Author Topic: The ACA/Obamacare Thread  (Read 4076 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #210 on: March 14, 2017, 12:49:29 PM »
I also don't think it's designed to benefit the wealthy.

Of course it is.  It's from someone that isn't a Democrat. 

I don't think we have to wait for someone to "bleed out" (metaphorically), but this is a phased approach, and it's only fair to have all three phases in place and working together to judge it's effectiveness.   I think the idea is NOT to punish anyone.   But the Democrat plan (and this is a standard policy difference) is to take an administrative approach FIRST and let the economics, maybe, follow.   FORCE everyone to be covered.  FORCE people into the program.  FORCE subsidies on some for doing so.   But the economics never followed because - historically, and with few exceptions (Bill Clinton for example) - the Dems rarely follow through on the economic details.    Here, we're letting the economics take the lead, and follow with the administration where it's necessary.  Some of that admin - like the state lines issue - will have economic impacts, but it won't necessarily be in the first bill package (which is a function of obscure parliamentary procedure). 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #211 on: March 14, 2017, 01:06:12 PM »
I also don't think it's designed to benefit the wealthy.

Of course it is.  It's from someone that isn't a Democrat. 

I don't think we have to wait for someone to "bleed out" (metaphorically), but this is a phased approach, and it's only fair to have all three phases in place and working together to judge it's effectiveness.   I think the idea is NOT to punish anyone.   But the Democrat plan (and this is a standard policy difference) is to take an administrative approach FIRST and let the economics, maybe, follow.   FORCE everyone to be covered.  FORCE people into the program.  FORCE subsidies on some for doing so.   But the economics never followed because - historically, and with few exceptions (Bill Clinton for example) - the Dems rarely follow through on the economic details.    Here, we're letting the economics take the lead, and follow with the administration where it's necessary.  Some of that admin - like the state lines issue - will have economic impacts, but it won't necessarily be in the first bill package (which is a function of obscure parliamentary procedure).
OK. So from an economic standpoint how do you predict the insurance companies will behave when they have to continue covering the sick folk that they do now but lose the healthy people who feel they don't need insurance any longer? According to the GOP there's already a death-spiral going on. Doesn't this radically expedite the circling of the drain? And from an economic standpoint, how are the old folk going to behave when the tax credit decrease while the premiums increase (which appears to be by design, BTW)?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39674
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #212 on: March 15, 2017, 07:34:45 AM »
I also don't think it's designed to benefit the wealthy.

Of course it is.  It's from someone that isn't a Democrat. 

I don't think we have to wait for someone to "bleed out" (metaphorically), but this is a phased approach, and it's only fair to have all three phases in place and working together to judge it's effectiveness. 

Um, about that...

A top Republican senator blew up Trump's '3-phase plan' for healthcare overhaul

Quote
"Hugh, there is no three-phase process. There is no three-step plan. That is just political talk. It's just politicians engaging in spin. This is why. Step one is a bill that can pass with 51 votes in the Senate. That's what we're working on right now.

Quote
Step two, as yet unwritten regulations by Tom Price, which is going to be subject to court challenge, and therefore, perhaps the whims of the most liberal judge in America.

Quote
But step three, some mythical legislation in the future that is going to garner Democratic support and help us get over 60 votes in the Senate. If we had those Democratic votes, we wouldn't need three steps. We would just be doing that right now on this legislation altogether. That's why it's so important that we get this legislation right, because there is no step three. And step two is not completely under our control."

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 118
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #213 on: March 17, 2017, 02:10:14 PM »
so to try and bring back the ACA discussion to this thread, can someone explain to this confused french-canadian leftist why anyone would not want health coverage?

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #214 on: March 17, 2017, 02:17:06 PM »
Young people in good health want the option to keep the money they would otherwise spend on premiums. I happen to think it's short-sighted but libertarian thinking in this country wants to preserve the right of people to choose. Unless, of course, we're talking about automobile insurance, or property insurance.  :)

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13776
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #215 on: March 17, 2017, 02:19:51 PM »
so to try and bring back the ACA discussion to this thread, can someone explain to this confused french-canadian leftist why anyone would not want health coverage?

Young and healthy is the only reason I can think of.  I went about 6 years without healthcare from 22-28.  Only needed to get medical care once in that time frame and paid full price which meant I saved many thousands of dollars.  Not everyone is comfortable doing that, but given my lifestyle/age/health at the time, it seemed like a risk worth taking compared to the cost I'd have to pay out of pocket (my job at the time did not offer healthcare).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #216 on: March 17, 2017, 02:31:20 PM »
Young people in good health want the option to keep the money they would otherwise spend on premiums. I happen to think it's short-sighted but libertarian thinking in this country wants to preserve the right of people to choose. Unless, of course, we're talking about automobile insurance, or property insurance.  :)


There is the right to choose auto insurance or property insurance.  You don't HAVE to buy it.   Most states won't let you drive a car without it, but that's your choice to make.   Most lenders won't give you a mortgage without it, but that's your choice to make.   You can ride a bike and rent an apartment if you like. 

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #217 on: March 17, 2017, 02:32:26 PM »
Point.

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #218 on: March 17, 2017, 02:35:54 PM »
There is the right to choose auto insurance or property insurance.  You don't HAVE to buy it.   Most states won't let you drive a car without it, but that's your choice to make.   Most lenders won't give you a mortgage without it, but that's your choice to make.   You can ride a bike and rent an apartment if you like.

You can choose not to buy a car.  You can choose to rent an apartment.

You can't choose not to get sick.  Therefore, if you get sick, can't afford treatment, and don't have insurance, the rest of us cover you anyway.  Either that or we just let you die--which I'm afraid is increasingly looking more and more like Paul Ryan's solution.

Which is why making health insurance mandatory is totally different than car insurance.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #219 on: March 17, 2017, 02:42:57 PM »
There is the right to choose auto insurance or property insurance.  You don't HAVE to buy it.   Most states won't let you drive a car without it, but that's your choice to make.   Most lenders won't give you a mortgage without it, but that's your choice to make.   You can ride a bike and rent an apartment if you like.

You can choose not to buy a car.  You can choose to rent an apartment.

You can't choose not to get sick.  Therefore, if you get sick, can't afford treatment, and don't have insurance, the rest of us cover you anyway.  Either that or we just let you die--which I'm afraid is increasingly looking more and more like Paul Ryan's solution.

Which is why making health insurance mandatory is totally different than car insurance.

No, it's not at all.   Yours is a logical fallacy and/or Democrat rhetoric.   By your logic, I didn't CHOOSE to lose money in the stock market.  I didn't CHOOSE to get divorced.   I didn't CHOOSE to knock up that girl I banged at the Kiss Koncert.  So where's my relief for all that?   

When you CHOOSE to not have insurance, it's not that you're "choosing to be sick".  You are, however, choosing to assume the consequences.   It's a fine line of course, for those that dearly want coverage and can't afford it (I have no problem with subsidizing that; if there are Congressmen that disagree, I can't speak for them), but if I'm 23 and healthy and opt out, that SHOULD be on me.  If I go bankrupt, so be it.  It's not "choice" in the sense of "do I have the Big Mac or the Quarter Pounder?" but it is "choice" in the sense that we all have a responsibility and an accountability for our actions.   We can always put a safety net up, but if we're not using that as a base assumption, if we're willing to create victims right out of the gate, that's part of the communication breakdown right there.   

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 118
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #220 on: March 17, 2017, 02:46:46 PM »
There is the right to choose auto insurance or property insurance.  You don't HAVE to buy it.   Most states won't let you drive a car without it, but that's your choice to make.   Most lenders won't give you a mortgage without it, but that's your choice to make.   You can ride a bike and rent an apartment if you like.

You can choose not to buy a car.  You can choose to rent an apartment.

You can't choose not to get sick.  Therefore, if you get sick, can't afford treatment, and don't have insurance, the rest of us cover you anyway.  Either that or we just let you die--which I'm afraid is increasingly looking more and more like Paul Ryan's solution.

Which is why making health insurance mandatory is totally different than car insurance.

No, it's not at all.   Yours is a logical fallacy and/or Democrat rhetoric.   By your logic, I didn't CHOOSE to lose money in the stock market.  I didn't CHOOSE to get divorced.   I didn't CHOOSE to knock up that girl I banged at the Kiss Koncert.  So where's my relief for all that?   

When you CHOOSE to not have insurance, it's not that you're "choosing to be sick".  You are, however, choosing to assume the consequences.   It's a fine line of course, for those that dearly want coverage and can't afford it (I have no problem with subsidizing that; if there are Congressmen that disagree, I can't speak for them), but if I'm 23 and healthy and opt out, that SHOULD be on me.  If I go bankrupt, so be it.  It's not "choice" in the sense of "do I have the Big Mac or the Quarter Pounder?" but it is "choice" in the sense that we all have a responsibility and an accountability for our actions.   We can always put a safety net up, but if we're not using that as a base assumption, if we're willing to create victims right out of the gate, that's part of the communication breakdown right there.

But wouldn't being part of a health insurance be the more responsible choice?  Like "I may be healty but other people are not so they need that money and I may need it someday as well".   Isn't the whole point of insurance to have as many people in it to reduce risk and costs?

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #221 on: March 17, 2017, 02:48:14 PM »
There is the right to choose auto insurance or property insurance.  You don't HAVE to buy it.   Most states won't let you drive a car without it, but that's your choice to make.   Most lenders won't give you a mortgage without it, but that's your choice to make.   You can ride a bike and rent an apartment if you like.

You can choose not to buy a car.  You can choose to rent an apartment.

You can't choose not to get sick.  Therefore, if you get sick, can't afford treatment, and don't have insurance, the rest of us cover you anyway.  Either that or we just let you die--which I'm afraid is increasingly looking more and more like Paul Ryan's solution.

Which is why making health insurance mandatory is totally different than car insurance.

No, it's not at all.   Yours is a logical fallacy and/or Democrat rhetoric.   By your logic, I didn't CHOOSE to lose money in the stock market.  I didn't CHOOSE to get divorced.   I didn't CHOOSE to knock up that girl I banged at the Kiss Koncert.  So where's my relief for all that?   

When you CHOOSE to not have insurance, it's not that you're "choosing to be sick".  You are, however, choosing to assume the consequences.   It's a fine line of course, for those that dearly want coverage and can't afford it (I have no problem with subsidizing that; if there are Congressmen that disagree, I can't speak for them), but if I'm 23 and healthy and opt out, that SHOULD be on me.  If I go bankrupt, so be it.  It's not "choice" in the sense of "do I have the Big Mac or the Quarter Pounder?" but it is "choice" in the sense that we all have a responsibility and an accountability for our actions.   We can always put a safety net up, but if we're not using that as a base assumption, if we're willing to create victims right out of the gate, that's part of the communication breakdown right there.   

Then should the 23 year old who chose not to have insurance be turned away from the Hospital if he/she contracts a life threatening illness? If not, who pays for his/her hospital stay when, as you say, they pay the consequences for their choice and go bankrupt?

I'm not trying to play gotcha, I'm genuinely curious about how you see this working.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4338
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #222 on: March 17, 2017, 02:48:51 PM »
If you go bankrupt, it isn't just on you. Someone has to bail you out if you need treatment and don't have insurance, whether it be taxpayers or the hospitals.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #223 on: March 17, 2017, 02:52:06 PM »
A trip to the doctor for some muscle relaxers or penicillin for your bout of the clap is going to cost less than one month's premiums. The emergency room will keep you from dying if you're mangled in a freak gardening accident and Uncle Sammy will pay them if you won't. A broken leg might set you back a bit, but probably less than a year of premiums. The only really pressing need is if you get some chronic condition (focal-segmental glomeruloschlerosis comes to mind), insurance is what gets you continuing treatment. And now, thanks to ACA or whatever similar plan Grabby signs off on, that's not even a problem.

Quite frankly, under the proposed plan, going without doesn't seem like such a bad option. Seems to me the greatest risk is to your credit rating if you default on the $76,000 the hospital bills you for treating your flu.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #224 on: March 17, 2017, 02:54:48 PM »
There is the right to choose auto insurance or property insurance.  You don't HAVE to buy it.   Most states won't let you drive a car without it, but that's your choice to make.   Most lenders won't give you a mortgage without it, but that's your choice to make.   You can ride a bike and rent an apartment if you like.

You can choose not to buy a car.  You can choose to rent an apartment.

You can't choose not to get sick.  Therefore, if you get sick, can't afford treatment, and don't have insurance, the rest of us cover you anyway.  Either that or we just let you die--which I'm afraid is increasingly looking more and more like Paul Ryan's solution.

Which is why making health insurance mandatory is totally different than car insurance.

No, it's not at all.   Yours is a logical fallacy and/or Democrat rhetoric.   By your logic, I didn't CHOOSE to lose money in the stock market.  I didn't CHOOSE to get divorced.   I didn't CHOOSE to knock up that girl I banged at the Kiss Koncert.  So where's my relief for all that?   

When you CHOOSE to not have insurance, it's not that you're "choosing to be sick".  You are, however, choosing to assume the consequences.   It's a fine line of course, for those that dearly want coverage and can't afford it (I have no problem with subsidizing that; if there are Congressmen that disagree, I can't speak for them), but if I'm 23 and healthy and opt out, that SHOULD be on me.  If I go bankrupt, so be it.  It's not "choice" in the sense of "do I have the Big Mac or the Quarter Pounder?" but it is "choice" in the sense that we all have a responsibility and an accountability for our actions.   We can always put a safety net up, but if we're not using that as a base assumption, if we're willing to create victims right out of the gate, that's part of the communication breakdown right there.

But wouldn't being part of a health insurance be the more responsible choice?  Like "I may be healty but other people are not so they need that money and I may need it someday as well".   Isn't the whole point of insurance to have as many people in it to reduce risk and costs?

Without question.   I always paid for health insurance no matter what.   Though I won't even pretend that I was thinking "other people may need it".   I don't think it's a matter of "not doing the right thing"; I think it's a matter of "not even knowing it's a thing to begin with".    Because remember, most people's first taste of insurance in America is part of their parents coverage.   Whether you're on there or not is immaterial to the other people that are on there.    If it's not that, then it's when you get your first job.  And again, whether you sign up or not, the rates are what they are.  There is no indication that you are somehow part of a bigger pool (even though we know that is fundamentally true at this point). 

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #225 on: March 17, 2017, 03:02:44 PM »
When you CHOOSE to not have insurance, it's not that you're "choosing to be sick".  You are, however, choosing to assume the consequences.   It's a fine line of course, for those that dearly want coverage and can't afford it (I have no problem with subsidizing that; if there are Congressmen that disagree, I can't speak for them), but if I'm 23 and healthy and opt out, that SHOULD be on me.  If I go bankrupt, so be it.  It's not "choice" in the sense of "do I have the Big Mac or the Quarter Pounder?" but it is "choice" in the sense that we all have a responsibility and an accountability for our actions.   We can always put a safety net up, but if we're not using that as a base assumption, if we're willing to create victims right out of the gate, that's part of the communication breakdown right there.

This argument isn't totally without merit, but I'd just say that if you have no insurance, no money to pay, and you go bankrupt because you get sick, that's the very definition of everyone else having to pay for your costs.

Personal bankruptcies really only cause whoever actually performed your medical treatment to write off a loss.  So therefore, they have to raise prices for everyone else.

Whether it's a personal choice or not, unpaid medical bills are an externality that the rest of society has to pay for.  So therefore, I don't think that taxing people who don't pay for their own insurance is out of line at all.  In fact, it's kind of a perfect solution.

By going without insurance, you are CHOOSING to make society (and not yourself) ultimately pay for your medical treatment.  Society has the right to recoup that added financial risk via a tax.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #226 on: March 17, 2017, 03:08:43 PM »
There is the right to choose auto insurance or property insurance.  You don't HAVE to buy it.   Most states won't let you drive a car without it, but that's your choice to make.   Most lenders won't give you a mortgage without it, but that's your choice to make.   You can ride a bike and rent an apartment if you like.

You can choose not to buy a car.  You can choose to rent an apartment.

You can't choose not to get sick.  Therefore, if you get sick, can't afford treatment, and don't have insurance, the rest of us cover you anyway.  Either that or we just let you die--which I'm afraid is increasingly looking more and more like Paul Ryan's solution.

Which is why making health insurance mandatory is totally different than car insurance.

No, it's not at all.   Yours is a logical fallacy and/or Democrat rhetoric.   By your logic, I didn't CHOOSE to lose money in the stock market.  I didn't CHOOSE to get divorced.   I didn't CHOOSE to knock up that girl I banged at the Kiss Koncert.  So where's my relief for all that?   

When you CHOOSE to not have insurance, it's not that you're "choosing to be sick".  You are, however, choosing to assume the consequences.   It's a fine line of course, for those that dearly want coverage and can't afford it (I have no problem with subsidizing that; if there are Congressmen that disagree, I can't speak for them), but if I'm 23 and healthy and opt out, that SHOULD be on me.  If I go bankrupt, so be it.  It's not "choice" in the sense of "do I have the Big Mac or the Quarter Pounder?" but it is "choice" in the sense that we all have a responsibility and an accountability for our actions.   We can always put a safety net up, but if we're not using that as a base assumption, if we're willing to create victims right out of the gate, that's part of the communication breakdown right there.   

Then should the 23 year old who chose not to have insurance be turned away from the Hospital if he/she contracts a life threatening illness? If not, who pays for his/her hospital stay when, as you say, they pay the consequences for their choice and go bankrupt?

I'm not trying to play gotcha, I'm genuinely curious about how you see this working.

Well, don't assume.  I DON'T see it working this way.  I never said the right answer was to let them go to the emergency room.   That's the way it played out in past years, but that doesn't make it right.   First and foremost, my preferred route - if we assume that we're not going to let market forces run this dance - is single payer.  So that's "how I see this working".  Absent that, we HAVE to do exactly what Obama DIDN'T do - by Jon Gruber's own admission - and that's make it more transparent.  There are more layers in healthcare than there are vocal tracks on Queen's BoRhap. You've GOT to drive out the waste and needless costs.    Make it so that more people find it stupid to not have it.  If we can reduce the number of "non-insureds" to those that don't opt for it, then we can make decisions about that group that are specific to that group.  If that group is truly people there by choice, we can establish an emergency fund of sorts to cover those eventualities, but at a cost, and in a way that demands reimbursement over time.  Almost like a student loan.    At a minimum, we have to stop people from just signing up when they need it; "continuous coverage" is a good idea, though I would put a grace period.  "Anyone that signs up within six months of the passing of the bill is deemed to be "continuously covered" for the purposes of this law".   Not forcing anyone, but making it worth their while to do so.  We need to overhaul the flex programs again, so that they can promote wellness choices.   We need to lower drug prices by funding drug R&D, not "guaranteeing them profits".    We fund R&D in energy, in transportation (I personally have worked on grants from the FRA totaling in excess of $25 million dollars for rail technology improvements).  Why not pharma?   What better way to get them to develop drugs that cure cancer, stop lesser, unpopular diseases, or target unprofitable demographics?   They can still develop "dick pills" on their own dime, but won't be chained to marketplace as they have been.   State lines have to go.   There's probably more, but I'm running out of steam. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #227 on: March 17, 2017, 03:11:40 PM »
If you go bankrupt, it isn't just on you. Someone has to bail you out if you need treatment and don't have insurance, whether it be taxpayers or the hospitals.

One argument says that's where the safety net should be.   The safety net shouldn't be the first course of action.  The safety net should be when all else fails.   

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #228 on: March 17, 2017, 03:12:54 PM »
Thank you for the response.

For the record I didn't assume anything. I was already aware that you'd prefer to see a single payer system. I should have mentioned it in my post. Apologies.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4338
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #229 on: March 17, 2017, 03:15:24 PM »
If you go bankrupt, it isn't just on you. Someone has to bail you out if you need treatment and don't have insurance, whether it be taxpayers or the hospitals.

One argument says that's where the safety net should be.   The safety net shouldn't be the first course of action.  The safety net should be when all else fails.   

If you have already hit the floor then the net no longer has a purpose.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #230 on: March 17, 2017, 03:28:15 PM »
When you CHOOSE to not have insurance, it's not that you're "choosing to be sick".  You are, however, choosing to assume the consequences.   It's a fine line of course, for those that dearly want coverage and can't afford it (I have no problem with subsidizing that; if there are Congressmen that disagree, I can't speak for them), but if I'm 23 and healthy and opt out, that SHOULD be on me.  If I go bankrupt, so be it.  It's not "choice" in the sense of "do I have the Big Mac or the Quarter Pounder?" but it is "choice" in the sense that we all have a responsibility and an accountability for our actions.   We can always put a safety net up, but if we're not using that as a base assumption, if we're willing to create victims right out of the gate, that's part of the communication breakdown right there.

This argument isn't totally without merit, but I'd just say that if you have no insurance, no money to pay, and you go bankrupt because you get sick, that's the very definition of everyone else having to pay for your costs.

Personal bankruptcies really only cause whoever actually performed your medical treatment to write off a loss.  So therefore, they have to raise prices for everyone else.

Whether it's a personal choice or not, unpaid medical bills are an externality that the rest of society has to pay for.  So therefore, I don't think that taxing people who don't pay for their own insurance is out of line at all.  In fact, it's kind of a perfect solution.

By going without insurance, you are CHOOSING to make society (and not yourself) ultimately pay for your medical treatment.  Society has the right to recoup that added financial risk via a tax.

There are a few leaps there that I'm not prepared to take.   It's not as if a "bankruptcy" is a "no harm no foul" proposition. I've already said, I would accommodate that.   There's a degree of "failure" - call it "waste", "warranty", "writeoffs", "whatever" - in almost every system.   Over the past couple decades, the number of bankruptcies in any given year is somewhere around a million, give or take.  It was lower, around 500,000 during the Bush years, and it escalated around the crash to about 1.4 million, but is back down around 1,000,000.     

We're spraining our wrists patting ourselves on the back that we got the "uninsured number" down to 10 million.  TEN TIMES the number of people that claim bankruptcy for ANY reason, let alone medical bills.  Id' much rather put a fund together to cover the percentage of the one million that have to claim bankruptcy than the 10's of millions that don't want the coverage.   Maybe put a tax on non-insurance medical services.   Change the way the tax code treats medical expenses for people with carrying incomes.    The point is, there is more than one way to skin this cat, and we don't have to live with the skyrocketing premiums, lack of transparency, lack of doctor choice, etc. etc. that we have now. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #231 on: March 17, 2017, 03:29:48 PM »
Thank you for the response.

For the record I didn't assume anything. I was already aware that you'd prefer to see a single payer system. I should have mentioned it in my post. Apologies.

Don't apologize; I didn't mean it to sound as blunt as it did.  I typed it with a smile on my face that clearly didn't come through.  :) 

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3178
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #232 on: March 17, 2017, 04:58:22 PM »
Lets also not only consider bankruptcy.  I would like to see the numbers of people (and actual $ amount) that don't pay medical bills and don't declare bankruptcy.  I would hazard a guess that the numbers are FAR greater. 
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #233 on: March 23, 2017, 12:35:45 PM »
So here's something I was pondering driving home from work. There is no replacement for ACA. You either require insurance for all and cover as many as you can, or you say "fuck it" and go back eight years to every man for himself. What people actually want isn't going to happen. This is exemplified by the current GOP plan being hated by democrats because so many will lose coverage and by the far right because it's too expensive. These two aspects are in direct conflict and it can't pass without support from one side or the other. If this one gets shot down, which side do we think will get the compromise? Newsflash: It ain't gonna be "let's cover more people."

I was thinking about this because of Gorsuch. Setting aside the fact that he's a pretty decent nominee, you can't block his appointment because the guy that comes next will be patently evil, and the republican legislature certainly won't give a shit. You do the practical thing and you take the best you can get. I'm starting to wonder if the GOP plan isn't the best we can get (despite being a train wreck).

And then there's that aforementioned train wreck. Perhaps letting the GOP ram the thing through isn't such an awful thing for the democratic outlook. Put forth a token objection but don't do anything to prevent it from passing, and hang the fucking thing around the throats of everybody that supported it. Being saddled with the ACAlbatross certainly didn't do the democrats any favors, and this is likely to implode quite a bit more spectacularly than it did. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #234 on: March 24, 2017, 12:43:01 PM »
The run-up to the vote is pretty interesting. Apparently Ryan went to concede and ask Grabby how to handle it. Who takes the blame. That sort of thing. I'm also seeing reports that the number of hard nos is down to 18, which would make the vote pretty damned close. Seems to me that if the Freedom Caucus votes as a bloc, as it apparently tends to do, then it's game over.

About the only downside of that is that it will continue to be Obama that takes the blame for healthcare in this country. That's not fair. The reality is that the GOP couldn't come up with anything better, simply because there isn't anything better. Their plan would have crashed harder/faster if the reports of ACA's impending demise are actually true.

And something that occurs to me only now. Where do the insurance companies stand on this plan? They've been oddly silent.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13776
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #235 on: March 24, 2017, 12:48:27 PM »
And something that occurs to me only now. Where do the insurance companies stand on this plan? They've been oddly silent.

I kind of feel like this whole process was fairly quick and makes me wonder if there's been enough time for insurance companies to do their research and figure out cost/plans/how they would handle things under this bill.  Maybe I am wrong.

Also I think I saw on the news last night that Trump was being advised to have this blamed on Ryan. 

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10054
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #236 on: March 24, 2017, 01:43:55 PM »
The bill has been pulled, no vote.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #237 on: March 24, 2017, 01:52:40 PM »
Wow. What a chickenshit thing to do. It's a shame the democrats can't force a vote. I want to know where people stand, and I think their constituents deserve it as well.


edit:
Quote
More from Fox News' Kristin Brown:

It was just announced on the House floor by the presiding member (well, they said the vote is "postponed"). Dems in the chamber exploded and chanted "vote vote vote."
  I guess chanting "chickenshit would have violated house rules. Still, it's refreshing that the democrats actually get to call the other side out for being pussies, though.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 02:04:01 PM by El Barto »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 1648
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #238 on: March 24, 2017, 01:58:00 PM »
While I agree that changes are needed, I don't understand the need to rush this through. If changes are going to be made let's take the time and do it right even if it takes a year plus. I've basically come to the understanding that both parties suck balls and each pull the same political stunts depending on who is president. This may be the last time I vote for a R or D.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10054
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #239 on: March 24, 2017, 02:14:43 PM »
People talk about the ACA being rushed through Congress and maybe aspects of it were, I don't actually know, but didn't that take the good part of a year? The slapdash nature of this just seemed ridiculous.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4338
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #240 on: March 24, 2017, 03:43:25 PM »
Come on, they've only had 7 years to plan this replacement, you can't expect them to get it right in that short amount of time.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13776
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #241 on: March 24, 2017, 03:50:08 PM »
Trump shutting it down before the vote reminds me of the kid in grade school who had the only basketball and would go home with it once the game didn't go his way.  I mean, I don't think it makes a huge difference to cancel a vote that wasn't going to pass, but just feels like a sore loser move to do it at the last second to avoid the unfavorable results.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23752
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #242 on: March 24, 2017, 03:53:20 PM »
Trump shutting it down before the vote reminds me of the kid in grade school who had the only basketball and would go home with it once the game didn't go his way.  I mean, I don't think it makes a huge difference to cancel a vote that wasn't going to pass, but just feels like a sore loser move to do it at the last second to avoid the unfavorable results.

It's also to shift the blame.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #243 on: March 24, 2017, 04:34:22 PM »
Trump shutting it down before the vote reminds me of the kid in grade school who had the only basketball and would go home with it once the game didn't go his way.  I mean, I don't think it makes a huge difference to cancel a vote that wasn't going to pass, but just feels like a sore loser move to do it at the last second to avoid the unfavorable results.

It's also to shift the blame.
I would say it obfuscates the blame. Anyway you slice it it's on Trump and the GOP congressional delegation, but this most of them essentially remain anonymous. "Senator Dickface, how did you plan to vote for the bill?" "Well, I'm not sure. I planned to put my faith in The Lord and vote my conscience when the time came." The other thing is that even though most of them would have voted for it on principle, when it was clearly doomed to fail they would have voted against. Realistically they were very, very close. On a practical level it would have been a blowout loss and appearances matter.

Also, if I'm Obama I haven't stopped laughing in the last 24 hours.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18270
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #244 on: March 24, 2017, 04:37:51 PM »
Trump shutting it down before the vote reminds me of the kid in grade school who had the only basketball and would go home with it once the game didn't go his way.  I mean, I don't think it makes a huge difference to cancel a vote that wasn't going to pass, but just feels like a sore loser move to do it at the last second to avoid the unfavorable results.

Trump called off the vote? I thought it was Ryan.