Affordable Care Act - catastrophic plans cancelled

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by Richard5

Of course the USA could 'afford' this if speaking in monetary terms. But reliance on the govt has not been the foundation of what the USA is about.

And nothing is free. Someone else had to pay for the 'free' something one enjoys. That right there gets under the skin of most Americans. Where one is given an entitlement, another has been forced to provide. That is tyrannical in the minds of most. Rugged independence (and the liberty to express that) has been a part of Americana as anything. It really has been the basis of what created the wealth of the USA.

Richard, you have hit the nail on the head. Someone else has to pay... There are two sides to this coin, not only is the payer having the fruit of their labor taken injustly, but the recipient is not really gaining. Sure, health care is important... But as long as people are denied the right to take care for themselves, they accept being something other then independent.

This is the tyranny of all such programs. Where people invest in something the results are entirely different, but social welfare never produces improvement in people's life.

One of the things about cruising is that when you look around an anchorage, the boats there have largely taken the time and effort to sail there. There is merit in this, Eileen Quinn said in her song that no one cares how big your boat is, it is enough that you are here.

Folks denied the right to "get there" never know what that is.

In hiking it is the difference between hiking up the mountain or taking a tour bus... The view may be the same but the person is not. The fundamental belief that government has a role in operating tour busses is what seems so strange to me..... What is the ultimate benefit? What are the real costs of these programs?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

[RE economies of scale]

hmmm...not quite what I remember in my Econ classes...regulation drivinig down cost as a natural market driven consequence? Really, examples please, I'm egar to learn something new here.

I agree with you on Single Payer being the solution, but the problem now is that this ACA is turning into such a disaster with Presidential lies, people losing their Dr and Insurance all wrapped up in basic Govent ineptitude, the American public's appetite for trusting the Government is not just at record lows...but pretty much over.

Riiight. Have you noticed that where it is either single-payer or well-regulated, healthcare is cheaper than in the US? And universal? Also, you misquoted (or misunderstood) me. When there's a supply monopoly, prices go up. When there's a demand monopoly, prices go down. Or did you miss that particular class?

No sense ragging about the ACA, when industry lobbying plus certain political "sentiments" made single-payer a non-starter in the US. ACA is better than what was there previously, and your costs will come down.

(I'll get out of the way now, while folks continue to pretend that everything they have was earned by themselves alone.)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Richard5

On the assumption your question is more than rhetorical I'll take a stab at it. The answer is because the govt (single payer entity) would be on the hook for having to actually provide health care to everyone. Canada has gotten around that by incurring lengthy waiting times although I don't know if it still is as effective as originally intended (see famous quote from CAN Supreme Court; "...access to a waiting list is not access to health care.").

To clarify, in Canada there are essentially no wait times for necessary surgery or treatment; you need a heart bypass you'll have it in a couple days, or often same-day. Elective surgery may require a wait; eg a knee replacement might be a 2 to 6 month wait. Most wait times have dropped in the last few years.

No death panels either, kids.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

Richard, you have hit the nail on the head. Someone else has to pay... There are two sides to this coin, not only is the payer having the fruit of their labor taken injustly, but the recipient is not really gaining. Sure, health care is important... But as long as people are denied the right to take care for themselves, they accept being something other then independent.

This is the tyranny of all such programs. Where people invest in something the results are entirely different, but social welfare never produces improvement in people's life. ...

Sorry, but I see it quite differently. Several generations have now benefited from Social Security and Medicare benefits and I doubt many of those receivers would consider themselves not independent people. In fact, most will quickly tell you they paid in to programs and are therefore entitled to the benefits, that they are not handouts.

Our taxes pay for lots of benefits and those taxes are our investment in a government that provides them. It may not always be the best way, but sometimes it's the way we chose. To say social welfare never produces improvements in people's lives is just plain ludicrous.

[Boatguy30]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

To clarify, in Canada there are essentially no wait times for necessary surgery or treatment; you need a heart bypass you'll have it in a couple days, or often same-day. Elective surgery may require a wait; eg a knee replacement might be a 2 to 6 month wait. Most wait times have dropped in the last few years.

No death panels either, kids.

Canada also has the US hospitals for rich folks. In England, oz and NZ there is a system of private hospitals for the rich. Canada's system "works" because the wealthy have to wait in the same line as the poor. In reality the rich go to the US or other countries instead of waiting. That will be the problem in the US, unless the public system is large enough and cover the rich and polically powerful, the masses wil have very mariginal care since the wealthy won't want to pay for a system they don't have to use.

[Jimbo485]

And you will keep using inches and feet as well. For ego reasons, you can't recognise that there are better systems and so you won't simply copy one of them.

Oh well.....

[Doodles]

O.K., stop ragging on the US health care system. We've now moved into 46th place pushing ahead of Serbia!

</title> <script src='/rapi/js_config.js' type='text/javascript'></script> <script src="http://cdn.gotraffic.net/v/20131105_152044/javascripts/visual-data/jquery-1.8.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script> $.fn.localizeDateStamp = function

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Hard for me to see someone concerned about the president "lying" very into single payer...

...The reason why their was a grandfathering clause was so that people could keep there old policies. Most insurance companies chose to change the coverages on the policies so they would no longer be grandfathered. Obama had nothing to do with those policies not being grandfathered.

No, the insurance companies were required to change the coverages to be compliant with the ACA, which REQUIRES policies to have certain coverages.

So certain policies that people actually liked will no longer be available, and similar policies will be more expensive.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

ACA is better than what was there previously, and your costs will come down.

(I'll get out of the way now, while folks continue to pretend that everything they have was earned by themselves alone.)

First, ACA may have some benefits for some, but I see no indication that it's going to actually lower costs, particularly as it mandated new coverages. New coverages for more people means either the overall cost will go up or the access will go down. The only way costs appear to go down is if they hide them somewhere else. I don't really anticipate the providers cutting their own profits willingly. Unless we mandate cost transparency or provide a way to compare costs, which the health care lobby is against.

Second, are you really going to bring up "You didn't build that"? It really wasn't a successful slogan.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Canada also has the US hospitals for rich folks.

Another myth. Like one-percenters everywhere, very wealthy Canadians can choose to go to private health-care in the US, or Monaco, or Dubai. Usually for elective stuff like plastic surgery or joint replacement.

The vast majority of Canadians, wealthy included, get their care through the same system.

Bonus fact: If there's a significant wait for life-saving treatment, or there's an effective treatment not yet available in Canada, the Canadian system will PAY to send the patient to the US or elsewhere for the treatment.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

First, ACA may have some benefits for some, but I see no indication that it's going to actually lower costs, particularly as it mandated new coverages. New coverages for more people means either the overall cost will go up or the access will go down. The only way costs appear to go down is if they hide them somewhere else. I don't really anticipate the providers cutting their own profits willingly. Unless we mandate cost transparency or provide a way to compare costs, which the health care lobby is against.

ACA is a step towards levelling access to healthcare insurance, which should bring more competition among insurers, instead of a series of fragmented non-competitive markets. There's tons of unnecessary overhead to trim from the insurers, and the current byzantine multiple-price situation will hopefully start to flatten out.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Second, are you really going to bring up "You didn't build that"? It really wasn't a successful slogan.

"the 47%" didn't exactly carry the day, either

[Richard5]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

ACA is a step towards levelling access to healthcare insurance, which should bring more competition among insurers, instead of a series of fragmented non-competitive markets. There's tons of unnecessary overhead to trim from the insurers, and the current byzantine multiple-price situation will hopefully start to flatten out.



"We are the 47%" didn't exactly carry the day, either

Arguing for increased government intervention when governments (plural) have repeatedly demonstrated abysmal track records is inane.


Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Richard5

Arguing for increased government intervention when governments (plural) have repeatedly demonstrated abysmal track records is inane.

Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

That link is propaganda, a joke. Can you explain why the majority of first-world countries (and several lower-tier countries too) can provide a higher level of health-care, to everyone, at a lower delivered cost?

But you can believe what you wish.

[Jimbo485]

This is entertaining and highly amusing.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by Doodles

Sorry, but I see it quite differently. Several generations have now benefited from Social Security and Medicare benefits and I doubt many of those receivers would consider themselves not independent people. In fact, most will quickly tell you they paid in to programs and are therefore entitled to the benefits, that they are not handouts.

Our taxes pay for lots of benefits and those taxes are our investment in a government that provides them. It may not always be the best way, but sometimes it's the way we chose. To say social welfare never produces improvements in people's lives is just plain ludicrous.

Doodles,

I appreciate your post, and the discussion. You make an excellent point, folks receiving SSI (although not so much SSDI) and Medicare have paid into a program and are receiving a benefit. Good or bad, these programs are funded by the government taking (withholding) pay. The ACA has no such provision.

Society providing for "widows and orphans among us" is certainly admirable. If this were the focus of the ACA it might be a good thing. This and other programs historically have provided disincentive for people to improve their circumstance.

If someone can make a living off of these entitlement programs, where is their incentive to do more? What example does it set for their children? Generational poverty is a curse and needs to be eradicated.... Giving free phones, creating food stamp programs designed for abuse, and rewarding participation with increased benefits does nothing to lift people from poverty but rather enslaves them.

The additional penalty is borne by those who work to pay taxes... How much more debt do you really believe the US can manage over time? Is is worth it to burden yôur children's children so that (an estimated, but hard to calculate) millions of people will not have to pay for cell phone service?