Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Harry Baldman]

So you want to insist that those who can't afford insurance should buy it anyway so everyone else gets a cheaper rate? Something about that seems a little screwed up.

It is, isn't it? Would be so much more convenient and sensible if the state insured everyone and covered the costs with, say, some kind of tax.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Don't forget the freedom to pay out your ass for health insurance that won't actually do anything and probably be weaseled out of the moment the provider has to pay out. Can't forget part of this mess is the GOP fighting to give insurance companies back the near unfettered privilege of selling shit insurance that does jack all in practice but still charges premium like it does something.

That doesn't make any sense. If you think nationalizing healthcare will actually increase the quality of care and speed at which you get it you are mistaken. The more premiums you pay the better care you are afforded and the quicker you get it, though you argue that companies would weasel out of such a deal at first chance that is in fact what the premiums are for, you get the care, they still turn a profit. Additionally, you are a fool to think the government will act differently--most every branch of government is obsessed with spending as little as possible and as such you can expect them to examine you even more thoroughly to determine whether or not you "really need the care."

Of course, there's nothing wrong with this system. You're really just normalizing care. Instead of being able to pay more for better care and quicker treatment (which most people already had the ability to do through private healthcare or were otherwise provided for through medicaid or medicare.) You simply make it so that everybody receives essentially the same moderate standard of care at the cost of taking a lot longer time to have access to it due to a shit ton of bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, like most socialist (in the classical sense of providing for the public) reforms the people who this really fucks over is the middle class, as they end up footing a much larger bill than the poor at no benefit to themselves--actual rich people of course remain unaffected. In reality, there was a very small bracket of people who were not actually covered in some way which could have been easily solved by reforming medicaid, but was instead used as a poster child to change the system entirely (which was working quite well frankly), it would have been less of a tax hit that way AND everyone would still have care.

The US is turning into a welfare state, but people don't seem to understand that as we add more and more social programs onto the government the more that we have to pay. If they do understand it, they definitely don't understand the other tradeoff which is that you're essentially normalizing you entire life--sure you decrease your monetary risks, but you decrease your potential monetary rewards as well.

[Frumple]

... man, I'm not awaken enough at the moment to tell if that's satire or not. I'm just going to assume for the moment it's parody so the nap I'm about to take doesn't feel inclined towards thinking about it.

So you want to insist that those who can't afford insurance should buy it anyway so everyone else gets a cheaper rate? Something about that seems a little screwed up.

... well yes, which is why it's not what the ACA does. Folks that can't afford it either get help to make the costs reasonable, or don't have to pay (even the fine type thing, if you're low enough). Can't have something reasonable like a straightforward tax so you gots to do your runarounds.

That said, iirc the CBO estimate for the latest one was about 15 million (out of ~22) choosing to no longer have a plan by... whatever their date was. 2036 or something? 'Course, healthcare wise it's something like a red herring considering all that means is the ones that have reality happen to them are still going to end up costing taxpayer money, it's just that everyone else gets to pay higher premiums in the process and make insurance companies richer. Huzzah. Which still leaves about a washington (state) fucked compared to what the ACA has projected... and iirc, I think alway mentioned like... earlier today... another few tens of millions that gets shafted by the medica* changes. And however many others that get to be cheerful about lower premiums while getting back the wonderful privilege of paying the insurance companies to do sod all.

[EnigmaticHat]

i would actually like to insert the point that not all of the whatever-the-fuck-the-number is million are actually "getting bumped." i don't know what the number is, but a sizable fraction of those are people who willingly choose to no longer have insurance because of the individual mandate going away.

basically we don't actually know how many of those people are getting the corporate boot in the face.

I'd also like to point out that for the poor and elderly, the CBO has suggested premium increases of 600%.  They've also stated that the cheap plans for everyone will have very low coverage (as in, "we don't cover the ER period" and such) and that employers might switch over to those plans.  So some people are getting the boot but for the people that aren't upper class who can afford the new health insurance market things are going to get way worse.  Like wayyy worse.

The CBO has also stated that after the 10 year period the plan will result in a rapid decline in medicaid funding and coverage.

So in a lot of ways those 26 million aren't even the main problem.  We aren't just cutting Obamacare, we're rendering both Medicare and Medicaid far less effective, and those have been around for a lot longer.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

... man, I'm not awaken enough at the moment to tell if that's satire or not. I'm just going to assume for the moment it's parody so the nap I'm about to take doesn't feel inclined towards thinking about it.

I'm happy to inform you it's not, and if you'd care to defend your point instead of conceding it with a poorly placed jab at my opinion I'd be happy to listen (and most likely rebut) your argument.

[Dorsidwarf]

... man, I'm not awaken enough at the moment to tell if that's satire or not. I'm just going to assume for the moment it's parody so the nap I'm about to take doesn't feel inclined towards thinking about it.

I'm happy to inform you it's not, and if you'd care to defend your point instead of conceding it with a poorly placed jab at my opinion I'd be happy to listen (and most likely rebut) your argument.

I'd like to make a point that if you think the USA is a welfare state you need to put down the Ayn Rand and take a look across the pond at some welfare states.


(That, for reference, was an unwarranted jab at your personal beliefs. We get more than enough people posing ultra-capitalist "burn the state"-level views that the first reaction to most statements like yours, especially from people whose opinions are not already known, is to to ascertain whether they were serious and it's worth debating or whether they're being sarcastic / irritating people for the sake of kt.)

TL:DR back off yo

[PTTG??]

What's more likely:
A: you stay in the same wealth bracket as your parents and eventually need some kind of healthcare
B: you become a billionare and remain perfectly healthy forever.

[ChairmanPoo]

not to mention that the whole story about private care being better is an utter pipe dream. It has been proven time and again that socialized healthcare is a far more efficient way to go around.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

... man, I'm not awaken enough at the moment to tell if that's satire or not. I'm just going to assume for the moment it's parody so the nap I'm about to take doesn't feel inclined towards thinking about it.

I'm happy to inform you it's not, and if you'd care to defend your point instead of conceding it with a poorly placed jab at my opinion I'd be happy to listen (and most likely rebut) your argument.

I'd like to make a point that if you think the USA is a welfare state you need to put down the Ayn Rand and take a look across the pond at some welfare states.


(That, for reference, was an unwarranted jab at your personal beliefs. We get more than enough people posing ultra-capitalist "burn the state"-level views that the first reaction to most statements like yours, especially from people whose opinions are not already known, is to to ascertain whether they were serious and it's worth debating or whether they're being sarcastic / irritating people for the sake of kt.)

TL:DR back off yo

Well, it's hardly "ultra-capitalist." So... IDK what to tell you, mate. I'm a pretty moderate guy, I just don't believe in universal healthcare. I support social welfare as far as medicare and medicaid go, and even wish medicaid was bigger. But I find it abhorrent that middle class folk pay more for no benefit. I mean, how far can you expect one individual to care about another he or she has never had any sort of contact with or even knows exists across the nation? I get it, we all pay in for the greater good, but jeez, my family pays nearly 50% of their incomes in taxes. That's messed up, I don't want to be paying more so that I can have WORSE healthcare than I already had and that maybe some guy I've never met doesn't die.

What's more likely:
A: you stay in the same wealth bracket as your parents and eventually need some kind of healthcare
B: you become a billionare and remain perfectly healthy forever.

Well although not really the crux of what I was saying, a more relevant situation would be a child achieving higher than their parents and entering the next tax bracket. I mean, on the federal level you could reasonably go from 15% to 28% (or more) in a single generation. I'm not knowledgable enough to tell you the increase on national healthcare rates, but it exists. Either way, you're paying the money, but at least in privatized healthcare when you pay a lot of money you get better care. What I was really saying is that no matter how you cut it, you're gambling with your money. If you lose with private healthcare you pay a lot upfront, but no matter what happens with nationalized healthcare you pay a moderate amount... forever.

not to mention that the whole story about private care being better is an utter pipe dream. It has been proven time and again that socialized healthcare is a far more efficient way to go around.

Not really. Seems it's a pretty split topic. As far as I can see one isn't really better than the other, you're simply trading certain aspects of the care you receive. I mean, if we had a truly nationalized healthcare system, why would you expect it to be more efficient than the private one? Efficient in the sense that more people will be receiving care, but on the whole, everyone will have to wait much longer, and then of course, there is still the issue of a smaller group of people paying more than a large group of people--which is messed up man.

[Sergarr]

If you think nationalizing healthcare will actually increase the quality of care and speed at which you get it you are mistaken.

Spoiler: it would be likely to improve the cost efficiency (click to show/hide)

From Bloomberg

There are many countries that have higher life expectancy at almost half the cost, and, obviously, most of them have nationalized healthcare (as do the majority of the countries in the world with functional governments).

This would mean that nationalizing healthcare actually can increase the quality of care. On national level, at least.

[milo christiansen]

If the government runs health care then you end up with doctors that act like government workers. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

If the government runs health care then you end up with doctors that act like government workers. Thanks, but no thanks.

This. I don't want to base my whole argument on it, but that is a thing too.

@ Sergarr, without knowing which countries most of those dots represent, Singapore is a bad comparison to the US as it's so small that the costs are likely much lower (relatively) to maintain a nationalized system. I mean, the US PROBABLY--I can't know for sure--has many many more people with extreme illnesses than Singapore does and thus likely has a greater cost per capita to maintain it's system. But that's just a hypothesis.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We are generally talking about nationalizing health insurance, not healthcare. Healthcare is already a mixed market.

[wierd]

Also has more local power structures to contend with politically.

Imagine if all the state healthcare systems in the EU were brought under one umbrella, and then forced onto all member states.  People in Germany and Belgium end up paying for Greek healthcare.  See how far it goes.

That is what nationalized healthcare in the US would be like as well. Wealthier states would balk bitterly (or at least the residents of said states would) about providing the funding for poorer states. Red tape would proliferate exponentially until the system implodes or gets repealed. Much of the backing for slaying ACA was a derivative of this very issue, with financial conservative congress critters exploiting it for fun and profit.

Edit:
Health *INSURANCE* is a futures game, like all insurance systems. It exists as a market because there is a high cost but low incidence rate.  This allows somebody to turn a profit if they assume that risk and charge essentially an interest rate. The reason to have insurance for healthcare is tied directly to its high cost.

If you reduce the costs through collectivization and standards, and remove the red tape, the insurance market dries up. Nobody needs to pay a middle man to hold a warchest; the govt keeps it at cost.

The issue still remains where group A does not want to give or pay anything to group B, which is what kills collectivism. Humans are not cognitively evolved enough for it to work on megahuge scales like that. 

[ChairmanPoo]

If the government runs health care then you end up with doctors that act like government workers. Thanks, but no thanks.

This. I don't want to base my whole argument on it, but that is a thing too.

@ Sergarr, without knowing which countries most of those dots represent, Singapore is a bad comparison to the US as it's so small that the costs are likely much lower (relatively) to maintain a nationalized system. I mean, the US PROBABLY--I can't know for sure--has many many more people with extreme illnesses than Singapore does and thus likely has a greater cost per capita to maintain it's system. But that's just a hypothesis.

Pretty much any country in Europe has a more efficient healthcare system than the US. Seriously, this is like, self evident and non-negotiable nonnegotiable. Established fact.  It's not like private healthcare systems are actually faster, either... unless they're so restrictive that most people don't actually have access to them. Then they are faster for the few who can actually afford them, goes without saying. But a massified private hospital? Heh. My experience suggests it isn't so. TBH the much vaunted "higher efficiency" of private enterprise is overrated at best, delusional at worst.