New U.S. Healthcare Reform, No New Business for Insurance Co

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

I thought PBO's press conference was generally dull and lacking specifics. But now we know why. When the Prez was asked about the page 16 stuff, his reply was, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about." He seems to be unfamiliar with many of the provisions, judging by his comments regarding deficits and the size of government.

Incidentally, the IBD failed to back down in the face of a MediaMatters claim that the statement was false. The IBD went to the Ways and Means committee for confirmation. Sure enough, sources at the committee stated that there would be no new enrollments in private plans after 2013, should this travesty become law. So, by the process of attrition, private plans will be shut down. Private insurers will have to make offerings, in competition with a public plan, via a government regulated exchange system. That's like the fed trying to promote competition in the postal business by regulating FedEx and UPS, while making them compete with the USPS. Anyone see anything wrong with that?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 6661999894

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

So, if the problem is a lack of good data, how do anti-NHS champions source their data to claim the US has better health care? The only body that tracks world data for these issues, in your opinion, uses faulty methods but I see no one else coming up with anything better.

You look for independent studies...Or incontrovertible numbers, things like the number of doctors per capita, number of nurses per capita, number of MRI scanners, etc. Or how we routinely screen more of our population for preventable cancers than most countries with systems of rationed scarcity...

It's even more enlightening to compare states. In New York, a basic family plan is available for $12000. In Wisconsin, a family plan can be bought for around $3000. They aren't identical and that's the beauty of the Wisconsin plan. The statehouse has left their fingers out of the pie and has not required everyone to buy a "Cadillac" plan. In Wisconsin, a family can buy more of what they need and less of what the legislators think they should have.

[Treznor]

So, if the problem is a lack of good data, how do anti-NHS champions source their data to claim the US has better health care? The only body that tracks world data for these issues, in your opinion, uses faulty methods but I see no one else coming up with anything better.

You look for independent studies...Or incontrovertible numbers, things like the number of doctors per capita, number of nurses per capita, number of MRI scanners, etc. Or how we routinely screen more of our population for preventable cancers than most countries with systems of rationed scarcity...

It's even more enlightening to compare states. In New York, a basic family plan is available for $12000. In Wisconsin, a family plan can be bought for around $3000. They aren't identical and that's the beauty of the Wisconsin plan. The statehouse has left their fingers out of the pie and has not required everyone to buy a "Cadillac" plan. In Wisconsin, a family can buy more of what they need and less of what the legislators think they should have.

So, who compiles this data and forms the conclusions? Is the Wisconsin plan superior to the Swedish plan? How do you form that conclusion without data from Sweden? The only body that actually looks at world data is deemed insufficient according to you, so how do you derive your conclusions about world rankings?

[Sibirsky]

I thought PBO's press conference was generally dull and lacking specifics. But now we know why. When the Prez was asked about the page 16 stuff, his reply was, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about." He seems to be unfamiliar with many of the provisions, judging by his comments regarding deficits and the size of government.

Incidentally, the IBD failed to back down in the face of a MediaMatters claim that the statement was false. The IBD went to the Ways and Means committee for confirmation. Sure enough, sources at the committee stated that there would be no new enrollments in private plans after 2013, should this travesty become law. So, by the process of attrition, private plans will be shut down. Private insurers will have to make offerings, in competition with a public plan, via a government regulated exchange system. That's like the fed trying to promote competition in the postal business by regulating FedEx and UPS, while making them compete with the USPS. Anyone see anything wrong with that?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 6661999894

This would lead to a single payer system by 2023 at most. Probably sooner. I don't want a single payer system.

[Treznor]

I thought PBO's press conference was generally dull and lacking specifics. But now we know why. When the Prez was asked about the page 16 stuff, his reply was, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about." He seems to be unfamiliar with many of the provisions, judging by his comments regarding deficits and the size of government.

Incidentally, the IBD failed to back down in the face of a MediaMatters claim that the statement was false. The IBD went to the Ways and Means committee for confirmation. Sure enough, sources at the committee stated that there would be no new enrollments in private plans after 2013, should this travesty become law. So, by the process of attrition, private plans will be shut down. Private insurers will have to make offerings, in competition with a public plan, via a government regulated exchange system. That's like the fed trying to promote competition in the postal business by regulating FedEx and UPS, while making them compete with the USPS. Anyone see anything wrong with that?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 6661999894

This would lead to a single payer system by 2023 at most. Probably sooner. I don't want a single payer system.

You're probably right. I do.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

For God's sake people, the free market isn't magical. That's not how economics works. You can't compare microprocessors to health care. Let's go back to econ 101 here. The demand for microprocessors is ELASTIC, we all remember that word right? Consumer's can shop around and demand the best price without fear of any consequences. The demand for healthcare is INELASTIC and has high barriers to entry. Consumer's can't call up different ambulance services and compare the best price when they're having a heart attack. How much would you pay for an ambulance when you really needed one, is your life worth $1,000 or maybe $10,000, how about $50,000? In a free market they would be able to set whatever price they wanted and prices would NOT come down.

[Sibirsky]

I thought PBO's press conference was generally dull and lacking specifics. But now we know why. When the Prez was asked about the page 16 stuff, his reply was, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about." He seems to be unfamiliar with many of the provisions, judging by his comments regarding deficits and the size of government.

Incidentally, the IBD failed to back down in the face of a MediaMatters claim that the statement was false. The IBD went to the Ways and Means committee for confirmation. Sure enough, sources at the committee stated that there would be no new enrollments in private plans after 2013, should this travesty become law. So, by the process of attrition, private plans will be shut down. Private insurers will have to make offerings, in competition with a public plan, via a government regulated exchange system. That's like the fed trying to promote competition in the postal business by regulating FedEx and UPS, while making them compete with the USPS. Anyone see anything wrong with that?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 6661999894

This would lead to a single payer system by 2023 at most. Probably sooner. I don't want a single payer system.

You're probably right. I do.

I know you do. And that's fine.

[Sibirsky]

For God's sake people, the free market isn't magical. That's not how economics works. You can't compare microprocessors to health care. Let's go back to econ 101 here. The demand for microprocessors is ELASTIC, we all remember that word right? Consumer's can shop around and demand the best price without fear of any consequences. The demand for healthcare is INELASTIC and has high barriers to entry. Consumer's can't call up different ambulance services and compare the best price when they're having a heart attack. How much would you pay for an ambulance when you really needed one, is your life worth $1,000 or maybe $10,000, how about $50,000? In a free market they would be able to set whatever price they wanted and prices would NOT come down.

Do you believe we have the right to healthcare?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

For God's sake people, the free market isn't magical. That's not how economics works. You can't compare microprocessors to health care. Let's go back to econ 101 here. The demand for microprocessors is ELASTIC, we all remember that word right? Consumer's can shop around and demand the best price without fear of any consequences. The demand for healthcare is INELASTIC and has high barriers to entry. Consumer's can't call up different ambulance services and compare the best price when they're having a heart attack. How much would you pay for an ambulance when you really needed one, is your life worth $1,000 or maybe $10,000, how about $50,000? In a free market they would be able to set whatever price they wanted and prices would NOT come down.

Do you believe we have the right to healthcare?

First of all, your question is not even close to relevant to what I posted or what I was responding to. If you want to defend a free market system, then go right ahead and have fun with that, but don't make false comparisons between industries based on a misunderstanding of basic economic concepts.

But to answer your question, I would say we have as much right to health care as we do to firefighters. Do you believe we have the right to firefighting services?

Now here's why the answers to your question and my question are completely irrelevant, because we still provide firefighting services even though they aren't a right. But skimming through the Constitution I don't see any mention of health care or firefighters, so no.

[Sibirsky]

For God's sake people, the free market isn't magical. That's not how economics works. You can't compare microprocessors to health care. Let's go back to econ 101 here. The demand for microprocessors is ELASTIC, we all remember that word right? Consumer's can shop around and demand the best price without fear of any consequences. The demand for healthcare is INELASTIC and has high barriers to entry. Consumer's can't call up different ambulance services and compare the best price when they're having a heart attack. How much would you pay for an ambulance when you really needed one, is your life worth $1,000 or maybe $10,000, how about $50,000? In a free market they would be able to set whatever price they wanted and prices would NOT come down.

Do you believe we have the right to healthcare?

First of all, your question is not even close to relevant to what I posted or what I was responding to. If you want to defend a free market system, then go right ahead and have fun with that, but don't make false comparisons between industries based on a misunderstanding of basic economic concepts.

But to answer your question, I would say we have as much right to health care as we do to firefighters. Do you believe we have the right to firefighting services?

Now here's why the answers to your question and my question are completely irrelevant, because we still provide firefighting services even though they aren't a right. But skimming through the Constitution I don't see any mention of health care or firefighters, so no.

Wow. Ok. Good answer.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Wow. Ok. Good answer.

And your answer to my question? Surely you don't wish to dodge.












God this quoting system is awful.

[Sibirsky]

Wow. Ok. Good answer.

And your answer to my question? Surely you don't wish to dodge.












God this quoting system is awful.

Do we have a right to firefighters? Is that what you're asking me? Nope, I guess not.

[UNIverseVERSE]

WHO rates nations, based on the information that individual nations give to WHO. There's no corrections or standardizations in the data. WHO is a worthless source for that sort of thing.

The US generally leads the world in cancer survival rates, which are documented in studies that have corrected and standardized the data.

Source for both claims, please.