Author Topic: What comes after the ACA?  (Read 822088 times)

thenextguy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #200 on: January 10, 2017, 09:44:10 AM »
Just a counterpoint to those claiming the ACA has failed. More people than ever have just signed up for the exchanges.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/10/obamacare-sign-ups-hit-more-than-11-million-nationally-up-slightly-over-last-year-as-gop-struggles-over-repeal-and-replace.html

It can use some tweaks, but it's definitely not collapsing if more people are signing up for it.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5976
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #201 on: January 10, 2017, 09:49:44 AM »
No one talks about cost.  The cost of healthcare is more important than who will pay for it.  Cut the cost and almost everyone can afford it.  Only than can taxes cover those that can't.

Just out of curiosity for those that think healthcare should be free for all (paid by taxes)
1) Should people who continue to smoke despite multiple hospitalizations continue to get free care? Showing up in the hospital once or twice a month because they can't breath yet refuse to try and quit smoking?

2) Should smokers pay more money in taxes?  What about heavy drinkers and drug addicts? Should the American people subsidize someones poor choices and unhealthy lifestyles?

3) Should we continue free medical intervention and testing on those that are bedridden, confused, and can't comprehend their surroundings? No quality of life?

I ask because those items cost a huge percentage of the healthcare dollar.  I see no reason why those people can't get that care if they can afford it.  But I personally do not believe it should be paid by tax payer dollars.  BTW, I realize some of those are addictions, and we need to provide ample amounts of free addiction assistance programs if we are to cut people off from free health care.
This is an interesting point, and bears research and statistics.  I can't speak for NOW, but I do remember reading years ago (a decade, maybe?) that smokers actually cost LESS than non-smokers (from a medical stand point) because they die earlier.

Someone else mentioned the taxes you pay on cigarettes too.  I'd want to see the math on that - amount spent on cigs (should the taxes simply go into a medical "pool"?), cost of healthcare to treat a smoker who dies earlier, not to mention costs of social security - do typical lifelong smokers die before they collect?  (Both my parents smoked.  My dad lived to be 81 and was on SS for 20 years, but only got a small amount.  My mother died only a few years after collecting SS.  They were divorced.)

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Location: MA
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #202 on: January 10, 2017, 09:54:27 AM »
Quote
No one talks about cost.  The cost of healthcare is more important than who will pay for it.  Cut the cost and almost everyone can afford it.  Only than can taxes cover those that can't.

Just out of curiosity for those that think healthcare should be free for all (paid by taxes)
1) Should people who continue to smoke despite multiple hospitalizations continue to get free care? Showing up in the hospital once or twice a month because they can't breath yet refuse to try and quit smoking?

2) Should smokers pay more money in taxes?  What about heavy drinkers and drug addicts? Should the American people subsidize someones poor choices and unhealthy lifestyles?

3) Should we continue free medical intervention and testing on those that are bedridden, confused, and can't comprehend their surroundings? No quality of life?

I ask because those items cost a huge percentage of the healthcare dollar.  I see no reason why those people can't get that care if they can afford it.  But I personally do not believe it should be paid by tax payer dollars.  BTW, I realize some of those are addictions, and we need to provide ample amounts of free addiction assistance programs if we are to cut people off from free health care.

Smokers already pay more money in taxes.  I am blown away at how much smokers pay for a pack these days.  When I was a kid, my parents bought cigarettes for $30 a carton, now it's $20 a pack.

I don't beleive attacking addiction in a punitive way is effective, and the evidence is supporting that view.  Sure, make it anti-social, which worked for smoking, but don't criminalize it or tie someone's health care to it.  People don't make these decisions in a rational way.  People know that smoking will likely kill you, yet they still do it. 

I am all for mandatory end of life planning, but that got labelled as "death panels" so thats a non starter.  The majority of money spent on health care in your life will be spent in the last 6 months of it, which is just wasteful and usually stressful for everyone involved.   

rtrnow

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #203 on: January 10, 2017, 10:06:13 AM »
No one talks about cost.  The cost of healthcare is more important than who will pay for it.  Cut the cost and almost everyone can afford it.  Only than can taxes cover those that can't.

Just out of curiosity for those that think healthcare should be free for all (paid by taxes)
1) Should people who continue to smoke despite multiple hospitalizations continue to get free care? Showing up in the hospital once or twice a month because they can't breath yet refuse to try and quit smoking?

2) Should smokers pay more money in taxes?  What about heavy drinkers and drug addicts? Should the American people subsidize someones poor choices and unhealthy lifestyles?

3) Should we continue free medical intervention and testing on those that are bedridden, confused, and can't comprehend their surroundings? No quality of life?

I ask because those items cost a huge percentage of the healthcare dollar.  I see no reason why those people can't get that care if they can afford it.  But I personally do not believe it should be paid by tax payer dollars.  BTW, I realize some of those are addictions, and we need to provide ample amounts of free addiction assistance programs if we are to cut people off from free health care.

1. yes
2. Both smokers and drinkers already pay more in taxes. If marijuana was legal and taxed a federal level that could be added to the list.
3. I think that has to be a individual/family decision. We could save tons by actually discussing end of life care in real terms. I assume almost no one really wants to live that life, but we often don't discuss wishes with our family and doctors don't have these discussions either. Perhaps just changing doctor training could solve this one.

webguy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 256
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #204 on: January 10, 2017, 10:18:24 AM »
It seems like the first logical step to fixing healthcare insurance is addressing the ridiculous prices that healthcare companies are charging. Lowering the cost of care then lowers the cost to the insurance company which lowers the cost for us. $450 for a 5 minute consultation with a "specialist" is beyond obsurd. Set restrictions on what companies can charge, or have insurance companies incentivize people to price shop for cheaper healthcare and suddenly the cost of care lowers and this entire mess gets sorted out.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #205 on: January 10, 2017, 10:25:41 AM »
Just a counterpoint to those claiming the ACA has failed. More people than ever have just signed up for the exchanges.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/10/obamacare-sign-ups-hit-more-than-11-million-nationally-up-slightly-over-last-year-as-gop-struggles-over-repeal-and-replace.html

It can use some tweaks, but it's definitely not collapsing if more people are signing up for it.
I guess that depends on your definition of success... If by success you mean we are finally forcing every person to purchase health insurance, if they want it or not, and if not we are going to hit them with a fine(or tax, or what ever suits your legal description at the time to defend it), then yea you might call it a success.

But if success means its something financially sustainable, then that it is not... It has been a total and complete failure from any angle other than to funnel more money from your pocket into Washington DC.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1663
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #206 on: January 10, 2017, 10:26:34 AM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.   Pregnant women are certainly a drain, especially if they have a history of premature births.  Perhaps we should charge them more?  Sounds fair right?

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #207 on: January 10, 2017, 10:31:27 AM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.   Pregnant women are certainly a drain, especially if they have a history of premature births.  Perhaps we should charge them more?  Sounds fair right?
I believe they already are.... from a health insurance perspective since they are more likely to need health care related services.

But why would you have a problem singling these people out for higher taxes? and not... lets say a single young adult? which is exactly what the ACA currently does. Are they not worth our compassion? Especially since it is probably the most difficult time in life financially.

Both are wrong in my opinion, but I don't get how the glove doesn't fit the other hand for supporter of the ACA.

scantee

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
    • Do Anything
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #208 on: January 10, 2017, 10:40:17 AM »
It seems like the first logical step to fixing healthcare insurance is addressing the ridiculous prices that healthcare companies are charging. Lowering the cost of care then lowers the cost to the insurance company which lowers the cost for us. $450 for a 5 minute consultation with a "specialist" is beyond obsurd. Set restrictions on what companies can charge, or have insurance companies incentivize people to price shop for cheaper healthcare and suddenly the cost of care lowers and this entire mess gets sorted out.

Why do we expect for-profit health insurance companies to limit costs? Their goal is to maximize profits and they do that in part through ever-increasing costs. A health care system funded through a system of for-profit insurance providers is at odds with a goal of cost control.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 876
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #209 on: January 10, 2017, 10:41:47 AM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.   Pregnant women are certainly a drain, especially if they have a history of premature births.  Perhaps we should charge them more?  Sounds fair right?
But why would you have a problem singling these people out for higher taxes? and not... lets say a single young adult? which is exactly what the ACA currently does. Are they not worth our compassion? Especially since it is probably the most difficult time in life financially.

ACA gives subsidies to people so they can afford health insurance and it specifically allows cheaper catastrophic plans for young adults and lets them stay on their parents plans until they're 26. In states that didn't reject Medicaid expansion for entirely political reasons there should be no case where a poor single young adult is worse off under ACA than they were before, either because they qualify for subsidies, they're on their parent's plan, or they're able to get Medicaid.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #210 on: January 10, 2017, 11:10:07 AM »
I guess that depends on your definition of success... If by success you mean we are finally forcing every person to purchase health insurance, if they want it or not, and if not we are going to hit them with a fine(or tax, or what ever suits your legal description at the time to defend it), then yea you might call it a success.

But if success means its something financially sustainable, then that it is not... It has been a total and complete failure from any angle other than to funnel more money from your pocket into Washington DC.

Anyone who can guarantee zero insurance utilization for the duration of their life should be welcome to opt-out. For the rest of us, get in the fucking pool.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #211 on: January 10, 2017, 11:15:07 AM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.   Pregnant women are certainly a drain, especially if they have a history of premature births.  Perhaps we should charge them more?  Sounds fair right?
But why would you have a problem singling these people out for higher taxes? and not... lets say a single young adult? which is exactly what the ACA currently does. Are they not worth our compassion? Especially since it is probably the most difficult time in life financially.

ACA gives subsidies to people so they can afford health insurance and it specifically allows cheaper catastrophic plans for young adults and lets them stay on their parents plans until they're 26. In states that didn't reject Medicaid expansion for entirely political reasons there should be no case where a poor single young adult is worse off under ACA than they were before, either because they qualify for subsidies, they're on their parent's plan, or they're able to get Medicaid.

And what about those over 26 and don't qualify for subsidies? Do these people not deserve a right to choose if they should pay for something they don't need or want?

farmecologist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #212 on: January 10, 2017, 11:21:22 AM »
I guess that depends on your definition of success... If by success you mean we are finally forcing every person to purchase health insurance, if they want it or not, and if not we are going to hit them with a fine(or tax, or what ever suits your legal description at the time to defend it), then yea you might call it a success.

But if success means its something financially sustainable, then that it is not... It has been a total and complete failure from any angle other than to funnel more money from your pocket into Washington DC.

Anyone who can guarantee zero insurance utilization for the duration of their life should be welcome to opt-out. For the rest of us, get in the fucking pool.


Exactly..and obviously nobody can guarantee that.  I just love it when people use the "I'm healthy - I don't need insurance" bit.  That is just rationalization plain and simple.  It's just insane that anyone would think that way - ANYONE can get a major disease at any moment...regardless of how "healthy" you think you are.

Frankly, the very notion of insurance doesn't work if everyone doesn't pay in.  I'm not sure why people have a problem with the idea of this.  There are many other problems with our health care system ( or lack thereof ).  However, I'm not sure why there is ever any argument over the idea of the mandate.




NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #213 on: January 10, 2017, 11:23:49 AM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.   Pregnant women are certainly a drain, especially if they have a history of premature births.  Perhaps we should charge them more?  Sounds fair right?
But why would you have a problem singling these people out for higher taxes? and not... lets say a single young adult? which is exactly what the ACA currently does. Are they not worth our compassion? Especially since it is probably the most difficult time in life financially.

ACA gives subsidies to people so they can afford health insurance and it specifically allows cheaper catastrophic plans for young adults and lets them stay on their parents plans until they're 26. In states that didn't reject Medicaid expansion for entirely political reasons there should be no case where a poor single young adult is worse off under ACA than they were before, either because they qualify for subsidies, they're on their parent's plan, or they're able to get Medicaid.

And what about those over 26 and don't qualify for subsidies? Do these people not deserve a right to choose if they should pay for something they don't need or want?

Do I get to choose whether or not my tax dollars goes to pay their ER bill when their break all their limbs heliskiing after spending all of their money on hookers and blow?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12285
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #214 on: January 10, 2017, 11:26:10 AM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.

Actually, it should be cheaper for smokers and fat people.  They die quicker and because of this cost the health care system less . . . prolonging those last few years of life for healthy folk (and giving them years of treatment that they manage to survive) is really, really expensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #215 on: January 10, 2017, 11:37:42 AM »
Do I get to choose whether or not my tax dollars goes to pay their ER bill when their break all their limbs heliskiing after spending all of their money on hookers and blow?
These are Heliskiers, not rock stars, physical and mental fitness is important to them... They would blow their money on hookers and blow.... Common lets be sensible : )

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 876
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #216 on: January 10, 2017, 11:39:46 AM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.   Pregnant women are certainly a drain, especially if they have a history of premature births.  Perhaps we should charge them more?  Sounds fair right?
But why would you have a problem singling these people out for higher taxes? and not... lets say a single young adult? which is exactly what the ACA currently does. Are they not worth our compassion? Especially since it is probably the most difficult time in life financially.

ACA gives subsidies to people so they can afford health insurance and it specifically allows cheaper catastrophic plans for young adults and lets them stay on their parents plans until they're 26. In states that didn't reject Medicaid expansion for entirely political reasons there should be no case where a poor single young adult is worse off under ACA than they were before, either because they qualify for subsidies, they're on their parent's plan, or they're able to get Medicaid.

And what about those over 26 and don't qualify for subsidies? Do these people not deserve a right to choose if they should pay for something they don't need or want?

If you're over 26, don't qualify for subsidies, and live in a Medicare expansion state than by definition you're making enough money to afford health insurance or you're covered by an employer plan.

And they have every right to choose to go without health insurance, in which case they should pay the penalty which helps to pay for if they actually do need to go to the ER and choose to skip out on the bill.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #217 on: January 10, 2017, 12:00:16 PM »
Do I get to choose whether or not my tax dollars goes to pay their ER bill when their break all their limbs heliskiing after spending all of their money on hookers and blow?
These are Heliskiers, not rock stars, physical and mental fitness is important to them... They would blow their money on hookers and blow.... Common lets be sensible : )

Helisnowboarders, then. ;-)

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #218 on: January 10, 2017, 12:18:31 PM »
If you're over 26, don't qualify for subsidies, and live in a Medicare expansion state than by definition you're making enough money to afford health insurance or you're covered by an employer plan.

And they have every right to choose to go without health insurance, in which case they should pay the penalty which helps to pay for if they actually do need to go to the ER and choose to skip out on the bill.
We talk all the time about how most people are literally straddled with debt and barely getting by, its their own fault, but in my opinion its not really fair to throw one more expense at them just because you think you know what is best for them.

Also, lets put thing in perspective a little. Everyone keeps talking about this "trip to the ER" like it is financially life ending. According to the Washington post and a few other sites, in 2013(sorry couldn't find a source for 2016), was around $1200.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/02/an-average-er-visit-costs-more-than-an-average-months-rent/?utm_term=.439bdb99ae9c

The last time I checked insurance prices for our family it was about $350 per month(this was at the time with employer sponsored, now it would be much higher). That means our family, for the same cost of coverage, could go to the ER 3.5 times. Or one visit per person, per year. If that $350 per month were put into a savings account for 10years (@2% interest)would be worth $46,453.10.....

In my opinion this does not make sense financially, odds of being in a life threatening car accident(which is probably most likely scenario) are pretty small, and $46k is pretty life changing for some.

Iplawyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #219 on: January 10, 2017, 12:29:16 PM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.   Pregnant women are certainly a drain, especially if they have a history of premature births.  Perhaps we should charge them more?  Sounds fair right?
But why would you have a problem singling these people out for higher taxes? and not... lets say a single young adult? which is exactly what the ACA currently does. Are they not worth our compassion? Especially since it is probably the most difficult time in life financially.

ACA gives subsidies to people so they can afford health insurance and it specifically allows cheaper catastrophic plans for young adults and lets them stay on their parents plans until they're 26. In states that didn't reject Medicaid expansion for entirely political reasons there should be no case where a poor single young adult is worse off under ACA than they were before, either because they qualify for subsidies, they're on their parent's plan, or they're able to get Medicaid.

And what about those over 26 and don't qualify for subsidies? Do these people not deserve a right to choose if they should pay for something they don't need or want?

Think of it differently - if you don't buy health insurance the tax penalty you pay is buying your trip to the ER when you need your life saved and you don't have regular insurance.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8782
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #220 on: January 10, 2017, 12:34:22 PM »

Also, lets put thing in perspective a little. Everyone keeps talking about this "trip to the ER" like it is financially life ending. According to the Washington post and a few other sites, in 2013(sorry couldn't find a source for 2016), was around $1200.


Just some clarification, the median cost for a trip to the ER may be 'only' a few thousand dollars, but that isn't what people are insuring against. Most visits to teh ER wind up being out-patient procedures - stitches or a sprain or viral infection that just has to run its course.
Depending on the locale, a single night in the ICU can cost $20k or more. In-patient costs can be between $3k-$5k/night

So while the median cost may be low, the real financial threat is when you need to be hospitalized for multiple days, like if you are in a bad car accident or puncture your spleen while running with scissors.

With insurance you aren't protecting against the routine, but rather the more unlikely extreme events that you otherwise couldn't afford.

*it's also important to note that most people say they can't afford even an unexpected $800 expense without going into debt.  Sad but true.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #221 on: January 10, 2017, 12:48:36 PM »
Think of it differently - if you don't buy health insurance the tax penalty you pay is buying your trip to the ER when you need your life saved and you don't have regular insurance.
Umm I don't think so, my debt doesn't magically go away because I paid my fee last year. I will still be on the hook for the bill, and will gratefully pay the bill since they saved my life. I would technically owe my existence to their awesome training that they paid good money for.

Besides, do you really think that forcing everyone to pay into a broken system is going fix everything? Would stop runaway costs? They don't say "more money, more problems" for nothing...and all things being equal, democrats allowed the most inefficient form of resource management to come in and take control of everything. My prediction is we are all going to continue to see rising healthcare costs, or a reduction in service or a reduction in quality.... Maybe even a little of each.

Iplawyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #222 on: January 10, 2017, 01:04:47 PM »
Think of it differently - if you don't buy health insurance the tax penalty you pay is buying your trip to the ER when you need your life saved and you don't have regular insurance.
Umm I don't think so, my debt doesn't magically go away because I paid my fee last year. I will still be on the hook for the bill, and will gratefully pay the bill since they saved my life. I would technically owe my existence to their awesome training that they paid good money for.

Besides, do you really think that forcing everyone to pay into a broken system is going fix everything? Would stop runaway costs? They don't say "more money, more problems" for nothing...and all things being equal, democrats allowed the most inefficient form of resource management to come in and take control of everything. My prediction is we are all going to continue to see rising healthcare costs, or a reduction in service or a reduction in quality.... Maybe even a little of each.

No - what I really think is that that this great, very affluent country, ought to be as progressive as others and make it possible for the humans who live here to get health care.  And I selfishly want to be able to buy it for myself.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #223 on: January 10, 2017, 01:23:28 PM »
No - what I really think is that that this great, very affluent country, ought to be as progressive as others and make it possible for the humans who live here to get health care.  And I selfishly want to be able to buy it for myself.

Well I wouldn't call you selfish for wanting that for yourself.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #224 on: January 10, 2017, 02:01:07 PM »

With insurance you aren't protecting against the routine, but rather the more unlikely extreme events that you otherwise couldn't afford.


Yes!  Yes!  That's it exactly!  And that is my complaint with Obamacare.  It has regulated such a high minimum standard of benefits, in order to be called "health insurance" in any legal context, that I can no longer actually buy real insurance in this field; at least not without also paying a tax penalty for not having official health insurance.  I'm relatively healthy for my age, with no major issues; and I have enough money between my HSA and other funds that I could take quite a hard hit.  But without true catastrophic and/or hospitalization insurance, I cannot be certain that I could absorb any hit that life could throw at me, regardless of the odds that I'll be hit at all.  I should have the right to buy whatever insurance I believe is right for myself, and self-insure to whatever level I am comfortable with financially, without special tax consequences and without being compelled to support the choices of others.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #225 on: January 10, 2017, 02:20:06 PM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.

Actually, it should be cheaper for smokers and fat people.  They die quicker and because of this cost the health care system less . . . prolonging those last few years of life for healthy folk (and giving them years of treatment that they manage to survive) is really, really expensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

This may actually be true, on a life cycle perspective, since the healthy tend to live longer and have more opportunity to rack up charges.  Even still, tis just proves the point that there are many valid ways to look at it, and that also means that there can never be a consensus on what the ideal public plan should look like.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #226 on: January 10, 2017, 02:20:49 PM »
I live in the Midwest and am confident that I don't need protection from the Russians or from ISIS.  Quidnon: what is your argument for why I should be paying for your protection?   
That is one of the actual legitimate roles of a government is to provide defense of its citizens.


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #227 on: January 10, 2017, 02:25:36 PM »

With insurance you aren't protecting against the routine, but rather the more unlikely extreme events that you otherwise couldn't afford.


Yes!  Yes!  That's it exactly!  And that is my complaint with Obamacare.  It has regulated such a high minimum standard of benefits, in order to be called "health insurance" in any legal context, that I can no longer actually buy real insurance in this field; at least not without also paying a tax penalty for not having official health insurance.  I'm relatively healthy for my age, with no major issues; and I have enough money between my HSA and other funds that I could take quite a hard hit.  But without true catastrophic and/or hospitalization insurance, I cannot be certain that I could absorb any hit that life could throw at me, regardless of the odds that I'll be hit at all.  I should have the right to buy whatever insurance I believe is right for myself, and self-insure to whatever level I am comfortable with financially, without special tax consequences and without being compelled to support the choices of others.

I am a real tough guy.  Nobody messes with me or tries to fight me.  Therefore, I should have the right to buy whatever [amount of defense protection from the federal government] I believe is right for myself, and [protect myself] to whatever level I am comfortable with financially, without special tax consequences and without being compelled to [pay for the protection of people who are weaker than me].

I live in the Midwest and am confident that I don't need protection from the Russians or from ISIS.  Quidnon: what is your argument for why I should be paying for your protection?   

This seems like a fun game, can I play?

I have a very secure job, and have almost no chance of being fired or needing to collect unemployment.  I should be able to buy the correct account of unemployment insurance that I think is right for me, without being compelled to pay for your unemployment insurance.  What is your argument for why I should be paying for your unemployment insurance?

Can I do your disability insurance next?  Same deal.

How about your old age insurance, aka social security? Same deal.

This whole argument is stupid, Q.  Congress has decided to provide these services to every American worker whether they think they need them or not.  They protect workers from catastrophic wipeout and they protect private insurer from adverse risk pools.  They are good for the country.  So is widely available affordable health insurance.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #228 on: January 10, 2017, 02:39:11 PM »
Access to health care is a basic human right.
I don't think all the people in power in this country believe this statement.

I don't believe this statement.  One of the fundamental ideas of a "basic human right" is that they are ancient, as in recognized as true (by some group, not everyone) for as long as humanity can record.  Another fundamental idea of a "basic human right" is that other people don't have to do anything, but instead are morally bound not to prevent the human in question from doing something for themselves.  For example, I have a basic human right to life, and no one has a right to take my life away from me; where a "right" to healthcare would require someone else provide that service to me.

So no, you don't have a right to healthcare.

Completely agree. It is not a RIGHT.

I do feel that there is SOMETHING there, but I can not describe it. Maybe moral obligation, but that does not sound right either. All I know is that if I see someone in distress, it just feels right to try to help. I feel better when I do, and sometimes feel like shit when I don't.


So help.  I can show you a dozen different ways that you can, personally, help others in need.  Some with an accompanying tax deduction, and some completely anonymously.  And I agree with the moral obligation to help, as that is literally written into the Christian teachings.  But I don't agree that a non-Christian is bound by that moral obligation, I don't believe that a taxpayer funded program satisfies that obligation, and I don't believe that there is only one way to do anything in a nation of over 300 million people.

Quote

It feels to me that the ability to sustain and maintain a basic level of health services for all people in the US should be possible,


Oh, it's certainly possible, depending upon the concept of "basic level of health services".  But it's not the place of the federal government to do this kind of thing, either for the states or instead of them.  And if it were, it would never work.  One size fits all programs don't ever fit all.  I'm a fine example of that.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12285
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #229 on: January 10, 2017, 02:42:34 PM »
If you are going to single out smokers (I have never smoked in my life) then why not continue and single out obese people since they are a drain on the healthcare system.

Actually, it should be cheaper for smokers and fat people.  They die quicker and because of this cost the health care system less . . . prolonging those last few years of life for healthy folk (and giving them years of treatment that they manage to survive) is really, really expensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

This may actually be true, on a life cycle perspective, since the healthy tend to live longer and have more opportunity to rack up charges.  Even still, tis just proves the point that there are many valid ways to look at it, and that also means that there can never be a consensus on what the ideal public plan should look like.

There probably never will be a consensus.  (Here in Canada there's no consensus as to what the ideal role of government should be in health care.  I suspect you could find the same sort of argument going on in France, the UK, or anywhere else that public health care is provided.)  There are an awful lot of cases in life where waiting for a perfect solution will prevent you from accepting a good solution, to the detriment of all.



I live in the Midwest and am confident that I don't need protection from the Russians or from ISIS.  Quidnon: what is your argument for why I should be paying for your protection?   
That is one of the actual legitimate roles of a government is to provide defense of its citizens.

In your opinion.

In the opinion of many in this thread, one of the actual legitimate roles of a government is to provide health care for its citizens.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #230 on: January 10, 2017, 02:45:24 PM »


Quidnon, your posts about health care in this and other threads are full of meaningless hyperbole. Everything you disagree with is PROPAGANDA and health care a serious incursion on your FREEDOM. People here are (rightly, I think) interpreting your comments as nothing more than ridiculous histrionics and are poking fun at you because of it. From what I can tell, your main objection to the ACA is that it is more expensive for you personally than plans you had in the old private insurance market. That's actually a legitimate beef! You're probably going to get more traction with the argument "the ACA is simply too expensive for individuals like me" than trying to connect it to some grave threat to your personal autonomy and the stability of the republic.

The loss of personal freedom and control of my own situation is a large part of my issues with the ACA, who are you to say that my complaints are illegitimate?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #231 on: January 10, 2017, 02:46:14 PM »
One size fits all programs don't ever fit all.  I'm a fine example of that.

Why do they need to fit everyone perfectly?  The US government provided a ton of services to everyone, regardless of their individual needs.  In the past few posts you've heard about unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and national defense, all of which are provided to every American regardless of their individual need.  We could also talk about the CDC, which you don't need unless you have an infectious disease, or the EPA, which you don't need unless you are drinking contaminated water.

But you do!  You need all of those services, whether you realize it or not.  You benefit from the army, you benefit from disease control and clean water and from disability insurance, even if you're not currently consuming them, because they benefit everyone and make America stronger.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 02:57:16 PM by sol »

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #232 on: January 10, 2017, 02:47:37 PM »

Seriously, Quidnon, government policy is pretty much how we make decisions about things that affect all of us. Participate or don't, but acting like you're somehow not in a society is just obnoxious. If everyone else was a unicorn of personal responsibility like you, then we would live in a free market utopia where nothing bad ever happens.


Your health decisions should not affect me, nor should mine affect you.  This is not a business of the federal government.  Maybe of the state, but not the federal.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #233 on: January 10, 2017, 02:48:49 PM »
This whole argument is stupid, Q.  Congress has decided to provide these services to every American worker whether they think they need them or not.  They protect workers from catastrophic wipeout and they protect private insurer from adverse risk pools.  They are good for the country.  So is widely available affordable health insurance.

Only in the case of the ACA, congress didn't decide it as a governing body with consent of both sides, the democrats did it all by themselves as if it were a dictatorship.... In the same way that it is now going to be undone.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #234 on: January 10, 2017, 02:50:08 PM »
The loss of personal freedom and control of my own situation is a large part of my issues with the ACA, who are you to say that my complaints are illegitimate?
+1 and...

Your health decisions should not affect me, nor should mine affect you.  This is not a business of the federal government.  Maybe of the state, but not the federal.
+1

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3183
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #235 on: January 10, 2017, 02:52:54 PM »
This whole argument is stupid, Q.  Congress has decided to provide these services to every American worker whether they think they need them or not.  They protect workers from catastrophic wipeout and they protect private insurer from adverse risk pools.  They are good for the country.  So is widely available affordable health insurance.

Only in the case of the ACA, congress didn't decide it as a governing body with consent of both sides, the democrats did it all by themselves as if it were a dictatorship.... In the same way that it is now going to be undone.

For fuck's sake, a majority vote in a democratically elected Congress and signed by a democratically elected President is not a "dictatorship."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dictatorship

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #236 on: January 10, 2017, 03:03:28 PM »
We can create the Department of Health Defense.  The department will provide citizens a defense against domestic (hereditary) and foreign diseases.  Just like the DoD, the DoHD can go on the offensive and provide preventative measures for its citizens.  We can even keep insurance companies (like sol mentioned earlier) and call them defense contractors.  We all know Republicans love giving taxpayer dollars to defense contractors, so the department will be well-funded.

Lol that's funny : )

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #237 on: January 10, 2017, 03:04:15 PM »
For fuck's sake, a majority vote in a democratically elected Congress and signed by a democratically elected President is not a "dictatorship."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dictatorship

Yes I know it wasn't the correct word exactly, but you cant argue the whole thing wasn't a one side decision.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 03:08:14 PM by Greenback Reproduction Specialist »

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #238 on: January 10, 2017, 03:06:16 PM »
For everyone else I suppose the answer would be "as high as your effective tax rate" which could be just about anything.  But it would be mixed in with everything else the government buys with your tax dollars.  No one asks "what percentage of my income does national defense cost" because our national defense is paid for out of our collective taxes, and there's no way to track where your specific tax dollars go after you pay taxes.  At best, we can say something like "16% of federal tax revenue is spent on national defense" and then you can multiply your individual tax burden by 16%.

This is a key point. Of course the "taxes are theft" folks will still disagree on principle, but their principles are based on an ignorance of historical context, understanding of how the economy works, and/or empathy for others, so I'm not sure their opinions are particularly relevant.

Do you not proof read your posts first?  Or do you just not care how offensive you sound to those whose opinions you do not share?

Well, this is a fair objection, in some respects. I don't pretend to be tactful. The thing is that this is far from the first forum in which i have fought this particular fight. And it gets old. I'm sure those favoring your worldview feel the same
It certainly does.
Quote
So to repeat myself yet again, the short version here is that the opportunity (which is unprecedented in human history) to be collectively able to have this conversation, is based in the history of the society in which we reside, which was built upon taxation of the resident populous.
This is not true.  Direct income taxes didn't start till 1914, and were widely regarded as theft by fiat before that.  This means that for the first half of the Industrial Revolution, the United States did not have any universal income tax system.  Your perspective on the value of taxation to support your preferred government policy is based upon a false premise, that governments solve social problems better than individuals or the free market is able to do so, and thus the imposition of the taxes necessary to support those programs are practical and legitimate.  I disagree.  So do many others, including Historians Thaddeus Russel & Tom Woods, and Economists Bob Murphy, Walter Williams and Walter Block.  These are the people that I listen to and trust, and you have to address their complaints as well as my own, in order to win me to your side.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4598
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #239 on: January 10, 2017, 03:09:31 PM »
For fuck's sake, a majority vote in a democratically elected Congress and signed by a democratically elected President is not a "dictatorship."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dictatorship

Yes I know it wasn't the correct word exactly, but you cant argue the whole thing wasn't a one side decision.
Actually you can.  Because ACA is very much a compromise.  ACA is Romneycare expanded and was designed almost entirely by the heritage foundation.  The liberal way would have been single payer.   

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #240 on: January 10, 2017, 03:09:50 PM »
These are the people that I listen to and trust, and you have to address their complaints as well as my own, in order to win me to your side.

Fortunately for all of us, Congress doesn't have to operate by unanimous consent.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #241 on: January 10, 2017, 03:14:59 PM »
Actually you can.  Because ACA is very much a compromise.  ACA is Romneycare expanded and was designed almost entirely by the heritage foundation.  The liberal way would have been single payer.   
If were a compromise, then why did all 178 republicans and 34 democrats in congress vote against the bill?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 03:16:49 PM by Greenback Reproduction Specialist »

rpr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #242 on: January 10, 2017, 03:19:25 PM »
For fuck's sake, a majority vote in a democratically elected Congress and signed by a democratically elected President is not a "dictatorship."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dictatorship

Yes I know it wasn't the correct word exactly, but you cant argue the whole thing wasn't a one side decision.

Obama and other democrats foolishly bent over backwards to  try and reach some compromise. But when you had the republicans deciding they would oppose anything Obama did on principle, there was no room.  At that time, one of their leaders was reputed to have said that they would do anything to make Obama a one term president.

FWIW, the Obamacare plan was based on Romneycare which was similar to the plan put forth by a conservative think tank. The republicans blindly opposed it because Obama. If the democrats really wanted no compromise, they would have gone for a single payer system.

The fact that they are trying to repeal it without providing any replacements must tell you something about their hatred. This is not based on any fundamental principles.  They have had the past 6+ years to come up with an alternate plan.

Number of Obamacare repeal votes in Congress -- 60
Number of Obamacare replacement votes in Congress -- ZERO.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #243 on: January 10, 2017, 03:20:29 PM »

Seriously, Quidnon, government policy is pretty much how we make decisions about things that affect all of us. Participate or don't, but acting like you're somehow not in a society is just obnoxious. If everyone else was a unicorn of personal responsibility like you, then we would live in a free market utopia where nothing bad ever happens.


Your health decisions should not affect me, nor should mine affect you.  This is not a business of the federal government.  Maybe of the state, but not the federal.

So you have no problem if a bureaucrat with the state government knows the intimate details of your health?  Why?

Oh, I would & do.  But at least I have someone closer to my own situation to complain to.  It's no secret that politicos in Washington DC are too far removed from the people they officially represent, and that this leads to problems.  Additionally, my state officials are much more likely to share my own culture, upbringing and values; and are thus more likely to craft a state solution that is less objectionable to the citizens of the state than the federal version, which is almost guaranteed to upset a large portion of most of the states, which is exactly what happened.  It has been noted before that the ACA was modeled on a similar state program for Massachusetts, and that it worked well enough for them.  They can have it back, but if I lived in Massachusetts, I'd seriously consider moving, particularly after I retire.  To a warm state, with no state income taxes, and no or lower public health care requirements on what I must do or have.  Health care reform is a perfect example of the "many state experiments" in governance that was mentioned in the Federalist Papers (yes, many but not all of which I have read.  Have you?).  Let the people vote with their feet, as they already do.  The broken states lose both their economic base and their working age populations, as Illinois is currently doing; and high tax states lose their accumulated capital base, as they run off the retired population for more income friendly states, as California has been losing to Texas for years.   Yes, this sets up a "death spiral" of sorts that the loser states must address, or risk economic destruction.  But that is how it is supposed to work,  Illinois should already be making changes to make the state more attractive to those who are fleeing, or do something different to attract another crowd.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #244 on: January 10, 2017, 03:23:46 PM »
Actually you can.  Because ACA is very much a compromise.  ACA is Romneycare expanded and was designed almost entirely by the heritage foundation.  The liberal way would have been single payer.   
If were a compromise, then why did all 178 republicans and 34 democrats in congress vote against the bill?

It was a compromise by a supermajority of elected representatives, regardless of their party affiliation.  It's not all about party.

If the KKK party was 100% opposed to the ACA, would you claim it was passed by dictatorship because their negligible minority in congress didn't get on board?  I wouldn't, fringe groups don't get to dictate policy.  Policy is set by the elected majority, following congressional rules, which is how we got the ACA and how we're going to lose it, with equal validity.

Elections have consequences.  America gets what it votes for (in congress, not so much in the president).

rpr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #245 on: January 10, 2017, 03:29:59 PM »

Elections have consequences.  America gets what it votes for (in congress, not so much in the president).

+1. Agree. People get the government they deserve.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #246 on: January 10, 2017, 03:31:13 PM »
These are the people that I listen to and trust, and you have to address their complaints as well as my own, in order to win me to your side.

Fortunately for all of us, Congress doesn't have to operate by unanimous consent.

I wasn't talking about congress, but since you brought it up.  Congress, by design, is intended to represent the general will of the people.  Unlike the President, there is no electoral college to skew the outcomes (although there is gerry-mandering), so the make up of the US  congress, and overall the make up of the many state legislatures, should largely reflect the actual make up of the people.  You said in another time & thread that you thought that liberalism was losing the ideological fight.  Looking at the current make up of state legislatures and congress, I'd say that liberalism has already lost.  It's the forth quarter of the game, your team is down by 20 points, and your senior bench is either exhausted or already quit and left for the showers.  The ACA was unpopular with middle class Americans before, during and after it's time in congress; and was passed by using a parliamentary trick (that the Republicans are now using against the Democrats, with all irony intended I think) that didn't require any bi-partisan support, because they knew that they didn't have it.  For one moment in time, the Republicans were listening to their constituents.  Hopefully they are doing it again.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #247 on: January 10, 2017, 03:31:54 PM »

Elections have consequences.  America gets what it votes for (in congress, not so much in the president).

+1. Agree. People get the government they deserve.

And they deserve the shit policies they are about to get.

Greenback Reproduction Specialist

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Location: Running barefoot thru Idaho mountains
    • Black Sheep With Feet
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #248 on: January 10, 2017, 03:34:12 PM »
Obama and other democrats foolishly bent over backwards to  try and reach some compromise. But when you had the republicans deciding they would oppose anything Obama did on principle, there was no room.  At that time, one of their leaders was reputed to have said that they would do anything to make Obama a one term president.

FWIW, the Obamacare plan was based on Romneycare which was similar to the plan put forth by a conservative think tank. The republicans blindly opposed it because Obama. If the democrats really wanted no compromise, they would have gone for a single payer system.

The fact that they are trying to repeal it without providing any replacements must tell you something about their hatred. This is not based on any fundamental principles.  They have had the past 6+ years to come up with an alternate plan.

Number of Obamacare repeal votes in Congress -- 60
Number of Obamacare replacement votes in Congress -- ZERO.
Well, I'm glad you feel that it is ok for a party to do whatever they please when they are in power without the consent of the other, because its about to happen again. The democrats really opened a pandoras box by doing what they did, you can keep thinking it was all a plot to discredit Obama, but I think we both know you would never get all republicans and 34 democrats to vote just for that purpose.... That's a pretty ridiculous argument.

rpr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #249 on: January 10, 2017, 03:36:08 PM »
Additionally, my state officials are much more likely to share my own culture, upbringing and values;  ...

Code for we don't like them liberal Coastal types :)