Obamacare cost...

[Katy Lied]

Of all the stupid things this law does, of which there are legion, this is the dumbest IMO. I believe that low premium/high deductable plans are one of the principal reasons that actual health care spending has had its cost curve bent downwards the last few years. However, this law made many of them obsolete.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...751_story.html

Like this quote from that article:

Many experts scoff at the argument that people who are healthy and don’t use many medical services don’t need more than a policy with a very high deductible.

“Unfortunately, people have catastrophic things happen to them, or they get chronic conditions that expose them to serious financial harm,” says Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.

did I miss something? isnt this exactly why someone buys a high deductible policy? isnt that why it is called a catastrophic policy?

[calicoug]

Bad for business, but good for the economy . . . . remarkable.



I have only one criticism of anything my prior self has said in this thread. Namely, I would retract what I said about how you couldn't possibly believe as you do with your head anywhere but in the sand. I'm less confident about that assertion now. It seems more likely that you just don't understand this stuff.

Nobody here is having any trouble understanding me but you. At this point, you either understand what I am saying and are deliberately misrepresenting me, or you don't understand what I'm saying and restating myself won't make a difference.

Yes- we are all shocked people who agree with your overall position that Obama is evil aren't calling you out for making bad arguments. I said there are other ways employers could cover the extra insurance costs besides the four areas you mentioned. You have emphatically mocked that position only now to come back with your tail in your hand and say that there are other ways and I'm just misunderstanding you. Both of us know this is true, so I won't make you admit it.

And no- the businesses we are discussing here do not equal the economy. They are a portion of the economy, something I would think would be obvious (how quickly I forget with whom I'm debating). The expenses on health care are being absorbed within the overall economy now. The law shifts some portion of the obligations to some employers, but in no way is that tantamount to saying the entire economy is suffering from this (which was your argument). Once again, you are overstating your case. That's actually the issue overall with Republicans right now, not just you. You guys forgot how to make rational arguments and got caught up in believing your own hype. Now you find yourself in some parallel universe where facts don't matter as long as you just say your argument louder and repeatedly. You guys are convinced Obamacare is going to be bad, so you are doing everything you can to ensure it in fact winds up being bad (your political pals are even going so far as to start lobbying campaigns to persuade young healthy individuals not to sign up for healthcare on the exchange). You want people to believe the law will fail and that failure will be catastrophic while simultaneously promoting its failure. It's really a sight to behold. Any issue, no matter how small, then becomes magnified in your bizarro world and reinforces your original belief that things really are catastrophic. It frankly reminds me of your overwhelming confidence that all of the polls were skewed in Obama's favor and any sane person should see it and realize Romney would win.

Good luck with all that. I'm sure it's rewarding to reinforce your own thought process.

[calicoug]

I would think that politically it would be more popular to not delay this part of the law. What it highlights is governmental incompetence.

It's a complex piece of legislation with a lot of moving parts. Implementation obviously will have hiccups. Insurance companies asked for a delay to help them get into compliance and it was granted for those that needed it.

Or it's a giant conspiracy.

[Pelado]

You guys are The administration is convinced Obamacare is going to be bad, so you they are doing everything you they can to delay its implementation.

Good luck with all that. I'm sure it's rewarding to reinforce your own thought process.

FIFY

[Pelado]

It's a complex piece of legislation with a lot of moving parts. Implementation obviously will have hiccups. Insurance companies asked for a delay to help them get into compliance and it was granted for those that needed it.

Or it's a giant conspiracy.

When was the law passed? I don't understand why these companies couldn't plan for these changes that they've known about for years. If they are finding it costly to comply with the law, I'm sure they could have found other areas in their budget from which they could cut.

[CardiacCoug]

It's a complex piece of legislation with a lot of moving parts. Implementation obviously will have hiccups. Insurance companies asked for a delay to help them get into compliance and it was granted for those that needed it.

Or it's a giant conspiracy.

I love it how for liberals the problem is always that the law just wasn't written quite right. It's complex, etc.

The truth of course is that the invisible hand of supply and demand capitalism is better than the most well thought out law. The entire reason a relatively minor health problem costs $10K these days is well-intentioned but inherently misguided government involvement in health care.

Make all health insurance "catastrophic" only with $20K deductibles and health care spending and costs would plummet overnight.

[Surfah]

I love it how for liberals the problem is always that the law just wasn't written quite right. It's complex, etc.

The truth of course is that the invisible hand of supply and demand capitalism is better than the most well thought out law. The entire reason a relatively minor health problem costs $10K these days is well-intentioned but inherently misguided government involvement in health care.

Make all health insurance "catastrophic" only with $20K deductibles and health care spending and costs would plummet overnight.

If Bono is now on board with capitalism then it is high time the rest of the liberals do too.

[All-American]

Yes- we are all shocked people who agree with your overall position that Obama is evil aren't calling you out for making bad arguments. I said there are other ways employers could cover the extra insurance costs besides the four areas you mentioned. You have emphatically mocked that position only now to come back with your tail in your hand and say that there are other ways and I'm just misunderstanding you. Both of us know this is true, so I won't make you admit it.

Not what you said, and not what I said. This is getting boring.

And no- the businesses we are discussing here do not equal the economy. They are a portion of the economy, something I would think would be obvious (how quickly I forget with whom I'm debating). The expenses on health care are being absorbed within the overall economy now. The law shifts some portion of the obligations to some employers, but in no way is that tantamount to saying the entire economy is suffering from this (which was your argument).

My argument is that it's bad for the economy on the whole, yes. And objective data happens to back that argument up.

Once again, you are overstating your case. That's actually the issue overall with Republicans right now, not just you. You guys forgot how to make rational arguments and got caught up in believing your own hype. Now you find yourself in some parallel universe where facts don't matter as long as you just say your argument louder and repeatedly. You guys are convinced Obamacare is going to be bad, so you are doing everything you can to ensure it in fact winds up being bad (your political pals are even going so far as to start lobbying campaigns to persuade young healthy individuals not to sign up for healthcare on the exchange). You want people to believe the law will fail and that failure will be catastrophic while simultaneously promoting its failure. It's really a sight to behold. Any issue, no matter how small, then becomes magnified in your bizarro world and reinforces your original belief that things really are catastrophic. It frankly reminds me of your overwhelming confidence that all of the polls were skewed in Obama's favor and any sane person should see it and realize Romney would win.

Good luck with all that. I'm sure it's rewarding to reinforce your own thought process.

That's probably the main reason I ever bother with you. I can usually count on you to offer the best possible case for the other side of the argument. If you can't do any better than this, I suspect not many others can. This law is indefensible.

Otherwise, not even going to try to count the number of those things that I never said.

[VirginiaCougar]

I love it how for liberals the problem is always that the law just wasn't written quite right. It's complex, etc.

The truth of course is that the invisible hand of supply and demand capitalism is better than the most well thought out law. The entire reason a relatively minor health problem costs $10K these days is well-intentioned but inherently misguided government involvement in health care.

Make all health insurance "catastrophic" only with $20K deductibles and health care spending and costs would plummet overnight.

Umm, the market is the problem. The US health care system is one of the most capitalist of the developed world. It has produced the highest health care costs. The market works for most things but not all things. The fundamental inelasticity of health care and the role of the market is the primary reason US health care is double the average of other OECD countries with little to no value added. At what price point do you say, "I'll not get cancer treatments for my child - its too expensive."

The irony of the complaints about Obamacare is that it is still based on a market system, in fact it remains based on a Republican market system offered as an alternative to Hillarycare back in the day. Obama went that route partially to make a grand bargain. Elements in the GOP weren't going to give him any success, regardless.

In fact, most of the ongoing increases in health care and health care insurance remain market driven. If all of US Health Care costs had only gone up as much as that evil government run Medicare, Health care costs today would be more than 30% lower. Business has been dropping health care coverage for years, Obamacare has just given them an excuse to blame a whole myriad of things on. Excessive US health care spending because of our market system is a HUGE drag on our economy. Every car, every good or service we sell is that much more expensive due to our health care costs in comparison to say the Germans or Japanese who contain costs much better while retaining very high quality.

rising-family-premiums.jpg

Rising US Insurance/care costs really aren't much different from historical patterns due to inelasticity and related market issues.

One of many useful research reports on the topic:

http://hushp.harvard.edu/sites/defau...e%20Report.pdf

[CardiacCoug]

Umm, the market is the problem. The US health care system is one of the most capitalist of the developed world. It has produced the highest health care costs. The market works for most things but not all things. The fundamental inelasticity of health care and the role of the market is the primary reason US health care is double the average of other OECD countries with little to no value added. At what price point do you say, "I'll not get cancer treatments for my child - its too expensive."

The irony of the complaints about Obamacare is that it is still based on a market system, in fact it remains based on a Republican market system offered as an alternative to Hillarycare back in the day. Obama went that route partially to make a grand bargain. Elements in the GOP weren't going to give him any success, regardless.

In fact, most of the ongoing increases in health care and health care insurance remain market driven. If all of US Health Care costs had only gone up as much as that evil government run Medicare, Health care costs today would be more than 30% lower. Business has been dropping health care coverage for years, Obamacare has just given them an excuse. Excessive US health care spending because of our market system is a HUGE drag on our economy. Every car, every good or service we sell is that much more expensive due to health care costs than the Germans or Japanese who contain costs much better while retaining very high quality.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2587[/ATTACH]

Insurance/care costs really aren't much different from historical patterns due to the market, inelasticity, and related issues.

Wrong.

Health care in the US isn't a free market system at all because of Medicare and ubiquitous use of so-called health "insurance" for all medical problems large and small.

In the US it's almost impossible to find out how much a test or procedure will cost ahead of time, right? And since very few people bear the direct cost of any tests or procedures (especially before the recent advent of high deductible health plans) market forces aren't functioning at all.

Sure, Medicare pays less than commercial insurance obviously. Not sure what point you're making with that. But Medicare although well-intentioned is essentially what transformed medicine in the US into profit-driven big business. Once every 65+ year old person became a direct pipeline through which the medical system could extract thousands of dollars from the federal government, everything changed. Government involvement is the problem, not the solution.

[CardiacCoug]

So VirginiaCougar I think we agree for the most part.

The way we finance health care in the US sucks -- it's ridiculously inefficient and overly expensive.

There are two ways to fix it, in my opinion.

1. Make people pay out of pocket (through health savings accounts?) for everything except for a true health care catastrophe, when some type of either private or government insurance kicks in.

OR

2. Go single government payer for health care.

I think #1 would be better, but I'm quite confident that eventually we will end up with #2, just like the rest of the industrialized world.

[calicoug]

Not what you said, and not what I said. This is getting boring. My argument is that it's bad for the economy on the whole, yes. And objective data happens to back that argument up.

That appears to be your most recent argument. Certainly not what you began with and not what you had in the middle. Also not what any data you have given supports. If that's really your argument, you haven't yet hit on a single point to make it and you appear to have unnecessarily argued for several pages now that there aren't any costs employers can cut other than the two (not four) you highlighted.

That's probably the main reason I ever bother with you. I can usually count on you to offer the best possible case for the other side of the argument. If you can't do any better than this, I suspect not many others can. This law is indefensible.

There you go again with the hyperbole. It's like you can't help it.

[calicoug]

So VirginiaCougar I think we agree for the most part.

The way we finance health care in the US sucks -- it's ridiculously inefficient and overly expensive.

There are two ways to fix it, in my opinion.

1. Make people pay out of pocket (through health savings accounts?) for everything except for a true health care catastrophe, when some type of either private or government insurance kicks in.

OR

2. Go single government payer for health care.

I think #1 would be better, but I'm quite confident that eventually we will end up with #2, just like the rest of the industrialized world.

Depends on what you mean by "fix" it. Get to the absolute cheapest health care? Get to the best health care at the lowest possible cost? Get to a reasonable level of health care at a cost closer to global averages? Get health care superior to global averages for less than global average costs? Get the best health care regardless of cost?

Part of the issue is that "fix" means something different for just about everyone. I think we can all agree right now we are paying too much for health care and that many of the costs are unnecessary in the US. Depending on your answer to "fix," there are certainly more options than just the two you list above.

[CardiacCoug]

Depending on your answer to "fix," there are certainly more options than just the two you list above.

Like Obamacare?

Sorry, it's a horrible law that just perpetuates the current broken health care financing system. Worse, it will also perpetuate unemployment and underemployment for millions of middle-class and poor people.

[All-American]

That appears to be your most recent argument. Certainly not what you began with and not what you had in the middle. Also not what any data you have given supports. If that's really your argument, you haven't yet hit on a single point to make it and you appear to have unnecessarily argued for several pages now that there aren't any costs employers can cut other than the two (not four) you highlighted.

you don't even need my data. YOUR data supports it. And I never-- NEVER-- made that argument you seem to think I made.

There you go again with the hyperbole. It's like you can't help it.

If I give you too much credit as a debater, my apologies.