren't paying you 1500 for a colonsocopy, and 100,000 for a hip operation. We are all going to pay you 750, and 25,000, and be happy because that is well above the going rate elsewhere in the world.

I don't see this system ever getting fixed anytime soon.

We already spend more tax dollars on healthcare WITHOUT nationalized health care, and then pile private dollars on top of the spending, and we don't have jack shit to show for it in terms of better outcomes or life expectancy.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[kallend 1,632]

DaVinci

***

Quote

Interesting how many of the concerns of the "extreme" right racists (for opposing Obama)

Your tribe constantly complains that people opposing Obama are immediately called racist. Can you give me a single example of that, preferably not from another racist like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

How about almost any post from Kallend?

Easy to prove you wrong yet again on that one. A simple use of the SEARCH function yields:

Quote

Your search did not return any results
Search:
Search string: obama racist
Type of search: All words
Fields to search: Subject and body
Show posts from the last: 1 year
Only show posts made by: kallend
Sort posts by: Post time
Number of results per page: 25

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

Easy to prove you wrong yet again on that one. A simple use of the SEARCH function yields:

Quote

Your search did not return any results
Search:
Search string: obama racist
Type of search: All words
Fields to search: Subject and body
Show posts from the last: 1 year
Only show posts made by: kallend
Sort posts by: Post time
Number of results per page: 25

Heh...I just did that search and I get a NON ZERO response to it! Take your "fact" and shovel it!

BTW, for those who care, if you extend past the last year, it goes up to 29 results.

[Skwrl 56]

As someone who teaches a graduate school level course on health care law and works as a lawyer at a pharmaceutical company, I can explain why health care is so expensive in the US: unlike many other systems, we don't have a single payer system, which is able to negotiate down prices. If we had a single payer (or, preferably, a small number of competitive payers), costs would be significantly lower.

Useful viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M

* None of this is the view of my employer.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[lawrocket 3]

Skwrl

As someone who teaches a graduate school level course on health care law and works as a lawyer at a pharmaceutical company, I can explain why health care is so expensive in the US: unlike many other systems, we don't have a single payer system, which is able to negotiate down prices. If we had a single payer (or, preferably, a small number of competitive payers), costs would be significantly lower.

Useful viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M

* None of this is the view of my employer.

As an attornney who has also had some significant experience in the healthcare field, I think that you have omitted some things from consideration.

(1) "we don't have a single payer system, which is able to negotiate down prices" - there is a significant difference between "price" and "cost." And as you are also aware, when the "price" of something is given a ceiling, the result is scarcity because "price" and "cost" are not the same thing. The mixing of "cost" and "price" is, in my opinion, the biggest single problem we have in the whole debate.

(2) As an attorney in the healthcare law field, you are also aware of the effect of anti-trust law. In order to maintain market viability and consumer choice, any delivery of healthcare is subject to being viewed in terms of monopoly. The reason is that "monopoly" power is generally viewed as bad. How can you reconcile the philosphical framework of anti-trust with the creation of a monopoly power over the price of healthcare?

(3) As one who teaches healthcare law, would you agree with me that the primary policy considerations for a healthcare system number three, which are: (a) Quality; (b) Cost; and (c) Accessibility. You can't have all three (high quality, low cost and available on demand). To this extent healthcare is an exception to most economic models.

(4) In your experience, would you agree that the pricing for healthcare services is based upon Medicare reimbursement? So there is a de facto single-payer negotiated price?

To sum up, doesn't a single-payer system eliminate bargaining power under the fundamentals of law that we all learn? And is there an example anywhere in the world where a single-payer system has not resulted in either: (1) low quality/inequality of treatment; or (2) rationing and significant wait times?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

******

Quote

Interesting how many of the concerns of the "extreme" right racists (for opposing Obama)

Your tribe constantly complains that people opposing Obama are immediately called racist. Can you give me a single example of that, preferably not from another racist like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

How about almost any post from Kallend?

Easy to prove you wrong yet again on that one. A simple use of the SEARCH function yields:

Quote

Your search did not return any results
Search:
Search string: obama racist
Type of search: All words
Fields to search: Subject and body
Show posts from the last: 1 year
Only show posts made by: kallend
Sort posts by: Post time
Number of results per page: 25

"Your search for racist in posts made by Kallend returned 175 results "

[rushmc 18]

DaVinci

*********

Quote

Interesting how many of the concerns of the "extreme" right racists (for opposing Obama)

Your tribe constantly complains that people opposing Obama are immediately called racist. Can you give me a single example of that, preferably not from another racist like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

How about almost any post from Kallend?

Easy to prove you wrong yet again on that one. A simple use of the SEARCH function yields:

Quote

Your search did not return any results
Search:
Search string: obama racist
Type of search: All words
Fields to search: Subject and body
Show posts from the last: 1 year
Only show posts made by: kallend
Sort posts by: Post time
Number of results per page: 25

"Your search for racist in posts made by Kallend returned 175 results "

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Skwrl 56]

Boy, I wish I had as much time to write as much on fora as you guys do...

Let's see...

On the cost versus price issue - I understand the difference between price and cost, and you're right, I should have said "prices would be significantly lower". Having said that, how do you explain the per capita expenditure differences in the US versus Europe?

In terms of the antitrust/competitive issue, I think part of the problem is that the costs are confused/hidden. The actual cost of healthcare (individual and society) is different than what one pays one's insurance (or what we collectively pay in taxes). Having said that, purchasing power matters - pharma charges far more for drugs in the US than we do for the same drugs in Europe. Why's that, do you suppose?

Did you watch the video? If you're saying "well, we have higher costs because of higher quality", I'm curious what metric are you basing it on?

For pharmaceutical products, Medicare generally sets the floor; private insurance generally pays more then Medicare.

Even in single payer systems, however, private insurance exists, albeit they're more expensive. When the single payer systems a significant purchaser in the market, however, they have the ability to negotiate the prices down relative to a diverse group of purchasers.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork