Why we needed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, I support universal preventative health, cradle to grave. The details on how is what should be debated. Sadly, the special interests saw their golden goose at risk and put on a full scale defense causing the PPACA to be a camel and not a horse.

So because the current level of government meddling in healthcare has caused prices to skyrocket well beyond the overall rate of inflation, we need even more of government meddling to fix the rising prices? Logic fail there.

Anyone think it's a coincidence that the two markets where government meddles most (healthcare and education) are the two areas where prices are most out of control?

InflationData: Education Inflation

You need to prove your premise; explain how "government meddling in health care" is the cause for "prices to skyrocket well beyond the overall rate of inflaiton" Don't be shy, explain the "meddling" and its costs and benefits.

BTW, claiming government meddling includes administrations of both D's and R's and since 1981 we've had 20 years of R's and 12 years of D's in the White House. Nothing was done by Congress either, and both parties during this time enjoyed majorities. What does that suggest to you?

I did this already in my second post in the thread. You can read ALL about it Here

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your solution to government driving up costs is more government, and you think I am crazy because I insist on pointing out how stupid that is.

I don't believe you're stupid, I do believe you haven't sorted out the cost benefits and cost deficits on the entire issue of health care in America. Follow the money is always a good idea.

I haven't sorted them out? I described, in detail, my solution to health care costs and went through Obamacare to show how it would drive up costs. You insist that magical government intervention would drive down costs. Reality has struck, costs are going up faster after Obamacare has gone into effect, and you still insist your solution makes more sense than mine.

You did? I must have missed that. How did you resolve the costs to local government providing treatment to the uninsured?

Since Obamacare has not been fully implemented how can you claim it is the reason for costs to rise now, and in stating such you ignore that costs have risen for health insurance for 30 years, every year.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I support universal preventative health, cradle to grave. The details on how is what should be debated. Sadly, the special interests saw their golden goose at risk and put on a full scale defense causing the PPACA to be a camel and not a horse.

So because the current level of government meddling in healthcare has caused prices to skyrocket well beyond the overall rate of inflation, we need even more of government meddling to fix the rising prices? Logic fail there.

Anyone think it's a coincidence that the two markets where government meddles most (healthcare and education) are the two areas where prices are most out of control?

InflationData: Education Inflation

You need to prove your premise; explain how "government meddling in health care" is the cause for "prices to skyrocket well beyond the overall rate of inflaiton" Don't be shy, explain the "meddling" and its costs and benefits.

BTW, claiming government meddling includes administrations of both D's and R's and since 1981 we've had 20 years of R's and 12 years of D's in the White House. Nothing was done by Congress either, and both parties during this time enjoyed majorities. What does that suggest to you?

Did you look at the dates on that chart? Are you aware that Reagan signed the EMTAL Act in 1986?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So because the current level of government meddling in healthcare has caused prices to skyrocket well beyond the overall rate of inflation, we need even more of government meddling to fix the rising prices? Logic fail there.

Anyone think it's a coincidence that the two markets where government meddles most (healthcare and education) are the two areas where prices are most out of control?

InflationData: Education Inflation

You need to prove your premise; explain how "government meddling in health care" is the cause for "prices to skyrocket well beyond the overall rate of inflaiton" Don't be shy, explain the "meddling" and its costs and benefits.

BTW, claiming government meddling includes administrations of both D's and R's and since 1981 we've had 20 years of R's and 12 years of D's in the White House. Nothing was done by Congress either, and both parties during this time enjoyed majorities. What does that suggest to you?

I did this already in my second post in the thread. You can read ALL about it Here

Since you've read all of the link you provided how about giving me an executive summary? I suspect it will be as non subjective as all of those articles listed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, I'm not going to read to you, Corky. Go read the data. Go read all about it. If you can actually read and do, and still believe that the rising costs of healthcare are not directly linked to endless government meddling in the industry, then there is little hope for you.


One thing is certain. I'm not fucking reading to you, Corky.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, I'm not going to read to you, Corky. Go read the data. Go read all about it. If you can actually read and do, and still believe that the rising costs of healthcare are not directly linked to endless government meddling in the industry, then there is little hope for you.


One thing is certain. I'm not fucking reading to you, Corky.

Thanks so much for sharing. I'll be happy to provide such a summary:

SOCIALISM!!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you can not read. Then there is no hope.

And this thread is useless. For it seems you have made it for others to come in and praise the Obama Tax for something it will not do; lower healthcare costs. It will not do this because taxation does not lower cost expectancies and State intervention into the sectors does in fact, increase costs drastically.

I put it down for you one more time in the words of Murray Rothbard:

Our very real medical crisis has been the product of massive government intervention, state and federal, throughout the century; in particular, an artificial boosting of demand coupled with an artificial restriction of supply. The result has been accelerating high prices and deterioration of patient care. And next, socialized medicine could easily bring us to the vaunted medical status of the Soviet Union: everyone has the right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care.

Murray Rothbard

 

[eflatminor]

Well, I support universal preventative health, cradle to grave. The details on how is what should be debated. Sadly, the special interests saw their golden goose at risk and put on a full scale defense causing the PPACA to be a camel and not a horse.

So because the current level of government meddling in healthcare has caused prices to skyrocket well beyond the overall rate of inflation, we need even more of government meddling to fix the rising prices? Logic fail there.

Anyone think it's a coincidence that the two markets where government meddles most (healthcare and education) are the two areas where prices are most out of control?

InflationData: Education Inflation

You need to prove your premise; explain how "government meddling in health care" is the cause for "prices to skyrocket well beyond the overall rate of inflaiton" Don't be shy, explain the "meddling" and its costs and benefits.

Simply from a common sense point of view, what the hell do you think happens to the cost of a health insurance policy when government requires everything under the sun to be covered? What do you think happens when prices of insurance and health care services are dictated by government intervention? More competition, more choice, more innovation, or less? The answer is obvious. What happens when people don't pay for services directly but through third parties? More consumer pressure to be competitive or less? Again, obvious.

For more in depth look, read this:

The cure for the present problems is straightforward: the patient must once again be made the central actor in the medical marketplace. Patients need to be given the same motivations to economize on medical care that they have to economize in other markets. Tax laws need to be rewritten. The use of medical savings accounts needs to be promoted. High-deductible health insurance should be encouraged.

Why Health Care Costs Too Much | Stan Liebowitz | Cato Institute

and this:

Why Do Healthcare Costs Keep Rising | McGrath Insurance Group, Inc.

BTW, claiming government meddling includes administrations of both D's and R's and since 1981 we've had 20 years of R's and 12 years of D's in the White House. Nothing was done by Congress either, and both parties during this time enjoyed majorities. What does that suggest to you?

No shit. Ds and Rs have been fucking with markets for some time now. Central planners come in both varieties, always have.

 

[dblack]

The issue is affordable health care and not a debate on your ideology.

Then why are we talking about PPACA?

I agree something needs to be done about spiraling health care inflation. PPACA ignores the core causes of this, doubling down on a bad solution by forcing all of us to participate in the very fucking scheme (corporate insurance) that's driven prices through the roof in the first place. First do no harm. PPACA is massive harm, and precious little relief.

Well, I support universal preventative health, cradle to grave.

Then please, PLEASE, quit supporting PPACA. Because it's not that. It's-cradle to-grave indebtedness to the corporate interests that wrote the bill. And please quit pretending that PPACA is aimed at fixing the health care market. It's aimed at replacing the healthcare market with a corporatist cartel.

The details on how is what should be debated.

Well, no, the question that needs to be debated is whether government and its corporate sponsors should be responsible for (and therefore in control of) our health care. You can't just skip over that question as though it's resolved. it's really the core of all of this.

 

[Greenbeard]

Reality has struck, costs are going up faster after Obamacare has gone into effect, and you still insist your solution makes more sense than mine.

Meanwhile, in other news today: In 2011, U.S. healthcare spending growth stayed at slowest rate in 52 years.

For a third year in a row, U.S. healthcare spending in 2011 grew at its lowest rate in the 52 years that federal officials have tracked the figure, according to annual statistics from CMS' Office of the Actuary.

 

[Oddball]

Reality has struck, costs are going up faster after Obamacare has gone into effect, and you still insist your solution makes more sense than mine.

Meanwhile, in other news today: In 2011, U.S. healthcare spending growth stayed at slowest rate in 52 years.

For a third year in a row, U.S. healthcare spending in 2011 grew at its lowest rate in the 52 years that federal officials have tracked the figure, according to annual statistics from CMS' Office of the Actuary.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Logical Fallacy: Post Hoc

 

[Greenbeard]

Reality has struck, costs are going up faster after Obamacare has gone into effect, and you still insist your solution makes more sense than mine.

Meanwhile, in other news today: In 2011, U.S. healthcare spending growth stayed at slowest rate in 52 years.

For a third year in a row, U.S. healthcare spending in 2011 grew at its lowest rate in the 52 years that federal officials have tracked the figure, according to annual statistics from CMS' Office of the Actuary.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Logical Fallacy: Post Hoc

My point is merely that the premise underlying QW's fallacy is empirically false. Though of course you're correct that his implication wouldn't follow logically either. Thanks for that.

 

[Oddball]

Your point has no point.

The "cost curve" has in fact been bent....Upwards....Exactly opposite of what was promised.

That there was less growth in spending on medical services in general is non sequitur and a post hoc fallacy.

 

[Greenbeard]

The "cost curve" has in fact been bent....Upwards....

That less was spent on medical services is non sequitur...

 

[Oddball]

Spending growth counts those who pay out-of pocket too, Cass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not seeing your point. This chart shows overwhelming evidence that the health care market is dysfunctional. It shows ample evidence of artificial health care inflation. I don't see any 'evidence' to support a plan to make us all indentured servants to the insurance industry. Was there another page I missed?

That's because it isn't there. The OP tries to say that we need Obama Tax because the charts at the link show an explosive increase in healthcare costs in the US. While we already have massive govt. intervention into this economic sector, the OP points out that this new legislation will improve costs (at least in a vague manner) where all of the others fail.

But of course, this is simply more statist cheering for more state encroachment at the expense of freedoms/liberties. It's the same story from Statists we see time and time again. That although legislation has failed and creates unseen consequences, we simply need more legislation to fix the problem of too much legislation.

The issue is affordable health care and not a debate on your ideology. The cost to both private sector and public sector employers and citizens has continued to grow for three decades, and your solution is for government to get out of the way; the same solution for every problem proposed by the wackadoodle right. Next I suspect you'll play the "Socialism card" as a well indoctrinated parrot is want to do.

What’s even more reprehensible than republicans rejecting their own plan purely for partisan reasons is the fact they wish to repeal the ACA and replace it with nothing.

 

[dblack]

That's because it isn't there. The OP tries to say that we need Obama Tax because the charts at the link show an explosive increase in healthcare costs in the US. While we already have massive govt. intervention into this economic sector, the OP points out that this new legislation will improve costs (at least in a vague manner) where all of the others fail.

But of course, this is simply more statist cheering for more state encroachment at the expense of freedoms/liberties. It's the same story from Statists we see time and time again. That although legislation has failed and creates unseen consequences, we simply need more legislation to fix the problem of too much legislation.

The issue is affordable health care and not a debate on your ideology. The cost to both private sector and public sector employers and citizens has continued to grow for three decades, and your solution is for government to get out of the way; the same solution for every problem proposed by the wackadoodle right. Next I suspect you'll play the "Socialism card" as a well indoctrinated parrot is want to do.

What’s even more reprehensible than republicans rejecting their own plan purely for partisan reasons is the fact they wish to repeal the ACA and replace it with nothing.

It's only reprehensible if you presume that ACA is better than nothing. If you see it differently, as many of us do, then replacing it with nothing is a step in the right direction. Surely you can understand that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reality has struck, costs are going up faster after Obamacare has gone into effect, and you still insist your solution makes more sense than mine.

Meanwhile, in other news today: In 2011, U.S. healthcare spending growth stayed at slowest rate in 52 years.

For a third year in a row, U.S. healthcare spending in 2011 grew at its lowest rate in the 52 years that federal officials have tracked the figure, according to annual statistics from CMS' Office of the Actuary.

In other news, asshole partisans want to credit bad laws with something that happened before said laws existed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Meanwhile, in other news today: In 2011, U.S. healthcare spending growth stayed at slowest rate in 52 years.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Logical Fallacy: Post Hoc

My point is merely that the premise underlying QW's fallacy is empirically false. Though of course you're correct that his implication wouldn't follow logically either. Thanks for that.

My premise was false? Obamacare has kicked in, and the NYT is complaining about double digit increases in insurance premiums, and you want me to think that Obamacare caused something that was already occurring before it passed.

How does that make my premise false?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's because it isn't there. The OP tries to say that we need Obama Tax because the charts at the link show an explosive increase in healthcare costs in the US. While we already have massive govt. intervention into this economic sector, the OP points out that this new legislation will improve costs (at least in a vague manner) where all of the others fail.

But of course, this is simply more statist cheering for more state encroachment at the expense of freedoms/liberties. It's the same story from Statists we see time and time again. That although legislation has failed and creates unseen consequences, we simply need more legislation to fix the problem of too much legislation.

The issue is affordable health care and not a debate on your ideology. The cost to both private sector and public sector employers and citizens has continued to grow for three decades, and your solution is for government to get out of the way; the same solution for every problem proposed by the wackadoodle right. Next I suspect you'll play the "Socialism card" as a well indoctrinated parrot is want to do.

What’s even more reprehensible than republicans rejecting their own plan purely for partisan reasons is the fact they wish to repeal the ACA and replace it with nothing.

I am not a Republican, but Obamacare is not a Republican plan.