Five Flaws of "Obamacare"

[DamnYankee]

This was particularly timely and meaningful after having read the OP in this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ce-reform-necessary-but-is-it-sufficient.html

Perhaps it will strike a chord for some others.

Obamacare’s five flaws
There is little disagreement among liberals and conservatives that America's current health care system needs serious reform. But the Left's plan is seriously flawed.

Heritage Foundation expert Nina Owcharenko dissects Five Major Faults with the Health Care Bills being pushed in the House and Senate.

1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance.

2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level.

3. Greater dependency on government. Both bills would expand existing government health care programs and introduce massive new taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance. This would leave millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care.

4. Employer mandate. The plans would force employers to provide coverage for all employees or face a massive tax. These "Play-or-Pay" mandates will raise prices, stifle economic growth and particularly hurt low-wage earners.

5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law."

Taken together or individually, these flaws would inflict serious damage on an industry that represents one-sixth of our nation's economy.

Instead, Owcharenko suggests the government refocus its efforts on incrementally introducing real, cost-effective reform. Such a reform would grant more autonomy to individual states; extend tax relief to everyone who purchases private health insurance, regardless of employment; and rein in runaway spending on programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

"Policymakers need to proceed slowly and deliberately," advises Owcharenko, "making sure that the initial steps they take are not disruptive of what Americans have and want to keep, actually work, and do not result in costly and damaging and unintended consequences." So far, they're on the wrong track.

* * * * *
And, as the "public option" debate continues to divide us

President Obama has decided to decided to ease up on his push to include a public "option" in the health care reform plan. While the Left insists on its inclusion, the President, whose approval ratings have plummeted lately, seems open to its removal.

 

[Political Junky]

LOL, The Heritage Foundation. Of course that wingnut group would oppose it.

 

[gcomeau]

This was particularly timely and meaningful after having read the OP in this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ce-reform-necessary-but-is-it-sufficient.html

Perhaps it will strike a chord for some others.

Obamacare’s five flaws
There is little disagreement among liberals and conservatives that America's current health care system needs serious reform. But the Left's plan is seriously flawed.

Heritage Foundation expert Nina Owcharenko dissects Five Major Faults with the Health Care Bills being pushed in the House and Senate.

1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance.

While I am not myself a fan of the "public option", the people at heritage are ideologically driven idiots who are against it for ridiculous reasons.

I don't like it because, frankly, it's minimally effective. It's a hobbled version of single payer with almost all the advantages of single payer stripped out.

They don't like it because they're worried that even under those conditions *it will work too well* and out-compete the private sector providers and they don't want it to. That's just brain meltingly stupid on so many levels I can't fully articulate it.

2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level.

I really don't care WHERE the regulation comes from. I care WHAT the regulation is. Complaining about who institutes it is just more ideological temper tantrum throwing. "Wah, wah, we want the states to do it instead." Who the hell cares?

3. Greater dependency on government. Both bills would expand existing government health care programs and introduce massive new taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance. This would leave millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care.

No, it would leave them dependent on the government for their health insurance as opposed to their currently being without insurance or being dependent on a private corporation for your insurance whose primary objective is to extract maximum funds from your wallet. Guess which situation I would prefer? Which basically means, dependent on government to run the financial bureaucracy of health care while leaving the actual provision of care to the private sector just like always.

And guess what? the traditional GOP "government bad, grrr" talking points aside, government is actually good at that. See: relative levels of administrative overhead of medicare and private insurers. Medicare does it FAR better.

4. Employer mandate. The plans would force employers to provide coverage for all employees or face a massive tax. These "Play-or-Pay" mandates will raise prices, stifle economic growth and particularly hurt low-wage earners.

Not a fan of this either really. Regulate the insurers directly, there's no need to force employers into this equation. Get insurance costs under freaking control and they won't need to be forced to provide it, it'll just make good business sense and they'll do it anyway.

5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law."

Meh... it'll tick a few whiners off but it improves the health of the total system. If it was accompanied by sufficient regulation of the insurers themselves to actually keep prices under control I'd be in favor. I'd have to see them getting serious about those regulations though.

"Policymakers need to proceed slowly and deliberately," advises Owcharenko, "making sure that the initial steps they take are not disruptive of what Americans have and want to keep, actually work, and do not result in costly and damaging and unintended consequences." So far, they're on the wrong track.

Translation: "STALL! STALL!"

 

[DamnYankee]

LOL, The Heritage Foundation. Of course that wingnut group would oppose it.

Translation:
When unable to articulate flaws in the "opposition", bashing the source is the only defense.

 

[DamnYankee]

This was particularly timely and meaningful after having read the OP in this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ce-reform-necessary-but-is-it-sufficient.html

Perhaps it will strike a chord for some others.

Obamacare’s five flaws
There is little disagreement among liberals and conservatives that America's current health care system needs serious reform. But the Left's plan is seriously flawed.

Heritage Foundation expert Nina Owcharenko dissects Five Major Faults with the Health Care Bills being pushed in the House and Senate.

1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance.

While I am not myself a fan of the "public option", the people at heritage are ideologically driven idiots who are against it for ridiculous reasons.

I don't like it because, frankly, it's minimally effective. It's a hobbled version of single payer with almost all the advantages of single payer stripped out.

They don't like it because they're worried that even under those conditions *it will work too well* and out-compete the private sector providers and they don't want it to. That's just brain meltingly stupid on so many levels I can't fully articulate it.

2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level.

I really don't care WHERE the regulation comes from. I care WHAT the regulation is. Complaining about who institutes it is just more ideological temper tantrum throwing. "Wah, wah, we want the states to do it instead." Who the hell cares?



No, it would leave them dependent on the government for their health insurance as opposed to their currently being without insurance or being dependent on a private corporation for your insurance whose primary objective is to extract maximum funds from your wallet. Guess which situation I would prefer? Which basically means, dependent on government to run the financial bureaucracy of health care while leaving the actual provision of care to the private sector just like always.

And guess what? the traditional GOP "government bad, grrr" talking points aside, government is actually good at that. See: relative levels of administrative overhead of medicare and private insurers. Medicare does it FAR better.



Not a fan of this either really. Regulate the insurers directly, there's no need to force employers into this equation. Get insurance costs under freaking control and they won't need to be forced to provide it, it'll just make good business sense and they'll do it anyway.

5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law."

Meh... it'll tick a few whiners off but it improves the health of the total system. If it was accompanied by sufficient regulation of the insurers themselves to actually keep prices under control I'd be in favor. I'd have to see them getting serious about those regulations though.

"Policymakers need to proceed slowly and deliberately," advises Owcharenko, "making sure that the initial steps they take are not disruptive of what Americans have and want to keep, actually work, and do not result in costly and damaging and unintended consequences." So far, they're on the wrong track.

Translation: "STALL! STALL!"

What if Medicare (which was, and still is, a huge "cash cow" for providers), Medicaid, KidCare/FamilyCare, SCHIP, SSI, SS, State Benefit, CHCPE, ConnMAP and ConnPACE (and even FEHB and private industry insurers if you like) were all consolidated into ONE GROUP HEALTH PLAN and every CITIZEN was eligible to participate, at a negotiated, regulated (cooperative) group rate? Negotiated and regulated by partners from each of the stake-holders? Would that not be "reform"? Wouldn't you think the Administration would have been open to such a suggestion? They did ask for input after all, and they sure as hell don't know what they're doing (see above).

You don't think they're on the wrong track? Opinion duly noted....

 

[veritas]

gcomeau wins.

 

[KittenKoder]

gcomeau wins.

Veritas shows bias ... again. No, AllBiz found a good article that summarizes the points made by critics of this overbearing bill.

 

[Truthmatters]

And are full of shit

 

[veritas]

And gcomeau dismantled the Heritage Foundation, which is like WND with stuffier prose and more expensive suits.

 

[veritas]

And are full of shit

thank you.

 

[KittenKoder]

And gcomeau dismantled the Heritage Foundation, which is like WND with stuffier prose and more expensive suits.

No, all GCom posted were opinions.

 

[veritas]

And gcomeau dismantled the Heritage Foundation, which is like WND with stuffier prose and more expensive suits.

No, all GCom posted were opinions.

gcomeau's posts taken on the whole are not opinions. Since he/she has not made that many posts of yet [I eagerly await more, btw] you could search their posts and go read them. They are facts and not opinions. There is absolutely no reason to handle healthcare through private insurers. None. The so called "greatest country on the planet" is dysfunctional. The only reason we don't have single payer is because of one industry. An industry whose scam has shown to be past its due date.

 

[KittenKoder]

And gcomeau dismantled the Heritage Foundation, which is like WND with stuffier prose and more expensive suits.

No, all GCom posted were opinions.

gcomeau's posts taken on the whole are not opinions. Since he/she has not made that many posts of yet [I eagerly await more, btw] you could search their posts and go read them. They are facts and not opinions. There is absolutely no reason to handle healthcare through private insurers. None. The so called "greatest country on the planet" is dysfunctional. The only reason we don't have single payer is because of one industry. An industry whose scam has shown to be past its due date.

The one scamming you was and is the government, and no, just because you agree with them does not make their posts facts.

 

[veritas]

You're on medicare/caid. How come you don't have private insurance???

You advocate against your own interests.

 

[KittenKoder]

You're on medicare/caid. How come you don't have private insurance???

You advocate against your own interests.

No, I advocate for my interest. If the cost of healthcare was actually driven down I wouldn't need it. You do realize that Medicare and Medicaid are there for everyone who needs it, anyone who makes under the poverty line can get them, if they are not too lazy to go through the process to get them. However, they are going broke, because the government keeps fucking them up not because of people who use them. They are on their way to beinf privatized, and the more they are the better coverage they offer. Logic shows that the government simply can't do it right. People wrongly blame the insurance companies, it's the next step on the path of following the money and they are too damned lazy to follow the money all the way to the top ... which is the FDA, not the insurance companies, not even "big pharma" (like some of the idiots stop). Those who do not see that it's the FDA (the government) are simply looking for someone to blame for their problems, and not interested in seeking solutions to these problems.

Seriously, find out what everything costs, start at the bottom, what it costs the consumer. Deduct about 10% since insurance companies negotiate lower prices with them. Then add pay for all the insurance company employees. Add all the government regulated fees the insurance companies pay. Add in the bribes that need to be paid to the government. Add in the costs of any lawsuits since insurance companies pay those not the actual target of the suit. Costs are not driven by the people who pay right now, if the costs were driven by the people they would fall like rocks, especially in this economic time. Insurance companies are payers in this scheme, the ones that control the costs now are the government agencies that regulate the businesses.

 

[veritas]

Seriously KK you have a disconnect in your brain. The FDA is in bed with with big pharma and all the other ancillary medical equipment providers and insurance. Kill big insurance and hobble pharma and problem solved. The FDA is only the way it is because of insurance.

You ARE advocating against your own interest.

 

[KittenKoder]

Seriously KK you have a disconnect in your brain. The FDA is in bed with with big pharma and all the other ancillary medical equipment providers and insurance. Kill big insurance and hobble pharma and problem solved. The FDA is only the way it is because of insurance.

You ARE advocating against your own interest.

Even when faced with pure logic on the matter you can't avoid jumping to a partisan talking point.

Killing "big pharma" still leaves the FDA in power, so how does that help anything, they can still force people to pay bribes to be allowed into the US, they can still control the costs, they still have the power. Taking power away from those who don't have any real power is just stupid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL, The Heritage Foundation. Of course that wingnut group would oppose it.

Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to the Heritage Foundation, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:

a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.

My thesis is that we should all be express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.

 

[veritas]

The FDA can't survive the way it has been if their cash cows leave the pasture, they'll have to deal with another branch of government and comparative effectiveness. This bill will go a long way in doing that. Who nailed Pfizer? It wasn't the FDA.

 

[Big Black Dog]

In reality, there is only one flaw in the ObamaCare, TeddyCare, LibCare, or whatever you might want to call it. Some may balk at this just a little bit but it's not stated anywhere in the Constitution that the government can provide health insurance to the citizens. Not listed in the "Rules of the Road" so to speak. So, my question is this: Why are we allowing our government to do this?