Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People have been failing at getting a national health insurance plan in place for about a hundred years. We were running out of time and chances. PPACA provides the framework and means for tackling the problems of today and tomorrow. Without it or something like it, we were doomed.
For some reason I get a picture of you running around the barnyard, screaming, "The sky is falling, Do something!" For a long time the open marketplace made this country a powerful force in the world. Democare* and most of the other recent laws that have come to be lately have only served to weaken us and our economy.
* I prefer to call it Democare, because, 1. Few if any Republicans voted for this thing, and 2. Obama is a lame duck and has no incentive to correct his mistake. Let the Democrats own this mistake, since, without their support it would have gone nowhere. If they own it, and it stays as is and becomes the greatest thing since sliced bread I promise to register as one. But I have to give it at least five years without any changes. Unlikely to happen, either way. If the Democrats have sole ownership and it fails miserably, the country will finally see the errors of their (voting) ways. It can only get better.
I think the decision point of whether or not we will have better health care post Obamacare will determine the success or failure of the Unaffordable Care Act. I think it will not be better for the average American and more likely will result in less health care, it just shifts the cost of a certain number of people who are uninsured to the insured and shifts the high cost of old age health care to younger workers.
Optimists say it will collapse but be replaced by a more efficient single payer system, as most civilized countries have. Reality, the insurance companies won't allow that.
Do you believe that having vast numbers of people with no access to health insurance is a positive thing in some bizarre fashion?
Do enlighten us O Great Altruistic One and explain how and why your healthcare system evolved to reach a state where people had no access to health plan coverage.
Source your evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
As I have stated before, we might have had a better outcome if all our legislators had been involved in solving a problem that affects a vast number of constituents.
Which part of "intra-State" Commerce do you not understand?
My dogs Tibi and Tavi and my cat Dori understand the US Constitution better than you do, and they've never even been in America.
Healthcare is intra-State Commerce and according to the Constitution of the United States the federal government has no power and no authority to regulate it.
Everyone except ACA supporters and Obama know that.
I even said that 4 years ago arguing with Florida.Bob that Obamacare could never pass a constitutional test on its face.
The Supreme Court affirmed recently that Obamacare is intra-State Commerce and Congress has no power or authority.
The best thing about that is it precludes the possibility of any kind of national healthcare system for at least a decade or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
See, some people are not inexplicably tied to dogma and rhetoric.
That would be the people who oppose Obamacare.....we're for things like the US Constitution, which is hardly dogma and rhetoric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
I hope for a system that is beneficial to everyone.
No, you don't.
You pretend to give a damn about others, but you really don't....as I proved on another thread, there is a tremendous disconnect with ACA supporters......their entire focus is on how much health plan coverage costs them --which is incredibly selfish, whereas opponents of the ACA are focused on reducing the costs charged by healthcare providers.
Stated another way, ACA supporters selfishly believe that reducing the costs of health plan coverage will reduce the costs of healthcare, which is totally absurd, and not even possible.
On the other hand, ACA opponents know that the Free Market will reduce the costs of healthcare and the prices and fees charged by providers, which in turn will reduce the cost of health plan coverage, and more importantly, it will simultaneously give everyone access to health plan coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Still, it seems to be the only attempt to do anything about a mounting and significant problem. As opposed to the previous, "Let them eat cake" policy.
Again, which part of "intra-State" Commerce do you not understand?
The State legislatures are the only governments with power over healthcare itself.
Congress has no power...the Constitution clearly says so, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that.
If you had a real leader in the White House instead of self-aggrandizing oaf, something could have been done.
I am what Obama never could be.... a leader....even lead troops on the battlefield.
It would have taken me all of a couple of days to convene a conference with all the governors, and say, hey, look, you all need to do something to reduce the cost of health care services, and restoring the Free Market a la pre-1933 is the best way, and I will give you all the help I can within the limits of the Constitution.
How freaking hard is that?
The only thing the federal government can do under the Constitution is reform the 1986 IRS Tax Code which includes those parts of the 1954 IRS Tax Code that subsidize healthcare through tax policies, and which prevents health insurance companies from providing health insurance for employer-sponsored health plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
Well, you don't understand their population or its dynamics...
Neither do you, but then you didn't know how France rations healthcare, and in fact, you didn't even know France did ration healthcare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
It is so revealing you are trying so hard to win points.
I don't have to win points.....I just have to demonstrate that your knowledge of the Constitution is even more sub-standard than your knowledge of Economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Did you even read what I responded to specifically? No, or you would not have made this response.
You don't even understand the Economics of your own healthcare system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Most, if not all, health insurance plans offer covered services for people that may not pertain to any one particular person. i.e. women's or pediatric care included in a policy that a man subscribes to.
Why and How?
Tell us why and how that happened, and identify the organization responsible for creating involuntary commercial transactions.
After that, you can explain how involuntary or coerced commercial transactions are harmful to consumers and are economically damaging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
My other two points you take issue with are essentially strawman as well. I won't even bother setting the record straight, as anyone with competent reading comprehension can see that is the case.
No Straw Man....you got hammered with facts you cannot refute....
In response to EdwardScissorhandsRunning, you said....
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
I believe you mean the people who actually have and can afford insurance. Which fails to address the vast numbers who do not and can not.
...and I responded....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Obamacare fails to address the root cause of the problems in your healthcare system, which is that monopolistic hospital cartels illegally collude to illegally fix price in excess of Market rates...
....but, then, since the ACA was written mostly by the American Hospital Association...
The American Hospital Association gave....
$779 Million to Obama for America 2008
$260 Million to DNC 2008
$428 Million to RNC 2008
You don't even understand how and why your healthcare system evolved into the fiasco it is.
You don't even understand the difference between intra-State Commerce and Interstate Commerce, which means at least you and Obama have one thing in common.
I guess it's a good thing the Supreme Court does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Also, you might want to look into the proper use of the ellipses. Here is a hint: it is not a comma and it is only three dots.
So? I don't feel like using parentheses.......sue me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
I do take it as a creepy sort of compliment that you try so hard to argue with me.
Your Kool-Aid is poison....if others don't see that, it is most unfortunate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
My understanding is that you do not even live in the USA and as such that makes you the ultimate troll.
I am a natural-born US Citizen. I'm also a disabled veteran. And I am in the US......right now...... waiting for my NFR hearing.
This is the Economics Forum, and I do have a BA in Economics...and Political Science...amongst other degrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Notice that no one in the USA gives a flying **** what health care looks like in Europe.
Yes, I know. I've pointed out the hypocrisy of people just like yourself who claim they want either a national or universal system, just like Europe, yet they refuse to enact any reforms to make their healthcare system, just like Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Which make me believe you only involve yourself in these threads to insult people and make sarcastic comments, which apparently pumps up your ego. A sign of insecurity when you cannot get that ego boost from pride in your own accomplishments! Or, as your constant trumpeting of your alleged superiority suggests, a bit of narcissistic personality disorder. Are you having that treated?
It isn't my fault you refuse to engage in any research using legitimate sources to understand how your healthcare system evolved, and what solutions would be effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
You're out of ammo. Only posting as a token feel-better and feeble CYA exercise. Boring.
So that's what you're doing.
Maybe if you actually read the sources I've given you could debate the issue.
I think the decision point of whether or not we will have better health care post Obamacare will determine the success or failure of the Unaffordable Care Act. I think it will not be better for the average American and more likely will result in less health care, it just shifts the cost of a certain number of people who are uninsured to the insured and shifts the high cost of old age health care to younger workers.
And your evidence for that is what?
You have lots of evidence to support your claim. Why don't you use it?
Let's see what the Medicare Trustees have to say...
2012 Medicare Trustees Report Page 2
The Trustees believe that this outcome, while plausible, will depend on the achievement of unprecedented improvements in health care provider productivity. If the health sector could not transition to more efficient models of care delivery and achieve productivity increases commensurate with economy-wide productivity, and if the provider reimbursement rates paid by commercial insurers continued to follow the same negotiated process used to date, then the availability and quality of health care received by Medicare beneficiaries relative to that received by those with private health insurance would fall over time, generating pressure to modify Medicare’s payment rates.
[underline and bold emphasis mine]
See? You and the Medicare Trustees are on the same sheet of music.
And why would they say that? It has to do with Economics....and what the GAO says....
"The expansion of health insurance increases health care cost per capita as people demand more health care when they are better insured. Health insurance has expanded in two ways: (1) by covering an increasing share of the population and (2) by covering each person more completely."
[underlined and bold emphasis mine]
Source: GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013; Page 34
See?
You're right.
And the really sad thing is that people are going to have to suffer before these idiots finally realize --- assuming they ever do --- that you and I and so many others are right.
Repping....
... explain how and why your healthcare system evolved to reach a state where people had no access to health plan coverage.
...
....we're for things like the US Constitution, which is hardly dogma and rhetoric...
You pretend to give a damn about others, but you really don't....as I proved on another thread, there is a tremendous disconnect with ACA supporters......their entire focus is on how much health plan coverage costs them --which is incredibly selfish, whereas opponents of the ACA are focused on reducing the costs charged by healthcare providers.
...
On the other hand, ACA opponents know that the Free Market will reduce the costs of healthcare and the prices and fees charged by providers, which in turn will reduce the cost of health plan coverage, and more importantly, it will simultaneously give everyone access to health plan coverage.
...
If you had a real leader in the White House instead of self-aggrandizing oaf, something could have been done.
I am what Obama never could be.... a leader....even lead troops on the battlefield.
It would have taken me all of a couple of days to convene a conference with all the governors, and say, hey, look, you all need to do something to reduce the cost of health care services, and restoring the Free Market a la pre-1933 is the best way, and I will give you all the help I can within the limits of the Constitution.
...
Neither do you, but then you didn't know how France rations healthcare, and in fact, you didn't even know France did ration healthcare.
...
...
This is the Economics Forum, and I do have a BA in Economics...and Political Science...amongst other degrees.
...
So that's what you're doing.
Maybe if you actually read the sources I've given you could debate the issue.
Laughing at the superior intelliect...
Mircea
I hope you intended that part in red as irony!
Once you find yourself professing how well educated you are and what a heroic leader you are and how intellectually superior you are and wrapping yourself in the constitution, you've already lost the argument!
The "free market" has completely failed to reduce the cost of health care, the last 30 years illustrates that! But hey, you'd just call a meeting with the Governors and viola, it would be 1932 all over again! That statement alone exemplifies how far from reality you really are!
Your failure to acknowledge that group insurance is a product which provides an array of services, where costs are spread among individuals with varying needs, which is not specific to Obamacare, is a staggering example of denial.
And no matter how much smoke you blow into the air, it won't change the fact that in the USA we have vast numbers of people with no health insurance under the current system and that number is likely to grow as businesses continue to extricate themselves from providing health coverage, as they have since long before anyone ever heard of Obama. There is only a single initiative on the table to provide any relief. I don't pretend to have the solution, unlike you who believes you have the solution to all things economic. Nor do I need to insult and criticize everyone who does not accept my self-proclaimed superiority.
Why would you want to debate anyone anyhow? Clearly, you think everyone else is inferior and you already have all the answers. So, whats the point? Drag people into an argument of your own making to further bloat you ego?
A perfect example: You ask how how did health care in the USA evolve to this point, rather than acknowledge that there is a problem that until recently was not being addressed at all. No one gives a rat's Mircea about the minutiae. There is a problem and problems require solutions. It appears your best solution is status quo. Which is exactly how we got here!
Does looking at how Europe or Japan manage health care for their entire populace help to understand the problems and potential paths to solutions? Yes. Is anyone here going to spend an inordinate mount of time nitpicking the shortfalls of those systems? No, because we don't live under them. I am fully aware that health care is rationed in France and other places. So what? There are certainly limits to what makes sense economically. No country can afford to spend billions providing nonagenarians quadruple bypass surgeries.
Any Democratic initiative was going to be attacked by the opposition. Nothing would have been good enough. Yet, no attempt has ever been made to do anything about the mounting problems until now. I don't have any way of knowing how the AHCA will play out. And neither do you! But, it has put the problem in the forefront of America's consciousness. Which, whether Obamacare survives or falls, is going to force debate and possible change.
Do I care about improving access to health care? Yes. Do I care about driving down costs? Yes.
Will I ever see any benefit from Obamacare? Very unlikely. Besides having corporate sponsored retiree health care, I earn too much to qualify for any subsidies by a long shot. So, any argument that my views are superficially selfish, hardly hold water.
You do a lot of incorrect inferring. I don't want national health care or socialized medicine. I want the growing problem of escalating costs to be be debated and examined and where there are solutions, I want to see them implemented. I don't care what form they take, as long as they provide a path to improvement. It would suit me fine if all parties involved set aside their differences and hammered out a better solution. But, failing that unlikely scenario, I am pleased to see the matter publicly up for debate.
I don't expect this to reduce my costs, rather the opposite. Yet, this is not only about reducing cost, it is about improving access. And dealing with the elephant in the room. Summarily, I support the concept, not necessarily this specific implementation.
You still haven't figured out that whole ellipses thing yet, eh? You can lead a Mircea to water!
Last edited by shaker281; 11-06-2013 at 11:47 PM..
When Obama come to power there were four major priorities he had to work on which were economy, health care, energy, and immigration. The worst crises were the first two economy & health care and some work has been done on it but considerable work remains to be done. A comprehensive outline of approaches to energy issues was also done in 2009-10 but there no progress on that too.
...
The "free market" has completely failed to reduce the cost of health care, the last 30 years illustrates that!
...
There has very little free market for health care in the US in the last thirty years. With Medicare, Medicaid, and an assortment of other programs where the government mandates coverage, accessibility, process, and procedures at the federal level, and an astounding array of regulation at the state level there is NO room for free market practice.
Do not think that this latest attempt at central management of health care is in isolation.
"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.
Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board, Section 1002.8, LXVIII.
Economic Analysis: Negative, due to the fact that it starts to limit access to health plan coverage to only those who are employed. Furthermore, as a fringe-benefit, it creates a situation where both the employer and employee agree that increasing or expanding health plan benefits is preferable to increasing wages or salaries, or providing other potential employee benefits. Finally, the potential tax revenues are lost, since wages are deferred to benefits.
Admit or deny....
Unions have the right negotiate fringe benefits on behalf of employees
Source: Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board. United Steel Workers Of America, C.I.O., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board; United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
"...pension and retirement plans constitute part of the subject matter of compulsory collective bargaining under the Act."
September 23, 1948. Writ of Certiorari Granted January 17, 1949. 170 F.2d 247 (1948)
"Following the 1949 Inland Steel decision by the Supreme Court, pensions became a mandatory bargaining topic and the subject of nearly all collective negotiations."
Source: www.nber.org/chapters/c7131.pdf
Economic Analysis: The Inland Steel decision begins to further restrict or limit access to health plan coverage to only those who are employed. Additionally, group plans are not necessarily in the best economic interest of all, creating more losers than winners.
Admit or deny...
"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."
Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information on the 1954 tax code.
Economic Analysis: The Inland Steel decision opens the flood-gates for insurance companies to enter the group health plan Market. The American Hospital Association's Blue Cross loses more than 70% of its Market Share. Unable to compete with Free Market insurance companies due to the fact that Blue Cross is locked into a "community rating scheme," the American Hospital Association lobbies Congress and the IRS for a change in the tax code, established in 1954 to punish insurance companies who can offer group plans and much lower rates than the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross can.
Additionally, the changes in the 1954 IRS Tax Code banned health insurance for employ-based benefits, relegating the plans to glorified fee-for-service plans. Effectively, a large series of cost controls where then removed from the healthcare system, which helped to drive up costs faster.
Admit or deny....
"Introduced by various House and Senate sponsors and subject to extensive hearings, the basic framework of part A began to reflect accommodations between the sponsors, the Administration and the American Hospital Association (AHA).
It ranged all the way from principles of institutional reimbursement, which has been pretty thoroughly already worked out in a general way for their own purposes between Blue Cross and the Hospital Association over a period of several years
The American Hospital Associationhas already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them."
Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965
Economic Analysis: In its continued quest to gain monopoly control over the healthcare system in America, the American Hospital Association first interferes in the Free Market in 1933 by dictating minimum coverage and minimum fees for group plans to member-hospitals; in 1939, the American Hospital Association creates the "Out-of-Network" clause to punished Americans for using hospitals that were not members of the American Hospital Association, in an attempt stifle competition; during the period 1939-1946 the American Hospital Association lobbies the State legislatures --- since healthcare is intra-State Commerce and not Interstate Commerce --- for "enabling laws" to give the Blue Cross health insurance company an unfair advantage over its competitors...those actions all moved to create the problem of an healthcare system with access limited primarily to those who are employed.
The American Hospital Association heroically --- in an obvious act of pure selflessness -- volunteers its own insurance company ---- the Blue Cross --- to save America from the problem that it created.
Admit or deny.....
Last update 25.10.11 Extracted on 06.01.13 Source of Data Eurostat UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HC Health care expenditure ICHA_HP All providers of health care
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF Private household out-of-pocket expenditure
Romania .......63.95 Germany....... 403.33 United States....... 697.13
Norway .......805.54 Switzerland....... 1,590.18
Source: Database EuroStat: The European Commission of the European Union.
Economic Analysis: The united States does not pay twice what others are paying.
Admit or deny....
"As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending."
Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, page 33.
Economic Analysis: Healthcare spending in the US is consistent with the Laws of Economics with respect to demand for healthcare services increasing the costs of healthcare. Note that unlike other States, the demand for a particular type of healthcare service, namely elective cosmetic surgery is one of the primary drivers.
Admit or deny...
Let's go back to the EuroStat data from the European Commission of the European Union....
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF General government
Germany .......2,537.44 United States....... 2,657.86
So, if Germany is spending $2 on social services related to health care for every $1 spent on health care, while the US spends $0.55..........
....then the total amount spent by
...Germany........is 7,611 per person
...US................is 4,068 per person
A guillotine, not an escape hatch.
There are reasons why your healthcare system --- from the standpoint of economics, efficiency, cost and access ---- are a nightmare (although the actual services themselves are excellent to superior).
O-care does absolutely nothing to address the causes of the problems of your system. Obamacare does not address:
1] illegal hospital cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices;
2] the lack of healthcare competition in the Market;
3] coerced consumer transactions;
4] tax subsidies which expand health plan benefits;
5] the grotesque inefficiencies of the Hospital Model versus the Clinic Model; and
6] the over-use of technology.
Good luck with that...
Mircea
OMG Somebody needs a life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
