Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Bern80]

I think theres a lot of misinformation about European models of healthcare, the French have a great system which is a mix of national health insurance and top up with choice for patients. It's crucial however for the ACA to have the individual mandate because without that you don't have a sufficient pool of money. The one very bizarre thing about the constant GOP moaning about the ACA is it does the thing they continually push, personal responsibility, why should people who pay cover those that go to the emergency room and have never put anything in to the system. Interestingly when you poll people more like the ACA than Obamacare! It's clear that there are portions of the ACA which even GOP supporters like such as the coverage for children upto 26 and also coverage for pre- existing medical conditions.

The current shutdown by the GOP to be honest is simply a way of delaying the ACA in the hope that it won't become popular and that they can use this at your mid-terms. If for arguments sake people begin to like it what then? Any change is always going to be difficult, its understandable people have a fear of the unknown, the ACA isn't perfect but there is no system in the world that is, you can't please everyone.

I'd like to ask GOP supporters in here what would you think of Democrats if the role was reversed and they refused to fund the government unless a GOP President watered down or stopped one of his signature Acts, or said either bring in more gun laws or else! How can you have any sort of smooth government running when one side threatens such action, what does it do for democracy.

If the ACA turns out to be a disaster then the GOP will likely win control of both houses and then the election, they can scrap it and come up with something different, this I thought was how democracies are supposed to work. The current shutdown is an embarrassment and not befitting of the USA, you'd expect this type of shambles in the Third World not in the richest country in the world. American politicians need to start acting like adults, maybe you guys are used to all these constant dramas but surely this must really start hacking people off.

I do understand you have this unique constitution which does have some great things but surely most Americans have enough to worry about without their government making life harder.

I read an editorial, I don't remember by whom, that said that the current game is merely a distraction for the real issue to come up during debt limit negotiations. That being arbitrary spending cuts based on the conservative position that somehow they know that our government is too big. Another abstraction for which they offer no evidence.

Of course the real motivation is wealth redistribution up, even though we are already at a global extreme in wealth distribution. Their goal can only be a typical banana Republic of both obscene wealth and poverty.

Even a cursory knowledge of American economics reveals that our engine of wealth growth has always been middle class workers who's output is real, tangible products. It's their making, through work, and buying by their wages, that supports the entire country. But they are the people who get added to the poor as wealth redistribution up works to it's nefarious end.

We can only hope that democrats stand firm and united as the consequences of giving in to tyranny are much greater and longer lasting than the damages that Republicans are willing to inflict during their tantrum.

That much is true. That an ideal system would be one where individuals purchase plans themselves and not through a third party. If the Republicans were smart (which they're not, which is why I don't really identify with them). They would not fight the individual mandate. Is it wrong for the government to make people purchase things? Of course it is. But the silver lining would be that people actually see what things cost. They would see what Obamacare is making them pay for that they may not need or want. Many would see why they are paying significantly higher rates due to the community rating mandate. Yes, the right has been doing a lot of chirping about how aweful Obamacare is. I guess if we really want people to wake up, they need to get hit in the pocket book. For that reason the Republicans should stop fighting the individual mandate and just let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think theres a lot of misinformation about European models of healthcare, the French have a great system which is a mix of national health insurance and top up with choice for patients. It's crucial however for the ACA to have the individual mandate because without that you don't have a sufficient pool of money. The one very bizarre thing about the constant GOP moaning about the ACA is it does the thing they continually push, personal responsibility, why should people who pay cover those that go to the emergency room and have never put anything in to the system. Interestingly when you poll people more like the ACA than Obamacare! It's clear that there are portions of the ACA which even GOP supporters like such as the coverage for children upto 26 and also coverage for pre- existing medical conditions.

The current shutdown by the GOP to be honest is simply a way of delaying the ACA in the hope that it won't become popular and that they can use this at your mid-terms. If for arguments sake people begin to like it what then? Any change is always going to be difficult, its understandable people have a fear of the unknown, the ACA isn't perfect but there is no system in the world that is, you can't please everyone.

I'd like to ask GOP supporters in here what would you think of Democrats if the role was reversed and they refused to fund the government unless a GOP President watered down or stopped one of his signature Acts, or said either bring in more gun laws or else! How can you have any sort of smooth government running when one side threatens such action, what does it do for democracy.

If the ACA turns out to be a disaster then the GOP will likely win control of both houses and then the election, they can scrap it and come up with something different, this I thought was how democracies are supposed to work. The current shutdown is an embarrassment and not befitting of the USA, you'd expect this type of shambles in the Third World not in the richest country in the world. American politicians need to start acting like adults, maybe you guys are used to all these constant dramas but surely this must really start hacking people off.

I do understand you have this unique constitution which does have some great things but surely most Americans have enough to worry about without their government making life harder.

I read an editorial, I don't remember by whom, that said that the current game is merely a distraction for the real issue to come up during debt limit negotiations. That being arbitrary spending cuts based on the conservative position that somehow they know that our government is too big. Another abstraction for which they offer no evidence. .

Our federal budget spends three dollars for every two in takes in, and government spending continues to grow almost every year.

Yes, that is evidence that the government is too big in case you missed it, bubba.

 

[PMZ]

I think theres a lot of misinformation about European models of healthcare, the French have a great system which is a mix of national health insurance and top up with choice for patients. It's crucial however for the ACA to have the individual mandate because without that you don't have a sufficient pool of money. The one very bizarre thing about the constant GOP moaning about the ACA is it does the thing they continually push, personal responsibility, why should people who pay cover those that go to the emergency room and have never put anything in to the system. Interestingly when you poll people more like the ACA than Obamacare! It's clear that there are portions of the ACA which even GOP supporters like such as the coverage for children upto 26 and also coverage for pre- existing medical conditions.

The current shutdown by the GOP to be honest is simply a way of delaying the ACA in the hope that it won't become popular and that they can use this at your mid-terms. If for arguments sake people begin to like it what then? Any change is always going to be difficult, its understandable people have a fear of the unknown, the ACA isn't perfect but there is no system in the world that is, you can't please everyone.

I'd like to ask GOP supporters in here what would you think of Democrats if the role was reversed and they refused to fund the government unless a GOP President watered down or stopped one of his signature Acts, or said either bring in more gun laws or else! How can you have any sort of smooth government running when one side threatens such action, what does it do for democracy.

If the ACA turns out to be a disaster then the GOP will likely win control of both houses and then the election, they can scrap it and come up with something different, this I thought was how democracies are supposed to work. The current shutdown is an embarrassment and not befitting of the USA, you'd expect this type of shambles in the Third World not in the richest country in the world. American politicians need to start acting like adults, maybe you guys are used to all these constant dramas but surely this must really start hacking people off.

I do understand you have this unique constitution which does have some great things but surely most Americans have enough to worry about without their government making life harder.

I read an editorial, I don't remember by whom, that said that the current game is merely a distraction for the real issue to come up during debt limit negotiations. That being arbitrary spending cuts based on the conservative position that somehow they know that our government is too big. Another abstraction for which they offer no evidence.

Of course the real motivation is wealth redistribution up, even though we are already at a global extreme in wealth distribution. Their goal can only be a typical banana Republic of both obscene wealth and poverty.

Even a cursory knowledge of American economics reveals that our engine of wealth growth has always been middle class workers who's output is real, tangible products. It's their making, through work, and buying by their wages, that supports the entire country. But they are the people who get added to the poor as wealth redistribution up works to it's nefarious end.

We can only hope that democrats stand firm and united as the consequences of giving in to tyranny are much greater and longer lasting than the damages that Republicans are willing to inflict during their tantrum.

That much is true. That an ideal system would be one where individuals purchase plans themselves and not through a third party. If the Republicans were smart (which they're not, which is why I don't really identify with them). They would not fight the individual mandate. Is it wrong for the government to make people purchase things? Of course it is. But the silver lining would be that people actually see what things cost. They would see what Obamacare is making them pay for that they may not need or want. Many would see why they are paying significantly higher rates due to the community rating mandate. Yes, the right has been doing a lot of chirping about how aweful Obamacare is. I guess if we really want people to wake up, they need to get hit in the pocket book. For that reason the Republicans should stop fighting the individual mandate and just let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope.

One of the huge points that has been obscured to conservatives is that this world of 7B highly connected people is not, in almost any way, the reality of the past.

Healthcare is a good example.

The main thing wrong with our past healthcare non system was that we gave people the choice to cover the cost of their own health care, or not.

Those of us who were lucky enough to have worked through the years when comprehensive health care insurance was table stakes for employing good people, didn't have to make the decision then, and also had no choice but to fund our retirement health care through Medicare.

Many of those who had to decide were protected from the consequences of a negative coverage decision by our cultural aversion to allowing obviously ill people to die in the streets. Everyone could get free treatment just by ''playing'' the system and adding their costs to the expenses of those insured.

Now that corporations have raised unemployment to the level where benefits are no longer required of them, more and more citizens have the choice to opt out.

The fix is obviously mandated health insurance. But, for many, the pay required to be insured has already been removed from their compensation. So it has to be made up for through taxes.

So Obamacare is the least expensive way, given that universal government administered insurance for the half of expenses not covered by Medicare is not politically possible, to hold people accountable for taking card their own health.

In the final analysis it is the path to making our health care costs globally competitive. Not from day one, given private insurance companies following the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. But over time.

So the GOP position is only what's right for the party over what's right for the people. While they've done their best to obscure that, they've failed. The cat is out of the bag. So they are paying, and will pay, and should pay, the political price for their position

 

[Bern80]

I read an editorial, I don't remember by whom, that said that the current game is merely a distraction for the real issue to come up during debt limit negotiations. That being arbitrary spending cuts based on the conservative position that somehow they know that our government is too big. Another abstraction for which they offer no evidence.

Of course the real motivation is wealth redistribution up, even though we are already at a global extreme in wealth distribution. Their goal can only be a typical banana Republic of both obscene wealth and poverty.

Even a cursory knowledge of American economics reveals that our engine of wealth growth has always been middle class workers who's output is real, tangible products. It's their making, through work, and buying by their wages, that supports the entire country. But they are the people who get added to the poor as wealth redistribution up works to it's nefarious end.

We can only hope that democrats stand firm and united as the consequences of giving in to tyranny are much greater and longer lasting than the damages that Republicans are willing to inflict during their tantrum.

That much is true. That an ideal system would be one where individuals purchase plans themselves and not through a third party. If the Republicans were smart (which they're not, which is why I don't really identify with them). They would not fight the individual mandate. Is it wrong for the government to make people purchase things? Of course it is. But the silver lining would be that people actually see what things cost. They would see what Obamacare is making them pay for that they may not need or want. Many would see why they are paying significantly higher rates due to the community rating mandate. Yes, the right has been doing a lot of chirping about how aweful Obamacare is. I guess if we really want people to wake up, they need to get hit in the pocket book. For that reason the Republicans should stop fighting the individual mandate and just let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope.

One of the huge points that has been obscured to conservatives is that this world of 7B highly connected people is not, in almost any way, the reality of the past.

Healthcare is a good example.

The main thing wrong with our past healthcare non system was that we gave people the choice to cover the cost of their own health care, or not.

Those of us who were lucky enough to have worked through the years when comprehensive health care insurance was table stakes for employing good people, didn't have to make the decision then, and also had no choice but to fund our retirement health care through Medicare.

Many of those who had to decide were protected from the consequences of a negative coverage decision by our cultural aversion to allowing obviously ill people to die in the streets. Everyone could get free treatment just by ''playing'' the system and adding their costs to the expenses of those insured.

Now that corporations have raised unemployment to the level where benefits are no longer required of them, more and more citizens have the choice to opt out.

The fix is obviously mandated health insurance. But, for many, the pay required to be insured has already been removed from their compensation. So it has to be made up for through taxes.

So Obamacare is the least expensive way, given that universal government administered insurance for the half of expenses not covered by Medicare is not politically possible, to hold people accountable for taking card their own health.

In the final analysis it is the path to making our health care costs globally competitive. Not from day one, given private insurance companies following the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. But over time.

So the GOP position is only what's right for the party over what's right for the people. While they've done their best to obscure that, they've failed. The cat is out of the bag. So they are paying, and will pay, and should pay, the political price for their position

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

 

[PMZ]

That much is true. That an ideal system would be one where individuals purchase plans themselves and not through a third party. If the Republicans were smart (which they're not, which is why I don't really identify with them). They would not fight the individual mandate. Is it wrong for the government to make people purchase things? Of course it is. But the silver lining would be that people actually see what things cost. They would see what Obamacare is making them pay for that they may not need or want. Many would see why they are paying significantly higher rates due to the community rating mandate. Yes, the right has been doing a lot of chirping about how aweful Obamacare is. I guess if we really want people to wake up, they need to get hit in the pocket book. For that reason the Republicans should stop fighting the individual mandate and just let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope.

One of the huge points that has been obscured to conservatives is that this world of 7B highly connected people is not, in almost any way, the reality of the past.

Healthcare is a good example.

The main thing wrong with our past healthcare non system was that we gave people the choice to cover the cost of their own health care, or not.

Those of us who were lucky enough to have worked through the years when comprehensive health care insurance was table stakes for employing good people, didn't have to make the decision then, and also had no choice but to fund our retirement health care through Medicare.

Many of those who had to decide were protected from the consequences of a negative coverage decision by our cultural aversion to allowing obviously ill people to die in the streets. Everyone could get free treatment just by ''playing'' the system and adding their costs to the expenses of those insured.

Now that corporations have raised unemployment to the level where benefits are no longer required of them, more and more citizens have the choice to opt out.

The fix is obviously mandated health insurance. But, for many, the pay required to be insured has already been removed from their compensation. So it has to be made up for through taxes.

So Obamacare is the least expensive way, given that universal government administered insurance for the half of expenses not covered by Medicare is not politically possible, to hold people accountable for taking card their own health.

In the final analysis it is the path to making our health care costs globally competitive. Not from day one, given private insurance companies following the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. But over time.

So the GOP position is only what's right for the party over what's right for the people. While they've done their best to obscure that, they've failed. The cat is out of the bag. So they are paying, and will pay, and should pay, the political price for their position

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

I have been to places that let people suffer the life and death consequences of poverty. The problem is that people don't just die, they do anything, anything at all, to delay it, a day at a time.

I agree that corporate America led us into this swamp by promising to cover all health costs, not just share risk through insurance.

Once they defaulted on that promise, one of the effects was the movement of the insurance industry back to selling insurance against catastrophe rather than merely prepaid predictable costs. The exchange is full of such plans.

So, the real choice is between mandated insurance, or crime and public humiliation, for everyone, by people surviving.

As I said. Been there. A terrible and avoidable collapse of society.

 

[Bern80]

One of the huge points that has been obscured to conservatives is that this world of 7B highly connected people is not, in almost any way, the reality of the past.

Healthcare is a good example.

The main thing wrong with our past healthcare non system was that we gave people the choice to cover the cost of their own health care, or not.

Those of us who were lucky enough to have worked through the years when comprehensive health care insurance was table stakes for employing good people, didn't have to make the decision then, and also had no choice but to fund our retirement health care through Medicare.

Many of those who had to decide were protected from the consequences of a negative coverage decision by our cultural aversion to allowing obviously ill people to die in the streets. Everyone could get free treatment just by ''playing'' the system and adding their costs to the expenses of those insured.

Now that corporations have raised unemployment to the level where benefits are no longer required of them, more and more citizens have the choice to opt out.

The fix is obviously mandated health insurance. But, for many, the pay required to be insured has already been removed from their compensation. So it has to be made up for through taxes.

So Obamacare is the least expensive way, given that universal government administered insurance for the half of expenses not covered by Medicare is not politically possible, to hold people accountable for taking card their own health.

In the final analysis it is the path to making our health care costs globally competitive. Not from day one, given private insurance companies following the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. But over time.

So the GOP position is only what's right for the party over what's right for the people. While they've done their best to obscure that, they've failed. The cat is out of the bag. So they are paying, and will pay, and should pay, the political price for their position

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

I have been to places that let people suffer the life and death consequences of poverty. The problem is that people don't just die, they do anything, anything at all, to delay it, a day at a time.

I agree that corporate America led us into this swamp by promising to cover all health costs, not just share risk through insurance.

Once they defaulted on that promise, one of the effects was the movement of the insurance industry back to selling insurance against catastrophe rather than merely prepaid predictable costs. The exchange is full of such plans.

So, the real choice is between mandated insurance, or crime and public humiliation, for everyone, by people surviving.

As I said. Been there. A terrible and avoidable collapse of society.

In my opinion, your fear of the alternative is unfounded. Before there was an abundance of employers providing insurance, there weren't people dieing in the streets. You could pay for a lot of things out of pocket. I think we can get back to that, but the direction we've gone as really inflated the price of services. The predominant form of insurance before third party employer insurance came about covered primarily catastrophic events.

 

[itfitzme]

That much is true. That an ideal system would be one where individuals purchase plans themselves and not through a third party. If the Republicans were smart (which they're not, which is why I don't really identify with them). They would not fight the individual mandate. Is it wrong for the government to make people purchase things? Of course it is. But the silver lining would be that people actually see what things cost. They would see what Obamacare is making them pay for that they may not need or want. Many would see why they are paying significantly higher rates due to the community rating mandate. Yes, the right has been doing a lot of chirping about how aweful Obamacare is. I guess if we really want people to wake up, they need to get hit in the pocket book. For that reason the Republicans should stop fighting the individual mandate and just let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope.

One of the huge points that has been obscured to conservatives is that this world of 7B highly connected people is not, in almost any way, the reality of the past.

Healthcare is a good example.

The main thing wrong with our past healthcare non system was that we gave people the choice to cover the cost of their own health care, or not.

Those of us who were lucky enough to have worked through the years when comprehensive health care insurance was table stakes for employing good people, didn't have to make the decision then, and also had no choice but to fund our retirement health care through Medicare.

Many of those who had to decide were protected from the consequences of a negative coverage decision by our cultural aversion to allowing obviously ill people to die in the streets. Everyone could get free treatment just by ''playing'' the system and adding their costs to the expenses of those insured.

Now that corporations have raised unemployment to the level where benefits are no longer required of them, more and more citizens have the choice to opt out.

The fix is obviously mandated health insurance. But, for many, the pay required to be insured has already been removed from their compensation. So it has to be made up for through taxes.

So Obamacare is the least expensive way, given that universal government administered insurance for the half of expenses not covered by Medicare is not politically possible, to hold people accountable for taking card their own health.

In the final analysis it is the path to making our health care costs globally competitive. Not from day one, given private insurance companies following the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. But over time.

So the GOP position is only what's right for the party over what's right for the people. While they've done their best to obscure that, they've failed. The cat is out of the bag. So they are paying, and will pay, and should pay, the political price for their position

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

Your economic model is flawed. First off, the very nature of healthcare is not a typical free market system. It cannot be, not if it has insurance in between the consumer and the service provider. It also doesn't have identical market forces on the supply and demand side. The market forces favor the supply side.

You are half right. Right, pay for actual services can drive down costs.

You are basing your assessment on an idealized economic model that doesn't exist in reality. In fact, there are no ideal markets with perfect information and competition. The real world simply doesn't work that way.

There are so many details as to why health care is not and never will be the ideal free market that you imagine. I don't know where to begin.

 

[freedombecki]

OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.

What would you want to be changed?

Democrats will not negotiate, and have sought to solidify ties between government branches, which are supposed to operate separately. It's called the Separation of Powers.

By their failure to operate America within the parameters of American tradition, I cannot support any part of Obamacare.

Can Obamacare be fixed? The answer is an emphatic NO.

We can't get rid of the criminal element that engineered the fiasco due to shady voting practices by precinct chairmen, who advocate voting frequently and Democrat.

America is just screwed. There's no fix.

 

[PMZ]

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

I have been to places that let people suffer the life and death consequences of poverty. The problem is that people don't just die, they do anything, anything at all, to delay it, a day at a time.

I agree that corporate America led us into this swamp by promising to cover all health costs, not just share risk through insurance.

Once they defaulted on that promise, one of the effects was the movement of the insurance industry back to selling insurance against catastrophe rather than merely prepaid predictable costs. The exchange is full of such plans.

So, the real choice is between mandated insurance, or crime and public humiliation, for everyone, by people surviving.

As I said. Been there. A terrible and avoidable collapse of society.

In my opinion, your fear of the alternative is unfounded. Before there was an abundance of employers providing insurance, there weren't people dieing in the streets. You could pay for a lot of things out of pocket. I think we can get back to that, but the direction we've gone as really inflated the price of services. The predominant form of insurance before third party employer insurance came about covered primarily catastrophic events.

The cost of medical care has taken an increasing share of GDP every year of my life. It's pushing 20 percent of everything we spend. That means that the average American spends 20 percent of what he earns on health. Unlike things like autos and houses there is not bargain health care for the poor. So if the average wage earner spends 20 percent, what is that as a percentage of poverty wages?

 

[PMZ]

OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.

What would you want to be changed?

Democrats will not negotiate, and have sought to solidify ties between government branches, which are supposed to operate separately. It's called the Separation of Powers.

By their failure to operate America within the parameters of American tradition, I cannot support any part of Obamacare.

Can Obamacare be fixed? The answer is an emphatic NO.

We can't get rid of the criminal element that engineered the fiasco due to shady voting practices by precinct chairmen, who advocate voting frequently and Democrat.

America is just screwed. There's no fix.

Zero evidence presented for 100 percent of your post. It is absolutely, therefore, nothing more than what you wish was true.

 

[PMZ]

One of the huge points that has been obscured to conservatives is that this world of 7B highly connected people is not, in almost any way, the reality of the past.

Healthcare is a good example.

The main thing wrong with our past healthcare non system was that we gave people the choice to cover the cost of their own health care, or not.

Those of us who were lucky enough to have worked through the years when comprehensive health care insurance was table stakes for employing good people, didn't have to make the decision then, and also had no choice but to fund our retirement health care through Medicare.

Many of those who had to decide were protected from the consequences of a negative coverage decision by our cultural aversion to allowing obviously ill people to die in the streets. Everyone could get free treatment just by ''playing'' the system and adding their costs to the expenses of those insured.

Now that corporations have raised unemployment to the level where benefits are no longer required of them, more and more citizens have the choice to opt out.

The fix is obviously mandated health insurance. But, for many, the pay required to be insured has already been removed from their compensation. So it has to be made up for through taxes.

So Obamacare is the least expensive way, given that universal government administered insurance for the half of expenses not covered by Medicare is not politically possible, to hold people accountable for taking card their own health.

In the final analysis it is the path to making our health care costs globally competitive. Not from day one, given private insurance companies following the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. But over time.

So the GOP position is only what's right for the party over what's right for the people. While they've done their best to obscure that, they've failed. The cat is out of the bag. So they are paying, and will pay, and should pay, the political price for their position

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

Your economic model is flawed. First off, the very nature of healthcare is not a typical free market system. It cannot be, not if it has insurance in between the consumer and the service provider. It also doesn't have identical market forces on the supply and demand side. The market forces favor the supply side.

You are half right. Right, pay for actual services can drive down costs.

You are basing your assessment on an idealized economic model that doesn't exist in reality. In fact, there are no ideal markets with perfect information and competition. The real world simply doesn't work that way.

There are so many details as to why health care is not and never will be the ideal free market that you imagine. I don't know where to begin.

Market solutions work only in free, commodity markets. There are virtually none of those left in our economy. A free market requires that every aspect of a product be the same, and known, from multiple suppliers. I can't think of such a product off hand.

 

[PMZ]

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

I have been to places that let people suffer the life and death consequences of poverty. The problem is that people don't just die, they do anything, anything at all, to delay it, a day at a time.

I agree that corporate America led us into this swamp by promising to cover all health costs, not just share risk through insurance.

Once they defaulted on that promise, one of the effects was the movement of the insurance industry back to selling insurance against catastrophe rather than merely prepaid predictable costs. The exchange is full of such plans.

So, the real choice is between mandated insurance, or crime and public humiliation, for everyone, by people surviving.

As I said. Been there. A terrible and avoidable collapse of society.

In my opinion, your fear of the alternative is unfounded. Before there was an abundance of employers providing insurance, there weren't people dieing in the streets. You could pay for a lot of things out of pocket. I think we can get back to that, but the direction we've gone as really inflated the price of services. The predominant form of insurance before third party employer insurance came about covered primarily catastrophic events.

The only effective force in America today for health care cost reduction is Medicare.

It can't be effected by individuals. Why? Because nobody in their right mind would shop for the cheapest medical service no matter what it is. K mart blue light specials don't cut it in services that your life, or the ability to continue doing what you've always done, are concerned.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

Your economic model is flawed. First off, the very nature of healthcare is not a typical free market system. It cannot be, not if it has insurance in between the consumer and the service provider. It also doesn't have identical market forces on the supply and demand side. The market forces favor the supply side.

You are half right. Right, pay for actual services can drive down costs.

You are basing your assessment on an idealized economic model that doesn't exist in reality. In fact, there are no ideal markets with perfect information and competition. The real world simply doesn't work that way.

There are so many details as to why health care is not and never will be the ideal free market that you imagine. I don't know where to begin.

Market solutions work only in free, commodity markets. There are virtually none of those left in our economy. A free market requires that every aspect of a product be the same, and known, from multiple suppliers. I can't think of such a product off hand.

Competition among commodity providers would suggest that there would be some variation in quality and price among commodities, so how do you get this 'it should all be the same' idea?

 

[PMZ]

Your economic model is flawed. First off, the very nature of healthcare is not a typical free market system. It cannot be, not if it has insurance in between the consumer and the service provider. It also doesn't have identical market forces on the supply and demand side. The market forces favor the supply side.

You are half right. Right, pay for actual services can drive down costs.

You are basing your assessment on an idealized economic model that doesn't exist in reality. In fact, there are no ideal markets with perfect information and competition. The real world simply doesn't work that way.

There are so many details as to why health care is not and never will be the ideal free market that you imagine. I don't know where to begin.

Market solutions work only in free, commodity markets. There are virtually none of those left in our economy. A free market requires that every aspect of a product be the same, and known, from multiple suppliers. I can't think of such a product off hand.

Competition among commodity providers would suggest that there would be some variation in quality and price among commodities, so how do you get this 'it should all be the same' idea?

That's the definition of a free market. One in which only price varies among suppliers.

 

[Bern80]

One of the huge points that has been obscured to conservatives is that this world of 7B highly connected people is not, in almost any way, the reality of the past.

Healthcare is a good example.

The main thing wrong with our past healthcare non system was that we gave people the choice to cover the cost of their own health care, or not.

Those of us who were lucky enough to have worked through the years when comprehensive health care insurance was table stakes for employing good people, didn't have to make the decision then, and also had no choice but to fund our retirement health care through Medicare.

Many of those who had to decide were protected from the consequences of a negative coverage decision by our cultural aversion to allowing obviously ill people to die in the streets. Everyone could get free treatment just by ''playing'' the system and adding their costs to the expenses of those insured.

Now that corporations have raised unemployment to the level where benefits are no longer required of them, more and more citizens have the choice to opt out.

The fix is obviously mandated health insurance. But, for many, the pay required to be insured has already been removed from their compensation. So it has to be made up for through taxes.

So Obamacare is the least expensive way, given that universal government administered insurance for the half of expenses not covered by Medicare is not politically possible, to hold people accountable for taking card their own health.

In the final analysis it is the path to making our health care costs globally competitive. Not from day one, given private insurance companies following the one rule of business. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. But over time.

So the GOP position is only what's right for the party over what's right for the people. While they've done their best to obscure that, they've failed. The cat is out of the bag. So they are paying, and will pay, and should pay, the political price for their position

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

Your economic model is flawed. First off, the very nature of healthcare is not a typical free market system. It cannot be, not if it has insurance in between the consumer and the service provider. It also doesn't have identical market forces on the supply and demand side. The market forces favor the supply side.

You are half right. Right, pay for actual services can drive down costs.

You are basing your assessment on an idealized economic model that doesn't exist in reality. In fact, there are no ideal markets with perfect information and competition. The real world simply doesn't work that way.

There are so many details as to why health care is not and never will be the ideal free market that you imagine. I don't know where to begin.

And I think you're putting up road blocks that don't exist. One lesser known reaction to Obamacare is the creation of cash only clinics. Clinics that won't accept insurance of any type. Many of them are actually making money. There services cost the same as a lot of services would cost someone AFTER insurance. Why? Because the provider can afford to sell their services for less because they don't have to deal with the red tap nightmare of insurance and government's regulation of insurance. So if a free market for health care doesn't work why are these cash only clinics surviving.

I suppose one would argue that the shear necessity of health care is one reason. So look at another commodity that could be considered nearly as necessary as health care. Cars for example. And look at the insurance model they use. So much between the two is comparable. Car insurance doesn't cover or partly cover ever single expense you incur. When you do have to have your vehicle serviced do you go where your insurance says you have to or do you shop for the best price and reputation? Explain why these same concepts can't be applied to health insurance and the health care industry.

 

[Bern80]

Market solutions work only in free, commodity markets. There are virtually none of those left in our economy. A free market requires that every aspect of a product be the same, and known, from multiple suppliers. I can't think of such a product off hand.

Competition among commodity providers would suggest that there would be some variation in quality and price among commodities, so how do you get this 'it should all be the same' idea?

That's the definition of a free market. One in which only price varies among suppliers.

LMFAO. No where in the definition of 'free market' is there anything that says, that the only difference allowed between suppliers of the same commodity is price. What about quality of the product? How does that violate the concept of a free market?

 

[Bern80]

I have been to places that let people suffer the life and death consequences of poverty. The problem is that people don't just die, they do anything, anything at all, to delay it, a day at a time.

I agree that corporate America led us into this swamp by promising to cover all health costs, not just share risk through insurance.

Once they defaulted on that promise, one of the effects was the movement of the insurance industry back to selling insurance against catastrophe rather than merely prepaid predictable costs. The exchange is full of such plans.

So, the real choice is between mandated insurance, or crime and public humiliation, for everyone, by people surviving.

As I said. Been there. A terrible and avoidable collapse of society.

In my opinion, your fear of the alternative is unfounded. Before there was an abundance of employers providing insurance, there weren't people dieing in the streets. You could pay for a lot of things out of pocket. I think we can get back to that, but the direction we've gone as really inflated the price of services. The predominant form of insurance before third party employer insurance came about covered primarily catastrophic events.

The only effective force in America today for health care cost reduction is Medicare.

It can't be effected by individuals. Why? Because nobody in their right mind would shop for the cheapest medical service no matter what it is. K mart blue light specials don't cut it in services that your life, or the ability to continue doing what you've always done, are concerned.

You imply incorrectly that cheaper = inferior. That simply isn't true.

 

[PMZ]

Competition among commodity providers would suggest that there would be some variation in quality and price among commodities, so how do you get this 'it should all be the same' idea?

That's the definition of a free market. One in which only price varies among suppliers.

LMFAO. No where in the definition of 'free market' is there anything that says, that the only difference allowed between suppliers of the same commodity is price. What about quality of the product? How does that violate the concept of a free market?

Read all about it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

 

[Rozman]

I don't think Obama and the Dems feel that there is anything wrong with it....

 

[PMZ]

That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'.

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.

Your economic model is flawed. First off, the very nature of healthcare is not a typical free market system. It cannot be, not if it has insurance in between the consumer and the service provider. It also doesn't have identical market forces on the supply and demand side. The market forces favor the supply side.

You are half right. Right, pay for actual services can drive down costs.

You are basing your assessment on an idealized economic model that doesn't exist in reality. In fact, there are no ideal markets with perfect information and competition. The real world simply doesn't work that way.

There are so many details as to why health care is not and never will be the ideal free market that you imagine. I don't know where to begin.

And I think you're putting up road blocks that don't exist. One lesser known reaction to Obamacare is the creation of cash only clinics. Clinics that won't accept insurance of any type. Many of them are actually making money. There services cost the same as a lot of services would cost someone AFTER insurance. Why? Because the provider can afford to sell their services for less because they don't have to deal with the red tap nightmare of insurance and government's regulation of insurance. So if a free market for health care doesn't work why are these cash only clinics surviving.

I suppose one would argue that the shear necessity of health care is one reason. So look at another commodity that could be considered nearly as necessary as health care. Cars for example. And look at the insurance model they use. So much between the two is comparable. Car insurance doesn't cover or partly cover ever single expense you incur. When you do have to have your vehicle serviced do you go where your insurance says you have to or do you shop for the best price and reputation? Explain why these same concepts can't be applied to health insurance and the health care industry.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Obamacare is not health care nor health care insurance.

The only health care provided by the government are the VA and military.

The only health care insurances are Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare.

Obamacare is health care insurance regulation, the mandate, and the exchanges. The mandate and exchanges are both previous features of Medicare.