So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

I think its time to stop flinging around the whole "failing obamacare" notion.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la...0104-story.html

 

 

Quotes the LaTimes.....

 

Cmon you guys, Pakisho is right. Didn't you see the one article he posted from the LAtimes saying that Obama care works! He's totally right. The article says so. Derp

 

But if it's working so well why did My moms deductible go from $500 to $5000? Why is this cancer survivor having to skip going to her mammogram checkups because she can't afford them anymore?

Why are my family members and friends avoiding going to the hospita l because their deductibles are so expensive. Could it be that this LA Times article he posted... gasp.. could be wrong?! Pakisho wrong? Never. 🔮

All valid points. Do you think risk pools are the answer? Just going to price people with pre existing conditions out of the market.

The only answer is see is making the insurance market as competitive as possible. Do everything you can to make it a blood bath to drive down prices. It's Econ 101 that when there is unlimited demand (as created by making it a law) you will drive up prices. The damage of Obamacare is almost irreversible. The only thing you can do now is deregulate (or reregulate???) to drive down costs.

The only answer is see is making the insurance market as competitive as possible. Do everything you can to make it a blood bath to drive down prices. It's Econ 101 that when there is unlimited demand (as created by making it a law) you will drive up prices. The damage of Obamacare is almost irreversible. The only thing you can do now is deregulate (or reregulate???) to drive down costs.

 

 

The govt can then subsidize pre-existing condition policies but those that don't need them can get back to business and be left alone.

The govt can then subsidize pre-existing condition policies but those that don't need them can get back to business and be left alone.

 

 

If you are being really cynical, this actually may benefit Republicans. Obviously, they will take a hit in the short-term, but whatever replaces Obamacare would be an Achilles heel and the option they were going to vote on would have been a disaster that they would have to own. Now they can keep bashing Obamacare while continuing to undermine, push the problem down the road and not have to own plan b.

All valid points. Do you think risk pools are the answer? Just going to price people with pre existing conditions out of the market.

 

You live out in the hills a bit, can you buy homeowners insurance from any of the usual suspects? Or do you go through the state to buy insurance because nobody else will cover it due to the fire risk?

 

The myopia of gov't (and people in general) will be the downfall here. This same scenario has been solved in different industries already, why can't we apply a working formula and all move on?

 

 

You live out in the hills a bit, can you buy homeowners insurance from any of the usual suspects? Or do you go through the state to buy insurance because nobody else will cover it due to the fire risk?

 

The myopia of gov't (and people in general) will be the downfall here. This same scenario has been solved in different industries already, why can't we apply a working formula and all move on?

 

Because it is not about responsible people buying health care, it is about having responsible people pay for millions that will not or cannot pay for themselves. The government can't get out of its own way. Instead of coming up with a solution they just screw all of us together and then exempt themselves. I am glad they didn't pass this crap today but this isn't just going to go away and I have no confidence these idiots can actually get something reasonable passed.

The problem with healthcare is and will always be until they get rid of it== the middle man.

 

Why?? WHY??? is there a third party involved at all? If there is a third party= why are they not regulated such that profits are minimized?

 

You'll say capitalism. I say horse shit. Capitalism is valid when were talking about sports cars, watches and handbags. Should not be valid when talking about healthcare.

 

Sorry if you disagree... but if you don't want government controlled healthcare, or if you feel it is not constitutional= then change the rules so that the dollar is not the goal, the health of people is.

 

 

 

 

The problem with healthcare is and will always be until they get rid of it== the middle man.

 

Why?? WHY??? is there a third party involved at all? If there is a third party= why are they not regulated such that profits are minimized?

 

You'll say capitalism. I say horse shit. Capitalism is valid when were talking about sports cars, watches and handbags. Should not be valid when talking about healthcare.

 

Please explain without all the blah blah, why economics somehow doesn't apply to healthcare? In an open competitive market wouldn't the companies be striving to provide the best possible service for the best price? If they didn't then nobody would buy it (like obamacare, even with the penalty people tell them to fcuk off).

 

Please, spell it out, why this can't work.

 

And then support your stance: Where in the world do you get the idea that the gov't can efficiently run something this complicated when they have zero motivation to do anything responsible?

 

Oh right, the VA is a shining example of world class medical care. And we aren't even looking at a P&L here, with unlimited resources they still manage to fcuk it up on an unimaginable scale.

 

There is literally not a single instance I can think of where the gov't can do something more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. I defy anyone to point one out, JUST ONE!

 

What kmb said. All of it.

And yes, my insurance premiums and rates/deductibles/coinsurance you name it are completely fucked compared to 5 years ago. Boo hoo. If it helps people, Im good with it. If a "lamborghini owner" as you mentioned cries about his bill.................

 

 

 

There is literally not a single instance I can think of where the gov't can do something more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. I defy anyone to point one out, JUST ONE!

 

 

I know right? Dumbass government peddling toxic mortgages and then leveraging themselves to 99%, fortunately the private sector stepped in and bailed em out!

 

 

I know right? Dumbass government peddling toxic mortgages and then leveraging themselves to 99%, fortunately the private sector stepped in and bailed em out!

 

 

 

Really? You don't think the gov't insuring those mortgages and guaranteeing payment had ANYTHING to do with fcuking the risk profile there? Banks took advantage of what the gov't did, in their attempt to push the market. Law of unintended consequences.

 

0-1 for you.

 

Next?

Holy shit you actually DID make it the .gov's fault!

 

 

Props!

You live out in the hills a bit, can you buy homeowners insurance from any of the usual suspects? Or do you go through the state to buy insurance because nobody else will cover it due to the fire risk?

 

The myopia of gov't (and people in general) will be the downfall here. This same scenario has been solved in different industries already, why can't we apply a working formula and all move on?

Current house was no problem. My house in Malibu was "fair plan" and that sucked. The problem was I couldn't buy enough insurance even though I was willing to pay for it. The actual insurance coverage you could get was inexpensive, it just wasn't enough to rebuild our home if it burned down again.

What kmb said. All of it.

:eusa_naughty:

Please explain without all the blah blah, why economics somehow doesn't apply to healthcare? In an open competitive market wouldn't the companies be striving to provide the best possible service for the best price? If they didn't then nobody would buy it (like obamacare, even with the penalty people tell them to fcuk off).

 

Please, spell it out, why this can't work.

 

And then support your stance: Where in the world do you get the idea that the gov't can efficiently run something this complicated when they have zero motivation to do anything responsible?

 

Oh right, the VA is a shining example of world class medical care. And we aren't even looking at a P&L here, with unlimited resources they still manage to fcuk it up on an unimaginable scale.

 

There is literally not a single instance I can think of where the gov't can do something more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. I defy anyone to point one out, JUST ONE!

 

100%. Capitalism isnt a pick and choose scenario. It's always the best option in every scenario.

To quote Ole Ronnie: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Please explain without all the blah blah, why economics somehow doesn't apply to healthcare? In an open competitive market wouldn't the companies be striving to provide the best possible service for the best price? If they didn't then nobody would buy it (like obamacare, even with the penalty people tell them to fcuk off).

 

Please, spell it out, why this can't work.

 

And then support your stance: Where in the world do you get the idea that the gov't can efficiently run something this complicated when they have zero motivation to do anything responsible?

 

Oh right, the VA is a shining example of world class medical care. And we aren't even looking at a P&L here, with unlimited resources they still manage to fcuk it up on an unimaginable scale.

 

There is literally not a single instance I can think of where the gov't can do something more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. I defy anyone to point one out, JUST ONE!

 

 

 

Well- economics doesn't seem to apply to internet in my neighborhood where I am forced to pay TWC $100/mo for shit service if I want to enjoy this lovely conversation. Why would it apply to someone's well being?

 

I get that it should work. Trickle down economics should work. Can we just stop pretending that it does and find something else?

 

I do agree with you that government and efficient don't seem to go together, right up until they want their money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of saying why it won't work= why don't you recognize that what we currently have doesn't work, hasn't worked since capitalism went bananas and the only way to fix it is to take the profiteering out of it OR take it away completely and start with something new. Its not hard to grasp. We have never tried this other thing.. why not give it a shot? What do you have to lose? Probably not as much as some because for some= it's their life.

 

 

I don't know how any good human being could have voted for this ACA replacement and now we see that maybe there is some good out there still. It flopped as it should have.

 

 

100%. Capitalism isnt a pick and choose scenario. It's always the best option in every scenario.

To quote Ole Ronnie: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

 

 

and if you can't see that there HAS to be a better way here= I just don't know what else to say. Tapping out-

 

Cheers guys.

 

 

tapping back in..

 

Why can't we come up with a better way? I mean= that's growth. We have an issue that we need to solve. We tried something and it was a little better in that people got care they needed but... it needs to be better. OKay- GO!!!

 

 

Well- economics doesn't seem to apply to internet in my neighborhood where I am forced to pay TWC $100/mo for shit service if I want to enjoy this lovely conversation. Why would it apply to someone's well being?

 

I get that it should work. Trickle down economics should work. Can we just stop pretending that it does and find something else?

 

I do agree with you that government and efficient don't seem to go together, right up until they want their money.

 

 

Your internet is shitty because of politics and lobbying. You know we are in deep trouble when Google, which has a crap ton of resources and capital, can't even lay down fiber optic lines for their internet service.

Issuing a formal apology to the forum for the long post but kmb58 set me off and I couldn't help it.

 

The problem with healthcare is and will always be until they get rid of it== the middle man.

 

Why?? WHY??? is there a third party involved at all? If there is a third party= why are they not regulated such that profits are minimized?

 

You'll say capitalism. I say horse shit. Capitalism is valid when were talking about sports cars, watches and handbags. Should not be valid when talking about healthcare.

 

Sorry if you disagree... but if you don't want government controlled healthcare, or if you feel it is not constitutional= then change the rules so that the dollar is not the goal, the health of people is.

 

Here is my opinion: IMO, both sides make good points, but also some bad points. The "government-controlled healthcare" versus "market capitalist" healthcare comparison is too simplistic. Conservatives say, "Why can't the market just handle healthcare?" Well, because healthcare is not like other things that private-sector insurance applies to, such as for example homes and cars. Insurance companies do not like to provide insurance for an old broken down home that is at risk of fire or flooding or whatnot, and they don't want to provide insurance for old cars that are prone to breaking down. Similarly, they do not like to provide insurance to old broken down humans either who are prone to numerous major problems.

 

In response to this, Leftists say, "SEE! The government should thus be in charge of healthcare." But the problem with that is that for the problems private-sector healthcare can have, government-run healthcare also has a crap-ton of problems. When the government is put in charge of it, it runs into the same problems that occur when the government runs most anything else, i.e. rationing and waiting periods. The British National Health Service has been notorious for such problems over the years, as it is a completely government-run system, and the Canadian single-payer system has also run into such problems. The VA system is another such example. Medicare and Medicaid are also single-payer systems, not totally government-run, but very close. The problem with Medicare and Medicaid is that their costs have been skyrocketing for decades. Eventually they will hit a ceiling, in which then rationing will begin to occur (in some ways it already has). Which is why President Obama saying he wanted to create the equivalent of a "Medicare for all" was absurd.

 

So government running the system is not the answer either. Now interestingly, despite what many American liberals and conservatives think, not all the rest of the world has government-run healthcare. Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, for example, do not have single-payer socialist government-run systems, but instead have multi-payer, public-private hybrid systems that try to combine the best of both worlds. For example, the system of the Netherlands combines market competition by having multiple health insurance companies that compete with one another, but the government subsidizes them in such a way that instead of trying to avoid providing coverage to people with big problems, they are incentivized to. France, a literally quasi-socialist country, also, rather surprisingly, does not have a single-payer system. Germany's system combines multiple health insurance non-profits that the public can rate that compete with one another.

 

IMO, neither the pure market will work for healthcare the way it works for home and car insurance, but the government solution is not the way to go either. The Democrats have this fetish for Single Payer! Single Payer! Single Payer! care, because they mistakenly believe that it is what all the other countries have (they don't) and/or are so socialist, that they see health insurance as the one area where they think socialism can work. They also willingly ignore all the problems with the various socialist and single-payer systems.

 

Well- economics doesn't seem to apply to internet in my neighborhood where I am forced to pay TWC $100/mo for shit service if I want to enjoy this lovely conversation. Why would it apply to someone's well being?

 

I get that it should work. Trickle down economics should work. Can we just stop pretending that it does and find something else?

 

I do agree with you that government and efficient don't seem to go together, right up until they want their money.

 

Two things:

 

1) I have to use Time Warner Cable (or Spectrum as it's now called) as well and I agree with you 100% that they have crap service, but that is because they are an example of capitalism without a market. Capitalism without a market is no different than socialism. You're at the mercy of a private monopoly for the production of the good/service as opposed to a government monopoly. MARKET capitalism is what works best, and hence why health insurance needs that as a large component. Right now it doesn't, because health insurance companies cannot compete across state lines.

 

2) There is no such thing as "trickle down economics." That was a strawman created by the political Left to refer to what is properly called Supply-Side Economics which deals with trying to control the production of goods and services in the economy, as opposed to Demand-Side economics. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, many saw the inflation the country was suffering as a problem of too much consumer demand. Too much demand with too few products being produced meant rising prices for each product, hence the inflation. The demand-side method was thus to try and find ways to reduce the consumer demand. Whereas the supply-side method reasons, "How about we just leave consumer demand as it is and try to increase the supply of goods and services." This was achieved through a combination of deregulation and tax cuts at the time, which caused a boom in business.

 

Instead of saying why it won't work= why don't you recognize that what we currently have doesn't work, hasn't worked since capitalism went bananas and the only way to fix it is to take the profiteering out of it OR take it away completely and start with something new. Its not hard to grasp. We have never tried this other thing.. why not give it a shot? What do you have to lose? Probably not as much as some because for some= it's their life.

 

I don't know how any good human being could have voted for this ACA replacement and now we see that maybe there is some good out there still. It flopped as it should have.

 

Six things:

 

1) Part of the reason why what we have doesn't work is because it is not capitalist enough. If you stifle competition between health insurance companies, making it where one or a few health insurance companies have essentially a monopoly over whole regions of the country, then it should not be surprising when their service sucks and their prices rise. So that is one fix that needs to be done. Whether you realize it or not, you are thus engaging in a classic left-wing tactic of blaming the market for something that is really the fault of government policy, and thus demanding more government to "fix" the problem.

 

2) We HAVE tried this other thing, i.e. the VA and Medicare and Medicaid (and as said above, yeah those two are popular but their costs have been skyrocketing to unsustainable levels over the years). Also other countries have tried this type of system with dismal results as well.

 

3) It is impossible to scrap the entire system and start with something new. All you can do is take the existing ingredients and try to formulate a meal out of it. It's like having to create a working airplane out of a junkyard of parts. It can be done, but you need to use a workable plane design. The Democrats and left are hellbent on using the plane design that is notorious for crashing.

 

4) People do recognize that the current system doesn't work. But that doesn't mean that they will automatically agree that the solution is what the Democrats want.

 

5) The government takeover of American health insurance puts essentially 17% of the economy as a whole under the control of the government. Now some leftists mock this, saying that it is not true because Obamacare is not a directly government takeover of 17% of the economy, but they're wrong. It doesn't need to be a direct Soviet-style takeover of the system. What the government did is to nationalize by proxy the health insurance industry, and the thing is, whoever controls health insurance basically controls healthcare. For example, read the 10-K reports of various healthcare products companies. All of them will discuss how health insurance and the government's new policy affects them. So while not a direct takeover, it is enough that the government exerts a huge amount of influence over what is a huge amount of the economy.

 

6) Obamacare is way too much about the centralization of power in Washington and the creation of new armies of bureaucrats

 

and if you can't see that there HAS to be a better way here= I just don't know what else to say. Tapping out-

 

Cheers guys.

 

There is, but Obamacare ain't it!

 

tapping back in..

 

Why can't we come up with a better way? I mean= that's growth. We have an issue that we need to solve. We tried something and it was a little better in that people got care they needed but... it needs to be better. OKay- GO!!!

 

"We" didn't "try" it, what we had was a purely ideological policy forced onto us by the Democrats because of their ideological zeal for having the government run the whole system. Not saying the GOP isn't very ideological on this as well, but this particular policy was not any honest attempt to fix the system. I would also disagree that it is a "little better," that really depends on who you ask.

 

There was/is also the Constitutionality issue as there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government can mandate people purchase something. For those who say, "It's not a mandate, it's a tax," yes it's structured as a tax, but it's a tax implemented to mandate behavior, which it outside the government's power.

 

Holy fcuk

Holy fcuk

 

 

Filibuster !

Disclaimer, I know less than zero about the American healthcare system but this is my opinion on healthcare in general, further disclaimer, I am running on about 3 hours of sleep in the last 24 LOL.

 

I believe certain vital services have to be supplied and controlled by the government, i know most governments are useless but they are the necessary evil.

 

BTW if you don't agree I'd really like to control the tax department and the military

 

How about basic healthcare supplied/subsidized by the government (tax payers)? Government hospitals, government employed doctors etc. That could take care of basic healthcare basically don't let people die in the street and make sure everyone has access to proper healthcare irrespective of their financial means.

 

Make it means tested, you broke you get a subsidy you got money you pay a bit more, I know I know it isn't fair but we are always paying for broke people anyway so why not be open about it?

 

Private can run in parallel, from a certain income bracket "push" people into private healthcare to take the burden off the government system, manipulate the taxes in order to incentivize and de-incentivize the tax payer, allow every insurance company on this planet to compete for the private business, give tax concessions to the insurance company which provides the cheapest rates. etc. etc. etc.