Politics Obamacare

I think there is pretty compelling evidence that meaningful and reasonable federal regulations have had a positive impact on the environment, on the workplace, on discrimination in housing and public accommodation, etc. and has not resulted in the doomsday scenario of killing jobs and tanking the economy.

Your unregulated system (or a confusing patch work system) only benefits the insurance industry where profit is put above consumer protections.

 

no, actually, BG, you are the one who needs to do better. Asserting something doesn't make it so by fiat.

Infrastructure - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

in·fra·struc·ture

noun \ˈin-frə-ˌstrək-chər, -(ˌ)frä-\
: the basic equipment and structures (such as roads and bridges) that are needed for a country, region, or organization to function properly

​

Full Definition of INFRASTRUCTURE

1​

: the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)

2​

: the permanent installations required for military purposes

3​

: the system of public works of a country, state, or region;also : the resources (as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity
--- merged: Nov 19, 2013 at 6:22 PM ---
redux, please don't do that 100% or 0% thing. The alternative to having the federal govt do everything isn't Somalia, any more than the prototype of liberalism is North Korea, with the govt controlling everything. I'm talking about preferences and approaches to identifying, quantifying and solving problems, not about whether the fedl govt ever did anything good. Just becuase it does good in one place doesn't mean it is the best way to deal with everything. There is pretty compelling evidence that it isn't. The issue is to identify the things govt IS good at, let it do those things and do them well, and then not distract the govt from the t hings it does well. When it tries to do everything for everyone it not only doesn't do well the things it can't do well, but then stops doing well the things it should be able to do well. I'm a pretty good writer and speaker, but if you also wanted me to juggle, dance, drive a pack of horses and shoot skeet, I'd quickly lose the ability to do any of them well.

 

Loquitor>..I might understand your position or alternative proposal better of you were to answer the questions I posed earlier:

How will that help the person with a pre-existing condition that insurance companies will refuse to cover? How will it help when an insurance company recinds a policy as soon as a person experiences a major illness? How will protect you from severe financial hardship or bankruptcy as a result of a major illness/accident. How will it guarantee that you as a consumer will have a right of appeal?​

​

When it is not in the best financial interest of insurance companies to provide any of the above consumer protections through self-regulation.​

​

I could also show your 5-15% of the population that would benefit from the ACA is more like 50+% of the population realizing signficant benefits and the rest having a range of consumer protections for the first time.

Am I'm guessing that you probably dont believe that Social Security and Medicare were the best ways to improve both the quality and longevity of lives of all Americans and would replace it with a privatized system.

 

BG, by your reading of that definition the box business is infrastructure because having boxes is necessary to deliver stuff to the population. Look, I can play this game all day; I'm a lawyer and can mash words into mush with aplomb -- it's what I'm paid to do. But it's not very illuminating.

We're talking societal goods and structures when we're talking about the federal government with infrastructure: bridges, roads, tunnels, courts, protection of the populace from force, protection of the populace from fraud, protection of property/contract/civil rights (these are to my mind variants of the same thing), protection of civil liberties, some kinds of environmental regulations to protect what I'll call (for lack of a better term) the "commons." We could argue about adding some other stuff to the list, but that's at the margins. Basic structures and basic rules of the game -- you have to drive on the right and stop at red because the govt told you to, but you are the one to decide what car you have, where to turn, where to go, etc - that's not the govt's job.
--- merged: Nov 19, 2013 at 6:41 PM ---
Redus, I have to finish a brief here. If I sign on later I'll respond. But for now I'll note that your basic error is assuming the persistence of the current system, the pervasiveness of third-party payment through insurance under any alternatives, and a failure to quantify the scope or size of the issues you identified.

 

The government regulates more than the structure and basic rules of the game of driving....starting with manufacturing standards for vehicle safety, emission standards, etc. all in the public interest.
--- merged: Nov 19, 2013 at 6:48 PM ---
I left out required quality/history certification for the sale of a vehicle and minimum auto insurance requirements....also in the public interest.
--- merged: Nov 19, 2013 at 6:53 PM ---

I'm still unclear on how your system would work w/o regulation, particularly given the less than stellar past practices of the industry.

My questions remain, but I'll look forward to your response.

 

Take a deep breath, ACA bashers

The policy, for the most part, is working....the extremists politics of the opposition is the unmitigated disaster.

 

is obamacare going to cover the lost money from identity theft due to their incompetent website? why the heck would anyone sign up if there's no security?

 

We should not call it insurance when the condition is preexisting. No insurance company would knowingly and willingly allow people to pay a few hundred dollars a month in premiums when the known actual costs would be significantly more!

People should buy insurance for the unexpected.

Your expectations of insurance companies is unrealistic. Given the numbers who have this realistic expectation it is not a surprise that the ACA is so flawed.

A person who begins a health savings account ( or any type of savings for future unexpected expenses) early in life can accumulate a large sum of money to be used for healthcare. Combine that with a low cost catastrophe insurance plan and a national effort to drive medical costs down - and we can easily achieve real affordable healthcare for all.

 

Ace...no insurance company is going to provide a low cost catastrophic plan for a person with a pre-existing condition. Catastrophic plans are primarily for young, healthy individuals who are willing to risk that they wont get a serious illness.

You may be thinking of high risk pools or pre-exisitiing insurance plans that 15-20 states (plus the federal govt) offer.....plans that because of the high cost to the state are limited in the number of people covered and/or facing serious financial shortfalls.

Which is why the ACA includes $5 billion to prop up these high risk pools until their consumers can be brought into larger, more shared risk pools.
--- merged: Nov 20, 2013 at 12:13 PM ---
As an example.....in Texas, where Gov. Perry is hardly a supporter of the ACA:

 

re-read my post. One should never expect an insurance company to insure a pre-existing condition unless the premiums will cover the expected cost and still allow for profit. Covering known costs is not a role of insurance! Call it something else. The only reason insurance companies agreed to the pre-existing provision in the ACA was because they were guaranteed profitability! They are taking no risks, getting millions of customers who are forced to buy their product, and even after their guaranteed profit will be able to adjust premiums as needed to further guarantee profits. A very sweet deal. who negotiated this? Or, did the administration let the industry write the portion of the law that impacted them?

I am amazed by your lack of concern, given your past posts on what you think are subsidies to the oil industry.

 

Ace...I dont mind that insurance companies make a profit as long as they cover all individuals seeking insurance at a fair rate and provide real protections for all consumers (individual plans and group plans) against industry practices that have adversely impacted millions of consumers in the past.

You have no plan for those with pre-existing conditions and your expansive HSA type plan would cost more in lost tax revenue to both the federal government and state governments (from the Joint Committee on Taxation if I recall) and still not help those who need it most.

 

The point is the government guarantee of their profits - profit without risk! I don't like it. It reflects the murkiness of the ACA, neither real free market or real single payer. A free market solution would not have profit without risk and single payer would eliminate the industry profit.

I can solve the pre-existing condition issue, but my plan is not law or under consideration.

 

have the people spoken yet? when is this going to be repealed...

 

Breitbart puts an interesting twist on the CBS numbers.

I see the numbers this way:

• 55% of the public want the ACA - 7% as it is and 48% with changes ( I am in the 48% group)
• 42% want it repealed.

In every recent poll, there is a majority against repealing the law.--- merged: Nov 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM ---
Just to be clear....the ACA will not be repealed.

Even if Republicans win the Senate in 2014 and maintain control of the House, Obama will veto any repeal bill and rightfully so IMO.

The ACA is the law until at least January 2107 when Obama is out of office and by then the program will be entrenched to the point that many will see the benefits and recognize the Republican misrepresentations and scare tactics for what they were.

 

Over 70 percent of Americans under age 65 who buy insurance through the individual market will either qualify for Obamacare subsidies or the health law’s expansion of Medicaid in the states that accept it, according to a new study by Families USA.

Most Americans w/o insurance will benefit (except those low income folks in red states), most individuals who had their policy cut will benefit, and the 2/3 of Americans in group plans will benefit.

The country as a whole would benefit if the Republicans would take a more constructive approach of helping to improve the ACA rather than spending $hundreds of millions distorting the law, imposing barriers to the ACA and every other means possible.

It is shameful.