The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

I can tell you this...

 

Since the reform, health insurance companies are making more money than ever before.

 

I know

 

Thanks a lot, arch-Socialist Obama. Your grand plan to destroy the health insurance industry by drowning them in profits is working!

[southsider2k5]

I can tell you this...

 

Since the reform, health insurance companies are making more money than ever before.

 

All it did for them was guarantee more paying customers. It never addressed any of the real problems.

[southsider2k5]

More foolishness right there...and a massive wad of assumptions that they can't save money elsewhere.

 

Stop leaning on a single tax deduction when they will find 50 others to replace it. Oh, and stop pretending corporations are trying to "screw the government", because that's completely dumb, they'd do it to SAVE f***ING MONEY, not to screw the government.

 

Bottom line.

[StrangeSox]

All it did for them was guarantee more paying customers. It never addressed any of the real problems.

And yet somehow it's a form of socialism/communism that'll destroy the private insurance industry.

 

It's almost as if Republican rhetoric RE: Obama and the ACA is a bunch of incoherent nonsense!

[StrangeSox]

More foolishness right there...and a massive wad of assumptions that they can't save money elsewhere.

 

Stop leaning on a single tax deduction when they will find 50 others to replace it. Oh, and stop pretending corporations are trying to "screw the government", because that's completely dumb, they'd do it to SAVE f***ING MONEY, not to screw the government.

 

 

Bottom line.

 

Balta's argument is that they'll continue to make "business decisions" and this won't dump insurance coverage en masse. He's mocking the idea that they will in some sort of Randian "going Galt/Atlas Shrugging" action to protest the law.

[southsider2k5]

And yet somehow it's a form of socialism/communism that'll destroy the private insurance industry.

 

It's almost as if Republican rhetoric RE: Obama and the ACA is a bunch of incoherent nonsense!

 

The insurance industry isn't what I am afraid of destroying. It will close a chunk of facilities, and overburden the system is the biggest problem I had with it.

[Y2HH]

Balta's argument is that they'll continue to make "business decisions" and this won't dump insurance coverage en masse. He's mocking the idea that they will in some sort of Randian "going Galt/Atlas Shrugging" action to protest the law.

 

Look, everyone here has some very valid points...including Balta (and you ). You're right when you say they won't dump insurance coverage en masse...that's just an intelligent thing to say...here we agree.

 

But over time, some WILL. And if those that do it somehow figure out a way to continue being a viable choice for employment and actually saving money in the process, others may steal that idea and implement it...it's called dominos falling. There could be any number of flaws, or ways to move money or get deductions elsewhere that could supersede the loss of the insurance deduction...if/when they find it, believe me, some WILL use/abuse it.

 

The point is, and the point I tried to make from the start of this...is that regardless of study after study, or through the use of macroeconomic templates, if companies find a way to save money by dumping insurance...they will.

 

That's my only point.

[StrangeSox]

The insurance industry isn't what I am afraid of destroying. It will close a chunk of facilities, and overburden the system is the biggest problem I had with it.

 

Well, I guess this means that the current system rations care too, right?

 

edit: I know kap's gone on about how it's just a plan to destroy private insurance to end up with UHC, and it's a pretty common Republican claim. But I apologize for wrongly attributing that view to you.

Edited June 24, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

The point is, and the point I tried to make from the start of this...is that regardless of study after study, or through the use of macroeconomic templates, if companies find a way to save money by dumping insurance...they will.

 

That's my only point.

 

1) That applies today. Starting to fine employers for dropping coverage won't exactly incentivize dropping coverage.

2) We can compare these predictive studies to past studies of similar situations. But you are correct to caution that the map is not the territory i.e. our models and abstractions of reality are not reality itself. It was never claimed that this study was definitively prophetic. In fact, the link I provided clearly stated caution on any of these studies. It was simply another study, one actually meant to be predictive, that fell in line with many other analytic studies done already and provides a clear contrast to the McKinsey study that's getting way too much hype and is now likely cemented as truth among many Republicans.

[Y2HH]

Well, I guess this means that the current system rations care too, right?

 

edit: I know kap's gone on about how it's just a plan to destroy private insurance to end up with UHC, and it's a pretty common Republican claim. But I apologize for wrongly attributing that view to you.

 

Of course it rations care.

 

If a single doctor has 500 patients in front of you, there isn't much he can do. However, under the current system, you could always go elsewhere and not wait. Under a united system, you cannot...unless of course you do what many of the rich people in these awesome socialist systems do and buy private insurance or pay in cash so they don't have to wait.

[StrangeSox]

Of course it rations care.

 

If a single doctor has 500 patients in front of you, there isn't much he can do. However, under the current system, you could always go elsewhere and not wait.

 

Unless you don't have insurance, like 30M Americans. Which is the counter-point to Republican rationing claims: we already do, it's based on wealth and it leaves millions without health care at all.

 

Under a united system, you cannot...unless of course you do what many of the rich people in these awesome socialist systems do and buy private insurance or pay in cash so they don't have to wait.

 

I don't have a problem with supplemental private insurance under a UHC system. But those awesome socialist systems get more people coverage for less cost and don't leave significant portions of their population SOL in a "f*** you, I got mine" system.

 

[bmags]

If companies dump off insurance, the exchanges will get stronger and more affordable.

[Y2HH]

Unless you don't have insurance, like 30M Americans. Which is the counter-point to Republican rationing claims: we already do, it's based on wealth and it leaves millions without health care at all.

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with supplemental private insurance under a UHC system. But those awesome socialist systems get more people coverage for less cost and don't leave significant portions of their population SOL in a "f*** you, I got mine" system.

 

In the end, nobody is left without insurance, even in our current system.

 

Those 30M americans are still covered, one way or another.

[StrangeSox]

In the end, nobody is left without insurance, even in our current system.

 

Those 30M americans are still covered, one way or another.

 

Emergency care isn't health care

 

Emergency care is important, but it’s not the same thing as health care. We know that people with depression require treatment, but in an emergency room we can’t do anything about it until they are ready to commit suicide. We may know that you would benefit from a hip replacement, but until it fractures, there’s not much that will be done in an emergency department. We may know you have arthritis, or ulcerative colitis, or migraines, or lupus, or hypothyroidism, or any of a host of other disorders, but until they are life threatening – there’s not much we can do for you.

 

Granted, we’re sure you can find some anecdotal exceptions to this. Perhaps you personally know someone who has had meds refilled at the emergency room. Or, perhaps, you know someone who has gone to the emergency room for some primary care complaint. The important thing to remember that these are anecdotes, and the plural of anecdote is not data. Emergency rooms are not equipped to provide, nor are they delivering on a population level, anything more than emergency care.

Edited June 24, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

If companies dump off insurance, the exchanges will get stronger and more affordable.

 

In theory, yes. But if suddenly truckloads of doctors say they're not accepting such insurance, it undermines the system as it's designed. It's exactly what they're doing with a lot of HMO's and Medicare...simply not accepting new patients that have it.

[Y2HH]

Emergency care isn't health care

 

I didn't say it was. I simply said they're covered one way or another.

[Y2HH]

In the end, the "reform" that was passed, was -- at best -- a s***ty bandaid that's already falling off. If you're happy with it, all the power to you. But they had a historic opportunity and failed us...again.

 

Granted, that's just my opinion.

[StrangeSox]

I didn't say it was. I simply said they're covered one way or another.

 

You'll need to explain how non-emergency care is covered "one way or another"

[StrangeSox]

In the end, the "reform" that was passed, was -- at best -- a s***ty bandaid that's already falling off. If you're happy with it, all the power to you. But they had a historic opportunity and failed us...again.

 

Granted, that's just my opinion.

 

I know

[Y2HH]

You'll need to explain how non-emergency care is covered "one way or another"

 

By simply going to the ER and calling the non emergency care emergency care...such as they do.

 

It's a bass-ackwards method of coverage, but it's how the system currently works. I'm not claiming I like it...it's why ER's are always full and have enormous wait times when they should be empty and reserved for actual emergencies.

 

But that's what it is right now...even if it makes no sense.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Want to know a pet-peeve of mine? When people continue calling this Obamacare...when it's absolutely nothing like what he pitched or intended. It's a X number of pages law that's filled with compromise after compromise.

 

In the end, it's -- at best -- "Compromisecare", because calling it Obamacare is asinine.

 

I don't think Obama is the greatest President of all time by any means (then again, who was?), but blaming him for things he didn't intend, etc...is dishonest at best.

[NorthSideSox72]

In the end, the "reform" that was passed, was -- at best -- a s***ty bandaid that's already falling off. If you're happy with it, all the power to you. But they had a historic opportunity and failed us...again.

 

Granted, that's just my opinion.

I actually agree with you in general, the legislation was a disappointment.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Want to know a pet-peeve of mine? When people continue calling this Obamacare...when it's absolutely nothing like what he pitched or intended. It's a X number of pages law that's filled with compromise after compromise.

 

In the end, it's -- at best -- "Compromisecare", because calling it Obamacare is asinine.

 

I don't think Obama is the greatest President of all time by any means (then again, who was?), but blaming him for things he didn't intend, etc...is dishonest at best.

Also agree with this, I've said it a few times. This was not what he had planned.

 

[southsider2k5]

Want to know a pet-peeve of mine? When people continue calling this Obamacare...when it's absolutely nothing like what he pitched or intended. It's a X number of pages law that's filled with compromise after compromise.

 

In the end, it's -- at best -- "Compromisecare", because calling it Obamacare is asinine.

 

I don't think Obama is the greatest President of all time by any means (then again, who was?), but blaming him for things he didn't intend, etc...is dishonest at best.

 

Politics 101. Its whey everything in the previous 8 years had a Bush attached to it.

[bmags]

In theory, yes. But if suddenly truckloads of doctors say they're not accepting such insurance, it undermines the system as it's designed. It's exactly what they're doing with a lot of HMO's and Medicare...simply not accepting new patients that have it.

 

Then they will have no patients. Simple as that. You think all the doctors in the country will be able to exclude a group that includes the most likely to need insurance? Those doctors are very few in the grand scheme of things.

 

I'm sure every doctor would like to not get medicare rates, but the group is too large to ignore.