Is Obamacare Capitalism in Action?

[Derideo_Te]

If Republicans Love Competition, Why Do They Still Hate Obamacare? | Joe Conason

When asked what makes the world work, any self-respecting right-wing Republican knows the politically correct answer: competition!
...
It is the paramount principle and universal solvent perennially touted by the right to cure whatever ails us -- in the abstract.

What they don't seem to like so much, in reality, is the competitive impact of the Affordable Care Act, which is forcing health insurance companies into a contested marketplace -- and seems to be driving down rates, state by state. The latest data arrived this week from New York, where insurance regulators announced that the new rates approved for 2014 will be 50 percent lower, on average, than current rates.

That stunning report follows similar news from California, where rates may drop by as much as 29 percent, as well as Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and several other states where the early indications show rates declining. Based on data compiled from 10 states and the District of Columbia, the Department of Health and Human Services says that 2014 premiums for mid-range (or "silver") health care plans in those states will be nearly 20 percent lower on average than its own earlier estimates.

The reason is simple, as anyone familiar with the American health care marketplace knows. Most states until now have had no meaningful competition among insurance companies -- and certainly nothing like the health insurance "exchanges" created by Obamacare to guide consumer choices.

In states that have actively promoted the exchanges, real competition is arising thanks to a marketplace that allows consumers to examine and understand choices, plans, and prices with ease. "That's a very different dynamic for these companies, and it's prodding them to be more aggressive and competitive in their pricing," explains Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reform.

For those of us who preferred (and still favor) a single-payer system providing Medicare to everyone, the compromises of Obamacare always provoked doubts about efficiency and fairness. Many liberals supported the Affordable Care Act reluctantly as a bad deal that was acceptable only in lieu of no deal.

But why do self-styled conservatives continue to hate health care reform with such ferocity? They may not care that it is truly "pro-life" and "pro-family," with the clear promise of saving thousands of lives annually among families that were previously uninsured. Yet they should surely appreciate a statute that promotes competition where there was none, improving services and reducing prices through freer enterprise.

...

For what we can now observe in practice is that the Republicans perversely prefer a corporate marketplace without competition over a marketplace with competition overseen by government. While European conservatives have long accepted the need for strictly regulated markets, especially in health care, their American counterparts would rather allow corporate power to run unchecked at whatever cost.

...

So the Congressional Republicans persistently attack and undermine reform, as they did by passing a resolution this week to delay the law's individual mandate.
...
And they did so despite warnings from the insurance industry that a delay would only increase rates for everyone.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act have long reassured each other that the law would gain popularity someday. But if present trends continue, the public may come to realize as early as next year that the benefits of Obamacare greatly outweigh the flaws --

...

So the question posed for the CDZ is Obamacare true capitalism in action?

It was based upon the Republican plan that opposed "Hilarycare" in the 1990's and intended to foster competition in the states so that "market rates" could prevail. Now that we see it coming into play will we find out if genuine competition does lower prices?

Alternatively are Republicans afraid that it won't actually lower healthcare costs and that could damage the credibility of their claim to "free markets"? Or are they looking at making a last ditch stand this Fall to prevent the implementation of Obamacare because they are afraid that it will work?

Please remember that this is the CDZ and the purpose of having these questions in this forum is to find the reality behind the emotional rhetoric. Thank you in advance for your responses. DT

 

[Auteur]

The problem with Obama's plan is that is assigns control to the private sector, the same one that has proved voracious in its pursuit of profits, to the detriment of the general population. That's why Americans have been paying more per captia for health care than those in any other advanced nation, and have collectively gotten less for it. I suppose this plan is better than nothing at all, but it does not go nearly far enough, and leaves working class Americans still paying obscene costs for what is an essential need.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The market cannot compel people to purchase items with the threat of violence. For example, Apple cannot dictate that every American of a certain age must purchase an iPhone or face a fine and possible jail time. On that basis alone ObamaCare is not remotely capitalist.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The problem with Obama's plan is that is assigns control to the private sector, the same one that has proved voracious in its pursuit of profits, to the detriment of the general population. That's why Americans have been paying more per captia for health care than those in any other advanced nation, and have collectively gotten less for it. I suppose this plan is better than nothing at all, but it does not go nearly far enough, and leaves working class Americans still paying obscene costs for what is an essential need.

You are correct that it is fundamentally flawed by relying upon a capitalist profit driven motive to provide healthcare rather than a non-profit option. However given that the previous system was more akin to a cartel with inbuilt price fixing as part of the business model the Obamacare option does push it closer to more "free market" capitalism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The market cannot compel people to purchase items with the threat of violence. For example, Apple cannot dictate that every American of a certain age must purchase an iPhone or face a fine and possible jail time. On that basis alone ObamaCare is not remotely capitalist.

When you purchase a car in certain states you are compelled to provide proof of insurance. When you purchase a home some states compel you to have homeowner insurance. Are neither of those market transactions "remotely capitalist"?

 

[westwall]

If Republicans Love Competition, Why Do They Still Hate Obamacare? | Joe Conason

When asked what makes the world work, any self-respecting right-wing Republican knows the politically correct answer: competition!
...
It is the paramount principle and universal solvent perennially touted by the right to cure whatever ails us -- in the abstract.

What they don't seem to like so much, in reality, is the competitive impact of the Affordable Care Act, which is forcing health insurance companies into a contested marketplace -- and seems to be driving down rates, state by state. The latest data arrived this week from New York, where insurance regulators announced that the new rates approved for 2014 will be 50 percent lower, on average, than current rates.

That stunning report follows similar news from California, where rates may drop by as much as 29 percent, as well as Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and several other states where the early indications show rates declining. Based on data compiled from 10 states and the District of Columbia, the Department of Health and Human Services says that 2014 premiums for mid-range (or "silver") health care plans in those states will be nearly 20 percent lower on average than its own earlier estimates.

The reason is simple, as anyone familiar with the American health care marketplace knows. Most states until now have had no meaningful competition among insurance companies -- and certainly nothing like the health insurance "exchanges" created by Obamacare to guide consumer choices.

In states that have actively promoted the exchanges, real competition is arising thanks to a marketplace that allows consumers to examine and understand choices, plans, and prices with ease. "That's a very different dynamic for these companies, and it's prodding them to be more aggressive and competitive in their pricing," explains Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reform.

For those of us who preferred (and still favor) a single-payer system providing Medicare to everyone, the compromises of Obamacare always provoked doubts about efficiency and fairness. Many liberals supported the Affordable Care Act reluctantly as a bad deal that was acceptable only in lieu of no deal.

But why do self-styled conservatives continue to hate health care reform with such ferocity? They may not care that it is truly "pro-life" and "pro-family," with the clear promise of saving thousands of lives annually among families that were previously uninsured. Yet they should surely appreciate a statute that promotes competition where there was none, improving services and reducing prices through freer enterprise.

...

For what we can now observe in practice is that the Republicans perversely prefer a corporate marketplace without competition over a marketplace with competition overseen by government. While European conservatives have long accepted the need for strictly regulated markets, especially in health care, their American counterparts would rather allow corporate power to run unchecked at whatever cost.

...

So the Congressional Republicans persistently attack and undermine reform, as they did by passing a resolution this week to delay the law's individual mandate.
...
And they did so despite warnings from the insurance industry that a delay would only increase rates for everyone.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act have long reassured each other that the law would gain popularity someday. But if present trends continue, the public may come to realize as early as next year that the benefits of Obamacare greatly outweigh the flaws --

...

So the question posed for the CDZ is Obamacare true capitalism in action?

It was based upon the Republican plan that opposed "Hilarycare" in the 1990's and intended to foster competition in the states so that "market rates" could prevail. Now that we see it coming into play will we find out if genuine competition does lower prices?

Alternatively are Republicans afraid that it won't actually lower healthcare costs and that could damage the credibility of their claim to "free markets"? Or are they looking at making a last ditch stand this Fall to prevent the implementation of Obamacare because they are afraid that it will work?

Please remember that this is the CDZ and the purpose of having these questions in this forum is to find the reality behind the emotional rhetoric. Thank you in advance for your responses. DT

No, it's not. Capitalism is based on the free market. Obamacare is everything but a free market. The insurance companies WROTE the law for the most part that's why contrary to what was claimed in almost all cases insurance rates are going up, way up in some cases.

If you wanted real capitalism you would have seen the Federal regulations removed that prevented shopping outside of your state for insurance. The insurance companies have legal monopolies only enjoyed by pro baseball. All other companies aren't protected like that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The market cannot compel people to purchase items with the threat of violence. For example, Apple cannot dictate that every American of a certain age must purchase an iPhone or face a fine and possible jail time. On that basis alone ObamaCare is not remotely capitalist.

When you purchase a car in certain states you are compelled to provide proof of insurance. When you purchase a home some states compel you to have homeowner insurance. Are neither of those market transactions "remotely capitalist"?

As a matter of fact they're not. Anything that can force you to purchase its product is not market-based, and thus not capitalism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If Republicans Love Competition, Why Do They Still Hate Obamacare? | Joe Conason

When asked what makes the world work, any self-respecting right-wing Republican knows the politically correct answer: competition!
...
It is the paramount principle and universal solvent perennially touted by the right to cure whatever ails us -- in the abstract.

What they don't seem to like so much, in reality, is the competitive impact of the Affordable Care Act, which is forcing health insurance companies into a contested marketplace -- and seems to be driving down rates, state by state. The latest data arrived this week from New York, where insurance regulators announced that the new rates approved for 2014 will be 50 percent lower, on average, than current rates.

That stunning report follows similar news from California, where rates may drop by as much as 29 percent, as well as Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and several other states where the early indications show rates declining. Based on data compiled from 10 states and the District of Columbia, the Department of Health and Human Services says that 2014 premiums for mid-range (or "silver") health care plans in those states will be nearly 20 percent lower on average than its own earlier estimates.

The reason is simple, as anyone familiar with the American health care marketplace knows. Most states until now have had no meaningful competition among insurance companies -- and certainly nothing like the health insurance "exchanges" created by Obamacare to guide consumer choices.

In states that have actively promoted the exchanges, real competition is arising thanks to a marketplace that allows consumers to examine and understand choices, plans, and prices with ease. "That's a very different dynamic for these companies, and it's prodding them to be more aggressive and competitive in their pricing," explains Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reform.

For those of us who preferred (and still favor) a single-payer system providing Medicare to everyone, the compromises of Obamacare always provoked doubts about efficiency and fairness. Many liberals supported the Affordable Care Act reluctantly as a bad deal that was acceptable only in lieu of no deal.

But why do self-styled conservatives continue to hate health care reform with such ferocity? They may not care that it is truly "pro-life" and "pro-family," with the clear promise of saving thousands of lives annually among families that were previously uninsured. Yet they should surely appreciate a statute that promotes competition where there was none, improving services and reducing prices through freer enterprise.

...

For what we can now observe in practice is that the Republicans perversely prefer a corporate marketplace without competition over a marketplace with competition overseen by government. While European conservatives have long accepted the need for strictly regulated markets, especially in health care, their American counterparts would rather allow corporate power to run unchecked at whatever cost.

...

So the Congressional Republicans persistently attack and undermine reform, as they did by passing a resolution this week to delay the law's individual mandate.
...
And they did so despite warnings from the insurance industry that a delay would only increase rates for everyone.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act have long reassured each other that the law would gain popularity someday. But if present trends continue, the public may come to realize as early as next year that the benefits of Obamacare greatly outweigh the flaws --

...

So the question posed for the CDZ is Obamacare true capitalism in action?

It was based upon the Republican plan that opposed "Hilarycare" in the 1990's and intended to foster competition in the states so that "market rates" could prevail. Now that we see it coming into play will we find out if genuine competition does lower prices?

Alternatively are Republicans afraid that it won't actually lower healthcare costs and that could damage the credibility of their claim to "free markets"? Or are they looking at making a last ditch stand this Fall to prevent the implementation of Obamacare because they are afraid that it will work?

Please remember that this is the CDZ and the purpose of having these questions in this forum is to find the reality behind the emotional rhetoric. Thank you in advance for your responses. DT

No, it's not. Capitalism is based on the free market. Obamacare is everything but a free market. The insurance companies WROTE the law for the most part that's why contrary to what was claimed in almost all cases insurance rates are going up, way up in some cases.

If you wanted real capitalism you would have seen the Federal regulations removed that prevented shopping outside of your state for insurance. The insurance companies have legal monopolies only enjoyed by pro baseball. All other companies aren't protected like that.

Agreed that they were "legal monopolies" but aren't the "exchanges" going to provide the ability to shop outside your state?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The problem with Obama's plan is that is assigns control to the private sector, the same one that has proved voracious in its pursuit of profits, to the detriment of the general population. That's why Americans have been paying more per captia for health care than those in any other advanced nation, and have collectively gotten less for it. I suppose this plan is better than nothing at all, but it does not go nearly far enough, and leaves working class Americans still paying obscene costs for what is an essential need.

You are correct that it is fundamentally flawed by relying upon a capitalist profit driven motive to provide healthcare rather than a non-profit option. However given that the previous system was more akin to a cartel with inbuilt price fixing as part of the business model the Obamacare option does push it closer to more "free market" capitalism.

If you can't beat them, join them. I bought $5,000 of health insurance and health provider mutual funds when it became obvious that Obama was going to win his first election. Today, it is worth over $10,000.

 

[boedicca]

ObamaCare has nothing to do with Capitalism.

It is a system of Big Government Cronyism and Rent Seeking.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The market cannot compel people to purchase items with the threat of violence. For example, Apple cannot dictate that every American of a certain age must purchase an iPhone or face a fine and possible jail time. On that basis alone ObamaCare is not remotely capitalist.

When you purchase a car in certain states you are compelled to provide proof of insurance. When you purchase a home some states compel you to have homeowner insurance. Are neither of those market transactions "remotely capitalist"?

As a matter of fact they're not. Anything that can force you to purchase its product is not market-based, and thus not capitalism.

So given your definition of capitalism as excluding the "forced purchase" of anything besides only what you want to buy that will exclude all cell phone purchases where you have to have a 2 year contract and other such deals. All leases of any equipment that required a service contract would also not be capitalism. Neither would something like a bank checking account or credit card where you are forced to pay fees and interest for that matter. How about a happy meal that forces you to purchase a soda that you don't want? In order to get to your version of "pure capitalism" we have to have the absolute right to not purchase anything we don't want, right?

 

[BobPlumb]

When you purchase a car in certain states you are compelled to provide proof of insurance. When you purchase a home some states compel you to have homeowner insurance. Are neither of those market transactions "remotely capitalist"?

As a matter of fact they're not. Anything that can force you to purchase its product is not market-based, and thus not capitalism.

So given your definition of capitalism as excluding the "forced purchase" of anything besides only what you want to buy that will exclude all cell phone purchases where you have to have a 2 year contract and other such deals. All leases of any equipment that required a service contract would also not be capitalism. Neither would something like a bank checking account or credit card where you are forced to pay fees and interest for that matter. How about a happy meal that forces you to purchase a soda that you don't want? In order to get to your version of "pure capitalism" we have to have the absolute right to not purchase anything we don't want, right?

What you describe are not forced purchases. I chose not to have a credit card. I have not bought a happy meal in years. I entered into my cell phone contract on my own free will; neither the government nor the phone company made me do it.

 

[BobPlumb]

Obama Care is not capitalism. It is hyper-- regulation

 

[Derideo_Te]

The problem with Obama's plan is that is assigns control to the private sector, the same one that has proved voracious in its pursuit of profits, to the detriment of the general population. That's why Americans have been paying more per captia for health care than those in any other advanced nation, and have collectively gotten less for it. I suppose this plan is better than nothing at all, but it does not go nearly far enough, and leaves working class Americans still paying obscene costs for what is an essential need.

You are correct that it is fundamentally flawed by relying upon a capitalist profit driven motive to provide healthcare rather than a non-profit option. However given that the previous system was more akin to a cartel with inbuilt price fixing as part of the business model the Obamacare option does push it closer to more "free market" capitalism.

If you can't beat them, join them. I bought $5,000 of health insurance and health provider mutual funds when it became obvious that Obama was going to win his first election. Today, it is worth over $10,000.

Smart move

 

[westwall]

So the question posed for the CDZ is Obamacare true capitalism in action?

It was based upon the Republican plan that opposed "Hilarycare" in the 1990's and intended to foster competition in the states so that "market rates" could prevail. Now that we see it coming into play will we find out if genuine competition does lower prices?

Alternatively are Republicans afraid that it won't actually lower healthcare costs and that could damage the credibility of their claim to "free markets"? Or are they looking at making a last ditch stand this Fall to prevent the implementation of Obamacare because they are afraid that it will work?

Please remember that this is the CDZ and the purpose of having these questions in this forum is to find the reality behind the emotional rhetoric. Thank you in advance for your responses. DT

No, it's not. Capitalism is based on the free market. Obamacare is everything but a free market. The insurance companies WROTE the law for the most part that's why contrary to what was claimed in almost all cases insurance rates are going up, way up in some cases.

If you wanted real capitalism you would have seen the Federal regulations removed that prevented shopping outside of your state for insurance. The insurance companies have legal monopolies only enjoyed by pro baseball. All other companies aren't protected like that.

Agreed that they were "legal monopolies" but aren't the "exchanges" going to provide the ability to shop outside your state?

I don't know yet. I happen to like my cardiologist and my insurance is going up 44% thanks to Ocare. My state is actually ahead of the curve and has begun setting up its exchange and it should be up and running soon so I will then be able to tell you what's what. So far everything that the Ocare supporters have said has been a lie. So I don't give the exchanges much chance of being fair or cheaper either.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As a matter of fact they're not. Anything that can force you to purchase its product is not market-based, and thus not capitalism.

So given your definition of capitalism as excluding the "forced purchase" of anything besides only what you want to buy that will exclude all cell phone purchases where you have to have a 2 year contract and other such deals. All leases of any equipment that required a service contract would also not be capitalism. Neither would something like a bank checking account or credit card where you are forced to pay fees and interest for that matter. How about a happy meal that forces you to purchase a soda that you don't want? In order to get to your version of "pure capitalism" we have to have the absolute right to not purchase anything we don't want, right?

What you describe are not forced purchases. I chose not to have a credit card. I have not bought a happy meal in years. I entered into my cell phone contract on my own free will; neither the government nor the phone company made me do it.

They are if you cannot obtain what you want in any other manner.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, it's not. Capitalism is based on the free market. Obamacare is everything but a free market. The insurance companies WROTE the law for the most part that's why contrary to what was claimed in almost all cases insurance rates are going up, way up in some cases.

If you wanted real capitalism you would have seen the Federal regulations removed that prevented shopping outside of your state for insurance. The insurance companies have legal monopolies only enjoyed by pro baseball. All other companies aren't protected like that.

Agreed that they were "legal monopolies" but aren't the "exchanges" going to provide the ability to shop outside your state?

I don't know yet. I happen to like my cardiologist and my insurance is going up 44% thanks to Ocare. My state is actually ahead of the curve and has begun setting up its exchange and it should be up and running soon so I will then be able to tell you what's what. So far everything that the Ocare supporters have said has been a lie. So I don't give the exchanges much chance of being fair or cheaper either.

The HMO's jacked up pricing ahead of the exchanges while they still could. Not much that anyone could do to stop them either. Once the exchanges are in place we will just have to wait and see how that shakes out. The concept of capitalist competition is there in theory but how it works in practice remains to be seen.

 

[BobPlumb]

So given your definition of capitalism as excluding the "forced purchase" of anything besides only what you want to buy that will exclude all cell phone purchases where you have to have a 2 year contract and other such deals. All leases of any equipment that required a service contract would also not be capitalism. Neither would something like a bank checking account or credit card where you are forced to pay fees and interest for that matter. How about a happy meal that forces you to purchase a soda that you don't want? In order to get to your version of "pure capitalism" we have to have the absolute right to not purchase anything we don't want, right?

What you describe are not forced purchases. I chose not to have a credit card. I have not bought a happy meal in years. I entered into my cell phone contract on my own free will; neither the government nor the phone company made me do it.

They are if you cannot obtain what you want in any other manner.

There are many things that I would like to have that I chose not to have because the cost to me is to great. I am not forced to buy something just because I would like to have it. If I buy a bundle of 4 items because I want 2 of the items in the bundle, its still my choice to do so. No one is forcing me to make the purchase.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What you describe are not forced purchases. I chose not to have a credit card. I have not bought a happy meal in years. I entered into my cell phone contract on my own free will; neither the government nor the phone company made me do it.

They are if you cannot obtain what you want in any other manner.

There are many things that I would like to have that I chose not to have because the cost to me is to great. I am not forced to buy something just because I would like to have it. If I buy a bundle of 4 items because I want 2 of the items in the bundle, its still my choice to do so. No one is forcing me to make the purchase.

So then your position is that if you want to purchase a vehicle and your state requires that you must have insurance it is still your choice and no one is forcing you to make the purchase. If that is correct then you have a different concept of capitalism to that of other posters in this thread.

 

[BobPlumb]

They are if you cannot obtain what you want in any other manner.

There are many things that I would like to have that I chose not to have because the cost to me is to great. I am not forced to buy something just because I would like to have it. If I buy a bundle of 4 items because I want 2 of the items in the bundle, its still my choice to do so. No one is forcing me to make the purchase.

So then your position is that if you want to purchase a vehicle and your state requires that you must have insurance it is still your choice and no one is forcing you to make the purchase. If that is correct then you have a different concept of capitalism to that of other posters in this thread.

That is somewhat different; however, I can chose not to drive my own car so that I don't have to purchase insurance. This example is different from your previous examples in that its the government that requires insurance for a car to be registered and legally driven on government provided roads.

But this is still different than the requirement to purchase health insurance. The requirement to buy health insurance is absolute -- or be penalized ( or should I say taxed). I can chose to not own a car if I don't want to buy auto insurance, but suicide is illegal, thus I'm legally required to buy heath insurance or else.......

Also, I have't addressed forced purchases relate to capitalism. I was addressing what I believe is or is not a forced purchase.

Actually "coerced" may be a better word.