General Political Thread

[Ghost of Electricity]

I find it simultaneously amusing, revolting and bewildering that when the US takes an ever so small step towards becoming a more civilized place, many Americans get irate.

[KevinG]

Come on Caliber, you don't see the difference? Car insurance is only required if you choose to drive a car, and it is required mainly to protect others, not the policy holder. Also, we don't bill our car insurance company for our regular car maintenance, tune ups, oil changes, etc. Health insurance is now required as a condition of living here. It's unprecedented.

 

They're two different animals, and this comparison doesn't hold water.

Actually the requirement to buy health insurance is to protect others. Buy having everyone buy insurance protects people from higher healthcare costs.

 

Americans are required you pay taxes. In essence buy services (police, fire, roads, school, etc). The difference with ACA is you actually get a choice of the service.

[Hixter]

The difference with ACA is you actually get a choice of the service.

Unless you live in a poor, rural area.

 

Of the roughly 2,500 counties served by the federal exchanges, more than half, or 58 percent, have plans offered by just one or two insurance carriers, according to an analysis by The Times of county-level data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. In about 530 counties, only a single insurer is participating.

[Hixter]

I find it simultaneously amusing, revolting and bewildering that when the US takes an ever so small step towards becoming a more civilized place, many Americans get irate.

The fact that the bill garnered no Republican votes should explain why half of the population is irate.

[Guest Jules]

Actually the requirement to buy health insurance is to protect others. Buy having everyone buy insurance protects people from higher healthcare costs.

 

You can't possibly believe this.

 

I find it simultaneously amusing, revolting and bewildering that when the US takes an ever so small step towards becoming a more civilized place, many Americans get irate.

Please.

[IRememberDBoon]

You can't possibly believe this.

 

Please.

Of course not! Hes only someone that actually dealt with the evil ACA. You are just a fear mongering monger

 

[Guest Don Draper]

Come on Caliber, you don't see the difference?  Car insurance is only required if you choose to drive a car, and it is required mainly to protect others, not the policy holder.  Also, we don't bill our car insurance company for our regular car maintenance, tune ups, oil changes, etc.  Health insurance is now required as a condition of living here.  It's unprecedented.

 

They're two different animals, and this comparison doesn't hold water.

Exactly.  Car insurance to population is not a 1:1 ratio, but health insurance to people now is.  The most likely benefit to this law is that more people will seek preventative care, which would hopefully reduce the wait time for visits to specialists

 

Health insurance costs likely won't decrease just because they don't have to, there's no impetus especially now that everyone is mandated to buy health insurance.  

 

(Fun example: next time you're buying deodorant or shaving cream, compare men's and women's products.  Women's deodorant is usually 3 or 2.75 ounces, men's is usually 3.25 ounces.  More often than not, women's deodorant is the same price or twenty-five to fifty-cents higher than men's.  Why?  Because women are absolutely going to buy deodorant - the women who want to buy deodorant are not going to not buy deodorant because of the inequity, and they likely won't notice it because they are thinking of deodorant in units of one: one tube for me, one for him.  They don't think in terms of volume.  So, if you're mandated to buy health insurance you're not asking why you're paying as much as you are, you're simply thinking of it as, "That's what I need to get.  Do I want Lavender or do I want Unicorn Musk?")

[Guest Jules]

Of course not! Hes only someone that actually dealt with the evil ACA. You are just a fear mongering monger

 

What?

[lost highway]

 

 

Health insurance costs likely won't decrease just because they don't have to, there's no impetus especially now that everyone is mandated to buy health insurance.  

 

 

 

So you don't think that while all the companies are competing to get everyone's required insurance purchase that a company might get more business by offering a lower price?  Seems like a fundamental capitalist concept. 

[uncool2pillow]

Competition lowers prices, but adding a legal requirement increases demand which could more than offset the decrease.  Fundamental.

 

Prices may eventually go down by adding healthier people to the pool, but my point is there are several economic forces at work here.

[Hixter]

Competition lowers prices, but adding a legal requirement increases demand which could more than offset the decrease.  Fundamental.

 

Prices may eventually go down by adding healthier people to the pool, but my point is there are several economic forces at work here.

Absolutely. Health care spending has slowed a bit in recent years because of the terrible economy, but the general trend continues in an upward direction. Health care is expensive and the money is eventually taken from our pockets. Costs are also increasing in countries with single payer systems -- I read the other day that England's NHS won't be able to continue to offer free care unless new means of funding (taxes) are procured. 

[Guest Don Draper]

Exactly why uncool said. The companies will set a bare minimum and be competitive within that range, but it won't lower costs significantly because it just won't. You think deodorant need to cost $3.50, even accounting for profit?

[KevinG]

Unless you live in a poor, rural area.

 

This is a problem with the Federal exchanges.  Note the article did not mention any state exchanges.  I would lay the blame for this on the governors and state legislators who refused to set up their own exchanges (which offer far more options and thus lower prices) and refused the Federal government medicaid money.  These are people who want ACA to fail and want the higher costs.  

 

 

You can't possibly believe this.

 

 

Yes, yes I do.  See having more people in the system will reduce costs.  One of the reasons why healthcare costs are so high is that people getting healthcare from the ER and not paying for the bills.  Who picks up that cost in that scenario? Any one who has insurance, in the form of higher premiums and deductibles.  The same is with car insurance mandating car insurance protect you from higher costs.

 

Exactly why uncool said. The companies will set a bare minimum and be competitive within that range, but it won't lower costs significantly because it just won't. You think deodorant need to cost $3.50, even accounting for profit?

 

     

This is a fundamental problem of the free market system.  Healthcare companies need to make money and will make as much money as possible.  But where there are many choices in healthcare options the costs are lower.  

 

Also you all make it sound like through ACA you are mandated to buy a certain type of insurance or are forced into a single plan.  Through ACA there are many options and if you are lucky enough to have an employer who offers insurance you have even more options.  Furthermore you do have option not get insurance, you just have to pay a fee. 

[Ghost of Electricity]

The fact that the bill garnered no Republican votes should explain why half of the population is irate.

Yes, i suppose i would be irate too if i suddenly discovered i was on the wrong side of history. 

 

There are imperfections and they are growing pains.  Deal with it. Grow.

[Atticus]

doctors and hospitals are already inflating costs and prices for all procedures because of how many of them get denied or reduced by the insurance companies--it's the only way any of them still make a profit.  you think that the doctors and hospitals are all the sudden going to lower those charges once there is more coverage?

 

(this process has become so rampant that many states have "paid or incurred" limitations for lawsuits, such as the one in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 41.0105--since the insurance companies only pay a portion of what's billed)

[Hixter]

Yes, i suppose i would be irate too if i suddenly discovered i was on the wrong side of history. 

 

There are imperfections and they are growing pains.  Deal with it. Grow.

Would you feel the same if Republicans rammed through legislation that cost trillions of dollars without a single Democrat vote?

[John Smith]

Can we please stop pretending that if health care costs rise it will be because of the ACA? That line of argument pretends that the market was stable and ignores that health care costs have not been outstripping inflation for 30 years now.

 

Also the ACA individual mandate is and always has been a conservative idea. The fact that 0 republicans voted for it actually speaks volumes. Democrats would have actually preferred a single payer system but Obama probably thought he could placate the right by using their approach. Little did he know that he would get no cooperation from them. He tried and failed.

[Atticus]

I can't speak for others but I'm not arguing that the ACA is going to be a sole cause of health care costs rising.  but I don't think it's going to result in health care costs diminishing.

 

if Obama wanted true health care reform he should have gone balls out.  this system is so neutered and fucked.

 

I wouldn't have a problem scrapping the whole system and starting with single payer.  

[Guest Don Draper]

I'm not arguing that costs will rise. But costs are already inflated and they will not lower significantly, or perhaps even noticeably, with ACA.

 

We'll likely see more "cut rate" plans - the Geicos and Progressives of health insurance - but cut rate is cut coverage and anyone with a serious ailment will find themselves up a creek without a wallet.

[KevinG]

I can't speak for others but I'm not arguing that the ACA is going to be a sole cause of health care costs rising.  but I don't think it's going to result in health care costs diminishing.

 

if Obama wanted true health care reform he should have gone balls out.  this system is so neutered and fucked.

 

I wouldn't have a problem scrapping the whole system and starting with single payer.  

 

Healthcare costs are already lower

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2013/10/23/77537/the-affordable-care-acts-lower-than-projected-premiums-will-save-190-billion/

 

And single payer will never pass, nor will it ever be introduced.  We have a government that can't even agree to pay the bills we have, let alone a new entitlement system.  

[uncool2pillow]

There are imperfections and they are growing pains.  Deal with it. Grow.

You could be talking about ACA or drones here, or the NSA's spying program.

[Ghost of Electricity]

Would you feel the same if Republicans rammed through legislation that cost trillions of dollars without a single Democrat vote?

See, i don't have to worry about that. It's not a Democrat/Republican thing.  History (the long view-of course there are setbacks along the way) doesn't move in that direction.  It's the same reason why we don't have slavery anymore or send children to operate heavy machinery for 70 hrs a week anymore. It's the same reason women are closer to achieving equality than they were in the 1950s, and why marriage equality is becoming the norm.  Health care represents the idea that maybe we should look after each other rather than f@%& each other over.

 

By the same token (the long historical view) there are some other trends which give legitimate reason for worry, such as the inreasing inequality in the distribution of wealth. This is the kind of legislation that Republicans will "ram through" (often with full cooperation on the part of Democrats mind you) that makes me irate. It represents the idea that why should we look out for each other when we can f@%& each other over.

You could be talking about ACA or drones here, or the NSA's spying program.

You take the good, you take the bad you take them both and there you have the facts of life the facts of life the facts of life

 

the facts of life are all about you

[uncool2pillow]

I don't think there's any consensus of the long view of history. It's nice(and sometimes quite easy) to see things that way when there's movement in a direction you like. There could almost always, though, be a well supported opposing point of view.

[Guest Jules]

What legislation is increasing the inequality in the distribution of wealth?

[John Smith]

Is something that has been discussed for 20 years or more ever rammed through? The centerpiece of the legislation is a conservative idea, Paul Ryan has gone on record saying that the republicans wrote a great deal of the law, debate/discussion/arguments went on for much longer than debates about the bush tax cuts or the patriot act. So rammed through is just an exagerated talking point.

Are Supreme Court decision rendered along ideological lines less valid because of that? Nope they are still valid whether you agree or not.