Obamacare Rationale?

[HenryBHough]

I think an awful lot of people are mis-reading the headline as:

Obamacare Rathole.

 

[Sactowndog]

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?


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.

The issue here is the government was already involved via an unfunded mandate which generally is far worse than a funded one.

2nd the government has provided service where the market would otherwise not (Postal Service) and made markets where market forces didn't work (pollution credits). Both were done with Republican support before the Republicans became overrun with ideologues.

The fact is markets in much of healthcare don't work because markets require demand curves to bend cost curves and demand curves require diminishing utility. Unless the service is fully discretionary like plastic surgery, most people won't trade off health care for any amount of money. Especially if a child is involved.

The government has to step in and help frame a functioning market which is what the ACA tries to do. Can it be improved? Yes. Are Republicans willing to improve it? No. They are more interested in trying to destroy Obama's signature achievement than do what is right for the country.

 

[Sactowndog]

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

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.

[/QUOTE]

I am far from democratic talking points. I grew up Republican and as pointed out by others the ACA was largely a Republican idea. I am independent today.

The motivations behind peoples actions is highly relevant to the discussion.

 

[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

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.

I am far from democratic talking points. I grew up Republican and as pointed out by others the ACA was largely a Republican idea. I am independent today.

The motivations behind peoples actions is highly relevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE]

So the Republicans want to stop Obama from taking credit for their idea?

 

[Mertex]

obamacare is supposed to fail spectacularly and painfully.

You and other Tea Partiers, hope, but it ain't happening.

Then people will accept universal single payer healthcare where medical care is doled out by political patronage.

Lets just wait until everyone that is under Obamacare realizes that the GOP was lying, and it's really not what they painted it to be before you go making assumptions that something else is going to take its place.

If the IRS deciding who gets exemp status pliases you then the IRS running health care will make you ecstatic.

Unless it's the Democratic organizations that are being denied, then the IRS is acceptable and superb!

 

[Sactowndog]

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

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.

I am far from democratic talking points. I grew up Republican and as pointed out by others the ACA was largely a Republican idea. I am independent today.

The motivations behind peoples actions is highly relevant to the discussion.

So the Republicans want to stop Obama from taking credit for their idea?[/QUOTE]

Yes, It Is John Boehner's Fault - Businessweek

 

[jwoodie]

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.

I am far from democratic talking points. I grew up Republican and as pointed out by others the ACA was largely a Republican idea. I am independent today.

The motivations behind peoples actions is highly relevant to the discussion.

So the Republicans want to stop Obama from taking credit for their idea?

Yes, It Is John Boehner's Fault - Businessweek[/QUOTE]

Not only nonresponsive, but also chronologically inaccurate. Boehner wasn't Speaker in 2010; it was Speaker Pelosi who rejected every GOP amendment to the ACA. Furthermore, it was the Senate Democrats who forced an early vote to prevent newly elected Scott Brown (R-Mass) from voting against it.

Get your facts straight.

 

[oldfart]

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.

Everyone has to live with the reputation they develop as their board persona. I expected you to be the same persona as your previous posts. As I mentioned, you framed a number of issues in a non-neutral way, and I viewed that as intentional.

In the context of this discussion, I referred to "phrasing issues with loaded assumptions, the talking points of the Reactionary Right". There is a Reactionary Right, they definitely have talking points (an issue you raised in the OP as not wanting respondents to use), and you were using them. I did not call you a reactionary, therefore I did not engage in name-calling; I just observed your use of their talking points and the irony of it. In the same spirit I note that to you irony is apparently "juvenile".

This is the CDZ. Civility does not require us to park our brains outside or make sharp comments off limits.

You may notice that I also used the term "socialized medicine" which is a term with negative denotations in America as a description for publically provided medical care. Many on the Left would argue this point, but I find it a fair description of systems such as the VA and military health systems, and so I used it. I have an outlook on this subject, but I am not an ideologue. Nor do I consider you one.

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.

I have read and enjoyed many of your posts and indeed you are not a hack. I was harsher in my response because I thought your abilities were greater than those shown in the original post. The last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from presenting a robust position which opposes one of mine. I can be persuaded, and when warranted, I will change my mind.

I'm glad that except for the issue of tone, you found my response useful. I hope we have many discussions in the future.

Peace all, Jamie

 

[Sactowndog]

I am far from democratic talking points. I grew up Republican and as pointed out by others the ACA was largely a Republican idea. I am independent today.

The motivations behind peoples actions is highly relevant to the discussion.

So the Republicans want to stop Obama from taking credit for their idea?

Yes, It Is John Boehner's Fault - Businessweek

Not only nonresponsive, but also chronologically inaccurate. Boehner wasn't Speaker in 2010; it was Speaker Pelosi who rejected every GOP amendment to the ACA. Furthermore, it was the Senate Democrats who forced an early vote to prevent newly elected Scott Brown (R-Mass) from voting against it.

Get your facts straight.[/QUOTE]

Last a checked my name wasn't on the byline. Lets see who do I believe has their facts straight? A respected pro business magazine like BusinessWeek or an Internet poster. The Republicans have been opposed to Obama care not on the merits but because it was proposed by Obama.

That doesn't mean parts of it especially around cost containment needs to be addressed but the facts are Healthcare is a major problem, something must be done and Republicans have been completely disengaged.

 

[Listening]

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?

Add to that...

It's a way to get your policy cancelled.

And raise your rates.

 

[Listening]

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

That the Heritage Foundation put forth the idea does not make it republican.

If the GOP has wanted federal health care, they had everything they needed from 2000 to 2006 to put it in place...and I would hazard a guess that the dems would not have stood in their way.

This assertion is meaningless.

I don't care if Ronald Reagan started the idea.

 

[Listening]

obamacare is supposed to fail spectacularly and painfully.

You and other Tea Partiers, hope, but it ain't happening.

Then people will accept universal single payer healthcare where medical care is doled out by political patronage.

Lets just wait until everyone that is under Obamacare realizes that the GOP was lying, and it's really not what they painted it to be before you go making assumptions that something else is going to take its place.

If the IRS deciding who gets exemp status pliases you then the IRS running health care will make you ecstatic.

Unless it's the Democratic organizations that are being denied, then the IRS is acceptable and superb!

It's looking pretty bad so far.

Oh, and to the point the GOP was "lying"...were they the ones who said you keep your policy ?

My mistake.

 

[Katzndogz]

The rationale for obamacare was to equalize fairness. Just what obama said. It is all about the fairness.

It is unfair that some people have lucked out with good genes. Others are sickly. It is unfair that some people have made judgments as to their care and maintenance. Others haven't worked that hard. It is unfair that men and some women do not incur costs of pregnancy and childbirth. It is unfair that some families only have one or two children and others have five or more.

Just like success has to be punished by taking the money of the successful for the unsuccessful, the winners of the lifestyle lottery also have to pay for the benefit of losers. It's only fair.

 

[Listening]

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.

The only way you lower premiums is to lower costs.

The only way to lower costs is to take services away or get more efficient.

More efficient is not what the federal government does (outside of the military).

So you lose services.

And many people are seeing their premiums raised.

That, in the grand economy of the world (and a surprize to some) is the only way to pay for those who are coming into the system who need to be subsidized.

Everyone will need health care. Not everyone needs health insurance.

This country was built on choice. Which is why Obama hates it.

 

[Listening]

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?

Wasn't there something in there about lowering overall costs for a family by 2500 ?

Whooops.

Well, if you can't keep it anyway....you might as well pay more.

Oh, yeah...also it wasn't supposed to raise taxes or add to the deficit.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Listening]

Obamacare is better. Not being able to deny people by trumping up excuses such as pre-existing conditions is a big plus, not to mention "affordable" so that many who couldnt afford it now can. Also, being able to keep your college students on parent's policy is also a big plus. Anyone who claims that what we had was better is either on Medicare, or doesn't care about anyone but themselves (because they happen to have a good policy).

Better than what ?

Than what we had before.....

Such a statement is without support. What is your standard ?

1. Not everybody with a pre-existing condition was dumped by their insurance company.

2. Unless you can show how many people were "not dumped" who would have been before, you really have no claim on the value of Obamacare. And answering "one" does not do it. In the end, Obama claimed this thing was supposed to be a better value, which has, so far, not proven to be the case.

3. The practice was allowed by insurance regulators before. And those same regulators also put conditions in place that did not allow people who were dumped to go find something reasonable. Those regulators were "the government"...the same morons we just turned our health care system over to.

4. There were other ways to solve the problem. Or do you contend that Obamacare was the only way to take care of this. (For the record, the practice was awful...as was the practice of dumping someone who had a policy for say, ten years, and then became high risk...I've argued against it for decades).

5. Solving (supposedly) one problem and creating ten others does not mean the system nets out as better.

6. When you can provide a comprehensive standard for what is bad, good, better, and best, I'll be very interested to discuss it with you. For now, just saying it does not make it so (and right now most of America seems to be disagreeing with you).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../09/25/how-unpopular-or-popular-is-obamacare/

Companies being forced to carry kids longer is no gain. Somebody pays for that. You might keep your child on there longer, but you will pay for others being on there longer....well after your kids are off your policy. No gain there.

Of course somebody pays for that...that's the way most insurance works, and the fact that they were not able to do that before only benefitted the insurance companies. Safe drivers pay for reckless drivers, doesn't mean that your insurance isn't necessary just because you happen to be a safe driver.

1. To say it benefitted the insurance companies is incorrect. They were not collecting insurance premiums on those children.

2. Please don't tell me you think those children were just added, but not accounted for in the policy premiums employers (and hence customers) paid.

3. Children could stay on many policies up until 25 if they were in college before.

4. This is more an acknowledgement of the terrible job Obama has done with the economy (and the fact that young people can't get jobs) than anything else.

5. People in this age bracket are some of the lowest health risks there are. Insurance companies are not getting killed by this age bracket.

6. There is nothing to support your claim that this is a great deal.

7. In fact, there is plenty to support the idea that the additional premiums for those children are being spread around to others.

Your last statement is nothing but a judgement. Pray tell, just how do you know whoi or what others care for or don't ? I'd be really interested to know the secret of your insights.

I guess you've never heard of "action speaks louder than words"?
******************

And just what actions would you like to cite in defense of your claim. ?

And why would you not provide the in the first place ?

 

[jwoodie]

Was keeping 21-25 year olds on their parents' policies a device for postponing political sticker shock when this group is forced to buy Obamacare?

 

[Katzndogz]

Was keeping 21-25 year olds on their parents' policies a device for postponing political sticker shock when this group is forced to buy Obamacare?

Doubtful. Keeping young adults on parental policies was a way to make the parents pay for the policies at the increased rates because the young adults can't.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Excellent answers. I'm always so happy to see facts concerning ACA.

Did anyone mention that it also takes medical decisions away from big insurance and big pharm and gives it to the only two people who should have it - the doctor and the patient.

Our health care system" is not a system at all. Unless you've got the money to buy insurance, you're pretty much stuck with emergent care at a hospital, then being sent home with the instruction to see your own physician tomorrow. Reagan's socialist EMTLA is wasteful and very expensive.

The rest of the world is way ahead of us on this issue. The Princeton mess is the perfect example. The drug needed has been in use around the world for more than ten years but if a big pharma company can't profit, it will not be approved.

We need to demand the same caliber of care the rest of the civilized world takes for granted.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Was keeping 21-25 year olds on their parents' policies a device for postponing political sticker shock when this group is forced to buy Obamacare?

Doubtful. Keeping young adults on parental policies was a way to make the parents pay for the policies at the increased rates because the young adults can't.

Or the other way around. There are plenty of young people who are supporting their parents and who could use this break.

Either way, I cannot understand why anyone would be against families sticking together for the good of the family.

There are some who believe that employers should be allowed to screw over their help. Incredibly, there are some who believe big corporations (insurance, pharma) should be allowed to control medical care - among other things. Why wouldn't those same people be in favor of families helping themselves?

IOW, if "corporations are people too", why shouldn't people get the same breaks that corporations do?