Obamacare Rationale?

[jwoodie]

No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary. It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.

Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance? If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?

If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?

Please be specific. Thank you.

 

[Granny]

My best guess is that it's one more step closer to total control of every facet of the lives of citizens.

You're right - people who can't afford it can and do get it through Medicaid/Medicare (and we see where that system has taken the country financially); in case of real emergencies, including childbirth, it's illegal for hospitals to refuse care; if people don't want or don't think they need medical insurance they should have the choice to refuse or ignore the coverage instead of being forced by law to buy the coverage (at exorbitant premiums).

I can see where people with pre-existing conditions should not be refused coverage altogether but be able to be in some kind of high risk pool where they could get some kind of coverage.

The one thing that would drastically cut medical costs would be tort reform and I don't think we will ever see that because most politicians are themselves members of the lawyers' brotherhood.

 

[Mertex]

No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary. It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.

There are a lot more reasons that you didn't mention. Perhaps your source doesn't supply them. Insurance companies were running amok, raising premiums whenever they felt like it, dropping people when they felt they were going to be needing a lot of medical attention, and refusing people based on "their definition of pre-existing condition". People that couldn't afford insurance weren't necessarily qualified for Medicaid. You have to be really poor to qualify for Medicaid, and some lower middle-class "large" families simply could not afford the going premium rates and did not qualify for Medicaid.

Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance? If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?

Lower premiums so that more people can afford to buy health insurance, and yes, to keep from having to use taxpayer's money to pay for the ones that use the ER and can't afford to pay. And, really, is there anyone in the world that doesn't need health insurance? The only reason some people don't want it is because they couldn't afford it (which Obamacare will make a difference) and those who like a free ride by going to the ER and then not paying.

If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?

It benefits everyone when everyone in our country is able to get health care. Makes for a healthier country, which cuts down on other expenses. When people go bankrupt due to a medical crisis, they become a burden to society, so it's better to pay up front and hopefully it is less, than to pay later. Either way, we (taxpayers) pay.

Please be specific. Thank you.

Hope that was specific enough for you.

 

[Mertex]

My best guess is that it's one more step closer to total control of every facet of the lives of citizens.

If people are not smart enough to realize they need something, and not having it affects others financially and otherwise, then yes, it's time for the government to step up and make a difference.

You're right - people who can't afford it can and do get it through Medicaid/Medicare (and we see where that system has taken the country financially);

First of all, not everyone qualifies for Medicaid. Obamacare is going to reduce premiums so that people who couldn't afford insurance before and were not qualified for Medicaid, are able to do so, now. That's a good thing. And other things have affected our country's finances, so let's not get crazy and cut out the things that benefit the Middle-class and the poor.

in case of real emergencies, including childbirth, it's illegal for hospitals to refuse care; if people don't want or don't think they need medical insurance they should have the choice to refuse or ignore the coverage instead of being forced by law to buy the coverage (at exorbitant premiums).

That is so freaking lame, because the taxpayers end up picking up the tab for those who think they can just saunter into a hospital, get medical attention, and then leave without paying. So people that don't want or think they don't need it, should just go until they do and then let others pay for it? I'm surprised to hear any conservative offer that up as a solution, considering their mantra on "moochers".

I can see where people with pre-existing conditions should not be refused coverage altogether but be able to be in some kind of high risk pool where they could get some kind of coverage.

Yeah, well, before Obamacare became law, there was nothing to stop insurance companies from refusing people for what they determined was a pre-existing condition. Sometimes it wasn't, but if they say it is, who's going up against insurance companies?

The one thing that would drastically cut medical costs would be tort reform and I don't think we will ever see that because most politicians are themselves members of the lawyers' brotherhood.

Don't know how you figure that. Maybe a link would help?

 

[Greenbeard]

No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary. It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.

Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance? If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?

If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?

Please be specific. Thank you.

The premise of your question isn't quite right--or at least it's a bit limited.

The ACA isn't just insurance for more people. It's new options for states to improve their Medicaid programs; it's Medicare reform; it's a new emphasis on measuring, rewarding, and improving health care quality; it's investment in public health infrastructure; it's workforce development so there are more health care professionals to meet the need; and so on.

Even within the insurance reform pieces, it's not just about more insurance for more people. It's about making markets that work, in which insurers have to compete on price and quality in a coherent, transparent marketplace. That was something that hasn't traditionally existed in the individual health insurance market. Do we really need to go into the rationale for why functioning markets are desirable?

 

[oldfart]

No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary....Please be specific. Thank you.

You are really asking three questions:

1. Why do anything about health care financing?
2. Why do the ACA framework instead of something else?
3. Why do something now?

Here are my answers.

Why do anything about health care financing?

Our present health care financing system is collapsing. The percentage of the population covered by health insurance falls 1% a year, health insurance costs are a major and unsustainable portion of the cost structure of many industries, medical costs are the largest cause of bankruptcies, and we pay double what any other developed economy does for health care for mediocre results at best. So the alternative is to watch the system collapse, with medical care becoming more expensive and less available each year, our public health statistics and death rates worsening, and our economy pulled down by the dead weight loss of the failed health care financing system. That's the case to do something. Not everyone finds it compelling.

Why do the ACA framework instead of something else?

At the beginning of the Clinton administration two decades ago the Republicans successfully fought off a proposal for health care financing reform, pointing to "flaws" in the proposal and promising to come back with their own proposal next year. Note that this admitted that something should be done; they did not try to convince America that doing nothing was a good option. Of course they never did put forward a proposal. But they did generate a framework from the Heritage Foundation for a private market-based solution instead of the two competing models (single-payer/private supplier aka "the Swiss model" or "Medicare for all"; and national health care on the British system aka "socialized medicine" or "VA for all"). This is the structure implemented in Massachusetts as Romneycare. The ACA IS the alternative Newt promised to produce in 1994.

Personally I think single payer is a better solution because ACA has no real effective cost controls. We got the ACA because it was what the hospital chains, big Pharma, the medical device industry and Congress could be talked into. Anyone who says at this point that we should ditch the ACA and hold out for "something better" is just playing Newt's game, as there is no other proposal out there except for single-payer, which is less acceptable to big business and conservatives than the ACA. De facto, the something else, is to just watch the system collapse.

Why do something now?

I suppose we could put the whole thing off again, but that doesn't solve the problems. Personally I think the present system imposes an escalating damage to American society and the American economy that is permanent and will reduce us further to the status of a barbaric medieval society, on a par with third-world countries. Some people look forward to such an outcome; it concentrates power in the hands of a few and makes everyone else desperate for protection, but it definitely is not my view of a successful future. It's a fascist dystopia, like Chile under Pinochet.

To your specifics.

It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.

Actually millions of uninsured Americans do not qualify for Medicaid or other government assistance and cannot afford private health insurance. Most of these work. There is a lot of data on this and most people see these people every day in ordinary life. Your caveat above admits the situation, but your premise that a system that requires impoverishment of workers as a condition of obtaining medical care iw what shocks the rest of the world which views medical care as a basic human right.

Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance?

No. Medicaid is the most efficient method of delivering health care in the United States today, far superior to Medicare which is the most popular. The runner-up is the socialized medicine component, the VA and military health systems where the government builds and owns the facilities and hires the personnel. Obamacare is a step back on cost containment, which is its major weak point.

If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?

Technically since the preceding answer is no, this is moot. But yes, there are ways to contain costs and we need to look at them, especially as the ACA will probably need some tinkering to achieve reasonable cost controls. I see absolutely zero conservative proposals for controlling medical costs short of the famous "Let them die!" response in the presidential primary debates. That's the level of discourse on the Right. If this sounds like "talking points", it is only because you are phrasing issues with loaded assumptions, the talking points of the Reactionary Right, and I chose to call you out on it. You don't make rules you violate in the OP and expect to not get called out on it do you?

If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?

No, the purpose was to save the economy, make it more internationally competitive by taking medical costs out of unit labor costs and improving worker productivity, improve access to health care and reduce mortality and morbidity rates in America, and start to control health care and health care financing costs better. If you want to discuss how any of these results can be reasonably expected to flow from the ACA, I will be happy to oblige. Just don't answer everything with "talking points".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dingell told us why

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvDwFQiSkBU]The wrong words slip out of Congressman John Dingell's mouth - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jwoodie]

No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary....Please be specific. Thank you.

You are really asking three questions:

1. Why do anything about health care financing?
2. Why do the ACA framework instead of something else?
3. Why do something now?

Here are my answers.

Why do anything about health care financing?

Our present health care financing system is collapsing. The percentage of the population covered by health insurance falls 1% a year, health insurance costs are a major and unsustainable portion of the cost structure of many industries, medical costs are the largest cause of bankruptcies, and we pay double what any other developed economy does for health care for mediocre results at best. So the alternative is to watch the system collapse, with medical care becoming more expensive and less available each year, our public health statistics and death rates worsening, and our economy pulled down by the dead weight loss of the failed health care financing system. That's the case to do something. Not everyone finds it compelling.

Why do the ACA framework instead of something else?

At the beginning of the Clinton administration two decades ago the Republicans successfully fought off a proposal for health care financing reform, pointing to "flaws" in the proposal and promising to come back with their own proposal next year. Note that this admitted that something should be done; they did not try to convince America that doing nothing was a good option. Of course they never did put forward a proposal. But they did generate a framework from the Heritage Foundation for a private market-based solution instead of the two competing models (single-payer/private supplier aka "the Swiss model" or "Medicare for all"; and national health care on the British system aka "socialized medicine" or "VA for all"). This is the structure implemented in Massachusetts as Romneycare. The ACA IS the alternative Newt promised to produce in 1994.

Personally I think single payer is a better solution because ACA has no real effective cost controls. We got the ACA because it was what the hospital chains, big Pharma, the medical device industry and Congress could be talked into. Anyone who says at this point that we should ditch the ACA and hold out for "something better" is just playing Newt's game, as there is no other proposal out there except for single-payer, which is less acceptable to big business and conservatives than the ACA. De facto, the something else, is to just watch the system collapse.

Why do something now?

I suppose we could put the whole thing off again, but that doesn't solve the problems. Personally I think the present system imposes an escalating damage to American society and the American economy that is permanent and will reduce us further to the status of a barbaric medieval society, on a par with third-world countries. Some people look forward to such an outcome; it concentrates power in the hands of a few and makes everyone else desperate for protection, but it definitely is not my view of a successful future. It's a fascist dystopia, like Chile under Pinochet.

To your specifics.

It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.

Actually millions of uninsured Americans do not qualify for Medicaid or other government assistance and cannot afford private health insurance. Most of these work. There is a lot of data on this and most people see these people every day in ordinary life. Your caveat above admits the situation, but your premise that a system that requires impoverishment of workers as a condition of obtaining medical care iw what shocks the rest of the world which views medical care as a basic human right.



No. Medicaid is the most efficient method of delivering health care in the United States today, far superior to Medicare which is the most popular. The runner-up is the socialized medicine component, the VA and military health systems where the government builds and owns the facilities and hires the personnel. Obamacare is a step back on cost containment, which is its major weak point.

If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?

Technically since the preceding answer is no, this is moot. But yes, there are ways to contain costs and we need to look at them, especially as the ACA will probably need some tinkering to achieve reasonable cost controls. I see absolutely zero conservative proposals for controlling medical costs short of the famous "Let them die!" response in the presidential primary debates. That's the level of discourse on the Right. If this sounds like "talking points", it is only because you are phrasing issues with loaded assumptions, the talking points of the Reactionary Right, and I chose to call you out on it. You don't make rules you violate in the OP and expect to not get called out on it do you?

If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?

No, the purpose was to save the economy, make it more internationally competitive by taking medical costs out of unit labor costs and improving worker productivity, improve access to health care and reduce mortality and morbidity rates in America, and start to control health care and health care financing costs better. If you want to discuss how any of these results can be reasonably expected to flow from the ACA, I will be happy to oblige. Just don't answer everything with "talking points".

It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to compromise your otherwise reasonable post by resorting to name calling (e.g., reactionary right). I must also assume that my request to avoid talking points struck an emotional nerve that required a somewhat juvenile response.

Anyone who actually reads my posts knows that I do not engage in simply repeating the talking points of others; indeed, I find many conservative talking points to be quite imbecilic. However, neither am I cowed by PC condemnation into refraining from raising legitimate questions of fact and logic.

 

[Sactowndog]

No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary. It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.

Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance? If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?

If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?

Please be specific. Thank you.

The reason young people don't "need it" is because prior to Obama care they were Free Riders on the system because if they needed to visit the emergency room the hospitals were obliged to treat them. In effect, they got subsidized emergency room care from the rest of us.

The Mandate was originally a Heritage Foundation idea because we have had subsidized health care for years. It was very inefficiently delivered which was why the US spends 1.8 times per capita the next closest country on health care.

The exchanges are coming up with some innovative models to deliver the care more cheaply for young people. Since they don't use it that often they are offering lower cost plans with relatively inconvenient centralized providers of service. For a relatively unhampered mobile younger generation this is a good idea. If they only go once a year for a physical then going out of their way makes sense.

Given the rate of growth of health care costs reform was needed as health care was crowding out other types of spending. In addition, people can't make a market based decision in the moment because they often don't have information or the presence of diminishing utility. Now can Obamacare be improved? Absolutely but in the long run it will be a net plus for the economy.

 

[Sactowndog]

My best guess is that it's one more step closer to total control of every facet of the lives of citizens.

If people are not smart enough to realize they need something, and not having it affects others financially and otherwise, then yes, it's time for the government to step up and make a difference.

You're right - people who can't afford it can and do get it through Medicaid/Medicare (and we see where that system has taken the country financially);

First of all, not everyone qualifies for Medicaid. Obamacare is going to reduce premiums so that people who couldn't afford insurance before and were not qualified for Medicaid, are able to do so, now. That's a good thing. And other things have affected our country's finances, so let's not get crazy and cut out the things that benefit the Middle-class and the poor.


That is so freaking lame, because the taxpayers end up picking up the tab for those who think they can just saunter into a hospital, get medical attention, and then leave without paying. So people that don't want or think they don't need it, should just go until they do and then let others pay for it? I'm surprised to hear any conservative offer that up as a solution, considering their mantra on "moochers".

I can see where people with pre-existing conditions should not be refused coverage altogether but be able to be in some kind of high risk pool where they could get some kind of coverage.

Yeah, well, before Obamacare became law, there was nothing to stop insurance companies from refusing people for what they determined was a pre-existing condition. Sometimes it wasn't, but if they say it is, who's going up against insurance companies?

The one thing that would drastically cut medical costs would be tort reform and I don't think we will ever see that because most politicians are themselves members of the lawyers' brotherhood.

Don't know how you figure that. Maybe a link would help?

I don't think people are dumb they just rationally refuse to pay for something when the government will mandate they get it for free. The Tea Party types are so irrational in their blind hatred of Obama they refuse to acknowledge the mandate on individuals came from the Heritage Foundation

 

[Trajan]

No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary. It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.

Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance? If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?

If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?

Please be specific. Thank you.

The premise of your question isn't quite right--or at least it's a bit limited.

The ACA isn't just insurance for more people. It's new options for states to improve their Medicaid programs; it's Medicare reform; it's a new emphasis on measuring, rewarding, and improving health care quality; it's investment in public health infrastructure; it's workforce development so there are more health care professionals to meet the need; and so on.

Even within the insurance reform pieces, it's not just about more insurance for more people. It's about making markets that work, in which insurers have to compete on price and quality in a coherent, transparent marketplace. That was something that hasn't traditionally existed in the individual health insurance market. Do we really need to go into the rationale for why functioning markets are desirable?

and bending the cost curve?

 

[Trajan]

My best guess is that it's one more step closer to total control of every facet of the lives of citizens.

If people are not smart enough to realize they need something, and not having it affects others financially and otherwise, then yes, it's time for the government to step up and make a difference.


First of all, not everyone qualifies for Medicaid. Obamacare is going to reduce premiums so that people who couldn't afford insurance before and were not qualified for Medicaid, are able to do so, now. That's a good thing. And other things have affected our country's finances, so let's not get crazy and cut out the things that benefit the Middle-class and the poor.


That is so freaking lame, because the taxpayers end up picking up the tab for those who think they can just saunter into a hospital, get medical attention, and then leave without paying. So people that don't want or think they don't need it, should just go until they do and then let others pay for it? I'm surprised to hear any conservative offer that up as a solution, considering their mantra on "moochers".

Yeah, well, before Obamacare became law, there was nothing to stop insurance companies from refusing people for what they determined was a pre-existing condition. Sometimes it wasn't, but if they say it is, who's going up against insurance companies?

The one thing that would drastically cut medical costs would be tort reform and I don't think we will ever see that because most politicians are themselves members of the lawyers' brotherhood.

Don't know how you figure that. Maybe a link would help?

I don't think people are dumb they just rationally refuse to pay for something when the government will mandate they get it for free. The Tea Party types are so irrational in their blind hatred of Obama they refuse to acknowledge the mandate on individuals came from the Heritage Foundation

the gov. is not capable of nor should they be running an operation that covers this big a spread, no gov., period.

Now, as far as a mandate, or TAX, I would not be averse to that IF they truly bent the cost curve for medical costs, but, they haven't. Minus that, they will just move $$ around and play central planning.....that has never and will not tun out well.

 

[HenryBHough]

Which of the following might possibly be a true and accurate statement?

A. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
B. Obamacare will cut your medical insurance costs.
C. Your data is safe on properly certificated internet sites.
D. You can keep your favorite doctor under Obamacare.
E. Not tonight, I have a headache.

 

[Mertex]

My best guess is that it's one more step closer to total control of every facet of the lives of citizens.

If people are not smart enough to realize they need something, and not having it affects others financially and otherwise, then yes, it's time for the government to step up and make a difference.


First of all, not everyone qualifies for Medicaid. Obamacare is going to reduce premiums so that people who couldn't afford insurance before and were not qualified for Medicaid, are able to do so, now. That's a good thing. And other things have affected our country's finances, so let's not get crazy and cut out the things that benefit the Middle-class and the poor.


That is so freaking lame, because the taxpayers end up picking up the tab for those who think they can just saunter into a hospital, get medical attention, and then leave without paying. So people that don't want or think they don't need it, should just go until they do and then let others pay for it? I'm surprised to hear any conservative offer that up as a solution, considering their mantra on "moochers".

Yeah, well, before Obamacare became law, there was nothing to stop insurance companies from refusing people for what they determined was a pre-existing condition. Sometimes it wasn't, but if they say it is, who's going up against insurance companies?

The one thing that would drastically cut medical costs would be tort reform and I don't think we will ever see that because most politicians are themselves members of the lawyers' brotherhood.

Don't know how you figure that. Maybe a link would help?

I don't think people are dumb they just rationally refuse to pay for something when the government will mandate they get it for free. The Tea Party types are so irrational in their blind hatred of Obama they refuse to acknowledge the mandate on individuals came from the Heritage Foundation

Yep, and they also think Liberals are getting it for free!

 

[Mertex]

Which of the following might possibly be a true and accurate statement?

A. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
B. Obamacare will cut your medical insurance costs.
C. Your data is safe on properly certificated internet sites.
D. You can keep your favorite doctor under Obamacare.
E. Not tonight, I have a headache.

I would vote (F) which you left of. "I don't care how good it might be, if Obama has anything to do with it, I'm against it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary. It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.

Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance? If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?

If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?

Please be specific. Thank you.

The premise of your question isn't quite right--or at least it's a bit limited.

The ACA isn't just insurance for more people. It's new options for states to improve their Medicaid programs; it's Medicare reform; it's a new emphasis on measuring, rewarding, and improving health care quality; it's investment in public health infrastructure; it's workforce development so there are more health care professionals to meet the need; and so on.

Even within the insurance reform pieces, it's not just about more insurance for more people. It's about making markets that work, in which insurers have to compete on price and quality in a coherent, transparent marketplace. That was something that hasn't traditionally existed in the individual health insurance market. Do we really need to go into the rationale for why functioning markets are desirable?

"It's about making markets that work, in which insurers have to compete on price and quality in a coherent, transparent marketplace"

Have you heard of "Free enterprise"? Its government that is distorting the insurance business

We need 20,000 pages of regulations and 16,000 IRS Agents to insure "transparency"

 

[jwoodie]

The Tea Party types are so irrational in their blind hatred of Obama they refuse to acknowledge the mandate on individuals came from the Heritage Foundation[/QUOTE]

This is what I meant by talking points. Absolutely no defense of Obamacare, just attack anyone who questions it by:

1. Name calling - Tea Party types;

2. Improper motive - hatred of Obama; and

3. Irrelevant misdirection - Heritage Foundation.

 

[Greenbeard]

This is what I meant by talking points. Absolutely no defense of Obamacare, just attack anyone who questions it by:

Did you intend to participate in a discussion at some point?

If not, what's the point of the thread?

 

[Trajan]

No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary. It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.

Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance? If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?

If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?

Please be specific. Thank you.

The premise of your question isn't quite right--or at least it's a bit limited.

The ACA isn't just insurance for more people. It's new options for states to improve their Medicaid programs; it's Medicare reform; it's a new emphasis on measuring, rewarding, and improving health care quality; it's investment in public health infrastructure; it's workforce development so there are more health care professionals to meet the need; and so on.

Even within the insurance reform pieces, it's not just about more insurance for more people. It's about making markets that work, in which insurers have to compete on price and quality in a coherent, transparent marketplace. That was something that hasn't traditionally existed in the individual health insurance market. Do we really need to go into the rationale for why functioning markets are desirable?

It's new options for states to improve their Medicaid programs; it's Medicare reform; it's a new emphasis on measuring, rewarding, and improving health care quality;

block grant it then......(medicaid)....

 

[Katzndogz]

obamacare is supposed to fail spectacularly and painfully. Then people will accept universal single payer healthcare where medical care is doled out by political patronage. If the IRS deciding who gets exemp status pliases you then the IRS running health care will make you ecstatic.