Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's (the bolded bit) kind of my point. Price rations goods. Price rations health care goods. We do ration now, that statement shouldn't be controversial to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course and recognizes that health care is not an unlimited resource.
He has been kicking your ass with facts you can't refute too
Yes he has facts, but why won't he answer the obvious flaws?
Like I said....he seems to be a tool from the dems. I noticed you wouldn't refute that, leftwinger.
Yes people who are educated and make valid logical posts are most definitely dems
Yes he has facts, but why won't he answer the obvious flaws?
Like I said....he seems to be a tool from the dems. I noticed you wouldn't refute that, leftwinger.
Yes people who are educated and make valid logical posts are most definitely dems
Wow you must not be a Dem then!
Please explain to me how companies dropping their group plans for employees is a good thing? I can't wait to hear this BS.
You're a conservative who hasn't read any Milton Friedman? I'd recommend starting with Capitalism and Freedom, it's pretty seminal.
Employer-sponsorship of health insurance is distortionary. It only came about through an accident of history, World War II-era policies that the public demanded be enshrined in law after the war ended. As it happens now, people like me are stuck in a given plan because our employer doesn't offer any choice (people with larger employers may have more choice but still not the full menu of options that will be available in the exchanges). Decision-making about that particular choice isn't done by me or my co-workers, it's done at the top of the organizational chart. That severely hampers my ability to shop for something I like. And by "severely hampers," I mean "virtually eliminates." Which is why it's so distortionary.
And that's why a number of thinkers--of all ideological persuasions--support getting rid of it. See boedicca's post above arguing that the tax exemption on employer-sponsored plans should be extended to all plans. The intent of that policy change is to eliminate the tax preference for employer-provided insurance and thus to ultimately end that system. And when you do that, everyone goes into the same marketplace and everyone gets to choose a plan from the full array of choices available in that marketplace (which, as I said, people like myself can't currently do). That's what "portability" means--decoupling health insurance from job status.
And I'm all for that. I have a soft spot for the Wyden-Bennett bill that would've transitioned everyone into the same marketplace. Wyden himself actually aggressively attempted to get a variation of that proposal placed into the law the ultimately passed--he favored including free choice vouchers in which an employee could, if he so chose, take his employer's contribution to his health insurance and go into the new health insurance exchanges by himself to put it toward any plan he wanted (and not specifically one of his employer's choosing). A weak version of that proposal was ultimately included, but the free choice vouchers are only available to people who are paying between 8 and 9.8 percent of their income on the premiums for their employer-sponsored plan.
The problem is that people want stability--abrupt change is generally not favored. Thus politicians have to promise "if you like your plan you can keep it" and contort themselves into all sorts of odd shapes as they attempt to preserve the existing system. That's part of the reason there's an quasi-employer mandate. But ultimately I hope we can transition away from the employer-based system and more toward one in which everyone exists as an individual making his own choices in the health insurance exchanges. That would be a good thing.
By the way; It's kind of hard to make use of it unless they post it first. But by the time they post it..it's already law or they wait so late that you only have a few hours to read it before it's voted on. Reading it after the fact is counterproductive for the debate and not what they said would happen...not to mention highly suspect.
A few hours to read it? The health care bill that became law is H.R. 3590, released with Reid's manager's amendment on November 19, 2009. It passed the Senate in a vote on Christmas Eve and the House--unaltered--on March 21.
It was accompanied by a relatively short reconciliation bill making certain changes, noted in the section-by-section summary posted above. That bill was publicly available on March 17. It passed the Senate on March 25 and the House later that day.
However, even this is misleading because these are the final products of a process that started evolving in July of 2009. When H.R. 3590 came out, it was a synthesis of the two Senate bills that had been marked up in committee, the Senate Finance Committee's bill and the Senate HELP Committee's bill. The provisions in the final combined bill didn't emerge out of the blue, they were debated extensively in those two committees starting in the summer of 2009. Thus if you'd followed the process from the start, the final bill (which you had over a month to read through before the first Senate vote and four months to read through before it was voted on in the House) would've contained little that was new to you. The same goes for the reconciliation bill, since its contents were revealed before the actual text of the bill was released.
What provisions are being added? Are you talking about the administrative rulemaking process that's going on in the Department of Health and Human Services? Rulemaking is required by the text of the legislation and doesn't have much to do with Congress at this point.
See above.
I love how "the existence of cheaper alternatives" has a derogatory connotation in your posts. What sort of conservative are you, I wonder?
I agree the moral component of employer-sponsored insurance will be removed, as employees will no longer have bad options in a shitty, largely unregulated individual market as the only alternative to a plan through their employer. You seem to agree, as well, that an employer shouldn't lose any sleep about sending his employees on their own merry way to buy insurance through the exchanges (which I hope you realize is a tacit admission that the individual market is going to be a significantly better place to buy insurance due to reform).
But the financial reasons are still there. Employees now face an individual mandate to have coverage, meaning they'll be demanding coverage as much as (if not more than) ever. The tax preference for health care premium dollars over actual dollars still exists, though it will no longer be limitless thanks to the excise tax on high-cost plans. And ultimately employers are going to be compensating their employees some amount--if some of that is in wages and some is in the form of health benefits, okay. But if an employer decides to terminate coverage, he can't simply delete that part of his employee's compensation package, he'll have to compensate with increased wages (a guy making $40,000 a year with a health package worth $5,000 a year isn't being compensated $40,000 for his position, he's being compensated $45,000--if you want to alter the allocation of the components of his package, that's one thing but lowering his compensation by an amount equal to his health benefit is a different beast entirely). To suggest otherwise is to suggest that all employees are currently greatly overcompensated for the work they do, which is somewhat of an odd market failure.
That's (the bolded bit) kind of my point. Price rations goods. Price rations health care goods. We do ration now, that statement shouldn't be controversial to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course and recognizes that health care is not an unlimited resource.
Yes, The Powers That Be care very much about the opinions of posters on this board. Busted!
Anyway, what is it you want me to respond to? Of course the law has flaws. As I just spent some time saying, I wish it would make an aggressive push to transition away from employer-sponsored coverage. It does some rooting around the edges (i.e. giving employers the options of taking employees into the exchanges), which pacifies me a bit, but I think they missed an opportunity here. But that's the nature of the political process. I was very pleased, however, that the primary funding mechanism they went with turned out to be the excise tax instead of the income tax favored by liberals. The excise tax is a much better policy tool here.
I also think I've made it pretty clear in this thread I think something needs to be done to address provider consolidation and their role in skyrocketing costs. Most of the cost control options in the bill are aimed at the consumer (e.g. the excise tax on high-cost plans, designed in part to put a drag on rising costs) and at improving the delivery system so that it operates more effectively and more efficiently. While I'm fairly confident some of the many delivery system reforms that will be tested under this law will lower costs through quality and efficiency gains, that doesn't necessarily mean prices will go down since in the current system prices don't necessarily reflect costs due to the power of providers. That's a huge weakness that's going to need to be addressed by someone down the line.
I went to see Inception again, apologies. Very enjoyable, I highly recommend it.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The bulk of the money spent here goes to consumers, who use it to choose an insurance plan that's to their liking. These are means-tested premium tax credits that give support to shoppers in the exchanges (i.e. the new individual market).
I'm discovering that I'm apparently a bit more conservative and pro-competition than some of you. I suppose that is telling.
The exchanges do not contain public plans. I've argued in this thread that they should include one but in the law as it stands now they do not. If your employer drops coverage, you go buy your own individual private plan.
Yes he has facts, but why won't he answer the obvious flaws?
What do you want to talk about? If it isn't obvious by now that I'm willing to engage in an actual discussion with you, I don't know how to make that any more clear.
He's been kicking his own ass as the facts he has been presenting undermine his own case when properly illuminated.
Can you elaborate?
He has been kicking your ass with facts you can't refute too
Yes he has facts, but why won't he answer the obvious flaws?
Like I said....he seems to be a tool from the dems. I noticed you wouldn't refute that, leftwinger.
Yes people who are educated and make valid logical posts are most definitely dems
What Greenbeard either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge is that an individual making his own decisions about how much he is willing to spend on health care is a far different model of rationing than is a faceless government bureaucrat deciding how much that individual's life is worth.
I think we should just jump right into Friedman's position on medical care....and since you are such a fan I am sure you'll concur with not only his analysis, but his conclusion as well
Your solution to the distortion of employer provided health insurance being a taxpayer funded public option is a pretty good example of how you are kicking your own ass.
And a public option ,as you have admitted, will lower the price reimbursement on health care, which in turn lowers the amount available. Which in turn will result in rationing health care because the normal price mechanism will be unavailable due to government fiat.
QED.
What Greenbeard either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge is that an individual making his own decisions about how much he is willing to spend on health care is a far different model of rationing than is a faceless government bureaucrat deciding how much that individual's life is worth.
My suggestion is try saying things in layman's terms rather then by the book. You could get your point across better.
I'm not a Conservative....I'm a Moderate....but why is it every one of you folks think Conservatives are stupid or never take the time to read Friedman. To be honest I don't have any desire to read his thoughts because his type doesn't interest me. I think he's dead wrong by the way. Keynesian Economics is crap. Seems every time a Progressive gets going he starts spouting Friedman. Friedman believed in Keynesian Economics till he found out that it never works. He discovered the disadvantages of government intervention.
Yes....you're a Progressive and to be honest what you have to say needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
How is insurance "redistribution"?? Insurance is a voluntary agreement between two parties. Unless of course it is Obamacare in which case it really is redistribution.I think we should just jump right into Friedman's position on medical care....and since you are such a fan I am sure you'll concur with not only his analysis, but his conclusion as well
I agree with him and I disagree with him. I wish we could all spend our own money on health services (through things like HSAs) but unfortunately it's quite expensive, which leads to the necessary redistribution (i.e. insurance). My sister-in-law had a very difficult pregnancy last year that didn't end in a child. Ended up costing $160,000. I'm sorry as hell for my brother and his wife but glad they won't be in debt for the rest of the decade (or their lives) because of this event--they have good insurance.
How is insurance "redistribution"?? Insurance is a voluntary agreement between two parties. Unless of course it is Obamacare in which case it really is redistribution.
How is insurance "redistribution"?? Insurance is a voluntary agreement between two parties. Unless of course it is Obamacare in which case it really is redistribution.
Insurance is always redistribution. If you intended to pay for Event X yourself, you wouldn't buy insurance. Instead you draw from the pool when your time comes. Members of the pool who, thankfully, don't experience Event X subsidize you when you do.
It has nothing to do with what is or isn't voluntary.
Insurance is pooled risk. One value the purchaser receives is the limitation of financial exposure and piece of mind knowing that he will have such a limitation in the event of a disaster. It is not redistribution in the sense of taking value away from one to give to another.
How is insurance "redistribution"?? Insurance is a voluntary agreement between two parties. Unless of course it is Obamacare in which case it really is redistribution.
Insurance is always redistribution. If you intended to pay for Event X yourself, you wouldn't buy insurance. Instead you draw from the pool when your time comes. Members of the pool who, thankfully, don't experience Event X subsidize you when you do.
It has nothing to do with what is or isn't voluntary.
It has EVERYTHING to do with being voluntary.
Insurance is pooled risk. One value the purchaser receives is the limitation of financial exposure and piece of mind knowing that he will have such a limitation in the event of a disaster. It is not redistribution in the sense of taking value away from one to give to another.
This rhetorical trick of making completely different concepts morally equivalent is just that: a trick, and a cheap and disingenuous one that.
Voluntary Exchange =/= Redistribution
The first is an exchange of One Value For Another Value. The latter is the transfer of One Value from one person to another person.
Greenbeard is just another philosophically and economically semi or completely illiterate brainwashed progressive. They are a dime a dozen, if one cared to actually buy them.
If I purchase insurance in order to limit my financial exposure, I am acquiring something of value. Other people in the insurance program who VOLUNTARILY purchase such insurance are also acquiring that value. If I make a claim, it doesn't mean that they are not able to make claims for their particular covered situations. We take nothing away from one another.
If I purchase insurance in order to limit my financial exposure, I am acquiring something of value. Other people in the insurance program who VOLUNTARILY purchase such insurance are also acquiring that value. If I make a claim, it doesn't mean that they are not able to make claims for their particular covered situations. We take nothing away from one another.
"Value transfer" doesn't imply that someone else can't receive treatment for which a claims draws from your health insurance pool. It means that you don't expect to pay the full cost of health events that may (and, extending the time horizon through age 64, likely will) occur. You pay for the expenses of others, eventually someone else pays for yours. In isolation, neither could afford their expenses but when resources are made communal both can. That's why health insurance exists. Not because you expect never to have a health event but rather because you do expect to have a health event. And because when you do, you know you'll likely need assistance paying for it. It's a time-sensitive value transfer that you know you'll one day be on the other side of. If you disagree, I encourage you to drop coverage for a few years. You've got 4 years before the mandate is operational, why pay in the mean time?
Now suppose someone draws from that pool without ever paying into it. What would you call that?
Or better yet, suppose someone wishes to voluntarily pay into that pool but is denied access due to age or an event in their medical history. What do we call that?
If I purchase insurance in order to limit my financial exposure, I am acquiring something of value. Other people in the insurance program who VOLUNTARILY purchase such insurance are also acquiring that value. If I make a claim, it doesn't mean that they are not able to make claims for their particular covered situations. We take nothing away from one another.
"Value transfer" doesn't imply that someone else can't receive treatment for which a claims draws from your health insurance pool. It means that you don't expect to pay the full cost of health events that may (and, extending the time horizon through age 64, likely will) occur. You pay for the expenses of others, eventually someone else pays for yours. In isolation, neither could afford their expenses but when resources are made communal both can. That's why health insurance exists. Not because you expect never to have a health event but rather because you do expect to have a health event. And because when you do, you know you'll likely need assistance paying for it. It's a time-sensitive value transfer that you know you'll one day be on the other side of. If you disagree, I encourage you to drop coverage for a few years. You've got 4 years before the mandate is operational, why pay in the mean time?
Now suppose someone draws from that pool without ever paying into it. What would you call that?
Or better yet, suppose someone wishes to voluntarily pay into that pool but is denied access due to age or an event in their medical history. What do we call that?
I think we should just jump right into Friedman's position on medical care....and since you are such a fan I am sure you'll concur with not only his analysis, but his conclusion as well
I agree with him and I disagree with him. I wish we could all spend our own money on health services (through things like HSAs) but unfortunately it's quite expensive, which leads to the necessary redistribution (i.e. insurance). My sister-in-law had a very difficult pregnancy last year that didn't end in a child. Ended up costing $160,000. I'm sorry as hell for my brother and his wife but glad they won't be in debt for the rest of the decade (or their lives) because of this event--they have good insurance.
Friedman mentions ending Medicaid and Medicare in that article and, believe it or not, I don't disagree in principle. Medicaid isn't expanded in the reform law simply on principle alone. I (and many others) would love to see those below 133% of the poverty line get the same privileges in the exchanges as anyone else--pay some means-tested portion of your income in premiums and the government will cover the rest with a premium subsidy. That does not mean we should embrace Paul Ryan's approach, in which these services are "voucherized" but with vouchers that grow much more slowly than medical costs, effectively (as some here would put it) rationing care by saying you get less as time goes on. But putting the poor and elderly on the same program as everyone else (under reform) is significantly more expensive than just expanding Medicaid. And since it was arbitrarily decided that health care from should have less than a $1 trillion price tag in the 10-year budget window, we got a Medicaid expansion.
