MAIN PURPOSE of Obamacare went in effect today - Bankrupt the Health Insurers!

[dblack]

Whose failure to limit? We are a republic. We elect people to do that for us. In terms of the judiciary, we either elect them at the lower levels or they are appointed by the people we elect. We are now back to the fact that the people we elect, almost by definition, are interested in power. So how do you go about limiting the power of the government? Short of armed rebellion, that is.

I think the FFs actually came up with a rather elegant solution to this. By having three branches, they spend so much time attempting to gain power over each other they have limited time to gain power over us. But it is not a perfect system.

Ultimately, it depends on the voters. When they no longer understand the value in limiting their own power, or the power of government acting on their behalf, constitutional limits are moot. This was the inherent weakness Franklin was pointing with his pithy quote about people "voting themselves money".

 

[Bfgrn]

And why shouldn't that be up the people and businesses involved? If hospitals or drug companies want to help the poor (aka "moochers"), why should government tell them they can't?

If they want to help moochers, then they fill out the form. Pretty simple concept of accountability.

Accountability to whom? If I own a business and I want to help the poor why in the hell should I have to ask the government for permission, or 'account' to them that I have done so?

BTW, it is NOT the government who decides. It is the insurance companies who charge the insured more than $1,000 per year to treat moochers. As a person who PAYS, I should set the rules, not moochers like you.

(I'm trying to ignore your stupid insults, but I'd appreciate if stopped calling me "moocher".)

As the person who PAYS, it's your right to choose whether to do business with a given insurance company (or doctor or hospital) or not. If you don't like their policies toward the indigent, don't do business with them. If you want to patronize only companies that take a hard line on deadbeats, do so. If, on the other hand, you prefer to associate with companies and professionals who are more generous, and you don't mind that that might cost a little more, then do that. Just don't try to force your preferences on others.

"As the person who PAYS, it's your right to choose whether to do business with a given insurance company (or doctor or hospital) or not."

I DON'T have a choice. ALL insurance companies charge extra for moochers. I am devoid of any 'law' that separates the moocher helpers from the 'hard liners on deadbeats'. And the only way to achieve that separation will require forms and signed contracts.

 

[dblack]

I DON'T have a choice. ALL insurance companies charge extra for moochers.

And why is that?

 

[PratchettFan]

The PPACA is, in large part, designed as a bailout for the insurance industry. They are facing a dead end and they know it. Health care inflation, driven largely by the irrational insurance schemes that they have been peddling, is outpacing their ability to sign up new enrollees. Higher and higher payouts, and a diminishing expansion of their customer base is creating a vicious cycle: they have to raise premiums to meet expenses, but that only causes more and more people to drop out of their plans.

PPACA is their last gasp effort to stay in the game. They are essentially trying to establish themselves as public utilities - private corporations with government mandated customers. What could be a sweeter deal? In exchange for heavy regulation and government collusion, they eliminate nearly all risk from their industry. And if there's one thing insurance companies are eager to do, it's eliminate risk.

Not only does ACA force all of us to play the insurance companies' game, it implicitly protects them from failure. As the sole funding mechanism for all of our health care, they are assuredly 'too big to fail' and will enjoy whatever level of government assistance/collusion/bailouts is necessary to keep them solvent.

Unfortunate as it is, the mandate is the only way privatized health care will work. Unless you want to continue to allow insurance cartels to purge the sick.

The rest of the industrialized world realizes that health care does not fit a 'free market' model. Because the patient has no leverage in the market transaction.

Exactly. If you have cancer you are not in a position to shop around. Helathcare is one of those markets in which the buyers have very little choice in whether or not to use it, except in terms of maintenance.

What people lose sight of is that the purpose behind the mandate is to insure that people are not denied coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. If you require insurance carriers to cover pre-existing conditions without it, then people have no reason to buy insurance unless they get sick. You lose the entire financial base which pays for the people who truly need the coverage. Which means the insurance companies go out of business. So, of course the lobbied for it.

Let me just expand upon this a bit.

Our system of government does not tend to lead. Instead, it tends to follow the general attitudes of the people. Which I don't see as a bad thing.

40 years ago, you would not have seen any bills dealing with marriage, other than perhaps some tax initiatives. However, as the attitude towards same sex marriage began to change we began to see push back against it. Then, as the attitudes changed even more the push back became less and less and states have now begun legalizing it. The same thing is currently happening with the drug issue.

The reason health pushed through was because both sides of the aisle understood the American people wanted something done. The big question was what was to be done, not if. Even now, no one on the right or the left is saying we should go back to the way it was - only that the other side is evil (so vote for me!).

Ultimately, the only rational solution to health care is for there to be a universal system. There is no other viable solution. Not if we actually do want to make sure we cover everyone and keep it affordable. That is where this is all going. As in same sex marriage and drugs, there is going to be push back. But the change is coming. I give it around ten years, though it may take a little longer.

 

[Ernie S.]

The insurance companies lobbied in favor of Obamacare. Over the past 10 years, 9 million Americans dropped their insurance plans because they were unhappy with the insurance companies. The individual mandate will force these individuals to buy those plans once again. Forcing people to buy your product is not going to bankrupt you.

Someone is paying attention. This is not a policy to eliminate private insurers, but rather a move to turn them into government protected monopolies who lobby government regulators for their profits rather than provide a product people actually want.

I disagree. I believe the insurance companies see the writing on the wall and steered obamacare the way they did to maximize short term profit. knowing it's only a matter of 10 years or so before they're out of business if this abomination survives repeal.

 

[PratchettFan]

Whose failure to limit? We are a republic. We elect people to do that for us. In terms of the judiciary, we either elect them at the lower levels or they are appointed by the people we elect. We are now back to the fact that the people we elect, almost by definition, are interested in power. So how do you go about limiting the power of the government? Short of armed rebellion, that is.

I think the FFs actually came up with a rather elegant solution to this. By having three branches, they spend so much time attempting to gain power over each other they have limited time to gain power over us. But it is not a perfect system.

Ultimately, it depends on the voters. When they no longer understand the value in limiting their own power, or the power of government acting on their behalf, constitutional limits are moot. This was the inherent weakness Franklin was pointing with his pithy quote about people "voting themselves money".

Which is why I see the problem as built into the system. I've been watching this play for quite some time now and I have come to the conclusion that no politician in this country gets elected by telling the voters the truth. They get elected by saying they are going to lower taxes and increase services. Listen to any politician who is actually elected and you will find that is their platform (and supporting or fighting some social agenda). I have seen politicians actually tell the truth and they always get stomped.

We want to be lied to and we always vote ourselves money. It's human nature and you just can't fight that. To paraphrase someone I don't remember, the system sucks. It's just better than any other system I can think of.

 

[ShackledNation]

The only way to get rid of corporatist health care is to do what almost every other industrialized nation does. Strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment.

Government health care isn't the opposite of corporatist health care. Please look up the term.



We don't want or expect anyone to be our "health care stewards"; not the insurance companies, not the government. What we're arguing for is the freedom to decide for ourselves how to pay for our own health care and not be herded by the state toward some mandated "final solution".

THAT my naive friend is how a 'free market' works. Insurance companies are not in the healthcare business. They are in the PROFIT business. Denial of expensive treatments feed the bottom line.

Exactly. And government-run insurance would be, fundamentally, no different. Insurance is the problem, not the solution. What we need, more than anything, is the freedom to explore better alternatives. We need to remove the policies keeping us dependent on employer-provided health insurance. Replacing that with dependency on state-provided health insurance doesn't address the real problem.

OK, here is a 'final solution' for you libertarian child brains...

No mandate, BUT, if you don't have insurance, NO treatment. If you hack off half you leg chopping wood, DON'T go running to the hospital for treatment, exercise your freedom to explore better alternatives in your medicine cabinet, because I AM NOT GOING TO PAY FOR YOU. I already pay more for health insurance every year because of irresponsible moochers like you.

Then you don't have to pay for me. Let the hospital decide if it wants to pay for people without insurance in emergencies. That is what has been done in the past. Private doctors would even charge poorer patients less money and voluntarily subsidize them with their own money. That is perfectly fine. The difference is that many want to subsidize people with everyone else's money. That isn't charity, nor does it make one a morally better person.

Every citizen with insurance will be issued a proof of insurance card. When an ambulance shows up at your car wreck, you better have your proof of insurance card on you, or the EMT's will be forbidden to treat moochers. DIE you little moocher. There is your freedom to explore better alternatives...

Forbidding people from offering services to people without insurance is not free market healthcare, so I fail to see how your argument has any relevance.