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.
Quantifying human costs, so you can understand the true costs of a specific approach, so you can make a rational decision that factors in the entirety of the matter, requires compassion and consideration of others. It requires being willing to admit that from society's perspective your own personal comfort and luxury is a lesser priority than someone else's life and health.
ok human costs. you are going to have to make that case to someone who is seeing higher dollar costs. they also may feel that there should be ways to contain the cost of care and PPACA isnt going to do much for that. it seems like they shifted costs around and some of them were shifted away from the "wealthy" to the middle class. that middle class is going to hurt thanks to PPACA.
Lots of the insurance companies were in serious trouble before PPACA. Primarily because of their predatory practices, shoddy products and absolutely horrible customer service. In short, they can't revert to their former practices and remain in business.
So if PPCA crashes and the insurance companies are caught, then just how will law will be drastically changed/eliminated?
well, I think one major issue is that you give incentive to employers to keep employees part time. so that may be changed. you also give incentives to keep employers under 50 employees. that might be changed. id personally remove the employer from the equation and not have any employer mandate. id like to see employers give a dollar amount for healthcare that employees can use to purchase the product themselves, maybe into some form of health savings account.
the other big issue is all the sick and elderly people that are added to the regular health insurance system that are raising the costs. im not sure how they were handled prior to PPACA. if they basically were forced into bankruptcy then put on Medicaid, maybe we just move them into Medicaid. it will make Medicaid more expensive but it wont make regular private health insurance more expensive. by keeping the cost in Medicaid and not private health insurance premiums, you keep the costs more with the "wealthy" and less a hit on the middle class.
ok human costs. you are going to have to make that case to someone who is seeing higher dollar costs.
I do that continually. Whether those people are willing to place more value on someone else's life than they place on their own comfort and luxury is a reflection of their character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
they also may feel that there should be ways to contain the cost of care and PPACA isnt going to do much for that.
We'd all like to pay less for healthcare. However, having more money to afford comfort and luxury is a lower priority than being able to afford the basics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
it seems like they shifted costs around and some of them were shifted away from the "wealthy" to the middle class.
That's a completely baseless conclusion. While I don't disagree with your implicit claim that the costs could have and should have been shifted even more significantly toward "wealthy" people, what you've written is false. In absolute terms, costs were shifted toward wealthy people even more than the lower- and middle-middle class people, simply on the basis of how the subsidies are made available only for folks up to 400% FPL, which is roughly the 60th percentile IIRC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
that middle class is going to hurt thanks to PPACA.
Practically everyone who previously was able to afford healthcare still will be able to do so, plus many who were not able to afford healthcare in the previous system shall be able to, and an increase in spending on the essentials of life, like that, naturally will result in a decrease in non-essential spending. If by "hurt" you mean that a $X reduction in non-essential spending will represent a larger percentage of non-essential spending for people who can afford less non-essential spending as compared to people who can afford more non-essential spending, then yes - of course - that's the nature of mathematics. Taxation and the costs of health coverage under ACA are already progressive ("progressive" explicitly means more favorable to the middle class and less favorable to the rich), to a greater extent than the prior system. If you want to advocate for shifting the costs onto rich people yet-even more, then go ahead and do so - I won't object - but there are advocates for the rich who have good reasons for their support, and our obligation as adults living in a society with reasonable people who hold to different values than us dictates that we agree to compromise with such advocates for the rich.
well, I think one major issue is that you give incentive to employers to keep employees part time.
As many people point out, there is a significant unfunded burden placed on society from employment that pays less than a living wage, a burden compounded by employment that provides paltry benefits. While it helps keep one employee from going underwater completely, and that shouldn't be forgotten, the institutionalized practice of having the American taxpayer subsidize Wal-mart stocking its shelves is probably not in the nation's best interest. Since the human being involved - the employee - is not disposable, we should be doing things to shift the costs to society from such exploitation of desperation in the labor market from the taxpayer to the profit earned from such exploitation. However, again, there are advocates for the rich that make arguments contrary to this one, and we have to live as mature adults in society with such advocates for the rich, and therefore must compromise on what should be done in that regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
the other big issue is all the sick and elderly people that are added to the regular health insurance system that are raising the costs. im not sure how they were handled prior to PPACA.
In many cases, these people carried the burden of their misfortune the terms of loss of life, or limitations on their physical capacity and their productivity - the human costs I mentioned earlier. ACA did not raise costs. ACA simply turned those human costs into financial costs that previously were ignored by the system, and therefore disproportionately laid upon the unfortunate, and the less affluent - the most vulnerable members of society who therefore had too little political power to demand reasonable and moral definitions of fairness be applied. That is what changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
if they basically were forced into bankruptcy then put on Medicaid, maybe we just move them into Medicaid.
"Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups." [Source]
Some states are quite restrictive, and therefore leave many of their poor to suffer the human costs I have been referring to. If your user name is any indication of where you live, you may not be aware of this immoral injustice, because it simply doesn't happen where you live.
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ well, I think one major issue is that you give incentive to employers to keep employees part time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
As many people point out, there is a significant unfunded burden placed on society from employment that pays less than a living wage, a burden compounded by employment that provides paltry benefits. While it helps keep one employee from going underwater completely, and that shouldn't be forgotten, the institutionalized practice of having the American taxpayer subsidize Wal-mart stocking its shelves is probably not in the nation's best interest. Since the human being involved - the employee - is not disposable, we should be doing things to shift the costs to society from such exploitation of desperation in the labor market from the taxpayer to the profit earned from such exploitation. However, again, there are advocates for the rich that make arguments contrary to this one, and we have to live as mature adults in society with such advocates for the rich, and therefore must compromise on what should be done in that regard.
BTW - I'm not 'rich'.... it's kind of funny that insurance offered by employers came about because of GOVERNMENT wage controls (capped wages) --- and NOW we talk about more GOVERNMENT 'wage controls' for 'living' wages (HIGHER - to make up for health insurance costs).
Shouldn't we be talking a few domino's back - about the cost of health care? And until some competition is introduced, it will only go up. Or we could CAP things (some more), and we all know how that works! (Not!)
Husband's knee surgery 'negotiated' cost was $2,715 but was 'billed' at $15,798 - 582% more! Negotiated with what? Purchasing power!! (of my employer's insurance plan - with my employer's $$$) But it's top-down negotiations, instead of bottom-up. And, BTW, why is ACA phasing out HSA's? Hum?
Maybe the high deductibles ($5,000) will bring about some price 'competition'. Or, LOL, maybe ACA-Part D - to help with deductibles!!
Shouldn't we be talking a few domino's back - about the cost of health care?
I don't see anyone objecting to that. It's a fine thing to do. However, it doesn't relieve the obligation to address the critical problems of inadequate access to affordable healthcare now, while we're working on that longer-term need.
I don't see anyone objecting to that. It's a fine thing to do. However, it doesn't relieve the obligation to address the critical problems of inadequate access to affordable healthcare now, while we're working on that longer-term need.
Curious, are you purchasing your insurance via the exchange to help financially support people get access to this affordable health care? You know, the larger the pool the greater the savings.
In theory, it keeps those without health insurance,mespecially for costly hospital admissions or extensive ER visits, from not being paid but a write off to "charity".
It forces people to take responsibility for their healthcare & crisis planning, HCA just goes about it the wrong way.
Are you? Or are you simply looking to deflect attention away from points you don't like. Generally I find that people who ask impertinent personal questions instead of addressing themselves to the topic are just trying to dance away from a discussion they're not equipped to handle. In this case, I raised a moral issue about society's obligation, and instead of addressing it you decided to try to deflect.
Regardless, my income is such that yes I'm very much getting hit with higher taxes to pay for the subsidies that financially support less affluent people getting access to affordable health coverage. Thanks for asking. I'll expect you to answer some personally invasive questions about yourself, later, I'm sure.
I'd also support whatever changes you would like to make to put us all in one big pool. But it isn't always all just about what you want or what I want. We live in a society with other people who don't want such a large change made right now. You should respect them as I do, and recognize that what we have going on now is a compromise that makes things a bit better, but with still more work to do.
With all the unemployed, very underemployed and "youngins" not signing up I can't wait till this collapses in its mighty crash.
The unemployed and very underemployed will generally sign up since it's basically free for them. It's the moderately employed and above youngins that won't be signing up if they didn't have insurance before or will be dropping their insurance as it's too expensive.
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.
