Is Obamacare Capitalism in Action?

[Derideo_Te]

This thread has established that Obamacare is not "true capitalism in action" but that raises the question as to what is the alternative?

The alternative, in my view, should have been expanding the safety net for the folks falling through the cracks, and then removing the incentives and ill-conceived regulations that have painted us into this corner in the first place. PPACA does the opposite on both counts, it undercuts existing safety nets, and pushes all of us into the dysfunctional financing models currently plaguing the health care market.

Just so that I understand you correctly you are advocating the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid for everyone who cannot afford healthcare and for eliminating the HMO's? Is that what you are saying?

 

[dblack]

This thread has established that Obamacare is not "true capitalism in action" but that raises the question as to what is the alternative?

The alternative, in my view, should have been expanding the safety net for the folks falling through the cracks, and then removing the incentives and ill-conceived regulations that have painted us into this corner in the first place. PPACA does the opposite on both counts, it undercuts existing safety nets, and pushes all of us into the dysfunctional financing models currently plaguing the health care market.

Just so that I understand you correctly you are advocating the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid for everyone who cannot afford healthcare and for eliminating the HMO's? Is that what you are saying?

More or less - I see HMOs and the traditional low-deductible high-premium insurance plan as really bad for the health care market. That said, there's no reason to outlaw them. We just need to stop propping them up with regulation and tax policy.

As for the expanding Medicare/Medicaid, your characterization "for everyone who cannot afford healthcare" prompts the question "how much healthcare?". But I don't have a huge problem with maintaining a safety net for folks on the bottom rung - except when it's used as an excuse to socialize the whole mess, which it often is.

I will say that restoring sanity to the market is the more fundamental of the the two goals, however, because cheaper healthcare helps everyone and minimizes the number of people in need of a safety net in the first place.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The alternative, in my view, should have been expanding the safety net for the folks falling through the cracks, and then removing the incentives and ill-conceived regulations that have painted us into this corner in the first place. PPACA does the opposite on both counts, it undercuts existing safety nets, and pushes all of us into the dysfunctional financing models currently plaguing the health care market.

Just so that I understand you correctly you are advocating the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid for everyone who cannot afford healthcare and for eliminating the HMO's? Is that what you are saying?

More or less - I see HMOs and the traditional low-deductible high-premium insurance plan as really bad for the health care market. That said, there's no reason to outlaw them. We just need to stop propping them up with regulation and tax policy.

As for the expanding Medicare/Medicaid, your characterization "for everyone who cannot afford healthcare" prompts the question "how much healthcare?". But I don't have a huge problem with maintaining a safety net for folks on the bottom rung - except when it's used as an excuse to socialize the whole mess, which it often is.

I will say that restoring sanity to the market is the more fundamental of the the two goals, however, because cheaper healthcare helps everyone and minimizes the number of people in need of a safety net in the first place.

You are making the assumption that without regulation healthcare will be cheaper. (Drive-through Kidneys-R-Us clinics in strip malls?) The reality is something different entirely. Healthcare is not an option for the vast majority of people. Only a very lucky few get to live their lives without needing any major medical intervention at least once. Even for the most healthy there are accidents that cause injuries.

So healthcare is not a "free market' for anyone who is faced with the choice of seeing a loved one suffering or paying the going price for whatever medical intervention is required. Under those circumstances it can become a choice between life and death too.

Given your objection to the "excuse to socialize" healthcare you are forced into a "market" based solution instead. As soon as you introduce the profit motive you set up a conflict of interest as far as healthcare is concerned. This applies across the board from HMO's to hospitals to drug companies. Anywhere there is the motivation to put profits over people you are going to have to find a way to deal with it. The only option in that instance is to introduce government regulation. Now you are right back where you started.

 

[dblack]

Just so that I understand you correctly you are advocating the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid for everyone who cannot afford healthcare and for eliminating the HMO's? Is that what you are saying?

More or less - I see HMOs and the traditional low-deductible high-premium insurance plan as really bad for the health care market. That said, there's no reason to outlaw them. We just need to stop propping them up with regulation and tax policy.

As for the expanding Medicare/Medicaid, your characterization "for everyone who cannot afford healthcare" prompts the question "how much healthcare?". But I don't have a huge problem with maintaining a safety net for folks on the bottom rung - except when it's used as an excuse to socialize the whole mess, which it often is.

I will say that restoring sanity to the market is the more fundamental of the the two goals, however, because cheaper healthcare helps everyone and minimizes the number of people in need of a safety net in the first place.

You are making the assumption that without regulation healthcare will be cheaper.

No, that's not what I said. i was talking about the regulation and tax incentives designed to push us into group health insurance as the standard means of financing health care. I am making the assumption that the defacto standard of low-deductible health insurance is making health care artificially expensive, and that weening ourselves off of it will bring health care prices down.

As soon as you introduce the profit motive you set up a conflict of interest as far as healthcare is concerned.

Maybe with health 'insurance', which is one of the reasons I think it's not a good way to finance our health care. But not with health care in general. Doctors won't profit for long if they're not curing people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

More or less - I see HMOs and the traditional low-deductible high-premium insurance plan as really bad for the health care market. That said, there's no reason to outlaw them. We just need to stop propping them up with regulation and tax policy.

As for the expanding Medicare/Medicaid, your characterization "for everyone who cannot afford healthcare" prompts the question "how much healthcare?". But I don't have a huge problem with maintaining a safety net for folks on the bottom rung - except when it's used as an excuse to socialize the whole mess, which it often is.

I will say that restoring sanity to the market is the more fundamental of the the two goals, however, because cheaper healthcare helps everyone and minimizes the number of people in need of a safety net in the first place.

You are making the assumption that without regulation healthcare will be cheaper.

No, that's not what I said. i was talking about the regulation and tax incentives designed to push us into group health insurance as the standard means of financing health care. I am making the assumption that the defacto standard of low-deductible health insurance is making health care artificially expensive, and that weening ourselves off of it will bring health care prices down.

The primary driver for making healthcare more expensive was the business model of the HMO's themselves. By artificially setting prices for services and then failing to fully pay those services for whatever spurious reasons they caused an inflationary spiral. Medical providers found themselves having to increase their own costs in order to deal with the HMO's denying payments for services. Blaming the "low deductibles" is like blaming people for getting sick.

As soon as you introduce the profit motive you set up a conflict of interest as far as healthcare is concerned.

Maybe with health 'insurance', which is one of the reasons I think it's not a good way to finance our health care. But not with health care in general. Doctors won't profit for long if they're not curing people.

Doctors are like lawyers. They get paid regardless as to whether you are cured or not. You pay for their services up front. They won't accept any other business model if you eliminate the HMO's. Just like drug companies don't guarantee that their pills will cure you either. You pay for them up front. Under your proposed system everyone will need to keep tens of thousands of dollars on hand just in case they need hospitalization for any reason.

 

[dblack]

Blaming the "low deductibles" is like blaming people for getting sick.

No, it's simply recognizing a fundamental distortion of market motivations. When a critical mass of the consumer base is 'covered', there is minimal demand for cost-effective health care. That's fairly simple to see. Once your deductible is met, do you really care how much of a tab you're running up? You sure as hell won't care as much as if you were paying for it directly.

The price shopping habits of consumers are turned upside down where patients, once they are 'covered', have every incentive to choose the higher priced option when confronted with alternatives. Why wouldn't they choose the best, which is almost always going to perceived as the most expensive? And how could this NOT cause price inflation?

Doctors are like lawyers. They get paid regardless as to whether you are cured or not. You pay for their services up front. They won't accept any other business model if you eliminate the HMO's. Just like drug companies don't guarantee that their pills will cure you either. You pay for them up front. Under your proposed system everyone will need to keep tens of thousands of dollars on hand just in case they need hospitalization for any reason.

I don't know where to start. I disagree with every single sentence in this paragraph. Care to focus on one of these?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm not a rep, but the lies in this is just to much. so I will insert replies in blue

If Republicans Love Competition, Why Do They Still Hate Obamacare? | Joe Conason

When asked what makes the world work, any self-respecting right-wing Republican knows the politically correct answer: competition! No, we would say freedom.
...
It is the paramount principle and universal solvent perennially touted by the right to cure whatever ails us -- in the abstract. freedom, yes, not the lie

What they don't seem to like so much, in reality, is the competitive impact they are already competing, so no impact of the Affordable Care Act, which is forcing health insurance companies into a contested marketplace -- and seems to be driving down rates, state by state. clearly thats' an out and out lieThe latest data arrived this week from New York, where insurance regulators announced that the new rates approved for 2014 will be 50 percent lower, on average, than current rates. are these the same people that claimed they would be lower this year?

That stunning report follows similar news from California, where rates may drop by as much as 29 percent, as well as Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and several other states where the early indications show rates declining. Based on data compiled from 10 states and the District of Columbia,but not all the states. the Department of Health and Human Services says that 2014 premiums for mid-range (or "silver") health care plans in those states will be nearly 20 percent lower on average than its own earlier estimates.

The reason is simple, as anyone familiar with the American health care marketplace knows. Most states until now have had no meaningful competition among insurance companies -- and certainly nothing like the health insurance "exchanges" created by Obamacare to guide consumer choices. what garbage, they had to compete constanty

In states that have actively promoted the exchanges, real competition is arising thanks to a marketplace that allows consumers to examine and understand choices, plans, and prices with ease. "That's a very different dynamic for these companies, and it's prodding them to be more aggressive and competitive in their pricing," explains Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reform. This could have been done had we made it so we could buy insurance from anyone, but no, we are forced to choose from smaller groups. thus, we called it.

For those of us who preferred (and still favor) a single-payer system providing Medicare to everyone, the compromises of Obamacare always provoked doubts about efficiency and fairness. Many liberals supported the Affordable Care Act reluctantly as a bad deal that was acceptable only in lieu of no deal. Not true, they had no idea what they were voting for. 'we have to pass it to learn what's in it.

But why do self-styled conservatives continue to hate health care reform with such ferocity? forced participation is tyranny and now the government has access to my med records.They may not care that it is truly "pro-life" and "pro-family," with the clear promise of saving thousands of lives annually among families that were previously uninsured. Yet they should surely appreciate a statute that promotes competition where there was none, improving services and reducing prices through freer enterprise. what vile words. evil and sick twists

...

For what we can now observe in practice is that the Republicans perversely prefer a corporate marketplace without competition over a marketplace with competition overseen by government. pure lie While European conservatives have long accepted the need for strictly regulated markets, especially in health care, their American counterparts would rather allow corporate power to run unchecked at whatever cost. Who cares one damn bit what EU's do? and no one wants anything to go completely unregulated.

...

So the Congressional Republicans persistently attack and undermine reform, as they did by passing a resolution this week to delay the law's individual mandate.
...
And they did so despite warnings from the insurance industry that a delay would only increase rates for everyone. The paid shills or the people getting out of medicine b/c obamacare it going to cost them so much more?

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act have long reassured each other that the law would gain popularity someday. But if present trends continue, the public may come to realize as early as next year that the benefits of Obamacare greatly outweigh the flaws --

...

So the question posed for the CDZ is Obamacare true capitalism in action? tyranny is not capitalism

It was based upon the Republican plan that opposed "Hilarycare" in the 1990's and intended to foster competition in the states so that "market rates" could prevail. Now that we see it coming into play will we find out if genuine competition does lower prices? it's not genuine.

Alternatively are Republicans afraid that it won't actually lower healthcare costs and that could damage the credibility of their claim to "free markets"? no, it will be the biggest poop sammich the dems have to eat. But nice way to set up the spin of the future when ocare failsOr are they looking at making a last ditch stand this Fall to prevent the implementation of Obamacare because they are afraid that it will work?

Please remember that this is the CDZ and the purpose of having these questions in this forum is to find the reality behind the emotional rhetoric. Thank you in advance for your responses. DT

So many lies, no wonder cowards like to start op's here. Keeps them from getting the proper verbal lashing they truly do have coming.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Blaming the "low deductibles" is like blaming people for getting sick.

No, it's simply recognizing a fundamental distortion of market motivations. When a critical mass of the consumer base is 'covered', there is minimal demand for cost-effective health care. That's fairly simple to see. Once your deductible is met, do you really care how much of a tab you're running up? You sure as hell won't care as much as if you were paying for it directly.

The price shopping habits of consumers are turned upside down where patients, once they are 'covered', have every incentive to choose the higher priced option when confronted with alternatives. Why wouldn't they choose the best, which is almost always going to perceived as the most expensive? And how could this NOT cause price inflation?

Doctors are like lawyers. They get paid regardless as to whether you are cured or not. You pay for their services up front. They won't accept any other business model if you eliminate the HMO's. Just like drug companies don't guarantee that their pills will cure you either. You pay for them up front. Under your proposed system everyone will need to keep tens of thousands of dollars on hand just in case they need hospitalization for any reason.

I don't know where to start. I disagree with every single sentence in this paragraph. Care to focus on one of these?

Since when are consumers given a price choice when it comes to healthcare? "Honey, I think I am having a heart attack. Please do a quick google and find out which ER is cheapest." Or how about "I broke my hip and I can't get up" apps for your smartphone that will give you a price check on Overstock.com for refurbished prosthetic hip replacements. Would you shop for the cheapest surgeon to do your mother's heart bypass surgery? What criteria would you use to determine which is the most cost effective cancer therapy? Are you qualified to even make that determination? Because if you aren't then how can you expect anyone who is already sick to go through the laborious process of learning all of the options and knowing which ones are best suited to their specific diagnosis? Then there are all the drug interactions to wade through to make sure that none of those options will clash with any existing drugs that they are taking.

Pharmacists, doctors, nurses and other medical professionals spend years learning about these things. The average person has at best a smattering of knowledge. To expect them to become knowledgeable informed consumers capable of making the optimum choice is simply not a realistic approach in my opinion.