My Obamacare Taxes

[3RA1N1AC]

Burgerville.

definitely not the worst ever

 

[Denny Crane]

Greed doesn't necessarily have to be about profits. Greed can be about expansion and domination. Or nice offices for the administration.

You describe the govt. perfectly, but even now they're giving themselves big bucks salaries and massively generous benefits.

Yes, unfortunately, today's doctor lives in the city and doesn't have anywhere to put a pig, so he wants to be paid in cash.

Actually, today's doctor specializes because the govt. took all the incentive out of doing the general care thing.

Government didn't cause medical insurance companies to exist. That's baloney.

Read the articles I posted again. 700 health care insurance companies started up after the govt. started funding care and regulating the industry. Like I said before, it only takes a modest bribe to get the govt. to look the other way while you bill them $600 for a hammer.

The point about the consumer not having a motivation to seek efficient care is a good one. However your solution to that is an awful one. The 19th century might look real nice to you but the rest of us don't want to go back there.

There you go again with the strawman. Nobody says the 19th century looks better. The 21st century with real competition looks better.

So, you want a free market for the inexpensive part of care, but want to preserve the current situation for the expensive part of care? So someone who needs a $20 treatment will shop around and get the best deal, but someone who needs $20,000,000 of treatment will seek the best, highest price treatment available? Seems like sort of a half-ass solution, if you don't mind me saying so.

Seems like it solves exactly the right solution.

I guess if flu shots and the like make up the majority of healthcare spending, your plan could work. Do they? I've not seen data on the ratio of current spending on maintenance vs. non-maintenance.

90% (yeah, I looked it up) of the population doesn't require hospitalization or extended care.

My understanding is that HMOs came about because the health insurance companies decided it might be cheaper for them to pay for maintenance so that they would get stuck with fewer major medical bills. Apparently you think that somehow the insurance companies are being forced by the government to pay for maintenance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

HMOs are another product of government.

I don't know of any regulation that says that individual insurance companies can't just drop all their plans except catastrophic coverage. So if they thought that was a good business model, I guess they probably would.

There are 800,000+ pages of regulations requiring them to cover all sorts of things, along with govt. grants. It's not a free market. Ever hear of COBRA? Get it?

The auto insurance analogy doesn't work because auto insurance doesn't cover blowing up your engine because you never changed the oil. If health insurance companies could deny you coverage for a heart transplant because you are fat and lazy and didn't exercise, then they'd have no interest in covering maintenance. Likewise, if auto insurance companies had to pay for a new engine if you ran it out of oil, you can be sure that regular oil changes would be covered.

barfo

The wind blew down the fence behind my house. My homeowner's insurance policy covered it.

 

[barfo]

You describe the govt. perfectly, but even now they're giving themselves big bucks salaries and massively generous benefits.

Yes, greed and corruption certainly exists in government as well as in the private sector (and in the non-profit sector too). Humans are humans.

Actually, today's doctor specializes because the govt. took all the incentive out of doing the general care thing.

No, today's doctor specializes because the incentives are much greater for specialties, not because there is NO incentive in general care.

Read the articles I posted again. 700 health care insurance companies started up after the govt. started funding care and regulating the industry. Like I said before, it only takes a modest bribe to get the govt. to look the other way while you bill them $600 for a hammer.

Are you talking about the rubber hammers that the doctor hits your knee with? I'm not really sure what your point is here. As I posted earlier in this thread, health insurance has been around since George Washington was President.

There you go again with the strawman. Nobody says the 19th century looks better.

Your utopian vision looks very much like the 19th century to me. Or maybe the 16th century. Certainly not the 21st.

Seems like it solves exactly the right solution.



90% (yeah, I looked it up) of the population doesn't require hospitalization or extended care.

Ok, that missed the point entirely. The question was not what percent of the population required that, but what percentage of health care spending it amounted to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

HMOs are another product of government.

Yes, but you missed the part where they are no longer required. Yet they still exist. Why?

There are 800,000+ pages of regulations requiring them to cover all sorts of things, along with govt. grants. It's not a free market. Ever hear of COBRA? Get it?

Yes, I've heard of COBRA. I've heard of SPECTRE, too. What does either one have to do with this? You can't seriously be claiming that COBRA is somehow a significant source of increased healthcare costs?

The wind blew down the fence behind my house. My homeowner's insurance policy covered it.

Uhm, who gives a shit? My insurance agent's first name is Donald, as long as we are throwing out insurance-related non-sequiturs.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

HMOs are big business and they have govt. in their pockets.

COBRA is one of those regulations you want to ignore. If there were no COBRA, the market would be a bit freer.

I guess if flu shots and the like make up the majority of healthcare spending, your plan could work.

I can see why you want to change the subject. However, for catastrophic health insurance, 100% of the peoples' money should be pooled to pay the benefits of 10% who actually need them. That's per insurance provider.

And you said the auto insurance analogy doesn't work. But the home owners' insurance one does (better).

 

[barfo]

HMOs are big business and they have govt. in their pockets.

The libertarian solution to that problem is to cut out the government middleman and let big business do whatever they want without even the need to bribe anyone.

More efficient, certainly. Better outcome, certainly not.

COBRA is one of those regulations you want to ignore. If there were no COBRA, the market would be a bit freer.

I don't want to ignore COBRA. Given our rather silly employer-based insurance system, it's a great law.

Yes, the market would be a bit freer, at the cost of people being instantly uninsured if they lose their jobs. Not a good tradeoff.

I can see why you want to change the subject.

I do? I'm willing to go on talking about this for as long as you are, maybe longer.

However, for catastrophic health insurance, 100% of the peoples' money should be pooled to pay the benefits of 10% who actually need them. That's per insurance provider.

Yes, that's how insurance works, all right. You forgot about the profits and overhead for the insurance company, so I'll give you half credit.

And you said the auto insurance analogy doesn't work. But the home owners' insurance one does (better).

To some extent. If your house burned down, and the insurance company could prove that you'd failed to fix some problem that resulted in the fire, I'm pretty sure they'd deny your claim. A blown down fence just isn't worth the bother, even if you didn't bother replacing rotted fence posts when you should have.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Better outcome, certainly.

You are somehow hooked on "insurance" being the most important thing. I'm hooked on "care" being the most important thing.

I had another insurance claim recently. The fuse box was so old and needed repair, but I put it off and did other work on the place. It shorted out the dishwasher which overflowed and flooded the entire first floor. The insurance company told me "you definitely have a claim." They told me to let the water damage guys come and do whatever they felt they needed and that it'd be paid for. They also paid for most of a remodel of the first floor - the difference being that we chose to upgrade the floor tiles and cabinets and build new stairs.

So if the insurance companies are so willing to pay that sort of claim, why wouldn't they be willing to pay health care claims? The answer is there's a LOT less regulation, and paying claims is the insurer's business, and if they didn't then I'd switch to one of their competitors.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Not to jump in here, but for barfo (or anyone, for that matter):

What part of the Affordable Care Act made any of the care more affordable? It seems to me (and I'm not a scholar on the subject like you guys are) that care is just as expensive--only now there's a government mandate that Patient X (who heretofore had been previously uninsurable, since the costs for his medical treatment for Major Diseases Y and Z were prohibitively high for a private insurance corporation to break even on) will now be able to afford insurance from that private insurance corporation that covers those exorbitant costs, since you and Denny and I are funding the government subsidies of his premium and/or his bill.

 

[barfo]

Better outcome, certainly.

You are somehow hooked on "insurance" being the most important thing. I'm hooked on "care" being the most important thing.

I am? That's news to me. I hate insurance, would love to see every one of those bloodsuckers put out of business.

I had another insurance claim recently. The fuse box was so old and needed repair, but I put it off and did other work on the place. It shorted out the dishwasher which overflowed and flooded the entire first floor. The insurance company told me "you definitely have a claim." They told me to let the water damage guys come and do whatever they felt they needed and that it'd be paid for. They also paid for most of a remodel of the first floor - the difference being that we chose to upgrade the floor tiles and cabinets and build new stairs.

So if the insurance companies are so willing to pay that sort of claim, why wouldn't they be willing to pay health care claims? The answer is there's a LOT less regulation, and paying claims is the insurer's business, and if they didn't then I'd switch to one of their competitors.

It's true, because of the employer-based system, you have little ability to switch insurers. I'd love to see the employer linkage severed. It doesn't have much to do with regulation.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Not to jump in here, but for barfo (or anyone, for that matter):

What part of the Affordable Care Act made any of the care more affordable? It seems to me (and I'm not a scholar on the subject like you guys are) that care is just as expensive--only now there's a government mandate that Patient X (who heretofore had been previously uninsurable, since the costs for his medical treatment for Major Diseases Y and Z were prohibitively high for a private insurance corporation to break even on) will now be able to afford insurance from that private insurance corporation that covers those exorbitant costs, since you and Denny and I are funding the government subsidies of his premium and/or his bill.

We as a society have decided that it isn't right to let someone die just because they weren't continuously insured. Yes, providing healthcare to the ill costs healthy people money. Providing healthcare to the poor costs wealthier people money.

As to your initial question, the PPACA certainly made healthcare a lot more affordable for Patient X, wouldn't you agree?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

No. Not in the slightest. The care still costs just as much as before. It's just that someone else is now paying for it.

And "we as a society" haven't decided anything. Obama decided it, and scraped together enough congressmen who hadn't read it to push it through. You might just as easily say that "we as a society have decided" that drinking a gosh-danged liter of cola was illegal, since an executive in government has deigned it.

 

[Minstrel]

And "we as a society" haven't decided anything. Obama decided it, and scraped together enough congressmen who hadn't read it to push it through. You might just as easily say that "we as a society have decided" that drinking a gosh-danged liter of cola was illegal, since an executive in government has deigned it.

Sounds like you're not much of a fan of representative democracy.

So, tell me...would you agree that "we as a society" do not go to war when national polls are against it? The politicians in favor of it and the soldiers are on their own, and deserve no designation as an action by America as a society?

 

[BrianFromWA]

national polls were so insanely in favor of going to war that it was almost unanimous. But you may not be recollecting what "we as a society" thought about it in the 1870's...or the 1910s...or the 1930s...or in the early 1970s....don't pretend to tell me that the military is off the reservation fighting wars when "we as a society" don't want to.

I'm a big fan of a representative republic. I don't know where you'd get that. But to say that "we as a society" believe in something that was pushed by an executive ("not" a legislator) and not read or understood by the people that voted for it isn't in the same ballpark of being correct.

 

[Minstrel]

national polls were so insanely in favor of going to war that it was almost unanimous. But you may not be recollecting what "we as a society" thought about it in the 1870's...or the 1910s...or the 1930s...or in the early 1970s....don't pretend to tell me that the military is off the reservation fighting wars when "we as a society" don't want to.

I didn't specify a war, or even remotely claim that this is true of all wars. I asked you a theoretical, which you haven't answered.

I'm a big fan of a representative republic. I don't know where you'd get that.

I got that from you decrying the system of representative democracy. "We as a society" are represented by the officials we elect. It's a little bankrupt to claim to be for representative democracy and then claim that elected officials acting within their legal capacities passing law is not an action of society. I realize that representative democracy doesn't seem so great when the representatives aren't the ones you voted for, but that's part and parcel of the system.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You only get to vote for two, so by definition you didn't vote for 533 of them. I don't know why it's relevant that the "representatives aren't the ones you voted for". What's relevant is that they didn't represent society--they voted in a partisan manner to follow legislation put forth by an executive without reading it. What part of society was represented by that? "Society" as a whole has, to my limited knowledge, NEVER been for ObamaCare/PPACA, and especially not for the way it was voted in. To take a legislative action and attempt to expand it to a new societal impulse ("we wish now to subsidize with taxpayer money the exorbitant health care fees for all, and mandate an insurance middleman") is folly and intellectually dishonest.

In the 1920s, when "society" didn't want to fight any wars, and didn't want to have an Army other than to garrison home bases from foreign invasion, we didn't. Then "society" got smart and realized that sticking your head in the sand didn't stop bad people from doing bad things, so we became the first-rate military in the world.

I'm not going to answer hypotheticals and theoreticals. If you'd like to point out where "society" was against sending troops overseas and the military did so anyway without Congress knowing about it, I'm all ears.

 

[barfo]

No. Not in the slightest. The care still costs just as much as before. It's just that someone else is now paying for it.

Well, I said it was affordable "for Patient X". I didn't say it cost less to provide. It's pretty clear that I meant that it made it less of a financial hardship for Patient X.

And "we as a society" haven't decided anything. Obama decided it, and scraped together enough congressmen who hadn't read it to push it through.

Actually, that really isn't the way it happened. Obama was very hands-off (too hands-off, in my opinion) during the legislative process. Neither the initial proposals nor the eventual bill were designed or written by Obama or the executive branch, but by the legislature. I think the outcome would have been better had Obama done a better job of promoting some of the things that he wanted that the congress scrapped.

barfo

 

[barfo]

You only get to vote for two

Three. Two senators and one congressperson.

, so by definition you didn't vote for 533 of them. I don't know why it's relevant that the "representatives aren't the ones you voted for". What's relevant is that they didn't represent society--they voted in a partisan manner to follow legislation put forth by an executive without reading it. What part of society was represented by that? "Society" as a whole has, to my limited knowledge, NEVER been for ObamaCare/PPACA, and especially not for the way it was voted in. To take a legislative action and attempt to expand it to a new societal impulse ("we wish now to subsidize with taxpayer money the exorbitant health care fees for all, and mandate an insurance middleman") is folly and intellectually dishonest.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. If they'd passed a bill you liked in exactly the same fashion, I bet it wouldn't bother you at all.

In the 1920s, when "society" didn't want to fight any wars, and didn't want to have an Army other than to garrison home bases from foreign invasion, we didn't. Then "society" got smart and realized that sticking your head in the sand didn't stop bad people from doing bad things, so we became the first-rate military in the world.

I'm not going to answer hypotheticals and theoreticals. If you'd like to point out where "society" was against sending troops overseas and the military did so anyway without Congress knowing about it, I'm all ears.

You think that this is the first time congress has ever acted in a way that disagreed with public opinion polls? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

But I'll ask a specific question: Do you think that since Mayor Bloomberg pushed a bill against 16-oz. sodas (among other things), and if 26 of the 51 council members vote for the bill without reading it, that the 10M members of "society" in NYC have now deigned that large sodas should be illegal?

 

[barfo]

But I'll ask a specific question: Do you think that since Mayor Bloomberg pushed a bill against 16-oz. sodas (among other things), and if 26 of the 51 council members vote for the bill without reading it, that the 10M members of "society" in NYC have now deigned that large sodas should be illegal?

Yes. They voted for those people to represent them and make laws for them. That's the way our government works. Do all 10M agree with it? Of course not. When do 10M people ever agree on anything?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Three. Two senators and one congressperson.

Thanks. Again, relevant how?

Sounds like sour grapes to me. If they'd passed a bill you liked in exactly the same fashion, I bet it wouldn't bother you at all.

then you'd lose your ass. What part of "representative democracy" (to use Minstrel's words) means that a congressman doesn't have to represent his/her district or state, but to blindly (a.k.a., "without reading or understanding") vote for a bill? ANY bill? I'm limited in my legislative history, but can you point out another bill in the last 50 years that was passed (whether R or D) by partisan vote, where the legislators voting for it claimed they didn't read it, and didn't have to to vote on it?

You think that this is the first time congress has ever acted in a way that disagreed with public opinion polls? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

You're not paying attention or deliberately not addressing what I'm saying. I bolded what I'm saying above. The second issue is your assertion that someone "society" has deemed that this is what it wants now. What I'm saying is that that's nowhere close to true.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yes. They voted for those people to represent them and make laws for them. That's the way our government works. Do all 10M agree with it? Of course not. When do 10M people ever agree on anything?

barfo

What?!? "Society" has shifted because 26 people voted for a law without reading it? You can't possibly be serious.

And you're attempting to twist "the way our government works" in passing laws into equating that "society has now changed." Nowhere close to true.

 

[barfo]

Thanks. Again, relevant how?

Not relevant at all, just didn't want our less informed members to think the right number was two.

then you'd lose your ass.

Did I say I'd bet my ass? I am pretty careful with my ass.

What part of "representative democracy" (to use Minstrel's words) means that a congressman doesn't have to represent his/her district or state, but to blindly (a.k.a., "without reading or understanding") vote for a bill? ANY bill? I'm limited in my legislative history, but can you point out another bill in the last 50 years that was passed (whether R or D) by partisan vote, where the legislators voting for it claimed they didn't read it, and didn't have to to vote on it?

The not-reading-it stuff sounds bad, but I think if you actually stood over every congressperson's shoulder all year, you'd find that most of them don't read most of the bills they vote on. By a very large margin. That's not a good thing by any means, of course.

Representing one's district or state does not mean doing whatever opinion polls say is the most popular choice. If it did mean that, we could just do away with congress and settle all matters with opinion polls. Sometimes it means doing what you believe is right even if it is unpopular.

You're not paying attention or deliberately not addressing what I'm saying. I bolded what I'm saying above. The second issue is your assertion that someone "society" has deemed that this is what it wants now. What I'm saying is that that's nowhere close to true.

Well, then as Minstrel suggested, maybe you aren't a fan of our form of government.

barfo

 

[barfo]

What?!? "Society" has shifted because 26 people voted for a law without reading it? You can't possibly be serious.

And you're attempting to twist "the way our government works" in passing laws into equating that "society has now changed." Nowhere close to true.

I didn't say "society has now changed". I didn't say "society has shifted". I believe I said something like "we as a society have decided", meaning, through our duly elected representatives, we have decided to make that law. If you thought I meant that everyone agrees with that course of action, then you misunderstood me. But that is how our society decides these things.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'll stop here and agree to disagree. There's no possible way that you can convince me (I highly doubt you believe it yourself) that society changes their fundamental beliefs based on legislation, especially legislation that wasn't read or vetted before being voted upon. I don't think that all of a sudden a large amount of America (doesn't even need to be a majority) now thinks "we wish now to subsidize with taxpayer money the exorbitant health care fees for all, and mandate an insurance middleman", just because Pelosi got a bunch of people with a (D) after their name to vote without reading.

And it's not even a D-vs.-R thing. Bloomberg semi-claims to be a Republican depending on the election cycle, and if he got 26 R's on the NYC Council to vote for it without reading it, I don't think that you could claim that "society in NYC no longer things sodas should be legal". That's absurd.

Though I'd really like it if you could show me one example of another law being passed like this, especially one that shifted society's fundamental viewpoint.

 

[barfo]

I'll stop here and agree to disagree. There's no possible way that you can convince me (I highly doubt you believe it yourself) that society changes their fundamental beliefs based on legislation, especially legislation that wasn't read or vetted before being voted upon.

I wouldn't want to try. That wasn't what I said, and it isn't what I believe. Not sure why you are arguing against it. I said it was a decision, not a change of beliefs.

I don't think that all of a sudden a large amount of America (doesn't even need to be a majority) now thinks "we wish now to subsidize with taxpayer money the exorbitant health care fees for all, and mandate an insurance middleman", just because Pelosi got a bunch of people with a (D) after their name to vote without reading.

Not 'just because' of that, but don't look at the polls, because support for PPACA is getting close to 50% now.

And it's not even a D-vs.-R thing. Bloomberg semi-claims to be a Republican depending on the election cycle, and if he got 26 R's on the NYC Council to vote for it without reading it, I don't think that you could claim that "society in NYC no longer things sodas should be legal". That's absurd.

Thinks? No. Has decided? Possibly (I haven't been following the soda story, as I really don't give a rats ass about NY and their soda consumption, so I don't know if it is law or not).

Though I'd really like it if you could show me one example of another law being passed like this, especially one that shifted society's fundamental viewpoint.

Being passed 'like this' in what way? With people not reading it first? I'd guess most bills are passed that way. Most bills are long and boring and staffers write them these days and brief their bosses about what they say in general terms.

Not sure what you mean about shifting society's fundamental viewpoint.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

What's relevant is that they didn't represent society--they voted in a partisan manner to follow legislation put forth by an executive without reading it. What part of society was represented by that?

The US population as a whole who elected them. Again, that's how representative democracy works. We elect (as a group, not you as an individual) people to represent us at the law-making and law-enforcing table and they speak for society. We're not a direct democracy.

I'm not going to answer hypotheticals and theoreticals.

I didn't think you would, since I didn't expect you to want to watch your own logic hang troops out to dry. What this boils down to is "representative democracy is great until it does something I don't like...then the system clearly doesn't work."

 

[maxiep]

My wife is a part of the national team for the HMO "model" for ObamaCare, and her CEO was a key adviser in structuring parts of the law. Everybody in their organization hates it, and they've had to raise rates already, because of the hidden gems in it that nobody knew about until it was passed. Even the CEO says it isn't what they were told it would be.

[video=youtube;KoE1R-xH5To]

 

[BrianFromWA]

I didn't think you would, since I didn't expect you to want to watch your own logic hang troops out to dry. What this boils down to is "representative democracy is great until it does something I don't like...then the system clearly doesn't work."

It's not that at all. I asked you a specific question--not some hypothetical one... so I look forward to you continuing not to answer to watch your own logic hang you out to dry.

 

[Minstrel]

It's not that at all. I asked you a specific question--not some hypothetical one

But you never answered mine. Answering a question with a question is classic evasion. Anyway, I'll answer the question for you, since we both know the answer: Troops prosecuting a war is an action by society, even if the polling is against it, because society elects representatives to act for it. And exactly the same is true of the ACA.

 

[maxiep]

I think the fundamental divide is from where we believe we derive our rights. There are those of us that believe we have Natural Rights and those that believe rights are given to us by Government or society. I believe the former.

 

[BrianFromWA]

But you never answered mine. Answering a question with a question is classic evasion. Anyway, I'll answer the question for you, since we both know the answer: Troops prosecuting a war is an action by society, even if the polling is against it, because society elects representatives to act for it. And exactly the same is true of the ACA.

They're not even remotely close to the same circumstances. "Society" does not get its values from legislation. Whether the military budget signed by Congress denotes Overseas Contingency Operations funding or not has no bearing on whether the society wants troops overseas. The Commander-in-Chief can send troops anywhere he wants to with or without Congressional approval, support, legislation, etc. It's apples to volkswagens. However, when society has deemed that they want to be isolationist the army is drawn down and congress doesn't fund overseas operations or research or war plans. I don't understand why you keep bringing up "polling" as if numbers in a survey denote societal values, yet refuse to answer the question about soda in NYC, which is a real-life counterexample to what you and barfo think is happening.

As for answering a question with a question, I didn't answer your hypothetical because there's a much more specific case happening for real that is much more germane to the conversation.

Edit: Didn't see maxiep's post, but that's probably a better way for you to understand what I'm talking about.