Health care cost to exceed 25k in 2016

[dblack]

Because it's been the primary force behind spiraling health care costs. I've been following this issue since the eighties, and I'm of the considered opinion that the biggest problem with the health care market is too much insurance, not too little.

I don't think government should try 'kill' any industry. People should be free to contract with whomever they want, for whatever they want. But we sure as hell shouldn't be propping up an obviously failed business model with state mandates.

What makes you think that the re-sizing of insurance companies would make things better?

Nothing. I don't think that.

oooook....so whats your alternative to insurance companies? How do we pool the risk?

However you like. Just don't go around forcing people to swim in your pool if they're not interested.

 

[AntonToo]

Because it's been the primary force behind spiraling health care costs. I've been following this issue since the eighties, and I'm of the considered opinion that the biggest problem with the health care market is too much insurance, not too little.

I don't think government should try 'kill' any industry. People should be free to contract with whomever they want, for whatever they want. But we sure as hell shouldn't be propping up an obviously failed business model with state mandates.

What makes you think that the re-sizing of insurance companies would make things better?

Nothing. I don't think that.

oooook....so whats your alternative to insurance companies? How do we pool the risk?

However you like. Just don't go around forcing people to swim in your pool if they're not interested.

No alternative. Gotcha.

 

[dblack]

Because it's been the primary force behind spiraling health care costs. I've been following this issue since the eighties, and I'm of the considered opinion that the biggest problem with the health care market is too much insurance, not too little.

I don't think government should try 'kill' any industry. People should be free to contract with whomever they want, for whatever they want. But we sure as hell shouldn't be propping up an obviously failed business model with state mandates.

What makes you think that the re-sizing of insurance companies would make things better?

Nothing. I don't think that.

oooook....so whats your alternative to insurance companies? How do we pool the risk?

However you like. Just don't go around forcing people to swim in your pool if they're not interested.

No alternative. Gotcha.

Endless alternatives. Is forcing others to abide by your wishes the only solution you can imagine?

 

[AntonToo]

What makes you think that the re-sizing of insurance companies would make things better?

Nothing. I don't think that.

oooook....so whats your alternative to insurance companies? How do we pool the risk?

However you like. Just don't go around forcing people to swim in your pool if they're not interested.

No alternative. Gotcha.

Endless alternatives. Is forcing others to abide by your wishes the only solution you can imagine?

It's the only solution I can imagine that works with private market healthcare.

You certainly haven't proposed any way for us to make sure people have access to affordable insurance but at the same time do not abuse the system by getting insurance only when they get sick.

 

[OnePercenter]

Milliman Medical Index: Healthcare costs for a typical American family will exceed $25,000 in 2016 and have tripled since 2001

Take heart Dems. Obama will be out of office and you will be able to blame the gop.

Milliman Medical Index: Healthcare costs for a typical American family will exceed $25,000 in 2016 and have tripled since 2001

Take heart Dems. Obama will be out of office and you will be able to blame the gop.

What do you expect, the healthcare insurance companies own most of the hospitals and Physician's in the US which was made possible by the rubber stamped mergers and acquisitions during BushCo.

 

[dblack]

Nothing. I don't think that.

oooook....so whats your alternative to insurance companies? How do we pool the risk?

However you like. Just don't go around forcing people to swim in your pool if they're not interested.

No alternative. Gotcha.

Endless alternatives. Is forcing others to abide by your wishes the only solution you can imagine?

It's the only solution I can imagine that works with private market healthcare.

I hear ya. Generally speaking, resorting to violence to achieve your ends represents a 'failure of the imagination'.

You certainly haven't proposed any way for us to make sure people have access to affordable insurance but at the same time do not abuse the system by getting insurance only when they get sick.

Because I don't think that should be the goal of health care reform.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Because it's been the primary force behind spiraling health care costs. I've been following this issue since the eighties, and I'm of the considered opinion that the biggest problem with the health care market is too much insurance, not too little.

I don't think government should try 'kill' any industry. People should be free to contract with whomever they want, for whatever they want. But we sure as hell shouldn't be propping up an obviously failed business model with state mandates.

What makes you think that the re-sizing of insurance companies would make things better?

Nothing. I don't think that.

oooook....so whats your alternative to insurance companies? How do we pool the risk?

However you like. Just don't go around forcing people to swim in your pool if they're not interested.

Correct.

Some of us might not want in the pool at all.

The caveat to that is that when someone makes that choice, we have to be willing to let them face the consequences of their decisions which may even mean death.

We don't spend endless dollars on cars to protect people and we let trucks and cars on the same highway because it is economical. We also allow people the option of drinking and driving (with consequences of course).

 

[AntonToo]

I hear ya. Generally speaking, resorting to violence to achieve your ends represents a 'failure of the imagination'.

Because I don't think that should be the goal of health care reform.

Violence? What violence? You are delusional.

As far as goals? Thankfully Americans overwhelmingly disagree with you and that's why Obamacare is not going anywhere, no matter what Republicans keep promising you.

 

[dblack]

I hear ya. Generally speaking, resorting to violence to achieve your ends represents a 'failure of the imagination'.

Because I don't think that should be the goal of health care reform.

Violence? What violence? You are delusional.

The threat of violence is what distinguishes laws from suggestions.

As far as goals? Thankfully Americans overwhelmingly disagree with you and that's why Obamacare is not going anywhere, no matter what Republicans keep promising you.

Agreed. The Republicans just want to drive. They're less likely to give up the new power than the Democrats are.

 

[AntonToo]

I hear ya. Generally speaking, resorting to violence to achieve your ends represents a 'failure of the imagination'.

Because I don't think that should be the goal of health care reform.

Violence? What violence? You are delusional.

The threat of violence is what distinguishes laws from suggestions.

You are wrong on that, plain and simple.

Obamacare is often CRITICIZED for the way it's personal mandate is not actually enforceable. Legislation restricts IRS from going after you on that tax.

In other words you can completely ignore the law (aka playing the russian roulette with your health and finances), never pay personal mandate taxes and IRS can't do anything to you the way things stand.

IRS hamstrung on collecting health law penalties

 

[dblack]

I hear ya. Generally speaking, resorting to violence to achieve your ends represents a 'failure of the imagination'.

Because I don't think that should be the goal of health care reform.

Violence? What violence? You are delusional.

The threat of violence is what distinguishes laws from suggestions.

You are wrong on that, plain and simple.

Yeah? Try enforcing the law, any law, without the threat of violence.

The plain and simple fact is that every law is backed by the threat that if you don't comply you will, ultimately, face violence. If that's not the case, than what you're dealing with isn't a legal requirement, it's merely a suggestion.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As CATO put it, Obamacare made inexpensive insurance illegal.

 

[AntonToo]

I hear ya. Generally speaking, resorting to violence to achieve your ends represents a 'failure of the imagination'.

Because I don't think that should be the goal of health care reform.

Violence? What violence? You are delusional.

The threat of violence is what distinguishes laws from suggestions.

You are wrong on that, plain and simple.

Yeah? Try enforcing the law, any law, without the threat of violence.

The plain and simple fact is that every law is backed by the threat that if you don't comply you will, ultimately, face violence. If that's not the case, than what you're dealing with isn't a legal requirement, it's merely a suggestion.

Except I just explained EXACTLY WHY YOU ARE WRONG and you replied with exactly same thing again without any account for that explanation.

Yes, Obamacare personal mandate is effectively a suggestion, because it's legal requirement is not enforceable by violence.

 

[AntonToo]

As CATO put it, Obamacare made inexpensive insurance illegal.

Because there were reasons why it was cheap. Obamacare lays down STANDARDS insurance companies have to meet, most significant ones that can drive up the price are not controversial/

When you find ways not to cover people what you can have is lower-cost pool, with low cost insurance that rejects people with pre-existing conditions, poor coverage and kicks people off when they get sick. Obamacare allows people with pre-existing conditions to finally get coverage (and get the treatments they perhaps couldn't before) and in some areas that could mean higher prices.

When we take a look at big price increases in places like Minnesota what you'll find is that compared to other places it's was a mere a case of catch up, as the state had the lowest rates in the nation to start out from.

Regulators approve premium jumps averaging as much as 49 percent for some in Minnesota

All Republican proposals to "repeal and replace" still promise popular Obamacare standards like coverage of pre-existing conditions, but they of course lie when then say they could deliver them without the rest of the frame work and insurance pricing that makes them possible.

 

[dblack]

I hear ya. Generally speaking, resorting to violence to achieve your ends represents a 'failure of the imagination'.

Because I don't think that should be the goal of health care reform.

Violence? What violence? You are delusional.

The threat of violence is what distinguishes laws from suggestions.

You are wrong on that, plain and simple.

Yeah? Try enforcing the law, any law, without the threat of violence.

The plain and simple fact is that every law is backed by the threat that if you don't comply you will, ultimately, face violence. If that's not the case, than what you're dealing with isn't a legal requirement, it's merely a suggestion.

Except I just explained EXACTLY WHY YOU ARE WRONG and you replied with exactly same thing again without any account for that explanation.

Yes, Obamacare personal mandate is effectively a suggestion, because it's legal requirement is not enforceable by violence.

And exactly no one believes this, least of all the sellouts who wrote and passed the bill. It was a sales pitch for shills to use in arguments, like this one. The ability to seize otherwise legitimate tax refunds, in and of itself, already represents force - the state will be taking money that we should be getting back as punishment for not giving the insurance industry its pound of flesh. And if that proves insufficient, if there is widespread gaming of the system - failure to follow the 'suggestion' - what then?

The joy of working under a regulatory regime, from a business standpoint, is that it's much easier to manipulate than a free market. When the law needs extra enforcement power, it will get it. People will end up facing jail time for rebelling against the insurance industry. And once most of the nation has become accustomed a lifetime of indebtedness to the insurance industry, voters without the sense to avoid the 'suggestion' will be more than happy to support more aggressive measures to rein in the scofflaws.

Mandatory auto-liability insurance laws were soft-pedaled in the same way. When first introduced, these laws had trivial penalties and proponents emphasized that it wouldn't be considered a primary offense. But of course, once in place, these laws were consistently modified to increase penalties, to the point that it's now one of the worst offenses a driver can commit. It can, and has, resulted in violent interactions with police and jail time for scofflaws. The ACAs individual mandate is exactly the same kind trojan horse.

What's funny about this (and by 'funny' I mean dismal and depressing), is that most people objectively understand that it's fundamentally wrong to use government in this way. Corporate interests shouldn't be able to force us to buy their products, no matter how many Congresspeople they own or lobbyists they pay. And if this weren't a partisan football, if the Republicans had foisted ACA on us rather than the Democrats, most of the same people now defending the law would be howling in protest, right along with libertarians, about the corporate collusion.

 

[OnePercenter]

Since health insurers like United Healthcare have enjoyed a 26% bump in revenues, price caps should be in place.

Here's a great regulation where 95% of the people and businesses win:


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2016 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 600 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce small business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

 

[AntonToo]

Since health insurers like United Healthcare have enjoyed a 26% bump in revenues, price caps should be in place.

Price caps are de-facto in place since AHCA forces insurance companies to put at least 90% of premiums to paying for healthcare.

 

[AntonToo]

And exactly no one believes this, least of all the sellouts who wrote and passed the bill. It was a sales pitch for shills to use in arguments, like this one. The ability to seize otherwise legitimate tax refunds, in and of itself, already represents force - the state will be taking money that we should be getting back as punishment for not giving the insurance industry its pound of flesh. And if that proves insufficient, if there is widespread gaming of the system - failure to follow the 'suggestion' - what then?

Ok I give up, you are immune to basic facts of the matter and that's as much as I have for you.

Fact - no one can make you by force to get your ass insured or pay a fine for not doing it. Your claim is a counter factual one.

Of course it happens to be a GOOD IDEA to get properly insured and that is exactly WHY people are going along with this and exactly WHY we will never find out the answer to your "what then?" question.

 

[dblack]

And exactly no one believes this, least of all the sellouts who wrote and passed the bill. It was a sales pitch for shills to use in arguments, like this one. The ability to seize otherwise legitimate tax refunds, in and of itself, already represents force - the state will be taking money that we should be getting back as punishment for not giving the insurance industry its pound of flesh. And if that proves insufficient, if there is widespread gaming of the system - failure to follow the 'suggestion' - what then?

Ok I give up, you are immune to basic facts of the matter and that's as much as I have for you.

Fact - no one can make you by force to get your ass insured or pay a fine for not doing it. Your claim is a counter factual one.

OK, I've seen this before. We're talking past each other because we're using subtly different definitions of force. I'm referring to it in the more general sense of coercion, which includes the threat of force. The threat of force is behind everything government does, every law it enforces. If you defy government authority, ultimate, you will face violence. Just because no one is physically forcing you doesn't mean the threat is not present.

Of course it happens to be a GOOD IDEA to get properly insured and that is exactly WHY people are going along with this and exactly WHY we will never find out the answer to your "what then?" question.

Most people think it's a good idea. And that's what these kinds of state programs are always about: pushing majority opinion on minorities. ACA does this in a number of ways in addition to forcing us to buy insurance in the first place. It also prohibits insurance that doesn't meet the majority's vision of what should be 'standard' (at least as represented by regulators).

 

[AntonToo]

OK, I've seen this before. We're talking past each other because we're using subtly different definitions of force.

VIOLENCE, that's the actual word you used and I think we quite similarly understand that word.

I hear ya. Generally speaking, resorting to violence to achieve your ends represents a 'failure of the imagination'.

I've read somewhere that dishonesty sometimes leads to poor memory, so be careful.