Paul Krugman "hits the nail on the head" in re: Obamacare

[dblack]

Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[4] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture.(including regulatory capture).[5]

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which totally ignores the fact that the SEC, when "captured", made things "worse" by not doing anything.

Most of the reg agencies start off 'captured'. They're generally set up by the vested interests in a given industry to further entrench their dominance. Look at ACA for a primer.

 

[Sallow]

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which totally ignores the fact that the SEC, when "captured", made things "worse" by not doing anything.

Christ. On. Crutches.

That is exactly what it is saying. it didn't miss anything. You just have to belly up to the pretzel logic bar for another helping of The government did it's best Brandy.

Um..yah.

"My" pretzel logic..

Hoo boy.

 

[Sallow]

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which totally ignores the fact that the SEC, when "captured", made things "worse" by not doing anything.

Most of the reg agencies start off 'captured'. They're generally set up by the vested interests in a given industry to further entrench their dominance. Look at ACA for a primer.

Not really sure what you fellows are looking for..

There's value in having experts from our various industries involved in industries, crafting legislation. But there's got to be a partnership between all vested interests.

 

[Flopper]

I said "almost certainly mean..."
1) You are a board member working for a large corporation where you are under constant pressure to maintain/raise stock levels for investors...you can save the company $millions of dollars a year if you vote to pay the penalties instead of keeping employees insured. We all know who will win that one.
2) You are an owner of a mid size company that has been struggling like so many small-mid sized company. You can save $1000's a month by dropping company insurance. We all know what the owner will do.
It isn't hard to predict. And it is precisely why this administration put off the employer mandate until after next years election. Or was that just a convenient coincidence?

Employers began offering health insurance benefits to either satisfy union contracts or as a benefit to compete in labor market. Both reasons are valid today just as they have been in the past. For larger employers the penalty for not offering health insurance is $2,000/ full time employee. This and other considerations are the reason why over 98% of the employers offer health insurance will continue to do so.

Will Your Employer Drop Coverage Under Obamacare? | PBS NewsHour

"This and other considerations are the reason why over 98% of the employers offer health insurance will continue to do so."

Your link says that this is the case for two years. And also that "47 percent [said] they 'anticipated significant or transformative change.'" And your link includes this: "So what's Buchmueller's prediction? When it comes to large firms, very little will change, he said. For smaller firms, all bets are off. To find out why, the NewsHour spoke with Buchmueller late last week."

$2000 per employee vs. $15,745 (a googled figure)? ... You think that won't force reconsideration of whether to keep offering insurance?

$15,745 is the cost of the premium, not the cost to the employer. Today over half the cost of health insurance is now borne by the employee, not the employer. Further, the employer contribution is tax deductible and the $2,000 penalty which increases yearly is not.

I would expect most small firms to purchase group plans on the exchange or if most employees qualify for subsidies move them to the exchange. Small employers don't have the purchasing power like large companies so if most of the employees qualify for subsidies it becomes less costly for everyone to move the employees to the exchange and drop the group plan.

Read the Law | HHS.gov/healthcare

 

[Amelia]

Higher deductible insurance with yearly maximums at or near the deductible is certainly not pretend insurance. It does what insurance should do, pay medical expenses that would be financial disastrous for the family while providing free preventive care and placing the responsibility of paying for routine medicare on the policy holder.

All other things being equal, you're better off financially buying high deductible insurance. If you compare the premiums of a high deductible plan with a low deductible plan with the same benefits, you will probably find that you will save a good bit of money by buying the high deductible plan and saving the difference in premiums to apply toward your deductible.

BTW Don't you mean co-insurance, not copy?

Before when you had this high of deductible, you could get lower premiums. Now they have high premiums and high deductibles at the same time.

Treatments which were covered before now have prohibitive deductibles associated with them so people will opt not to get the healthcare they would have chosen before. What kind of quality of life will people have who can no longer afford pain management therapy thanks to the ACA?



The kicker is that when people choose not to get healthcare because it's so expensive, Obama will probably get credit for lowering healthcare spending in the nation. Another example of spinning a failure as a win. Happens a lot these days.

This was not the case at all.

At least not in New York. Insurance has been trending toward higher Premiums and Deductibles for quite some time. The issue started when HMOs went public in the 90s. Since then we've seen a degradation in services at a higher cost. And with worse outcomes.

President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.

New York isn't the same as the rest of the nation. I don't know the details so I'll surely say something wrong if I try to be too specific but from what I understand New York had a particularly unhealthy pool of insured people since they already required insurance companies to insure people with preexisiting conditions but of course didn't have a mandate that healthy people also be insured.



You could have benefited from being allowed to buy insurance across state lines.

Now thanks to O-care, people can't even buy insurance across county lines, so people in neighboring counties are seeing price disparities similar to those previously experienced between states.

 

[Amelia]

....

President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.

President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your ***** depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.

He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.

Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.

 

[Flopper]

One problem for you single-payer advocates: America is not socialist. Single-payer is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution and founding. Safety nets, yes, but not single-payer.

Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?

 

[Meister]

One problem for you single-payer advocates: America is not socialist. Single-payer is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution and founding. Safety nets, yes, but not single-payer.

Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?

Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges

Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.

 

[Flopper]

One problem for you single-payer advocates: America is not socialist. Single-payer is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution and founding. Safety nets, yes, but not single-payer.

Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?

Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges

Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.

If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?

I think the vast majority of people in this country would love to have the minimum age for Medicare changed from 65 to 0.

 

[Meister]

Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?

Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges

Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.

If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?

I think the vast majority of people in this country would love to have the minimum age for Medicare changed from 65 to 0.

Flopper, you asked and I answered.
The government taking over an entire industry being able to set premiums (taxes) and coverage without any competition should be very troubling to a person who gives it a thought.
But, you have every right to your own opinion.

 

[Sallow]

....

President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.

President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your ***** depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.

He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.

Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.

Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer.

And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.

Seriously..are we living in the same country?

 

[Meister]

....

President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.

President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your ***** depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.

He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.

Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.

Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer.

And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.

Seriously..are we living in the same country?

Obama didn't run on his Obamacare, it was about women's rights to do what they want with their vagina, remember? The media wouldn't touch on Obamacare during the cycle, it was more with Romney's dog on the roof of the car and just how rich Romney was.....that's what the media played up, remember?

 

[TooTall]

Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?

Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges

Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.

If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?

I think the vast majority of people in this country would love to have the minimum age for Medicare changed from 65 to 0.

Medicare costs $104 a month per person. For a family of four that is $416 a month. It pays 80% of a hospital stay. Go into the Hospital for three days, get a bill for $30,000 and you only have to pay $6,000 out of your pocket.

Prescription drugs are covered under Part D if you want to pay another $25 to $50 a month per person. That would be at least another $100 a month for a family of four. Not all drugs are covered and co-pays vary from $1 to a lot, depending on the drug. For example, a 90 day supply of Diovan, a blood pressure pill, costs $96.

Still interested?

 

[HenryBHough]

Depending upon one's age & state of residence, a Medicare supplement policy adds $100-$200 per person for month. So the individual total for Medicare A, B, D and a supplement runs it up to about $200-$350 pppm. About 4-grand per year each plus Part D co-pays which can mount up quickly. Then there's the whole "donut hole" cost if you need a lot of medication.

For many, anything beyond basic Medicare is unaffordable.

But less unaffordable than the $350,000 one time cost of a major heart surgery or cancer treatment series.

Still, if you can afford it, nice protection. And if you can't, well bankruptcy will save your home if you owned it outright. At least until it's seized for property taxes.

 

[Sallow]

President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your ***** depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.

He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.

Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.

Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer.

And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.

Seriously..are we living in the same country?

Obama didn't run on his Obamacare, it was about women's rights to do what they want with their vagina, remember? The media wouldn't touch on Obamacare during the cycle, it was more with Romney's dog on the roof of the car and just how rich Romney was.....that's what the media played up, remember?

Basically that's what you saw with your Conservo 200 Glasses.

The rest of the world was watching Romney speak at a podium that had s sign saying "Repeal ObamaCare". And in case you missed that one, there was a pretty famous Supreme Court case conservatives simply had to ram through before the election.

 

[Amelia]

Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer.

And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.

Seriously..are we living in the same country?

Obama didn't run on his Obamacare, it was about women's rights to do what they want with their vagina, remember? The media wouldn't touch on Obamacare during the cycle, it was more with Romney's dog on the roof of the car and just how rich Romney was.....that's what the media played up, remember?

Basically that's what you saw with your Conservo 200 Glasses.

The rest of the world was watching Romney speak at a podium that had s sign saying "Repeal ObamaCare". And in case you missed that one, there was a pretty famous Supreme Court case conservatives simply had to ram through before the election.

Obama's team had a different message for each demographic in each swing state. Obamacare wasn't the message. His campaign was a graduate course in negative campaigning. Pure manipulation. No substance. And the media facilitated it by not exposing the lies which were always on the record but which are now being discovered as if they were never knowable before.

 

[Dot Com]

....

President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.

President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your ***** depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.

He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.

Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.

Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer.

And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.

Seriously..are we living in the same country?

yep, it was one of the pillars of Mitt's campaign- elect him & he'll repeal Heritagecare AKA- Romneycare..... errr..... I mean O'care. Well, the people listened to both sides and voted accordingly.

 

[Sallow]

Obama didn't run on his Obamacare, it was about women's rights to do what they want with their vagina, remember? The media wouldn't touch on Obamacare during the cycle, it was more with Romney's dog on the roof of the car and just how rich Romney was.....that's what the media played up, remember?

Basically that's what you saw with your Conservo 200 Glasses.

The rest of the world was watching Romney speak at a podium that had s sign saying "Repeal ObamaCare". And in case you missed that one, there was a pretty famous Supreme Court case conservatives simply had to ram through before the election.

Obama's team had a different message for each demographic in each swing state. Obamacare wasn't the message. His campaign was a graduate course in negative campaigning. Pure manipulation. No substance. And the media facilitated it by not exposing the lies which were always on the record but which are now being discovered as if they were never knowable before.

Do you post this stuff with a straight face?

I know you have to be cracking up really.

Given that Romney was praising Obama at one point for using his Massachusetts health care model, then lambasting him in the Republican debates for getting it passed, then issuing a "Replace and Repeal" meme just before the General debates, then DURING the debates saying he would keep some of it, then AFTER the debates just going with the REPEAL meme..

Gosh..Obama had a different message for every demographic?

 

[Flopper]

Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges

Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.

If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?

I think the vast majority of people in this country would love to have the minimum age for Medicare changed from 65 to 0.

Flopper, you asked and I answered.
The government taking over an entire industry being able to set premiums (taxes) and coverage without any competition should be very troubling to a person who gives it a thought.
But, you have every right to your own opinion.

A previous post said single payer was at odds with the constitution and I was just wondering what would make single payer different from Medicare in regard to constitutionality.

Although it won't happen in my lifetime, I think single payer is inevitable. Most American believe that healthcare should be a right and not a privilege. I think Obamacare will make healthcare more available but will still leave many uninsured. My guess is we'll have a lot of healthcare legislation over the 10 or 15 years.

 

[itfitzme]

....

President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.

President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues. The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your ***** depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.

He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is. And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience. His inexperience allowed him an out. He didn't have a widely known record. People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing. The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and he was very good at keeping his jersey clean.

Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.

Is that data from exit polls?

Exit poll interviews with voters point to three big reasons for Obama’s victory:

•First, despite a slim majority of voters thinking the country is on the wrong track, 54 percent approve of the way Obama is doing his job, and the electorate was almost exactly split on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.

•Among the four voters in 10 who said they think economic conditions in the country are getting better, a huge majority, nearly nine out of ten, said they voted for Obama.

•Finally, a slight majority of voters voiced an unfavorable view of Romney personally, while a slight majority had a favorable view of Obama. On the attribute of whether the president or his GOP rival was “a candidate who cares about people like me” Obama had a massive lead over Romney.

Voters back Obama despite economic concerns, exit polls show - NBC Politics

You would have thought, after one four year term, the news media and voters would have finally seen some evidence of "for most people to see how dishonest he is."

When was it that the media finally stated reporting your "truth" of things?