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.
What it does is force the rest of us to help cover those that run to the doctor and have medical problems, many self-inflicted. Also, this won't cover the illegal immigrants and their baby machines, got to get those anchor babies pushed out!
Really? People with pre-existing conditions or too old or too poor to buy insurance would go back to the private market so they could NOT buy insurance? Those "types" of insurance have existed since day one.
Man, my car ran out of gas because I can't afford gas! If only I could drive my gasless car to the gas station to buy gas I can't afford!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wkennyn
Just making insurance more affordable doesn't negate the real issue which is cost of treatment itself and treatment itself lends itself to traditional market forces poorly because the demand is inelastic.
If health insurance is more affordable then that is a great thing, but it still doesn't negate the fact that everyone regardless of insurance gets covered for emergency (i.e., expensive) treatment. Without us all being insured or incurring a penalty of some kind it doesn't properly penalize those who fail to secure treatment, so we are indirectly subsidizing their malfeasance anyway, unless of course we passed a law to turn away people without coverage.
At least with a system designed like the ACA, it forces everyone to have SOME skin in the game.
This really isn't true though. Look at the healthcare industry prior to company-sponsored insurance plans. It was an extremely affordable system for virtually everyone. It was government imposed wage ceilings during WWII that pushed employers (and insurance companies) into healthcare in the united states in the first place. That was the start of our path towards expensive health care. Prior to that, the system was affordable enough that people simply could pay for their health care like any other product.
That is the problem today. People are ignorant to the history of how we got to where we are today.
Not blaming the Dems for this. Just making it somewhat tougher to navigate to the correct site that one is mandated to enroll in.
Usually I would be concerned about something like this, but I think savvy web surfers will quickly realize that they are on one of these phony sites because unlike www.healthcare.turd, the phony sites actually work, and work pretty quickly.
This really isn't true though. Look at the healthcare industry prior to company-sponsored insurance plans. It was an extremely affordable system for virtually everyone. It was government imposed wage ceilings during WWII that pushed employers (and insurance companies) into healthcare in the united states in the first place. That was the start of our path towards expensive health care. Prior to that, the system was affordable enough that people simply could pay for their health care like any other product.
That is the problem today. People are ignorant to the history of how we got to where we are today.
I'm well aware of wage controls during WW2 and it's link to healthcare being tied to employment. The issue is that healthcare is already extremely expensive. Simply decoupling healthcare from employment or tearing down FDA regulations for drug market competition, or any of the other answer espoused by free-market healthcare advocates will do little to alter the cost of the "big-money" procedures. The cost of treatment for things like cold meds, chiro treatment, massages, accupuncture, or other non-acute issues would fair fine under traditional market mechanisms because they have some degree of elasticity in their demand. The major money procedures (chemo, bypasses, organ transplants, limp replacements, ortho surgery, hip replacements, large scans w/ chemical contrast agents, etc) don't possess the same degree of elasticity because we need these for either our immediate comfort or... to not die. We just don't have the ability to effectively negotiate these treatments because we have a physical, and in some cases, a mortal need for them. Companies that provide treatment can, and should, operate like a business. Their interest in making money...not keeping people healthy for as cheap as possible. That is why I believe a federal agent with 100% of the "skin" in the game is a better option because it has EVERY incentive to ensure that we are not only healthy, but to ensure that we are for as inexpensive as possible. Countries that do this effectively pay lower costs for practically all procedures and do so with a smaller portion of their GDP. What is more, we don't see better results for the most part on the major health metrics for our exponentially higher costs of treament.
I'm well aware of wage controls during WW2 and it's link to healthcare being tied to employment. The issue is that healthcare is already extremely expensive. Simply decoupling healthcare from employment or tearing down FDA regulations for drug market competition, or any of the other answer espoused by free-market healthcare advocates will do little to alter the cost of the "big-money" procedures. The cost of treatment for things like cold meds, chiro treatment, massages, accupuncture, or other non-acute issues would fair fine under traditional market mechanisms because they have some degree of elasticity in their demand. The major money procedures (chemo, bypasses, organ transplants, limp replacements, ortho surgery, hip replacements, large scans w/ chemical contrast agents, etc) don't possess the same degree of elasticity because we need these for either our immediate comfort or... to not die. We just don't have the ability to effectively negotiate these treatments because we have a physical, and in some cases, a mortal need for them. Companies that provide treatment can, and should, operate like a business. Their interest in making money...not keeping people healthy for as cheap as possible. That is why I believe a federal agent with 100% of the "skin" in the game is a better option because it has EVERY incentive to ensure that we are not only healthy, but to ensure that we are for as inexpensive as possible. Countries that do this effectively pay lower costs for practically all procedures and do so with a smaller portion of their GDP. What is more, we don't see better results for the most part on the major health metrics for our exponentially higher costs of treament.
I understand what you are saying, but it is a somewhat shortsighted solution. We have to start with the end goal in mind, and that should be a non-monopolistic loosely regulated competitive free market system. Enacting something like ACA is a step even farther away from that goal. It is a solution that promises to help people immediately while creating a system that will be even worse and even less cost effective for future generations. Will any sort of reform to deregulate health care cause short term pain? Absolutely, but there are times when a path to recovery means things get worse before they get better. I would much rather work to deregulate the health care system (knowing that it will cause pain for a few years) if that means we have a shot at leaving our children's generation with something sustainable.
ACA is attempting to use a shot of morphine to heal a dislocated shoulder. It absolutely makes you feel better, but the correct thing to do is to relocate it back into place, regardless of how painful that action is.
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.
