This is actually happening sooner than I expected ...

[Arianrhod]

So, no insurance for anything at all in Randtopia. Who is John Galt?

???

Did you or did you not say "I don't think any of this is right or righteous"? I'm assuming the "it" in that sentence stands for "insurance."

You can assume that, but you know better. It's government dictating that we buy insurance from their corporate sponsors that isn't right.

Your response "I don't think any of this is right, or righteous" was in reference to my question about auto and life insurance. No mention of government until your second sentence.

So I'll ask you again: Do you or do you not approve of auto and life insurance?

Auto and life insurance are fine. Forcing people to buy shit they don't want isn't.

Okay, that's a little clearer. So drivers don't have to have auto insurance where you live? Interesting.

 

[dblack]

???

Did you or did you not say "I don't think any of this is right or righteous"? I'm assuming the "it" in that sentence stands for "insurance."

You can assume that, but you know better. It's government dictating that we buy insurance from their corporate sponsors that isn't right.

Your response "I don't think any of this is right, or righteous" was in reference to my question about auto and life insurance. No mention of government until your second sentence.

So I'll ask you again: Do you or do you not approve of auto and life insurance?

Auto and life insurance are fine. Forcing people to buy shit they don't want isn't.

Okay, that's a little clearer. So drivers don't have to have auto insurance where you live? Interesting.

Only New Hampshire protects that freedom. It's been infringed in the other 49 states.

 

[longknife]

Anyone beside me notice this will happen AFTER the election?

 

[Arianrhod]

I wonder if anyone will address the actual content of the article in the OP?

 

[dblack]

I wonder if anyone will address the actual content of the article in the OP?

Give it a shot!

 

[Arianrhod]

I wonder if anyone will address the actual content of the article in the OP?

Give it a shot!

I guess my question would be: Do you want the U.S. to be more like Switzerland?

 

[dblack]

I wonder if anyone will address the actual content of the article in the OP?

Give it a shot!

I guess my question would be: Do you want the U.S. to be more like Switzerland?

Do you have a serious question? That one is hopelessly vague. I'm sure there are some ways I'd like the US to be more like Switzerland. Certainly the tradition of neutrality would be good. The rest varies.

 

[Andylusion]

I wonder if anyone will address the actual content of the article in the OP?

Give it a shot!

I guess my question would be: Do you want the U.S. to be more like Switzerland?

Well it's hard to say, because it is very difficult to find comparative figures between the US and Switzerland.

While most countries, you can find out whatever numbers you need, Switzerland isn't as open.

That said, if you are woman who gets breast cancer, do you want a 76% chance of surviving, or a 84% chance? I'm guessing most patients would want a better than 3 in 4 chance of surviving it. I would.

So the answer is, no. I would not want to be like Switzerland.

 

[Arianrhod]

I wonder if anyone will address the actual content of the article in the OP?

Give it a shot!

I guess my question would be: Do you want the U.S. to be more like Switzerland?

Well it's hard to say, because it is very difficult to find comparative figures between the US and Switzerland.

View attachment 90706

While most countries, you can find out whatever numbers you need, Switzerland isn't as open.

That said, if you are woman who gets breast cancer, do you want a 76% chance of surviving, or a 84% chance? I'm guessing most patients would want a better than 3 in 4 chance of surviving it. I would.

So the answer is, no. I would not want to be like Switzerland.

Very informative post, thank you. Of course, statistics only tell part of the story. One would need to drill down into why the survival rates vary, and breast cancer in particular is a complex cancer (or, some would argue, cancers, plural).

Do women in Switzerland get regular mammograms? Do they see their doctors immediately if they find a lump? Are more of them smokers than Americans? Factors such as family history, ethnicity, obesity, breast-feeding, age at first pregnancy if any, HER2 status, treatment plan (radiation/chemo, chemo alone, gene cancer?) would need to be examined, and that's not our job here.

 

[dblack]

The question posed by the article is whether we should raise the mandate penalties. To sell the program to voters, the Democrats in Congress soft pedaled the mandate by making the fines trivial and suggesting that we didn't *really* have to pay the fines anyway. The "wink and a nudge" of creating a law that can't be enforced bamboozled enough people to get the law passed. Of course, as the dust settles, and most people are following the law, they're going to start wondering why the scofflaws are getting a 'free ride'. Especially if they're paying higher premiums for less insurance. There will be no problem getting votes to crank up the fines and impose criminal penalties for those who refuse to pay. You'd be a fool to bet against it.

 

[Iceweasel]

According to the Tax Policy Center’s ACA Tax Calculator, someone earning $100,000 this year would pay about $2,400 in penalties for being uninsured. Compare that to the average premium of a Bronze-level plan at just shy of $2,700.

So the difference is: Pay $2,700 for insurance or $2,400 for nothing. Tough call.

Your 100K a year consumer might give that some thought as he lines up in front of the Apple store to get the new iPhone.

Why? If he gets sick he can't be denied for a pre-existing condition. Might as well wait and enjoy your money.

 

[Arianrhod]

According to the Tax Policy Center’s ACA Tax Calculator, someone earning $100,000 this year would pay about $2,400 in penalties for being uninsured. Compare that to the average premium of a Bronze-level plan at just shy of $2,700.

So the difference is: Pay $2,700 for insurance or $2,400 for nothing. Tough call.

Your 100K a year consumer might give that some thought as he lines up in front of the Apple store to get the new iPhone.

Why? If he gets sick he can't be denied for a pre-existing condition. Might as well wait and enjoy your money.

Are you under the impression that you can just fill out an insurance form in the ER and it's instantly applicable?

This isn't flight insurance.

 

[Iceweasel]

According to the Tax Policy Center’s ACA Tax Calculator, someone earning $100,000 this year would pay about $2,400 in penalties for being uninsured. Compare that to the average premium of a Bronze-level plan at just shy of $2,700.

So the difference is: Pay $2,700 for insurance or $2,400 for nothing. Tough call.

Your 100K a year consumer might give that some thought as he lines up in front of the Apple store to get the new iPhone.

Why? If he gets sick he can't be denied for a pre-existing condition. Might as well wait and enjoy your money.

Are you under the impression that you can just fill out an insurance form in the ER and it's instantly applicable?

This isn't flight insurance.

Are you under the impression that ER won't care for you and wait until you wake and can answer questions about your government mandated plan?

wtf right back attcha, junior.

 

[Arianrhod]

According to the Tax Policy Center’s ACA Tax Calculator, someone earning $100,000 this year would pay about $2,400 in penalties for being uninsured. Compare that to the average premium of a Bronze-level plan at just shy of $2,700.

So the difference is: Pay $2,700 for insurance or $2,400 for nothing. Tough call.

Your 100K a year consumer might give that some thought as he lines up in front of the Apple store to get the new iPhone.

Why? If he gets sick he can't be denied for a pre-existing condition. Might as well wait and enjoy your money.

Are you under the impression that you can just fill out an insurance form in the ER and it's instantly applicable?

This isn't flight insurance.

Are you under the impression that ER won't care for you and wait until you wake and can answer questions?

Not at all.

Now, why don't you tell us how you believe health insurance works. If you can.

 

[Iceweasel]

According to the Tax Policy Center’s ACA Tax Calculator, someone earning $100,000 this year would pay about $2,400 in penalties for being uninsured. Compare that to the average premium of a Bronze-level plan at just shy of $2,700.

So the difference is: Pay $2,700 for insurance or $2,400 for nothing. Tough call.

Your 100K a year consumer might give that some thought as he lines up in front of the Apple store to get the new iPhone.

Why? If he gets sick he can't be denied for a pre-existing condition. Might as well wait and enjoy your money.

Are you under the impression that you can just fill out an insurance form in the ER and it's instantly applicable?

This isn't flight insurance.

Are you under the impression that ER won't care for you and wait until you wake and can answer questions?

Not at all.

Now, why don't you tell us how you believe health insurance works. If you can.

I just explained how it works now.

 

[Arianrhod]

So the difference is: Pay $2,700 for insurance or $2,400 for nothing. Tough call.

Your 100K a year consumer might give that some thought as he lines up in front of the Apple store to get the new iPhone.

Why? If he gets sick he can't be denied for a pre-existing condition. Might as well wait and enjoy your money.

Are you under the impression that you can just fill out an insurance form in the ER and it's instantly applicable?

This isn't flight insurance.

Are you under the impression that ER won't care for you and wait until you wake and can answer questions?

Not at all.

Now, why don't you tell us how you believe health insurance works. If you can.

I just explained how it works now.

No, you didn't. You just made something up. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why? If he gets sick he can't be denied for a pre-existing condition. Might as well wait and enjoy your money.

Are you under the impression that you can just fill out an insurance form in the ER and it's instantly applicable?

This isn't flight insurance.

Are you under the impression that ER won't care for you and wait until you wake and can answer questions?

Not at all.

Now, why don't you tell us how you believe health insurance works. If you can.

I just explained how it works now.

No, you didn't. You just made something up. Enjoy yourself.

I didn't make it up. obama did.

 

[Arianrhod]

Are you under the impression that you can just fill out an insurance form in the ER and it's instantly applicable?

This isn't flight insurance.

Are you under the impression that ER won't care for you and wait until you wake and can answer questions?

Not at all.

Now, why don't you tell us how you believe health insurance works. If you can.

I just explained how it works now.

No, you didn't. You just made something up. Enjoy yourself.

I didn't make it up. obama did.

No.

 

[Andylusion]

I wonder if anyone will address the actual content of the article in the OP?

Give it a shot!

I guess my question would be: Do you want the U.S. to be more like Switzerland?

Well it's hard to say, because it is very difficult to find comparative figures between the US and Switzerland.

View attachment 90706

While most countries, you can find out whatever numbers you need, Switzerland isn't as open.

That said, if you are woman who gets breast cancer, do you want a 76% chance of surviving, or a 84% chance? I'm guessing most patients would want a better than 3 in 4 chance of surviving it. I would.

So the answer is, no. I would not want to be like Switzerland.

Very informative post, thank you. Of course, statistics only tell part of the story. One would need to drill down into why the survival rates vary, and breast cancer in particular is a complex cancer (or, some would argue, cancers, plural).

Do women in Switzerland get regular mammograms? Do they see their doctors immediately if they find a lump? Are more of them smokers than Americans? Factors such as family history, ethnicity, obesity, breast-feeding, age at first pregnancy if any, HER2 status, treatment plan (radiation/chemo, chemo alone, gene cancer?) would need to be examined, and that's not our job here.

You are confusing incidence rates, and survival rates.

The two are not connected.

If you want to talk about incidence rates (the chances any individual will get cancer), then factors like genetics, family history, ethnicity, smoking, age at pregnancy, and so on.... all of those play a part in incidence rates.

My guess would be that incidence rates are higher in the US, especially with high broken families, shacking up, high risk lifestyles, pot smoking, illicit drugs and so on.

However, survival rates are not related to such things. There is no evidence that cancer treatments are less effective, or more effective, if you don't smoke. The chance of you getting the cancer to begin with is higher with smoking, but your chance of surviving it is more based on the treatment.

The US routinely has the absolute best health care quality, in the world.

As far as screenings and mammograms, that I don't know. What I do know is that the US ranks very high on screenings and other preventative care, like mammograms, when compared to the world. I know that in Canada, less than a fraction of women have mammograms.

And the reason here is actually really obvious, when one does the math. Preventive care, contrary to the claims by the left-wing, isn't a net-money saver.

When people say "if we have government health care, we'll have free preventative care, and that will lower the cost of health care".... actually no it won't.

The cost to provide mammograms to all women, on a routine basis, drastically out paces the cost of simply treating the cancer when found.

Moreover, research found that out of 1.2 Million women who had mammograms, 160,000 had false positives. Worse, some found that women who had false positives ended up getting highly invasive breast cancer after this. They are trying to determine if the screenings and testing or treatment women underwent, when they didn't have cancer, may have in fact caused the cancer.

False-Positive Mammogram Results May Be Linked to Higher Risk Later in Life

But the main point is that the cost of preventive care is prohibitive, and often doesn't come close to covering the cost saved by just treating people. Thus in most government run health care systems, preventative care, isn't nearly as prevelent has here. To a individual, or perhaps even an insurance company, the cost of a mammogram is reasonable enough to be better than treating cancer.

But to a government, with millions on millions of people, the cost exceeds simply treating.

By the way, this is why it didn't surprise me in the slightest that directly after Obamacare was passed, the government issued a change in mammograms, suggesting women didn't need them as often, or until they were older.

 

[Andylusion]

According to the Tax Policy Center’s ACA Tax Calculator, someone earning $100,000 this year would pay about $2,400 in penalties for being uninsured. Compare that to the average premium of a Bronze-level plan at just shy of $2,700.

So the difference is: Pay $2,700 for insurance or $2,400 for nothing. Tough call.

Your 100K a year consumer might give that some thought as he lines up in front of the Apple store to get the new iPhone.

Why? If he gets sick he can't be denied for a pre-existing condition. Might as well wait and enjoy your money.

Are you under the impression that you can just fill out an insurance form in the ER and it's instantly applicable?

This isn't flight insurance.

Are you under the impression that ER won't care for you and wait until you wake and can answer questions about your government mandated plan?

wtf right back attcha, junior.

I'm not sure what the point is, of either of your comments.

The point is that the average person, has less of a reason to apply for insurance than ever before. Which is true.

Emergency Room service is required by law. It does not matter if you apply for insurance at the time, or not.

And this was true before Obamacare, just like it is now.

Therefore, the question of paying for insurance, or paying the penalty, is completely irrelevant to Emergency Room service. Because no matter what else is going on... the hospital, must by law, treat you if you come into the ER.

Now, once you are stabilized, which by law they must do.... you can sign up for health care.

For example.... let us say you have a heart attack.

In the short term, you are going to ride an ambulance, to the ER, where you will be treated for a heart attack.

You are going to be treated whether you have insurance or not, whether Obama Care exists or not. None of what you are talking about matters to this fact. So the short term is taken care of... period. No matter what other choices you make.

Now in the long term, if you need by-pass surgery, or medication, or anything else, after you are stabilized you can apply for health care, and the insurance companies have no choice but to accept you. Thus your surgery, or medications, are now covered by insurance.

So, the question isn't "will you wake up and be treated in the ER"... because you are going to be treated in the ER, no matter what.

The question is, do you pay for insurance when you are not sick?

Since the penalty for not having insurance is a fraction of the cost of insurance, chances are, you would save money by not having insurance, and simply waiting until you become ill, to get insurance.

I myself, will likely take this option in the near future. From what I've read, the company I have insurance with, is leaving the market, and my policy will be canceled. When that happens, my insurance premiums will likely double. Since I can not afford this, I will simply go without insurance. If I get sick, then I'll apply for insurance, and be treated at their cost. Which of course will increase the price of insurance on all of you... but I didn't vote for Obama, and I certainly opposed ObamaCare, so this is your fault, not mine.