ACA: For the Win!

[dblack]

See what? What am I missing? I thought the point of the mandate was to address the free rider problem. What am I missing?

Do you have evidence that those who've chosen the mandate are not paying it?

I don't know what that question means. Can you rephrase it?

I made the claim that the point of the mandate is to deal the free rider problem, and you claimed that I don't understand how it works. What were you talking about?

Either your questions are deliberately disingenuous, or you don't understand the basics of how insurance works. You keep asking the same questions and no answer seems to satisfy you no matter which poster supplies it from which sources.

So... you got nuthin'. You say I don't know how it works, you don't even really mean it. You just say it reflexively, just as an empty retort. The fact is, I know a good deal more about "how it works" than you do. You've proven that repeatedly in thread after thread of idiotic claims and irrational arguments.

But go ahead, strike a pose! It's amusing, at the very least.

Keep asking the same questions again and again and again, though. You at least put more thought into them than EddieBCrazy or Stephanie or Kosh.

And you keep dodging them. Ostrich much?

 

[Arianrhod]

Do you have evidence that those who've chosen the mandate are not paying it?

I don't know what that question means. Can you rephrase it?

I made the claim that the point of the mandate is to deal the free rider problem, and you claimed that I don't understand how it works. What were you talking about?

Either your questions are deliberately disingenuous, or you don't understand the basics of how insurance works. You keep asking the same questions and no answer seems to satisfy you no matter which poster supplies it from which sources.

So... you got nuthin'. You say I don't know how it works, you don't even really mean it. You just say it reflexively, just as an empty retort. The fact is, I know a good deal more about "how it works" than you do. You've proven that repeatedly in thread after thread of idiotic claims and irrational arguments.

But go ahead, strike a pose! It's amusing, at the very least.

Keep asking the same questions again and again and again, though. You at least put more thought into them than EddieBCrazy or Stephanie or Kosh.

And you keep dodging them. Ostrich much?

Go back and reread every answer I've given to every one of your questions.

Or just have the last word. That seems to be more important to you.

 

[dblack]

I don't know what that question means. Can you rephrase it?

I made the claim that the point of the mandate is to deal the free rider problem, and you claimed that I don't understand how it works. What were you talking about?

Either your questions are deliberately disingenuous, or you don't understand the basics of how insurance works. You keep asking the same questions and no answer seems to satisfy you no matter which poster supplies it from which sources.

So... you got nuthin'. You say I don't know how it works, you don't even really mean it. You just say it reflexively, just as an empty retort. The fact is, I know a good deal more about "how it works" than you do. You've proven that repeatedly in thread after thread of idiotic claims and irrational arguments.

But go ahead, strike a pose! It's amusing, at the very least.

Keep asking the same questions again and again and again, though. You at least put more thought into them than EddieBCrazy or Stephanie or Kosh.

And you keep dodging them. Ostrich much?

Go back and reread every answer I've given to every one of your questions.

Or just have the last word. That seems to be more important to you.

Not really. I usually let you have it, because you usually prove yourself wrong with your own comments. You don't answer questions - not those that point out aspects of your political philosophy that you don't want to face. I was clearly mocking the premise of ACA in this thread, yet you couldn't really come up with any principled objections to the outrageous proposals I was making. Doesn't that bother you?

Doesn't it bother you that the same argument that justifies the individual mandate can be used to justify levying tax penalties against anyone who doesn't "measure up"? Doesn't it bother you that the policy you're selling here is fundamentally authoritarian?

 

[Arianrhod]

Either your questions are deliberately disingenuous, or you don't understand the basics of how insurance works. You keep asking the same questions and no answer seems to satisfy you no matter which poster supplies it from which sources.

So... you got nuthin'. You say I don't know how it works, you don't even really mean it. You just say it reflexively, just as an empty retort. The fact is, I know a good deal more about "how it works" than you do. You've proven that repeatedly in thread after thread of idiotic claims and irrational arguments.

But go ahead, strike a pose! It's amusing, at the very least.

Keep asking the same questions again and again and again, though. You at least put more thought into them than EddieBCrazy or Stephanie or Kosh.

And you keep dodging them. Ostrich much?

Go back and reread every answer I've given to every one of your questions.

Or just have the last word. That seems to be more important to you.

Not really. I usually let you have it, because you usually prove yourself wrong with your own comments. You don't answer questions - not those that point out aspects of your political philosophy that you don't want to face. I was clearly mocking the premise of ACA in this thread, yet you couldn't really come up with any principled objections to the outrageous proposals I was making. Doesn't that bother you?

Doesn't it bother you that the same argument that justifies the individual mandate can be used to justify levying tax penalties against anyone who doesn't "measure up"? Doesn't it bother you that the policy you're selling here is fundamentally authoritarian?

 

[Bern80]

It's a step in the right direction. A foot in the door. With ACA no one can be denied health care!

Actually with the ACA, nobody can be denied insurance. But "insurance" is not "health care". Big difference there.

Normal people can't afford health care without health insurance.

Perhaps that is what we should be focusing on. That is the reason Obamacare is a failure. It does not address the actual cost of services. All it said was lets get every body insured and let's throw some real wrenches into the equation so we make sure even that doesn't work.

 

[Arianrhod]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

 

[Bern80]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

 

[Arianrhod]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Greenbeard and others have posted data indicating that hospital costs are going down. The big problem, of course, is drug costs, and exerting downward pressure on those will be more complicated, given the influence of pharma lobbyists in Congress and the collusion between pharma companies and insurers.

But if the insurers start exerting pressure, will they outweigh the lobbyists?

 

[dblack]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Greenbeard and others have posted data indicating that hospital costs are going down. The big problem, of course, is drug costs, and exerting downward pressure on those will be more complicated, given the influence of pharma lobbyists in Congress and the collusion between pharma companies and insurers.

But if the insurers start exerting pressure, will they outweigh the lobbyists?

No.

 

[dblack]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

The first one is always free ...

 

[Arianrhod]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Greenbeard and others have posted data indicating that hospital costs are going down. The big problem, of course, is drug costs, and exerting downward pressure on those will be more complicated, given the influence of pharma lobbyists in Congress and the collusion between pharma companies and insurers.

But if the insurers start exerting pressure, will they outweigh the lobbyists?

No.

And you know this because -?

 

[dblack]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Greenbeard and others have posted data indicating that hospital costs are going down. The big problem, of course, is drug costs, and exerting downward pressure on those will be more complicated, given the influence of pharma lobbyists in Congress and the collusion between pharma companies and insurers.

But if the insurers start exerting pressure, will they outweigh the lobbyists?

No.

And you know this because -?

Because insurance companies have always had incentives to cut costs by exerting pressure on health care suppliers. Now that they have mandated customers, they have less.

 

[Bern80]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Greenbeard and others have posted data indicating that hospital costs are going down. The big problem, of course, is drug costs, and exerting downward pressure on those will be more complicated, given the influence of pharma lobbyists in Congress and the collusion between pharma companies and insurers.

But if the insurers start exerting pressure, will they outweigh the lobbyists?

That will be a challenge for sure. One reason drug costs are so high, is because we (America) do the bulk of the work in developing them, which is not cheap. Developing them takes years of research and investment. Years in which they of course aren't seeing a return or revenue being generated by the drug you're working on.

 

[Arianrhod]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Greenbeard and others have posted data indicating that hospital costs are going down. The big problem, of course, is drug costs, and exerting downward pressure on those will be more complicated, given the influence of pharma lobbyists in Congress and the collusion between pharma companies and insurers.

But if the insurers start exerting pressure, will they outweigh the lobbyists?

That will be a challenge for sure. One reason drug costs are so high, is because we (America) do the bulk of the work in developing them, which is not cheap. Developing them takes years of research and investment. Years in which they of course aren't seeing a return or revenue being generated by the drug you're working on.

That's certainly true for the major pharma companies' R&D, but much of the cutting-edge research is being done by small biotech companies buying "orphan" molecules from the big companies and showing amazing returns.

You'd think Big Pharma would be able to sell enough Viagra to support R&D on more life-saving drugs.

Then there's the burden of advertising. If your competitor is making splashy commercials ("Ask your doctor if X is right for you"), you've got to do the same. That's a big chunk of change. But maybe as the computer-phobic generation dies out more ad buys will switch to the Internet and even DTC texting. That would be cheaper.

 

[Bern80]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Greenbeard and others have posted data indicating that hospital costs are going down. The big problem, of course, is drug costs, and exerting downward pressure on those will be more complicated, given the influence of pharma lobbyists in Congress and the collusion between pharma companies and insurers.

But if the insurers start exerting pressure, will they outweigh the lobbyists?

That will be a challenge for sure. One reason drug costs are so high, is because we (America) do the bulk of the work in developing them, which is not cheap. Developing them takes years of research and investment. Years in which they of course aren't seeing a return or revenue being generated by the drug you're working on.

That's certainly true for the major pharma companies' R&D, but much of the cutting-edge research is being done by small biotech companies buying "orphan" molecules from the big companies and showing amazing returns.

You'd think Big Pharma would be able to sell enough Viagra to support R&D on more life-saving drugs.

Then there's the burden of advertising. If your competitor is making splashy commercials ("Ask your doctor if X is right for you"), you've got to do the same. That's a big chunk of change. But maybe as the computer-phobic generation dies out more ad buys will switch to the Internet and even DTC texting. That would be cheaper.

Like I said. A challenge. I don't know how you work around those issues.

 

[Arianrhod]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Greenbeard and others have posted data indicating that hospital costs are going down. The big problem, of course, is drug costs, and exerting downward pressure on those will be more complicated, given the influence of pharma lobbyists in Congress and the collusion between pharma companies and insurers.

But if the insurers start exerting pressure, will they outweigh the lobbyists?

That will be a challenge for sure. One reason drug costs are so high, is because we (America) do the bulk of the work in developing them, which is not cheap. Developing them takes years of research and investment. Years in which they of course aren't seeing a return or revenue being generated by the drug you're working on.

That's certainly true for the major pharma companies' R&D, but much of the cutting-edge research is being done by small biotech companies buying "orphan" molecules from the big companies and showing amazing returns.

You'd think Big Pharma would be able to sell enough Viagra to support R&D on more life-saving drugs.

Then there's the burden of advertising. If your competitor is making splashy commercials ("Ask your doctor if X is right for you"), you've got to do the same. That's a big chunk of change. But maybe as the computer-phobic generation dies out more ad buys will switch to the Internet and even DTC texting. That would be cheaper.

Like I said. A challenge. I don't know how you work around those issues.

I'd count on the insurers to cover their asses by pressuring the pharma companies into lowering their prices. That's why we saw the mildly hysterical rush to raise prices at the start of the year. Now, traditionally they do that every January, but not with quite the sense of panic they evidenced this year. This suggests they're seeing the handwriting on the wall.

If I were a pharma lobbyist, I'd be polishing my résumé.

 

[KissMy]

Repubtards regulations stalled & prevented most drug approvals. They prefer expensive police state that kills it's citizens!

 

[Care4all]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Isn't that what the high deductibles do?

It makes insurance more of a catastrophic policy, because we have to pay for the every day medical care stuff with these higher deductible amounts before the insurance companies begin paying?

 

[Greenbeard]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Isn't that what the high deductibles do?

It makes insurance more of a catastrophic policy, because we have to pay for the every day medical care stuff with these higher deductible amounts before the insurance companies begin paying?

This is a good question. Are people overusing their overgenerous insurance or underusing their overly skimpy insurance? Both arguments are being made.

 

[dblack]

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies? No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials. Anyone?

I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.

Isn't that what the high deductibles do?

It makes insurance more of a catastrophic policy, because we have to pay for the every day medical care stuff with these higher deductible amounts before the insurance companies begin paying?

That's what they're supposed to do. But the idea also includes such policies costing much less. Since these policies cost the insurance companies far less in terms of claims they traditionally charged much less for them. Before ACA you could get a $5000 deductible policy for less than $100/mo - I know, I had one. But now, with guaranteed issue, insurance companies are using that savings to pay for the previously uninsurable.

That's what people are complaining about. It's not that catastrophic plans are bad - I think they're the only sane way to use insurance - but they now cost as much as the low deductible plans did before ACA. From the consumer's point of view, they're simply paying more for less.