ObamaCare Thread

[Luveria]

ETA: What I was suggesting in the previous post is that if a business offers to contribute to an employee's health insurance plan, they should be required to actually provide that contribution, even if their employees are forced onto the exchange due to high premiums for their employer-provided insurance. As it stands (from what I understand), if an employer only provides expensive plans, the low-wage employees go to the exchange, and the taxpayer has to cover subsidies while the employer pays nothing.

I'm going to disagree with you on a fundamental level: Why on Earth should we expect our employers to keep us healthy? What reasonable, logical linkage exists between employment and public health?

Frankly, I think it was silly for us to ever get into this position in the first place; after all, it was really a historical quirk that stared us down this road in the late 1940's (health care benefits were a way for employers to evade WWII-era wage and price controls). The more firmly we tie health care to employment, the more severely we damage our global competitiveness.

So I'd prefer to see things go the other way: Let everybody end up buying their health insurance through the exchanges. I'd prefer to see us keep increasing the subsidy until eventually everybody is getting their health insurance at subsidized rates from private industry through State brokers. And I'd even like to see it go the other way, as Arkansas is doing: Let States use the Medicaid expansion money to buy policies for Medicaid recipients on the exchanges as well.

That's how I'd like to see things go, and our next President may well be of the same mind.

Obamcare could very well be the fastest and easiest path towards the implementation of Hillarycare, but on a government-paid basis rather than employer-paid one. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

So there is actually hope for government-paid healthcare.

[Ashmoria]

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichen ... dy-insured

here is a good article on why we needed obamacare. it explains the justification without being too wonky about it.

if you don't know why we need universal coverage or why you should be paying for other people's insurance this is a good start on explaining it.

[Alien Space Bats]

So there is actually hope for government-paid healthcare.

Isn't that sort of what I said we'd see in time?

What we won't see is single payer; instead, I expect we'll see government-funded private insurance.

[Sociobiology]

That's what the Medicaid expansion is for.

a) medicaid expansion doesn't exist in all states
b) I was referring primarily to people in the 139%-400% range - the people who would be eligible for subsidies, but not for medicaid
c) even for the people who are eligible for medicaid now, I don't like the idea that businesses can essentially get around the employer mandate by just having plans that are too expensive

ETA: What I was suggesting in the previous post is that if a business offers to contribute to an employee's health insurance plan, they should be required to actually provide that contribution, even if their employees are forced onto the exchange due to high premiums for their employer-provided insurance. As it stands (from what I understand), if an employer only provides expensive plans, the low-wage employees go to the exchange, and the taxpayer has to cover subsidies while the employer pays nothing.

Employers can't just offer expensive plans, price controls and guidelines on what a plan has to include are included in the law. And since insurance companies have limits on how much profit they can make from a plan the can't get low benefit high cost plan either.

[Galloism]

ETA: What I was suggesting in the previous post is that if a business offers to contribute to an employee's health insurance plan, they should be required to actually provide that contribution, even if their employees are forced onto the exchange due to high premiums for their employer-provided insurance. As it stands (from what I understand), if an employer only provides expensive plans, the low-wage employees go to the exchange, and the taxpayer has to cover subsidies while the employer pays nothing.

I'm going to disagree with you on a fundamental level: Why on Earth should we expect our employers to keep us healthy? What reasonable, logical linkage exists between employment and public health?

Frankly, I think it was silly for us to ever get into this position in the first place; after all, it was really a historical quirk that stared us down this road in the late 1940's (health care benefits were a way for employers to evade WWII-era wage and price controls). The more firmly we tie health care to employment, the more severely we damage our global competitiveness.

So I'd prefer to see things go the other way: Let everybody end up buying their health insurance through the exchanges. I'd prefer to see us keep increasing the subsidy until eventually everybody is getting their health insurance at subsidized rates from private industry through State brokers. And I'd even like to see it go the other way, as Arkansas is doing: Let States use the Medicaid expansion money to buy policies for Medicaid recipients on the exchanges as well.

That's how I'd like to see things go, and our next President may well be of the same mind.

Obamcare could very well be the fastest and easiest path towards the implementation of Hillarycare, but on a government-paid basis rather than employer-paid one. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

I really don't know how to feel about Mike sometimes. I mean, he's made everything our state does more efficient (other than DFA), but he seems completely unwilling for the state to take on any new responsibilities.

But, yes, we're doing something different.

[Alien Space Bats]

I really don't know how to feel about Mike sometimes. I mean, he's made everything our state does more efficient (other than DFA), but he seems completely unwilling for the state to take on any new responsibilities.

But, yes, we're doing something different.

One of the cooler things about the law is the way that it allows States waivers to try something different, so long as what they try doesn't undermine the purposes of the law. That's how Vermont got away with going to single payer instead of implementing the ACA; that's why Massachusetts can just keep trucking along with Romneycare without making changes; and it's how Arkansas got away with taking the Medicaid expansion money and using it to purchase private insurance for all of those people who would have otherwise become new Medicaid recipients under the new bill. On the whole, I think Mike Beebe may have done something very, very clever with that move.

There's something in the water at the Governor's Mansion in Little Rock, I swear. You can sometimes get really bad and really corrupt Governors in Arkansas, but you always get people who are... interesting.

[Tyriece]

Heres to all that do not like it, enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIF ... 5N9vcmoppw

[Divair]

Heres to all that do not like it, enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIF ... 5N9vcmoppw

The funniest, though, is that Obamacare is based on an idea that Romney came up with.

[Luveria]

So there is actually hope for government-paid healthcare.

Isn't that sort of what I said we'd see in time?

What we won't see is single payer; instead, I expect we'll see government-funded private insurance.

Do any countries have such a scheme?

[Divair]

Isn't that sort of what I said we'd see in time?

What we won't see is single payer; instead, I expect we'll see government-funded private insurance.

Do any countries have such a scheme?

Israel.

[Farnhamia]

Do any countries have such a scheme?

Israel.

See? It's the damned Jewish-Liberal-NBC-Lesbian coalition again! Thanks, Obama!

[Luveria]

Do any countries have such a scheme?

Israel.

What I don't understand is, why not just switch over to single-payer, if the government is already paying for it anyway?

[Divair]

Israel.

What I don't understand is, why not just switch over to single-payer, if the government is already paying for it anyway?

Variety. Rather than let the gov provide it alone, the gov funds it and lets you choose from a range of approved and regulated companies.

[Luveria]

What I don't understand is, why not just switch over to single-payer, if the government is already paying for it anyway?

Variety. Rather than let the gov provide it alone, the gov funds it and lets you choose from a range of approved and regulated companies.

But... I prefer how it is in Canada.

[Llamalandia]

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/10/truth-obamacare-already-insured

here is a good article on why we needed obamacare. it explains the justification without being too wonky about it.

if you don't know why we need universal coverage or why you should be paying for other people's insurance this is a good start on explaining it.

Well thanx for wasting my time with article that just rehashes old arguments everyone has already heard about obamacare, seriously i gotta just start ignoring the links people post in their messages. That said, maybe hospital should just stop providing for uncompensated care, I'm guessing that pay or die is a much better incentive for people to buy insurance anyway rather than what like an $200 penalty. Seriously, there is no right to healthcare, and quite frankly these people who can't afford insurance need to get better jobs it's just that simple.

That said, you only subsidize the "freeloaders" under the current system if you actually make use of the healthcare system yourself, for millions of healthy young americans, guess what they don't, they neither buy insurance nor go to the doctor (certainly not at a rate that would exceed the cost of paying for insurance they don't want).

[Llamalandia]

Israel.

What I don't understand is, why not just switch over to single-payer, if the government is already paying for it anyway?

The govt isn't paying for all of it just some of it in the form of medicare, medicaid schip etc. They will be paying for a lot more of it under obamacare, but not nearly to the extent that govts with socialized medicine pay.

[Blasveck]

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/10/truth-obamacare-already-insured

here is a good article on why we needed obamacare. it explains the justification without being too wonky about it.

if you don't know why we need universal coverage or why you should be paying for other people's insurance this is a good start on explaining it.

Well thanx for wasting my time with article that just rehashes old arguments everyone has already heard about obamacare, seriously i gotta just start ignoring the links people post in their messages. That said, maybe hospital should just stop providing for uncompensated care, I'm guessing that pay or die is a much better incentive for people to buy insurance anyway rather than what like an $200 penalty. Seriously, there is no right to healthcare, and quite frankly these people who can't afford insurance need to get better jobs it's just that simple.

That said, you only subsidize the "freeloaders" under the current system if you actually make use of the healthcare system yourself, for millions of healthy young americans, guess what they don't, they neither buy insurance nor go to the doctor (certainly not at a rate that would exceed the cost of paying for insurance they don't want).

I guess it's okay for sickly children to be denied coverage and for you to be denied a trip to the ER just because you may not have insurance right then and there.

Among other things.

[Llamalandia]

Well thanx for wasting my time with article that just rehashes old arguments everyone has already heard about obamacare, seriously i gotta just start ignoring the links people post in their messages. That said, maybe hospital should just stop providing for uncompensated care, I'm guessing that pay or die is a much better incentive for people to buy insurance anyway rather than what like an $200 penalty. Seriously, there is no right to healthcare, and quite frankly these people who can't afford insurance need to get better jobs it's just that simple.

That said, you only subsidize the "freeloaders" under the current system if you actually make use of the healthcare system yourself, for millions of healthy young americans, guess what they don't, they neither buy insurance nor go to the doctor (certainly not at a rate that would exceed the cost of paying for insurance they don't want).

I guess it's okay for sickly children to be denied coverage and for you to be denied a trip to the ER just because you may not have insurance right then and there.

Among other things.

That is correct.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I guess it's okay for sickly children to be denied coverage and for you to be denied a trip to the ER just because you may not have insurance right then and there.

Among other things.

That is correct.

Then you hate freedom and America.

[Llamalandia]

Heres to all that do not like it, enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIF ... 5N9vcmoppw

The funniest, though, is that Obamacare is based on an idea that Romney came up with.

I freely admit that obamcare/romney isn't as bad as singlepayer/hiliary care, but that doesn't make it good, it just means it's not as bad as the potential alternatives out there.

[Divair]

What I don't understand is, why not just switch over to single-payer, if the government is already paying for it anyway?

The govt isn't paying for all of it just some of it in the form of medicare, medicaid schip etc. They will be paying for a lot more of it under obamacare, but not nearly to the extent that govts with socialized medicine pay.

Even though the US spends far more on healthcare than most countries.


Right..

[Pandeeria]

I guess it's okay for sickly children to be denied coverage and for you to be denied a trip to the ER just because you may not have insurance right then and there.

Among other things.

That is correct.

Yeah, no. The US should adopt universal healthcare already IMO.

[Llamalandia]

The govt isn't paying for all of it just some of it in the form of medicare, medicaid schip etc. They will be paying for a lot more of it under obamacare, but not nearly to the extent that govts with socialized medicine pay.

Even though the US spends far more on healthcare than most countries.


Right..

Well that's true, but the the US govt doesn't that was my point, most of that is private money, which people are free to spend or not spend as they see fit.
But yes in total on a per capita basis people in the usa spend more than most (if not all) developed countries on healthcare.

[Farnhamia]

That is correct.

Yeah, no. The US should adopt universal healthcare already IMO.

Granted, but given the intransigence of people like our friend Llamalandia here and the people he votes for, the practical reality is that it's not going to happen. Not soon, anyway.

[Divair]

Even though the US spends far more on healthcare than most countries.


Right..

Well that's true, but the the US govt doesn't that was my point, most of that is private money, which people are free to spend or not spend as they see fit.
But yes in total on a per capita basis people in the usa spend more than most (if not all) developed countries on healthcare.

And I'm sure you've got a perfectly reasonable explanation for this occurring in the one developed country that doesn't have national healthcare.


And what's with your obsession with smilies? Given that you at least one in every single post, I'm beginning to wonder if that's considered spam.