The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

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

 

I still can't believe he caused Hurricane Katrina.

[Y2HH]

It's what has me disenfranchised about our political system...and it's not just the politicians, but the people...because the people put them there.

 

95% of democrats I know have NO opinions that do not side with the democratic agenda.

95% of republicans... ^^^ see the above.

 

The surprising thing is people cannot see the problem with this.

 

I have quite a diverse group of friends, most of which do not get along politically.

 

My republican friends cannot understand how I can defend Obama at times, and my democratic friends cannot understand why I sometimes disagree with the things he's doing...

 

That phenomenon, at least IMO, makes NO sense and wasn't the intention of our system.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

That only works for a small subset of health issues. You can't treat chronic diseases or practice preventative medicine in the ER.

[Y2HH]

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.

 

They'd accept the minimum amount to fill out their missing roster slots...and for every private insurance contract they get, they'd dump another HMO/Medicare patient -- this is exactly the practice many employ now.

 

 

That only works for a small subset of health issues. You can't treat chronic diseases or practice preventative medicine in the ER.

 

It's not that you can't, but you shouldn't...however, we do anyway. And preventative medicine is mostly bulls*** in regard to needing to see a doctor to prevent...as it's more of a lifestyle choice. Going to a doctor isn't preventative in most cases...but eating right, exercising, and not doing things to the extreme is preventative. Sadly, these are lifestyle choices many people will not make, despite KNOWING the negatives of not doing so.

 

I went back and elaborated on my claim of preventative being BS, as it wasn't clear what I meant.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

It's what has me disenfranchised about our political system...and it's not just the politicians, but the people...because the people put them there.

 

95% of democrats I know have NO opinions that do not side with the democratic agenda.

95% of republicans... ^^^ see the above.

 

The surprising thing is people cannot see the problem with this.

 

I have quite a diverse group of friends, most of which do not get along politically.

 

My republican friends cannot understand how I can defend Obama at times, and my democratic friends cannot understand why I sometimes disagree with the things he's doing...

 

That phenomenon, at least IMO, makes NO sense and wasn't the intention of our system.

 

People argue just to win

 

Also just another form of tribalism etc.

[southsider2k5]

People argue just to win

 

Also just another form of tribalism etc.

 

That article is BS.

[Balta1701]

That only works for a small subset of health issues. You can't treat chronic diseases or practice preventative medicine in the ER.

The ER is also massively expensive for minor health issues.

[Balta1701]

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.

There's one more thing that hasn't been brought up here just yet.

 

If a significant number of companies wind up dumping insurance and shunting people into the exchanges, presumably this means that the exchanges have become cheaper than privately purchased insurance to the point that it is worth paying the fines and taking away the tax credit.

 

This would, if it happened, be the most successful health care cost control effort in history. You'd take a market that on average refuses to insure 45% of the population and costs vastly more than large group purchases and suddenly have it insuring almost everyone and being cheaper than large group purchases. That would be an incredible cost control victory. That would be an incredible human victory. That would be a huge economic boon to just about everyone.

 

Which, of course, is why it won't happen.

[StrangeSox]

BTW, the shift away from employer-sponsored insurance has been happening for a while. The absurdity is the claim that Obamacare is going to accelerate it.

 

[Y2HH]

BTW, the shift away from employer-sponsored insurance has been happening for a while. The absurdity is the claim that Obamacare is going to accelerate it.

 

Didn't I just go over how much I hate when people call it that?

Edited June 24, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Didn't I just go over how much I hate when people call it that?

 

I know

[Y2HH]

There's one more thing that hasn't been brought up here just yet.

 

If a significant number of companies wind up dumping insurance and shunting people into the exchanges, presumably this means that the exchanges have become cheaper than privately purchased insurance to the point that it is worth paying the fines and taking away the tax credit.

 

This would, if it happened, be the most successful health care cost control effort in history. You'd take a market that on average refuses to insure 45% of the population and costs vastly more than large group purchases and suddenly have it insuring almost everyone and being cheaper than large group purchases. That would be an incredible cost control victory. That would be an incredible human victory. That would be a huge economic boon to just about everyone.

 

Which, of course, is why it won't happen.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean it would get cheaper, it could just be cheaper for the companies to accept the fines and let the subsidies and the people burden the load of expense...

 

I see what you are trying to say here, but there is no guarantee the opposite doesn't happen. Just because companies dump people onto the exchanges it doesn't mean it's because its cheaper than private insurance at all...it could just mean that they'd rather you and I foot the bill than them.

[bmags]

It doesn't necessarily mean it would get cheaper, it could just be cheaper for the companies to accept the fines and let the subsidies and the people burden the load of expense...

 

I see what you are trying to say here, but there is no guarantee the opposite doesn't happen. Just because companies dump people onto the exchanges it doesn't mean it's because its cheaper than private insurance at all...it could just mean that they'd rather you and I foot the bill than them.

 

but that insurance is already subsidized by being tax free. And adding more people onto exchange would make it cheaper, you'd have more buying power the more people are on it.

[Y2HH]

but that insurance is already subsidized by being tax free. And adding more people onto exchange would make it cheaper, you'd have more buying power the more people are on it.

 

Adding more people to the exchange *should* make it cheaper...doesn't mean it will. Also, what is the delay in seeing price drops on exchanges to seeing price increases? Are we assuming this won't follow the big oil model where oil prices rise and gas prices immediately leap, where as when oil prices fall, it takes months for gas prices to fall?

[southsider2k5]

but that insurance is already subsidized by being tax free. And adding more people onto exchange would make it cheaper, you'd have more buying power the more people are on it.

 

Unless the people you are adding are the most expensive...

[Balta1701]

It doesn't necessarily mean it would get cheaper, it could just be cheaper for the companies to accept the fines and let the subsidies and the people burden the load of expense...

The only case this is true is if companies become highly willing to let their workers walk to places where they're not required to take large nominal paycuts.

 

Even with 9% unemployment, we haven't seen much of that. Otherwise, we'd be seeing genuine deflation (which we avoided thorugh the stimulus and QE1).

[Balta1701]

Unless the people you are adding are the most expensive...

In which case we're better off letting them die.

 

(Edit: yes, I know, that's unfair. It just is amazing how many posts of yours lead directly to the conclusion that the U.S. is better off if 15% of its population are too broke to receive health care).

[Y2HH]

In which case we're better off letting them die.

 

(Edit: yes, I know, that's unfair. It just is amazing how many posts of yours lead directly to the conclusion that the U.S. is better off if 15% of its population are too broke to receive health care).

 

Wow, that was a quantum leap of conclusion jumping.

 

Just because he said if we added high risk people the prices may rise doesn't mean he wants them to die...

 

You should invent the jump to conclusions mat.

[StrangeSox]

Unless the people you are adding are the most expensive...

You're adding people from the workforce in general, not the elderly.

[Balta1701]

You're adding people from the workforce in general, not the elderly.

It's not the elderly he's concerned about...it's the people who aren't elderly (and thus aren't currently covered by Medicare) but which no insurance company wants any part of...the people who are actually sick and need treatment for things.

 

The elderly are covered by Medicare so there's no "Swamping the systems" or big cost increases associated with starting to insure them because they're already in the system and insured.

 

That's why I went hard on him there. If you're worried about swamping the system because treating sick people takes resources, or making things more expensive because it will cost money to treat sick people, then anything that is done which would provide that group health care is a bad thing.

[StrangeSox]

It's not the elderly he's concerned about...it's the people who aren't elderly (and thus aren't currently covered by Medicare) but which no insurance company wants any part of...the people who are actually sick and need treatment for things.

 

The elderly are covered by Medicare so there's no "Swamping the systems" or big cost increases associated with starting to insure them because they're already in the system and insured.

 

That's why I went hard on him there. If you're worried about swamping the system because treating sick people takes resources, or making things more expensive because it will cost money to treat sick people, then anything that is done which would provide that group health care is a bad thing.

bmags was talking about employers dumping already-insured employees into the exchanges. There's no reason to believe the general ESI group is more expensive than any other group. If anything, it's probably the cheapest.

[Balta1701]

bmags was talking about employers dumping already-insured employees into the exchanges. There's no reason to believe the general ESI group is more expensive than any other group. If anything, it's probably the cheapest.

Which is why 2k5 always focuses on the fact that the PPACA would provide health care access to "The most expensive group". The most expensive group is people with pre-existing conditions. One large subset of that group, people whose preexisting condition is "being old" is covered by Medicare. The remaining people with preexisting conditions are too expensive/too time consuming/too much trouble to deal with.

[lostfan]

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

You pretty much summarized why so much of the left hates, or at least holds their nose about the ACA

[lostfan]

It's what has me disenfranchised about our political system...and it's not just the politicians, but the people...because the people put them there.

 

95% of democrats I know have NO opinions that do not side with the democratic agenda.

95% of republicans... ^^^ see the above.

 

The surprising thing is people cannot see the problem with this.

 

I have quite a diverse group of friends, most of which do not get along politically.

 

My republican friends cannot understand how I can defend Obama at times, and my democratic friends cannot understand why I sometimes disagree with the things he's doing...

 

That phenomenon, at least IMO, makes NO sense and wasn't the intention of our system.

When we all went out drinking that time it was really funny to me to see you and BigSqwert nodding and smiling and agreeing about the ACA being s***ty.

[lostfan]

You know since Y2HH said it's a pet peeve when people say "Obamacare," something that annoys me is when people are talking about how Obama blew up the deficit (the one that blew up before he ever took office in Jan 09) and when asked for reasons they mention the stimulus (okay, I give you that one but I'll still tell you it was not part of the structural problems), the bailouts (just blatantly wrong, Obama hadn't been elected, and the government's gotten like 20 billion in profit and counting - when called on this I've seen people say "and how is the government making a profit a good thing?" just admit you were wrong that it added to the deficit), and the "$1 trillion ACA." The ACA hasn't added anything to the deficit. It'll eventually be something like neutral.

 

point being: f***ing hell, have some respect for facts.

Edited June 25, 2011 by lostfan