The Harsh Reality of Obamacare's Premium Hikes

Subsidies will rise as well

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

The Harsh Reality of Obamacare's Premium Hikes

HD Video Download

Obamacare may be "standing on the edge of a death spiral" according to Reason Features Editor Peter Suderman.

Health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are set to rise dramatically in 2017, an average of 25 percent for middle tier coverage options. What does this increase mean for consumers, taxpayers, and the future of the ACA? Reason TV's Nick Gillespie sat down with Suderman to find out.

Produced by Austin Bragg. Camera by Josh Swain and Meredith Bragg.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: https://goo.gl/az3a7a

Comments

[Chipper Morning Wood]

It's Bush's fault!

[Florida Hipster]

Markets self correcting.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Maybe Obama can guest edit for HealthsystemCIO.

[The Other Kevin]

Just in time for President Hillary to double down and save the day!

[esteve7]

If only those gosh darned Republicans didn't ruin everything (wait, not a single one voted for it).

Look at Venezuela, look at the inner cities ---- progs never blame their failed policy. If there is one republican or one capitalist anywhere, it is all their fault. And people are stupid enough to believe it

[creech]

No, but it was craftily crafted by Heritage Foundation so they are to blame not the fools with good intentions who didn't see the koch fingerprints all over the plan.

[Doctor Whom]

I know people who have suddenly "discovered" that Obamacare should actually be called Romneycare.

[Sevo]

These would be the same people who swear there was a man on the grassy knoll?

[Cynical Asshole]

It wasn't a man on the grassy knoll. It was Cigarette Man from a storm sewer drain.

[AceDroman]

Great episode

[loveconstitution1789]

So the Democrat crafty plan that is called Obamacare, was implemented nationwide, voted against by every Republican, voted in by a Democratic Congress, Signed by Obama -is the heritage Foundation's fault?

I see. You are a lying scumbag.

[Cynical Asshole]

I think you may need to get your sarcasm meter re-calibrated.

[mortiscrum]

Republicans are blocking all attempts to correct the ACA though, so there is that. It's fairly outrageous to think that a program of this size wouldn't need tweaks to get it to work well, and Republicans have been entirely unwilling to do that.

Republican governors have also refused to set up health exchanges in their states, or accept the Medicare expansion. The Medicare expansion in particular is straight cutting of their noses to spite their face - the only people they're hurting with that is their own constituents.

Republicans aren't ruining everything, but they certainly aren't helping, or even being a neutral bystander. They're doing what they can to torpedo it, short of outright repel.

[Florida Hipster]

WRECKERS!

[Citizen X]

Dude, you forgot the kulaks. Not cool.

[Florida Hipster]

Kulaks sound ethnic, I'll have nothing to do with it.
*turns up nose, walks away*

[loveconstitution1789]

These progressives are just full of shit. They force it down America's throat. They were told it would fail. They see it fail and double/triple down.

Luckily, after Trump wins in Nov 2016 one the first things the Republican Congress will do is repeal ObamaCare. Singlepayer will be forever tied to the disaster which is ObamaCare, so we won't hear about that for at least a decade.

[Cynical Asshole]

Luckily, after Trump wins in Nov 2016 one the first things the Republican Congress will do is repeal ObamaCare. Singlepayer will be forever tied to the disaster which is ObamaCare, so we won't hear about that for at least a decade.

Ha ha ha hah.

[T.F.G.]

They're refusing to "compromise" because the proposed fixes are basically things Republicans have always have been ideologically opposed to.

They are rubbing their hands together and cackling as the sabotage it. There was literally never any way they would support those things.

[T.F.G.]

Sorry. Should have said "They are NOT rubbing..." ah never mind. Fuck it.

[mortiscrum]

Perhaps. If that is true though, this is a case of ideology running headlong in to reality and refusing to change.

The state of healthcare prior to the ACA was untenable. It's amazing how quickly we forget, but premiums were going up by 10-12% a year. Millions of people couldn't get coverage at all; thousands died for lack of coverage. Something needed to be done, and the simplest solution would be to use the stuff we already have - expand Medicare and Medicaid. But that was political impossible, as was any single payer plan.

After that, a plan that uses private insurers was the only option. Whelp, that's what the ACA is, warts and all.

[Sevo]

"Perhaps. If that is true though, this is a case of ideology running headlong in to reality and refusing to change."
Yes, that's what happened in 1989 and it's happening again. Socialism doesn't work

"The state of healthcare prior to the ACA was untenable. It's amazing how quickly we forget, but premiums were going up by 10-12% a year. Millions of people couldn't get coverage at all; thousands died for lack of coverage. Something needed to be done, and the simplest solution would be to use the stuff we already have - expand Medicare and Medicaid. But that was political impossible, as was any single payer plan."
So 'something' needed to be done, which made things far worse and lefty slime like you call that "success". Fuck off, slaver.

"After that, a plan that uses private insurers was the only option. Whelp, that's what the ACA is, warts and all."
Take it behind the barn and kill it.

[BYODB]

The rise in primiums before were partially because of providers trying to recoup their losses on Medicaid and Medicare specifically. Then, they made the emergency room take all patients regardless of their ability to pay. Guess who that cost gets passed on to? (And, by the way, I'm ok with E.R.'s being forced to take patients who are at risk of dying because of an emergency. Less ok with them being forced to see every yahoo with a cough that doesn't want to sleep outside.)

So it wasn't just market forces at work here, Government has been sticking their nose into healthcare cost curves forever now and they've consistently bent them in the direction of 'more expensive for everyone'. Yet you blame the providers or insurance company for this? Additionally, insurance only exists in it's modern incarnation due to wage caps causing companies to look for ways to attract talent. Again, Government to blame.

As for 10-12% premium hikes, that looks positively quaint compared to the 20-45% rate hikes we see now wouldn't you fucking say? Learn the history of healthcare if you want to talk about 'solutions' because so far, this 'do something' mentality has screwed over the entire industry.

This whole concept of 'healthcare as a right' is a load of shit. You have zero right to the product of someone else's labor and education. You make healthcare free, I'll show you a country with fewer primary care givers & more patients.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

And, by the way, I'm ok with E.R.'s being forced to take patients who are at risk of dying because of an emergency

It should be basic vitals stabilization and a close working relationship with local medical charities.

[Sevo]

"And, by the way, I'm ok with E.R.'s being forced to take patients who are at risk of dying because of an emergency"

This provided healthcare for those who could not afford it, and it wasn't "free". Those of us who had coverage or paid out of pocket paid.
But it was far superior to O-care; the choices were made locally and those who were trying to commit suicide with a needle or the bottle tended to get care which reflected that.
And it happened without the brand new bureaucracy we have now.

[RenaD]

This whole concept of 'healthcare as a right' is a load of shit. You have zero right to the product of someone else's labor and education. You make healthcare free, I'll show you a country with fewer primary care givers & more patients.

No doubt. But try saying that in polite company. People will look at you as if you're from Mars. The reason why we're in this shit is because we have intellectual midgets for politicians, incapable of crafting a cogent philosophical argument as to why healthcare is not a right and, therefore, not within the purview of Washington to manage or regulate or provide.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

The reason why we're in this shit is because we have intellectual midgets for politicians, incapable of crafting a cogent philosophical argument as to why healthcare is not a right

I would argue that this is an effect, and the cause is that our education system is horrendously failing its students, especially in the 'critical thinking' department.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

The reason why we're in this shit is because we have intellectual midgets for politicians, incapable of crafting a cogent philosophical argument as to why healthcare is not a right

I would argue that this is an effect, and the cause is that our education system is horrendously failing its students, especially in the 'critical thinking' department.

[mortiscrum]

If you want to think that healthcare isn't a right, that's on you, but don't act like it's some truth of the universe. People can and do have differing opinions on this.

My personal thoughts? Ideally speaking, each and every person gets the best possible medical care, and they don't have to worry about personal bankruptcy or dying of something they didn't have to. Obviously, this is impossible. On the other extreme, society utter fails the bottom percentage of the population and essentially lets them die in the streets. Everyone except the very rich are exposed to potential massive financial ruin due to medical bills. This, to me, is indefensible.

Everyone has to pick a point on this spectrum that they feel comfortable with.

[Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos]

On the other extreme, society utter fails the bottom percentage of the population and essentially lets them die in the streets.

What "bottom percentage" are we talking about here, and what's the number? 10%? 20%? What's your metric for this claim and what are you basing it on?

[Sevo]

"If you want to think that healthcare isn't a right, that's on you, but don't act like it's some truth of the universe. People can and do have differing opinions on this."

If you think it IS a right, go ahead and argue that point.
Fucking ignoramus...

[DarrenM]

"Let's take a bad situation and make it worse." just does not seem like a good plan, though.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

If by 'tweaks' you mean a complete rewrite- if not outright repeal, you and I are in 100% agreement. At least we know we agree that the government completely overstepped, overreached and had no idea what they were doing. ON that, we're definitely in agreement.

[mortiscrum]

Than I guess we're not in 100% agreement, since I didn't say or mean any of that.

The ACA's basic framework and principles have worked before, in the US, and in other countries. Criticize it, fine, but don't resort to hyperbole.

[T.F.G.]

Please elaborate.

Romneycare lowered quality in exchange for a few more people getting healthcare and needed to be bailed out massively. It worked in approximately the same way as Obamacare.

[tarran]

IT did however lead to massive consolidation in the health care industry in MA.

Now the number of providers are fewer, the prices are higher and the wait times longer.

This is, of course, success government style.

[loveconstitution1789]

TOP MEN awards all around!

[Sevo]

"The ACA's basic framework and principles have worked before, in the US, and in other countries. Criticize it, fine, but don't resort to hyperbole."

No, the basic framework collapsed in 1989.

[BigW]

Nice classical reference there.

We really need to teach millennials what a total hell communism really was....

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

The ACA's basic framework and principles have worked before, in the US, and in other countries.

Your definition of "working" sucks. Stealing from other people to do charity is not a good thing, and it doesn't "work." You don't get to claim moral superiority for holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to distort the healthcare market with their hard-earned money.

[Rhywun]

"Their" money - how quaint.

[mortiscrum]

If you think any form of taxation or compelling someone to do something is the "poisoned tree" that makes all actions after that wrong, than why do you even live in society? Go be a hermit mountain man somewhere. You won't be bothered.

[Sevo]

"If you think any form of taxation or compelling someone to do something is the "poisoned tree" that makes all actions after that wrong, than why do you even live in society?"

Troll? Sock? Random ignoramus?
Fuck off, slaver.

[mortiscrum]

This is my biggest complaint about libertarians: you claim to hate all form of taxes, rail against supporting community, and hate all forms of regulation even if there's a very good utilitarian reason to have those regulations. But, you also enjoy all of the things - culture, society in general - that come out of the very things you hate.

You want to live tax-free, with no one telling you want to do? You can do that, in some remote area of whatever. Go off the grid, no one will stop you. But you don't also get to reap the benefits of what everyone else pays for.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

even if there's a very good utilitarian reason to have those regulations

Utilitarianism sucks as an ethos.

But, you also enjoy all of the things - culture, society in general - that come out of the very things you hate.

This is shockingly stupid and untrue. Culture and society exist perfectly fine without government. There are plenty of examples of this in social animals.

The funny thing is that i'm not even an anarchist, but I'm having to argue the anarchist point of view here because your arguments are lacking even the basic nuance.

You want to live tax-free, with no one telling you want to do? You can do that, in some remote area of whatever.

Untrue.

Go off the grid, no one will stop you.

Untrue.

But you don't also get to reap the benefits of what everyone else pays for.

Fine by me. How about you get the government to stop charging me income tax, property tax, and sales tax, and I'll be happy to pay a toll to drive on your roads.

[mortiscrum]

Sorry, that's not enough. If you are going to reap the benefits of infrastructure, of modern medicine, of modern technology, you need to pay in to the big machine that makes that all possible. And that means taxes. That means following the law of the land.

What you want to do is pay for fire insurance once your house is on fire. That's nonsense.

[Sevo]

"Sorry, that's not enough. If you are going to reap the benefits of infrastructure, of modern medicine, of modern technology, you need to pay in to the big machine that makes that all possible. And that means taxes. That means following the law of the land."
Sorry, lefty bullshit claims are bullshit claims.

"What you want to do is pay for fire insurance once your house is on fire. That's nonsense."
This from the ignoramus who thinks O-care accepting those with exiting medical problems is just fine.
Is "hypocrite" now spelled "mortiscrum"?

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

What you want to do is pay for fire insurance once your house is on fire. That's nonsense.

No, I just don't want to pay your insurance premiums.

If you are going to reap the benefits of infrastructure, of modern medicine, of modern technology, you need to pay in to the big machine that makes that all possible.

The tattered remains of free-market capitalism? Seriously, the "you didn't build that" schtick doesn't go very far here. Government is not a creator-god. Entrepreneurism, technological innovation, and society itself all exist independently of government. Just because you're not able to expand your mind wide enough to envision a world that isn't built upon petty envy and theft doesn't mean that it couldn't and hasn't existed.

Quick question: How come we weren't a bunch of savages prior to the passage of the 16th amendment? Or the New Deal? Or the Great Society? Or even the Constitution? Society existed under the Articles of Confederation. Society even existed in the colonial times. Hell, even the brown people with teepees and feathers had a social order, and they didn't require a top-down government to impose it across the entire continent.

Did they not pay their "fair share" just because they didn't pay income tax? Did they not deserve their technical advances? Did they not deserve their medical advances? Did they not deserve the roads and forts they built?

[mortiscrum]

I'm arguing against the commonly espoused libertarian position that "government is by definition terrible, and the less there is of it the better." This is a ridiculous position. If someone wants to debate the scope and size of government, I'll entertain that position, whatever it is. I've yet to see an even semi-plausible argument for NO government though. And if zero government is untenable, clearly, it has its uses and is good at something.

If your position is that the US government as it currently stands is bloated, unfocused, and inefficient, I would agree. But I will not take seriously a position that says we'd be better off with no government at all.

[MarkLastname]

Given that you seem to want more government control over healthcare, I doubt that you really think it is bloated.

Im not an anarchist like others around here, but you don't have to be an anarchist to see the state controlling the provision and pricing of a good or service as a doomed system.

[mortiscrum]

If by "more" you mean "better," than yes. Believe me, I work in the health care industry, I see the pitfalls and problems - probably more than most. But I don't take that to mean government intervention or control is BY DEFINITION a bad thing.

[Sevo]

"If by "more" you mean "better," than yes. Believe me, I work in the health care industry, I see the pitfalls and problems - probably more than most."
Judging from your posts, you work in that industry as a janitor; hard to believe your level of stupidity is accepted otherwise.

"But I don't take that to mean government intervention or control is BY DEFINITION a bad thing."
That's because you're an ignoramus.

[Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos]

What you want to do is pay for fire insurance once your house is on fire. That's nonsense

Uh, that's exactly part of the basic framework of the ACA, you moron. What do you think the "take everyone regardless of their re-existing conditions" clause is?

[Sevo]

"This is my biggest complaint about libertarians: you claim to hate all form of taxes, rail against supporting community, and hate all forms of regulation even if there's a very good utilitarian reason to have those regulations. But, you also enjoy all of the things - culture, society in general - that come out of the very things you hate"

This is my biggest complaint against slimy lefties: YOU claim to own my life and effort.
Fuck off.

[mortiscrum]

Nonsense. But I do think we have certain duties as a members of this society - paying taxes is the main one. Considering what we get out of it, it's a small price to pay.

[Sevo]

"Nonsense."
Bullshit.

"But I do think we have certain duties as a members of this society - paying taxes is the main one. Considering what we get out of it, it's a small price to pay."
Fuck off, slaver.

[RenaD]

Taxes for what? A common good? I can't define that, and I bet you can't either. THAT is the libertarian argument: that taxation implies that we all pay in to a pool of money that is distributed equally in the name of a common good. But tell me, what is a "common good"? Impossible to qualify or quantify, because what you need/want to survive is different from what I need/want to survive, which is different from what my neighbor needs/wants to survive, etc.

So why not let us all keep our money and decide for ourselves with whom we contract for our goods and services?

What's anti-social or uncaring about that?

[mortiscrum]

My definition for common good: policies or practices that a majority, even overwhelming majority, find beneficial to their well-being and that doesn't cause undue harm to the minority.

Far from a legally tight definition, but I hope it's enough to get my point across.

Survive is a poor word choice on your part, methinks. Humans are pretty similar. At an utter minimum we need food, water, and a mildly safe living environment. This could be defined as "survive." In good faith, I'd extend that definition to include things like companionship, autonomy, and some level of opportunity to pursue personal goals. Again though, this is all pretty universal. A government can go a long way towards a lot of people getting this stuff, instead of just a few of the strong.

Now, if you want to define what you need vs what I need, pedantically and exhaustively, obviously it'd be different. But all of the things I just listed would still be in common, and it's rather ridiculous to say government is a failure because it can't fulfill the exact needs of every individual. Well, duh, but what it can do is provide some more basic needs, and set up the framework within which we can each pursue the particular things we each want to.

[Sevo]

"My definition for common good: policies or practices that a majority, even overwhelming majority, find beneficial to their well-being and that doesn't cause undue harm to the minority."

So you can't define it either other than if 50%+1 wants to steal your money, that's just fine.
Fuck off, slaver.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

But I do think we have certain duties as a members of this society - paying taxes is the main one.

And if I don't agree? Then what? Let me tell you what. You're going to force those duties on me anyway, and I'm either going to comply or be shot by your hired thugs. I have no choice in the matter.

Considering what we get out of it, it's a small price to pay.

Then pay your own damn bill! I don't think it's a small price to pay. In fact, I think it's a huge price to pay. However, you've got the people with the guns on your side, so either I comply or I get shot.

[mortiscrum]

This is pretty hyperbolic. I know libertarians like to clutch their pearls and screech otherwise, but this is still a pretty damn free country. And if not free enough for you, it's free enough to leave.

Now, this isn't to say that there isn't real concerns about the erosion of personal freedoms! But I wouldn't categorize the shifting rules over what's allowed and what's not in to some special box - it's simply another thing that society as a whole will always debate over, along with what road should be fixed, what tax plan to use, and what laws to enforce. There's an awful lot of people in America and most of us get a vote and voice. Don't be surprised if the majority doesn't agree with you all the time.

[Sevo]

"...Now, this isn't to say that there isn't real concerns about the erosion of personal freedoms! But..."
You just disqualified any comment you were about to make.

[Rasilio]

Culture is not created by government and is actively harmed by excessive taxation.

Further to give you a graphical representation we have

#tax free
*US taxation levels in 1900
^ US taxation levels in 1970
+ Us taxation levels today

#.......*................ ............................ ............... ................................^............... ...................+

Even getting back to 1970 levels of taxation would be acceptable to most libertarians and that isn't anywhere near tax free

[DarrenM]

you claim to hate all form of taxes, rail against supporting community, and hate all forms of regulation

I believe this is what is generally known as a "straw man".

[loveconstitution1789]

You can convince people what their taxes go for is legitimate and they pay voluntarily.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

Go be a hermit mountain man somewhere. You won't be bothered.

Lulz, if only that were actually true.

why do you even live in society?

Because society isn't government, your social contract is bullshit, and theft is still theft, even if you vote on it. If government provided useful services, people would be happy to pay for it. As it is, people pay their taxes because they don't want thugs with guns to haul them off to jail for not giving the government their lunch money.

[mortiscrum]

Oh, but it is. Government is the flour in the souffle of society - without it, the whole thing deflates and turns in to an eggy pancake.

Government provides an immense amount of useful services, starting with allowing millions of people to live in relative peace and prosperity. You failing to give it credit for that doesn't mean the benefits aren't real.

[mad.casual]

Oh, but it is. Government is the flour in the souffle of society - without it, the whole thing deflates and turns in to an eggy pancake.

Government contributes empty calories, hot air, and flakiness making an otherwise nutrient dense and tasty meal messy and harder to consume? Agreed.

[Contrarian P]

The government does not allow people to live in peace and prosperity. People do that themselves. If the majority of people wanted to kill and rob each other, there isn't a damn thing any government could do to stop it. Witness Chicago. Huge city and state government with lots of regulations allowing, in your words, people to live in peace, and certain elements of the city have no problem with killing each other.

A stable government can only exist in a free society where the people are predisposed to get along. That's why Afghanistan and Iraq have been such disasters, and why Yugoslavia disintegrated in bloodshed once the boot of communism was removed. You have it exactly backwards, I'm sorry to tell you. The reason America is peaceful and prosperous is because the people in general live harmoniously. It is not because of the government.

[mortiscrum]

So living peaceably is something some humans are born with genetically (or something), and other don't have it? OK, I don't agree, but whatever.

The amount of times that a relatively stable situation regresses to violence when the local government collapses or leaves is incredibly numerous throughout history. Honestly, I have a bleaker opinion of human action, sans civilizing force like government. It ein't pretty.

[Sevo]

"The amount of times that a relatively stable situation regresses to violence when the local government collapses or leaves is incredibly numerous throughout history. Honestly, I have a bleaker opinion of human action, sans civilizing force like government. It ein't pretty."

Beat on that strawman, asshole!

[Contrarian P]

No, humans are not born with traits like how to live with one another. We learn them though interactions with other people and those interactions mold who we are. In other words, when you are born into a society that is peaceful, respects property and values individual life, you tend to grow up valuing peace, property, and individual life. If you grow up in a society that teaches that an invisible man in the sky wants infidels dead, you are a lot more likely to become a suicide bomber.

I think you are confusing cause and effect. Society doesn't disintegrate because the government collapses. The government collapses because the society is disintegrating.

Note that above I said a free society. I will wager that if you look at your historical examples, most of the societies that disintegrated into violence when the government left were being controlled in a dictatorial manner. Yes, Saddam Hussein was able to keep peace and stability in Iraq, but only through brutal repression. Such a government is hardly desirable.

[DarrenM]

Living peaceably is in large part due to the attitude that the other guy can do what he wants as long as he doesn't screw with me. What that entails exactly has varied over time. People are predisposed to push back against anyone trying to force undesirable situations on them. In extreme cases, you get civil war or revolutions.

[Contrarian P]

Government does provide useful services. Of course it does, but the issue that most of us have is with how well it provides them, and at what cost.

Education, for example, is extremely useful to a functioning society. In the U.S., education is a service overwhelmingly provided by the government, so the government is providing a useful service, but the cost and quality of the service are extremely poor. It's not the service that's the problem, it's that the government is really bad at it.

Housing is another tremendously useful service, but the government is terrible at it. Witness urban renewal and the poor conditions of public housing, the near destruction of the mortgage market through government influence, and so forth.

Should we even talk about Social Security and how terrible it is as a retirement plan?

You seem earnest, but your analysis is so faulty it's hard to even know where to start. I hope your experience here encourages you to learn more and open your mind a bit.

[mortiscrum]

That's why I'm here xD

I have to disagree with your assessment of governmental ability, though. If you say our education system is not so good, I wholeheartedly agree. If you say government regulation has caused a lot of damage to housing markets, I wholeheartedly agree. But that doesn't mean that government, in a general sense, is incapable of doing those things well.

Our education system is bad because our students have a lessor outcome than many other countries - countries with a government that does a better job of educating its citizens. Clearly, "government" is capable of doing a good job! Just because ours isn't doesn't mean the whole premise of education as a public service is faulty.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

But that doesn't mean that government, in a general sense, is incapable of doing those things well.

You keep referring to this nebulous "well" like there's one definition. Take education for example. Some people want more Jesus in schools. Some want to focus more on Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Some want more focus on life skills like Home Ec and Personal Finance. Some want social justice taught. Some want marksmanship taught.

That's the whole deal here. Government may do things well for you, but you're asking me and everybody else to supply our time and effort in the form of taxation and inflation to pay for the government to do things the way you want. Wouldn't it be easier, more efficient, and generally better for you to invest in the programs and services that you think work well, and for me to invest in the programs and services that I think work well? That way, you're not paying for creationism in the public schools and I'm not paying for a shitty healthcare program.

It's a basic principle: don't force other people to pay for the things you want.

[mortiscrum]

I see you point, but I think "we're all different and thus better off shopping for ourselves" is a bit too strong of a conclusion.

Take any two people and compare them and there's a decent chance they'll be significantly different. But take thousands of people and compare them and suddenly trends emerge and they don't look so different. Our needs and desires aren't generally so wide or far apart that a large percentage of us can't be serviced by broad programs.

A well-functioning public school can ensure almost all kids learn to read, write, etc etc. An accessible hospital can greatly improve the health of the entire local community. And a government is extremely well-suited for setting up this type of infrastructure.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

And a government is extremely well-suited for setting up this type of infrastructure.

So is a corporation (see Walmart, Chase, McDonalds, Ford, UPS, or any other corporation on a national scale). I'm gonna err on the side of not forcing the people who don't fit those trends to subsidize the people who do fit those trends. Otherwise, the majority just gets to tread all over any and every minority. It would be one thing if government was responsive to each of its citizens' needs, and each citizen had the opportunity to invest their tax money in the programs and infrastructure that they actually used and not be forced to subsidize programs and infrastructure that they didn't use. Unfortunately, government doesn't work that way. Fortunately, there is something that does... it's called laissez faire capitalism.

[mortiscrum]

I recognize the ability of the free markets to solve many problems - there's no doubt about it, capitalism is the greatest economic force in human history. If I was designing my ideal societal structure, space for a capitalistic market absolutely be there.

But - I'm leery of the power imbalance. The market does not self-correct well for harmful things like monopolies, or address the inherent power imbalance between large corporations and consumer, or employee. Left entirely to its own devices, I think it's quickly inevitable that free market capitalism becomes mercantilism and robber barons rule the land. The government is the only force that can provide the necessary checks on a free market.

[Sevo]

"I see you point, but I think "we're all different and thus better off shopping for ourselves" is a bit too strong of a conclusion."
That's because you're an ignoramus.

"A well-functioning public school can ensure almost all kids learn to read, write, etc etc. An accessible hospital can greatly improve the health of the entire local community. And a government is extremely well-suited for setting up this type of infrastructure."
And you just proved it.

[Sevo]

"But that doesn't mean that government, in a general sense, is incapable of doing those things well."

Whatever the government does, it is uniformly BAD.
We tolerate it in the case of roads and defense, but only because there is no other option. Government SUCKS at whatever it doess.

[Contrarian P]

Our educational system is not bad because the student have poor outcomes. The students have poor outcomes because the system is bad. It's also nearly impossible to change for political reasons. Instead, the money will keep coming regardless if the program is a success or a failure. That is one of the biggest issues when the government runs anything.

Just about everybody agrees that the U.S. educational system has tremendous problems, but if you try to create meaningful reform, there is tremendous opposition from those with a stake in the status quo. The advent of the internet should have created a revolution in education, but it hasn't. I can literally go online and learn almost anything at this point, so it's hard to understand how the same school model that was in place in 1950 (and earlier) is still in force today. We don't have the same model in restaurants, or retail stores, or pretty much anywhere else that isn't government controlled.

Look, there are certain characteristics of government that just make it poor at provisioning certain services. They don't make government evil or bad, just incompetent on a large scale.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

it's hard to understand how the same school model that was in place in 1950 (and earlier) is still in force today

This was a school model designed to create passive and intellectually uncurious citizens. It's a relic of the Industrial Revolution, when people thought that you could mechanize everything. It took undue influence away from the family and gave it to a teacher who was usually more Progressive than her community.

To quote Horace Mann (probably quite out of context): If an idiot were to tell you the same story every day for a year, you would end by believing it.

[Contrarian P]

My point was that the only reason the educational system is still the same today is because it has been prevented from evolving by governmental requirements. I don't think it was created to produce intellectually bereft citizens. In general, I find that laziness and incompetence are much more credible theories than nefarious plots. The political class doesn't see any real advantage to themselves to change the system in the face of the opposition change would create. The intellectual uncuriosity is only a side benefit.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

I don't think it was created to produce intellectually bereft citizens.

Not exactly, but it was created to produce submissive ("well behaved") children who were good at rote tasks such as arithmetic, writing, and basic thematic analysis of a text. Critical thinking was not important, and was in tension against the goal of producing "well behaved" children.

Either way, I'm not arguing, just supplementing.

[Contrarian P]

I've got you. I agree that the goal was to turn children into widgets and, of course, you wouldn't want your widgets disrupting your supply line. I don't know that the long term societal costs of producing children that would eventually turn into docile, disinterested adults were well considered. It's sort of like how Obamacare was going to cover everybody, but none of its proponents really thought about how making a finite resource "free" might have some really bad consequences down the line.

[DOOMco]

You will be bothered. No question.

[mad.casual]

The ACA's basic framework and principles have worked before, in the US, and in other countries. Criticize it, fine, but don't resort to hyperbole.

This is true. And I say with absolutely zero hyperbole; if Bernie Madoff had been immune to prosecution and capable of bailing himself out with taxpayer dollars for untold generations, his Ponzi Scheme would've gone off without a hitch. Pyramid Schemes and affinity fraud are shown to work, reliably, time and again.

[Cynical Asshole]

The ACA's basic framework and principles have worked before

Just throwing out an unsupported assertion doesn't automatically make it true.

[mortiscrum]

See Switzerland.

[Contrarian P]

Switzerland has 8 million people. New York city alone has more people in it. The Swiss are also quite homogenous as a people and generally have better overall health habits, with fewer chronic diseases. Swiss and other European immigrants to the United States have higher average lifespans than native born white Americans, despite being in the same health care system.

Switzerland also has an incredibly high density of firearms per person, but yet has hardly any gun crime. I doubt you're citing Swiss gun ownership as an American model.

[mad.casual]

It's like looking at the operating costs of owning two polar bears and deciding you can apply the same framework and structure to operating a zoo.

[Contrarian P]

It's polar bears all the way down.

[mortiscrum]

The Swiss do have a lot of guns - but they also have mandatory military service, meaning all virtually all owners have been trained, extensively, in firearm use and care. This is a lot different than here, where any yahoo can walk in to a Walmart and buy a gun (state depending). To me, this is regulating in to being the framework make widespread gun ownership tenable. In America though, we just open the flood gates on guns, to predictable results.

Your point on healthcare is valid though, to a degree: Switzerland is a lot smaller, with different demographics, than us. It'd be silly to say we can just copy exactly what they did and get the same good results. However, I think it pretty uncompelling to say "we're different, ergo there's absolutely nothing that we can use or learn from their system."

[Sevo]

"The Swiss do have a lot of guns - but they also have mandatory military service, meaning all virtually all owners have been trained, extensively, in firearm use and care. This is a lot different than here, where any yahoo can walk in to a Walmart and buy a gun (state depending). To me, this is regulating in to being the framework make widespread gun ownership tenable. In America though, we just open the flood gates on guns, to predictable results."

So you're a lying sack of shit about guns along with socialized medicine? Why is that not surprising, asshole?

[Sevo]

"See Switzerland."

See more bullshit.

[But Enough About Me]

The ACA's basic framework and principles have worked before, in the US, and in other countries.

Please define "worked". I am a Canadian, with intimate personal knowledge of how our health care system has failed me in at least 2 Canadian provinces so far. I can tell you, better than any American on this board, what "single-payer" has done to me, and the hoops I had to jump through to get around the extensive rationing and wait-listing that all Canadians are exposed to.

[Sevo]

"Republicans are blocking all attempts to correct the ACA..."

Wonderful news!
You can't "correct" that mess; it's based on the assumption that it will be supported by the New Soviet Man; a mythical being.

[Doctor Whom]

Even some of my lefty friends are considering whether to pay the penaltax rather than go to the exchange.

[Sevo]

That's what happens when you hope people will act against their best interests, regardless of Obo, Pelosi and our newest troll.

[mortiscrum]

This is going to go over like a fart in church, but that's part of the problem the ACA is facing: the penalty isn't high enough.

For the healthcare markets to work properly, there needs to be enough healthy people in them to support the less healthy ones. Currently, the penalty just isn't high enough so the healthier people don't bother with coverage, leaving the market pool sicker and more expensive to cover (hence the radical project rate hike).

If the penalty was a lot higher (look at Switzerland's penalty: they have a similar system, but people go to jail for not having health coverage), the health pools would be higher and work as designed.

[Sevo]

"For the healthcare markets to work properly, there needs to be enough healthy people in them to support the less healthy ones. Currently, the penalty just isn't high enough so the healthier people don't bother with coverage, leaving the market pool sicker and more expensive to cover (hence the radical project rate hike)."

See, folks, our newest fucking slaver just can't penalize us enough to make it work. Why, it's almost like it doesn't work, but he'll keep trying!
On your dime.

[mortiscrum]

It would have been a lot easier and more direct to just expand Medicaid and Medicare, but that was even less politically tenable than compelling people to buy products from private companies. This feels ironic, actually.

[Sevo]

"It would have been a lot easier and more direct to just expand Medicaid and Medicare, but that was even less politically tenable than compelling people to buy products from private companies."

Sure! We need to bankrupt the country!

[RenaD]

For the healthcare markets to work properly, there needs to be enough healthy people in them to support the less healthy ones. Currently, the penalty just isn't high enough so the healthier people don't bother with coverage, leaving the market pool sicker and more expensive to cover (hence the radical project rate hike).

Right now, I'm paying 4X what I was paying on my premium before Obummercare, and if rates go up as they have been, I'll be paying $1,500 a month in a premium when I retire in 14 years. That will be impossible for me to afford. So what happens when the productive classes can no longer "pay the penalties" as you put it? Are we all going to be put in JAIL? I guess so. But then who will support the "common good"?

Get your gun away from my temple, you statist pig.

[mortiscrum]

I'm sorry to hear that your coverage has become so much more expensive. There are people who have become worse off under the ACA - you seem to be one of them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "productive classes no longer able to pay the penalties." The idea of the ACA is for the penalty to incentivize people to buy coverage, thus making a robust and stable healthcare insurance pool. Ideally, no one pays the penalty and everyone has an option for affordable insurance.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

I'm not sure what you mean by "productive classes no longer able to pay the penalties."

He means that with people already living paycheck to paycheck these days, it's not at all inconceivable that health insurance could become wholly unaffordable for the middle class in the near future.

[mortiscrum]

Well... Yes and no. If the ACA got to the point where it was working as designed, costs wouldn't be so volatile. It'd become stable and affordable (even if it was subsidises that make it affordable).

Maybe this is a complete pipe dream, but I don't think it is: the ACA is obviously not there yet, but there's a lot of reasons to have hope as well.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

If the ACA got to the point where it was working as designed, costs wouldn't be so volatile.

If only those Wreckers and Kulaks would go away in favor of the New Soviet Man, then communism would finally work as designed.
-Soviet version of what you said

[RenaD]

I'm not sure what you mean by "productive classes no longer able to pay the penalties." The idea of the ACA is for the penalty to incentivize people to buy coverage, thus making a robust and stable healthcare insurance pool. Ideally, no one pays the penalty and everyone has an option for affordable insurance.

I mean that increased premiums by the productive classes are going to become untenable?the fact that we have to pay more so those who are indigent or unproductive can have health insurance is a PENALTY. Those extra monies have nothing to do with my care, but everything to do with THEIRS.

At any rate, we won't be able to keep paying either the premiums or the penalties needed to sustain the system. See the vicious cycle this is going to turn into? Right now, I'm considering shutting down my business, scaling my lifestyle way way back, stopping all insurance payments, and putting my money into a long term care policy instead.

When the majority of the middle class does the same thing, the system will crash. Then who will pay?

[mortiscrum]

That would be a very unfortunate, but admittedly possible, conclusion to the ACA. Like I said in another comment though, it doesn't seem very likely that'll happen though. There's a lot of positives showing through as well.

I also have hope because the changes to be made aren't unknown - they're relatively simply changes that could have a big impact. The difficult part is what's POLITICALLY possible. There are a host of politicians that are greatly interested in the ACA failing, to the detriment of the American people.

[RenaD]

Like I said in another comment though, it doesn't seem very likely that'll happen though. There's a lot of positives showing through as well.

Ah, yes, because the government is so good at running things efficiently.

Look, bottom line here is that if the only way to achieve a goal is to hold a gun to the head of the citizenry to force them to purchase/pay a tax in the name of an unquantifiable "common good," then that method is criminal and needs to be stopped.

This is not about being unkind or uncaring or not wanting people to have access to healthcare, this is a PHILOSOPHICAL issue, one in which the government is overstepping its bounds and bullying its citizenry, many of them into economic hardship and eventual bankruptcy, because of the false belief that health care is a RIGHT. But rights do not come at the expense of other people's rights, i.e. the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of whatever makes them happy.

You admitted earlier that you feel the free market has a lot of positives. This is one of them. We have not had a free market health care system, well, EVER, so let's give that a go. Let's get the government out of the process and see where that leads us.

[Sevo]

mortiscrum|10.27.16 @ 7:41PM|#
"I'm sorry to hear that your coverage has become so much more expensive. There are people who have become worse off under the ACA - you seem to be one of them."

Yeah, most ALL of them have; did you see my response to your lies about lower costs below?

[DarrenM]

There is an equilibrium to be reached among premium rates, healthy people vs. unhealthy (net drain on resources), quality of healthcare, etc. The government is just not good at determining where this equilibrium point it. This is where markets shine compared to bureaucrats a thousand miles away setting prices, in finding price points in complex systems involving several factors. The way the ACA is set up, the factors involved end up tipping it over so it's not sustainable. Sure, a higher penalty would make the ACA *work* better, but that does not necessarily make the ACA better. I'd say mandatory health care quality would have to be decreased. Anyone using government insurance would only have access to 30-year-old technology, for example. Only pay for hospital beds at rates for multi-patient rooms. No private rooms. Out-patient only where this is an option. (Some of these are already part of Medicare.)

[loveconstitution1789]

Why would anyone pay the penalty? Adjust your taxes to not get a refund and pay in April. There is nothing the IRS can do to collect the penalty except intercept your tax refund. its not treated like other tax liabilities. Progressives do not discuss this because they would at least get penalty money to prop up ObamaCare.

Its a moot point. After trump gets elected, ObamaCare will be repealed in 2017.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

The Medicare expansion in particular is straight cutting of their noses to spite their face - the only people they're hurting with that is their own constituents.

*channels his inner Hazlitt*

Gee, I wonder where all the Medicare expansion money comes from. Medicare expansion _may_ help some constituents, but supporters are completely ignoring the long-term and far-reaching harm to the vast majority of constituents who have to pay for this expansion.

Republicans aren't ruining everything, but they certainly aren't helping, or even being a neutral bystander. They're doing what they can to torpedo it, short of outright repel.

Good! Perhaps they can succeed, and we can stop pursuing this bullshit fantasy notion of universal healthcare.

[mortiscrum]

Bullshit fantasy that virtually every other industrialized country has managed to implement? You have an odd definition of fantasy.

[Sevo]

"Bullshit fantasy that virtually every other industrialized country has managed to implement?"

Bullshit claim. See, oh, NHS. Oh, and please take yourself there for treatment.

[mortiscrum]

Your feelings on how good the NHS is are fairly moot - it provides universal basic coverage to all citizens, fulfilling the definition of universal coverage. Quibbling over its flaws, which clearly exist, is besides the point. It has its strengths as well as weaknesses.

[Sevo]

"Your feelings on how good the NHS is are fairly moot - it provides universal basic coverage to all citizens, fulfilling the definition of universal coverage"

Your line of happy horseshit has been debunked many times, not to mention it is totally irrelevant to you lies regarding O-care (and I notice most all slimy lefties have stopped calling it now that it has been to be fraudulent from one end to the other).
Fuck off, slaver; my boots aren't tall enough for your pile.

[mortiscrum]

Me saying one thing and you saying another =/= "debunked." It's a conversation, no more, no less.

[Sevo]

"Me saying one thing and you saying another =/= "debunked." It's a conversation, no more, no less."

You lying and me calling you on it = "debunked".

[See Double You]

And the left tends to downplay universal coverage's weaknesses while exaggerating its strengths.

[mortiscrum]

Maybe. But isn't that true of ANYTHING a person wants to do? That's why they want to do it; they think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

[See Double You]

The left rarely, if ever, articulates the tradeoffs involved in implementing singlepayer. And those tradeoffs are much more than merely higher taxes on "the rich."

[Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!]

And those tradeoffs are much more than merely higher taxes on "the rich."

Like the possibility that American health care is subsidizing foreign single payer systems by overpaying for drugs so that drug manufacturers can sell them at the lower price set by foreign governments.

[mortiscrum]

What do you think the drawbacks are? I'm asking honestly.

Personally, I think a system of coverage that offers a basic level of care to all citizens is preferable to a system that offers excellent care to some, and leaves others out in the cold. Clearly, that'd lead me to favor some type of single payer system. That's a personally preference though - there are arguments to make for other systems.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

What do you think the drawbacks are?

1) Costs. The costs will, by the basic consequences of the subsidy, necessarily rise. This is the same for all types of universal care, whether it's by regulation, subsidy, price fixing, or any other method.
2) Poorer care. When costs inevitably increase, this is usually combatted with a reduction in the quality of care. The doctor can't hemorrhage money away, so he's gonna start cutting corners. Eventually, this leads to fewer doctors as they don't want to work in a razor-thin-margin industry after spending 8 years and a half-million dollars on their degree.
3) Pollution of incentives. Insurance, as currently crafted, already muddles the incentives to provide quality care. Since patients cannot simply and easily change doctors (due to insurance mandates), the provider has no incentive to provide the highest quality care. Merely providing somewhat competent care is enough to retain patients since it's such a pain to switch. When it's single payer, these concerns will be amplified.
4) Death of choice. One of the unique advantages of a free system is that you can choose to pay for higher risk solutions to medical problems. If you have terminal cancer, you can try an exotic treatment regimen, even if it means mortgaging your house and selling your jewelry. In a single payer system, those costs are not borne by you, so you don't get the choice. If your treatment is deemed uneconomical, it doesn't happen.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

5) Pollution of incentives, pt. 2. At the other end of the spectrum from 4), the government has no incentive to shop for value or negotiate better prices for routine procedures. They are unconcerned with value or quality (see this).
6) Moral hazard. By creating a complex bureaucratic single-payer system, the market is rigged toward the status quo. If somebody comes up with a brilliant new method or type of medical care, they must navigate the miles of red tape required as part of single payer. Further, there are massive special interests with the government's ear, their entire purpose being to keep this brilliant new idea from making it through the bureaucracy.
7) Morality of medical practice. There are certain medical procedures (abortion) of dubious morality or utility (boob jobs) or both (sex changes). Large groups of people will be forced to pay for medical procedures that they find unconsicionable.

[mortiscrum]

Thanks for sharing! I do have responses though -

1) if this were true, why does America pay so much for healthcare compared to other countries? It's hard to make an apples to apples comparison at the individual level since single payer looks "cheap" to the citizen, but they also typically pay much higher taxes....but America's GDP is dominated by healthcare costs, unlike many countries that have single payer.

2), this is a symptom of pay for service healthcare. Currently, doctors are paid for each procedure and prescription, and healthcare offices are operated by a for-profit model. But in a pay for outcome system, the entire incentive structure changes. Doctors are no longer driven to cut corners to save costs, and are instead aligned with patient desires to get well. Pay for outcome is easier to implement with single payer.

3) Regardless of the system, an insurance company's ideal customer is one who pays dutifully but never gets sick. Further, they are incentivized to deny care whenever possible. This is a fundamentally fact of insurance companies. Eliminating them from the system entirely is thus preferable to working with a player that will always have goals that are at odds with the patient.

4) Cadillac-type insurance plans are perfectly capable of existing simultaneously with a single payer option. The majority of people will buy basic coverage through the government, while those of means can seek experimental or exotics treatments through private insurers.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

why does America pay so much for healthcare compared to other countries?

1) Healthcare in the US is highly regulated (not unlike other countries, but this contributes to the cost)
2) Other countries heavily subsidize their healthcare, meaning that much of the cost falls on their ledger as tax revenue instead of healthcare costs.

If you're genuinely curious about point 2), pick up Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

But in a pay for outcome system, the entire incentive structure changes. Doctors are no longer driven to cut corners to save costs, and are instead aligned with patient desires to get well.

So, the profit motive goes away when you accept government money? That's ridiculous on its face. Unless you're talking about fully nationalizing healthcare (doctors being government agents), the doctors are still running a business. The incentives do change in single payer. Now, since the doctor knows they're getting price X for procedure X, they'll cut every corner they can in order to do procedure X at a lower cost and pocket the change. Instead of either raising prices or being creative, they are forced into the remedy of cutting corners.

cont. . .

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

they are incentivized to deny care whenever possible

What??? You realize that if they denied care whenever possible, they'd go out of business, right? Just like banks, different insurance companies have different clients in mind. It's not like payday loan shops shy away from lending money to high risk debtors. By deregulating and allowing insurance companies to charge the market price for high risk patients, those high risk patients won't be closed out of the market.

The majority of people will buy basic coverage through the government, while those of means can seek experimental or exotics treatments through private insurers.

You missed my point. Yes, those plans _can_ exist. However, they are not accessible to the people who used to be able to afford them (the middle class). With single-payer, you've priced the middle class out of being able to fight for their lives.

[mortiscrum]

Have you every had to argue with an insurance company over a claim before? The company I work for has less than 20 people, but we still have a dedicated department who's job it is to get insurers to pay for things. It's a full time job, and then some. Insurance companies ABSOLUTELY deny claims whenever possible. How do you not see this incentive?

I'm curious what you think should be "deregulated." Deregulate all you want; you can't change the fundamental nature of an insurance company. They want people who'll pay premiums but won't make claims. It is in their interest to pay as few claims as possible (while still maintain some level of customer satisfaction), and avoid entirely the people they know are very sick.

And what if the high-risk patient doesn't make 200k a year? They will be unable to get insurance - this is the definition of priced out of the market. Or they'll just be denied coverage outright, like insurance companies were allowed to do before the ACA.

[Sevo]

"Have you every had to argue with an insurance company over a claim before?"

Have you ever had to argue with the DMV?
Stuff your anecdotes and hypotheticals up your butt; the world would be smarter if you died right now.

[Sevo]

"1) if this were true, why does America pay so much for healthcare compared to other countries?"
Because we get better and more convenient healthcare.

"2), this is a symptom of pay for service healthcare."
What you propose will happen when unicorns roam the fields; been tried and NEVER works. Always presumes TOP MEN can define the outcomes.
Fail

"3)...Eliminating them from the system entirely is thus preferable to working with a player that will always have goals that are at odds with the patient."
Except you offer nothing better.

"4) Cadillac-type insurance plans are perfectly capable of existing simultaneously with a single payer option"
So you are willing to cover yourself and 3 r 4 others? Fine; not me.

[Sevo]

"4) Death of choice. One of the unique advantages of a free system is that you can choose to pay for higher risk solutions to medical problems. If you have terminal cancer, you can try an exotic treatment regimen, even if it means mortgaging your house and selling your jewelry. In a single payer system, those costs are not borne by you, so you don't get the choice. If your treatment is deemed uneconomical, it doesn't happen."

World-wide single-payer is pretty much guaranteed to end real medical advances.
I've had lefties claim that medical care as a good is not elastic in demand. My response is that they'd better hope they are mistaken.
New medical procedures and pharms are always expensive to develop and deliver until they begin to realize the economies of scale.

[Sevo]

"What do you think the drawbacks are? I'm asking honestly."

Why change now?
You haven't posted 'honestly' since you showed up here; one lie after the other.

[Sevo]

"Maybe. But isn't that true of ANYTHING a person wants to do?"

Yes, and by that measure, O-care sucks.

[BYODB]

Medicaid expansion, not Medicare. And yes, Republicans failure to repeal it, as they promised they would, is hurting their party pretty badly. Putting forward Romney last time around being a pretty prime example of how stupid (R)'s really are.

[mortiscrum]

Fun fact, people like the ACA - when they're asked about the various pieces of it and the good things it does. It's just when it's bundled up and called the ACA that people don't like it.

The Republicans would face a serious backlash if they managed to repel Obamacare and suddenly millions of people no longer had access to coverage

[Sevo]

"Fun fact, people like the ACA - when they're asked about the various pieces of it and the good things it does. It's just when it's bundled up and called the ACA that people don't like it."

So once they find out they have to pay for deadbeats like you, they don't like it?
Surprise!

[mortiscrum]

I get health coverage through my employer, and don't use the healthcare exchanges. I do benefit though from the normalization of health coverage, and regulations that make health plans better, overall.

The ACA's reputation has been tarnished, badly. But people still like the many of the things it does.

[Sevo]

"I do benefit though from the normalization of health coverage, and regulations that make health plans better, overall."
What is that steaming pile of crap supposed to mean? Did you copy and paste that from some brain-dead lefty site?

"The ACA's reputation has been tarnished, badly. But people still like the many of the things it does."
Yeah, they liked it fine until it became obvious they were paying far more for far less.
IOWs, once the lies were shown to be lies. And here you are, trying to shovel more bullshit.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

I do benefit though from the normalization of health coverage, and regulations that make health plans better, overall.

Good! Pay for your charity yourself. Stop holding a gun to my head to make me pay for it.

[loveconstitution1789]

Who doesn't like higher prices, less access to medical care and threats of government taking your tax refund.

[mortiscrum]

Lower prices. The prices are lower. Please, this isn't hard information to find. The ACA has significantly lowered costs from what they would have been without the ACA.

Further, the coverage is better as insurance companies are now beholden to certain basic levels of quality in their plans.

And how you turn millions more people with health coverage in to less access to health care is....nonsensical.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

Lower prices. The prices are lower. Please, this isn't hard information to find. The ACA has significantly lowered costs from what they would have been without the ACA.

False.

Further, the coverage is better as insurance companies are now beholden to certain basic levels of quality in their plans.

HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!! How can you say that with a straight face??? Have you even looked at your insurance plan? Seriously, I've lost my HSA, my deductible tripled, and my premium quadrupled since O-care was implemented, and I'm just one anecdote. The info is easy to find out there.

[See Double You]

HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!! How can you say that with a straight face??? Have you even looked at your insurance plan? Seriously, I've lost my HSA, my deductible tripled, and my premium quadrupled since O-care was implemented, and I'm just one anecdote. The info is easy to find out there.

That's just the price you have to pay for folks like mortiscrum to feel good about "universal healthcare access coverage.

[Sevo]

"Lower prices. The prices are lower. Please, this isn't hard information to find."

Then YOU, making that claim should be able to support it as I requested.
Instead, To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C] did you a favor and showed, that as expected, that's just one more lie from you:
http://blogs-images.forbes.com.....urden1.png

Why do you bother to lie so transparently? Do you think that lying POS in the WH is some sort of role model?

[mortiscrum]

You want to do this? You site something, i site something, no one changes their mind....Fine.

http://www.latimes.com/busines.....story.html

or

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/.....you-think/

[Sevo]

Yes, I want to do this, sliy liars like you are all too easy to call.
-----------------------------
You want to do this? You site something, i site something, no one changes their mind....Fine.
"http://www.latimes.com/busines.....story.html"

Fail.
That's an 'opinion' piece on what coverage *might* cost absent O-care; the link cited above is facts, not some lefty wishes.
-------------------------------
"http://healthaffairs.org/

Fail.
Same data, same bullshit:
"But even if premiums increase by the 10 or 15 percent overall that some are predicting for 2017, they will still be far lower than premiums otherwise would have been in the absence of the law."
More lefty wishes masquerading as information.
Fuck off, slaver.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

If I wanted better coverage, I can always buy better coverage. I certainly didn't the government mandating my choice away.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

You'll be in for a big surprise when the Cadillac tax kicks in and you find out - your employer sponsored health plan is considered a "Cadillac plan".

Which means it's in your employer's best interest to fire you or reduce your benefits.

And you thought you were immune from the negative consequences of ObamaCare.

[mortiscrum]

No, I don't have a Cadillac plan. I have a "silver" plan that will not be affected by the Cadillac Tax - if it ever goes in to effect. Which it probably won't.

[Sevo]

"Which it probably won't."

Right. The unions would have a fit and might not vote D.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

Yes, you do have a Cadillac health care plan.

In 2009, the average policy offered by employers was $13,375 per employee.

The Cadillac health care plan, including worker and employer contributions to flexible spending or health savings accounts, is $10,200.

Too bad. You do. You're $3,175 too expensive and as such, now fire.

[mortiscrum]

You're not bothered, at all, by your argument being based on you knowing more about my healthcare plan than I do? I work in the healthcare field. Bro. I have a decent understanding.

[Sevo]

"I work in the healthcare field. Bro. I have a decent understanding."

You can claim what you please. We have the evidence of your posts. You are a lefty, given to fantasies and an economic ignoramus.
I can only presume that you work cleaning the floors in the industry.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

You'll be in for a big surprise when the Cadillac tax kicks in and you find out - your employer sponsored health plan is considered a "Cadillac plan".

Which means it's in your employer's best interest to fire you or reduce your benefits.

And you thought you were immune from the negative consequences of ObamaCare.

[DarrenM]

People always like free stuff until they find out it's not so free.

[loveconstitution1789]

People that are fond of ObamaCare, like free shit.

[Social Justice is neither]

Fun fact, people like sex. But when you stick a knife to their throat and sodomize them whether they want it or not then people don't like it.

Thanks for playing you evil POS.

[Chocolate Starfish ( . )]

EXCELLENT!

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

Sure. People just love being told by the government THEY MUST buy health insurance and they LOVE paying that penaltax. They love that penaltax so much, I suggest Hillary takes Gruber's suggestion and double the penaltax.

That penaltax is a real vote-getter.

[Rasilio]

Hmmm and my wife stubbornly refuses to accept tweaks to our marriage that allow me to get blowjobs from random chicks I pick up in a bar and require her to take over mowing the lawn so I have time to go to said bar.

Doesn't obstructionism just fucking suck man!

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

Nice metaphor, however.

Democrats will beg Republicans bail them out on ACA

You beg for regular blow jobs from random chicks

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

"It's fairly outrageous to think that a program of this size wouldn't need tweaks . . . "

You broke it. You own it.

[kbolino]

Republicans are blocking all attempts to correct the ACA though

The Republicans passed a reform bill and the President vetoed it.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

The Republicans are better served to do nothing and let the Democrats beg.

[DarrenM]

Whey is Obama so obstructionist?

[DarrenM]

Um.... Why?

[Doctor Whom]

Talking to progs about Baltimore is like talking to people in an alternate universe where the past half century of state spending just didn't happen and where Larry Hogan has been absolute monarch of Maryland since the dawn of time.

[Je suis Woodchipper]

that Dakota Access Pipeline protest is picking up. police have advanced on the camp.

[Citizen X]

So Jill Stein's about to get arrested again?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

NPR has started talking about it now that Trump is 14 points behind. The plan is coming together.

[T.F.G.]

Isn't he closer to 5 points behind?

[Sevo]

Click bait above has a headline regarding why Trump doesn't want to talk about his hair. I'm glad we're dealing with the issues that matter.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

What does this increase mean for consumers, taxpayers, and the future of the ACA?

It means that we're going to have a no-kidding depression sooner or later. Between the negative economic and personal finance pressures of the ACA, the exponential growth of regulation, the fact that the taxpaying burden is beginning to shift to Millennials (who are individually buried under 6-figures of student debt), and that we're suppressing the natural corrections of the market with money printing and holding interest rates at zero, there is going to be a massive economic adjustment when the dam breaks. It'll probably take more than a garden-variety recession to kick this stuff off, but when people can't hardly afford health insurance on top of their basic living expenses, they're put in a precarious place when the next downturn comes around.

[mortiscrum]

Costs are bad under the ACA, but they're universally better than they were prior. This off-repeated wisdom that the ACA is some gross explosion of medical costs, or that medical care was somehow fine before, is just not true.

Average student dept is 35K, BTW, not 6 figures. The problem of student debt is very overblown. It's an issue to address, not a ticking bomb ready to bring down the whole economy.

[Citizen X]

Costs are bad under the ACA, but they're universally better than they were prior.

May i buy drugs from you? You've apparently got access to some good ones.

[Florida Hipster]

Costs are bad under the ACA, but they're universally better than they were prior

So all the people complaining that there healthcare cost are going up shouldn't believe their lying eyes?

[mortiscrum]

Look at the yearly increases in healthcare costs prior to the ACA, and compare them to the raises since the ACA. Spoiler, the numbers from before the ACA are bigger. And that's on top of all of the shit that went on that the ACA has regulated away - very popular regulations, mind you.

[Citizen X]

I don't know how to break it to you, but that's not true at all. None of it is true. You're saying a whole series of words that add up to a thing that is not even the least bit factual.

I bet your real name isn't even Mortis.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

It's Tony

[Sevo]

Not sure.
There was another X-scrum here a week or so ago; more lefty shit about how s/he also wants a smaller government, but according to him/her, everything government does is an 'investment', so you really can't cut anything.
We know that, since like this slimebag, s/he told us so!

[Sevo]

"Look at the yearly increases in healthcare costs prior to the ACA, and compare them to the raises since the ACA. Spoiler, the numbers from before the ACA are bigger. And that's on top of all of the shit that went on that the ACA has regulated away - very popular regulations, mind you."

Cite missing.

[Chocolate Starfish ( . )]

I appreciate that even while you are POUNDING out angry rants, your grammar is so much better than that of MortiScrotumSniffer. To be be taken seriously one should attend to the smaller details or learn to use a fucking grammar checker.

[Sevo]

"I appreciate that even while you are POUNDING out angry rants, your grammar is so much better than that of MortiScrotumSniffer. To be be taken seriously one should attend to the smaller details or learn to use a fucking grammar checker."

I'll keep that in mind.

[Florida Hipster]

I would like to do a side by side comparison, but my plan wasn't Obamacare compatible so it's no longer available. At least my non-existent kids get free dental care. *shrug*

[Sevo]

Yeah, this alone kills 'scrums' claim; you can't compare what most people have with what they have, regardless of Obo's lies to the contrary.
Willful, deliberate lies, sorta like 'scrum here.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

Errrh - aren't you guilty of post hoc ergo propter hoc logic?

[kbolino]

Look at the yearly increases in healthcare costs prior to the ACA, and compare them to the raises since the ACA.

If that were true, then everybody was getting free health insurance 20 years ago.

Spoiler alert: That was not the case.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

Those MRI machines were free, 20 years ago. Hell, they were free 40 years ago too.

[Sevo]

"Costs are bad under the ACA, but they're universally better than they were prior."

Bull
.
.
.
.
shit.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Costs are bad under the ACA, but they're universally better than they were prior.

What?!!

This off-repeated wisdom that the ACA is some gross explosion of medical costs, or that medical care was somehow fine before, is just not true

No one said medical care was "just fine before". Welcome to Hit & Run. The government, both state and federal had fucked medical care up badly by making it one of the most regulated industries on the globe. You have state governments that actually block and restrict healthcare availability on the logic that "too much healthcare will cause prices to drop". Hospitals are incentivized to remain small and restrict the number of beds lest they lose government subsidies. This is only a tiny percentage of the things the government does to utterly fuck up healthcare, while people like you scream "It's not like a regular market!!1!!" when in reality, it's EXACTLY like a regular market and DID EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID IT WOULD DO IF THE ACA WAS PASSED.

Talking to people like you is like talking to my sister-- she has no concept of how time works. When you try to inform her of what's going to happen if she tries to stuff x, y and z into an impossible time frame, she gets pissed at you when time does what time does and she runs out of it.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

Costs are bad under the ACA, but they're universally better than they were prior.

Bullshit.

Are you gonna keep making shit up to "prove" your "point," or are you going to start arguing in good faith?

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

Average student dept is 35K, BTW, not 6 figures.

No shit. It was obvious hyperbole. Sense the tone of the comment.

The problem of student debt is very overblown.

Disagreed. The problem isn't that students are saddled with insurmountable debt, it's that their debt is insurmountable when compared to the opportunities created by their education. This is especially true for humanities degrees. Saddling humanities students (who have a hard time finding gainful employment in the first place, let alone a job making $40k or more) with a loan that will take them a decade or more to pay off right when they're the most vulnerable is moronic and will continue to backfire, especially as the government and economy as a whole begin to depend on the Millennials to produce economic value to keep this runaway freight train going.

[mortiscrum]

This simply isn't true. The students who come out of school with large amounts of dept - 80K or more - are typically going in to fields that pay a lot of money. We don't need to bail out people who make 90k a year when they're in the mid to late 20's. This is a statistical fact.

The people who really do suffer from student dept are the people who are attempting to break out of the lowest demographic groups - students who are the first to attend college in their family who come from poor back rounds. These students are failing to graduate at alarming rates, and the 4-6k of debt they accumulate becomes crushing when they make minimum wage.

[Sevo]

"This simply isn't true. The students who come out of school with large amounts of dept - 80K or more - are typically going in to fields that pay a lot of money."

I'll bet you have a link to a Brookings Institute editorial that shows this, right?

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

I say it's much too late to complain, dear. You broke it, you own it.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

Fun fact - whenever a third party subsidies something, it always costs more. Always!

Now, if you seriously want to see those areas where costs have actually decreased, look at those items consumers pay themselves. Those elective things - like Lasik and face lifts and Botox and breast enhancements.

[mad.casual]

Costs are bad under the ACA, but they're universally better than they were prior. This off-repeated wisdom that the ACA is some gross explosion of medical costs, or that medical care was somehow fine before, is just not true.

Less interestingly than the fact that this is untrue, how? Did we suddenly get more doctors and nurses? (Hint: No.) Did medical device testing and production suddenly get less expensive? (Hint: No.) Did people suddenly start getting healthier because insurance became affordable prolific? (Hint: No.)

*Assuming the statement is true*, there are only two ways it works out; 1. Some manner of healthcare union or educator lockout that demanded the implementation of the ACA or 2. Proliferation of privatized and/or black market healthcare that was previously unavailable or undesirable prior to implementing the ACA (or some combination). Either way, the ACA didn't directly lower the cost of healthcare, which only idiots would claim as even the creators and the creators of the prototypes that it emulates don't claim. Ask the Swiss why their healthcare costs are so low (not individuals and out-of-pocket) and they'll point to lower general incidents of disease, immigrant healthcare workers, and doctors who were educated abroad.

[Sevo]

"Costs are bad under the ACA, but they're universally better than they were prior. This off-repeated wisdom that the ACA is some gross explosion of medical costs, or that medical care was somehow fine before, is just not true.
Less interestingly than the fact that this is untrue, how?"

Pelosi clicked her heels and she was back in Kans...
Oops: she had magically changed the laws of economics and made the same supply cheaper at greater demand.
She wrote a law, you see.

[RenaD]

Costs are bad under the ACA, but they're universally better than they were prior.

Nope. Prior I had a $90 a month plan, $25 prescriptions, $2,000 deductible, three free preventive visits a year. Now I pay $360 a month, no prescription coverage (my one script went from $35 for two month's supply to $550), and a $7,000 deductible. Now my doctors usher me in and out in 5 minutes, ask me no questions, seem tired and overworked and could give a shit.

And it's not just me this has happened to. It's happened to everyone I know.

So, tell me now, what's "universally better" about the ACA?

[Jerms]

your comments in this thread are a thing of beauty. As a wet behind the ears libertarian I thank you.

[mortiscrum]

Don't fall for libertarian lies! It's not too late for you....!! No!!!!!

[Cynical Asshole]

Subsidies will rise as well.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...

[Florida Hipster]

Where do we get the subsidies?

[Sevo]

All signs point to you.

[Florida Hipster]

*Looks around, realize finger is pointed at me*

Shit...

[Sevo]

Hey, some bozo's gotta cover all those sick people, and it ain't gonna be pajama-boy.
He took one look at his new premiums, spouted that tea all over his keyboard and decided paying that tax was a hell of a lot cheaper.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

Pajama Boy doesn't drink tea. He drinks cocoa. With whipped cream.

[Doctor Whom]

Other people.

Oh, wait. Am I other people?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Concentrate and ask again.

[Rhywun]

When I was little I thought the Magic 8 Ball was real. Now we grown people thinking the same thing.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

The Magic 8 Ball is real.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

Ouija boards are real because I see dead people.

Magic 8 balls - not so much

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

Jack is planning on making less money this year than last year.

[CatoTheChipper]

After learning that I will get less coverage for $21,000/year in 2017 than I do now for $15,000/year, I'm going to do my part in the ObamaCare death spiral next year. That's for a very restrictive EPO with a $13000 deductible.

Yes. A high-deductible ObamaCare EPO plan for a couple in their early 60s will run $21,000/year. The only lower-cost alternative is to subscribe to the same crappy HMO that Medicaid recipients get for free. That still runs $15,000/year.

Before ObamaCare, I paid around $8000 for about good high-deductible PPO coverage. Well, we didn't get "free" contraceptives and "free" pediatric dental services under the old plan, but otherwise it was about the same.

Thanks, ObamaCare!

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

You could quit your job, work for minimum wage and get a subsidy.

It's weird how that works out - isn't it? The government deliberately incentivizing you to become poor - but, that's what ObamaCare does. The more money you don't make, the more subsidy you get.

It's like the reverse American dream.

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

You could quit your job, work for minimum wage and get a subsidy.

It's weird how that works out - isn't it? The government deliberately incentivizing you to become poor - but, that's what ObamaCare does. The more money you don't make, the more subsidy you get.

It's like the reverse American dream.

[Sevo]

And it's working!

[Bodica Slayer of Woodchip]

"Dream away, dreamer. I got you covered" Nancy Pelosi

[RenaD]

You could quit your job, work for minimum wage and get a subsidy.

Or if you're self employed like I am, gleefully pass the costs along to your proggie clients. Of course, they're running out of money, too, so, yeah, dropping out and refusing to work altogether except to subsidize the most basic of lifestyles is not beyond the realm of possibility for me. Oh, and I plan to make friends with as many doctors and nurses as I can. Their privately contracted for services are going to be worth more than gold in 15?20 years.

[Unemployed Armenian Tranny]

Listen! This whole problem would be solved if people who are healthy enough to do without insurance would just pay for insurance anyway, out of the goodness of their hearts. Its fool proof. Its clearly being sabotaged by...um, I don't know...um, human-nature. Ban human-nature! Wait, that's the Democrat Party's platform, isn't it?

[Sevo]

And we get our newest troll telling us that O-care is just fine, suggesting lame tweaks which he presumes that NO ONE HERE EVER THOUGHT OF, since he's just so much smarter than any libertarian!
All the while ignoring (as you point out) that he's hoping for the New Soviet Man, and while he finesses it, it is obvious he's willing to kill to get it, because that's the threat inherent in taxation.
And then wondering why I call him a fucking ignoramus...

[Sevo]

I see mortiscrum has not yet dealt the the flaws in mortiscrums' fantasies. I am not surprised.

[LarsenG]

This blog is such a great diversion and I love learning from our blog experts

[nanban]

it has a reality show thanks again Tndte diploma result October 2016
Tndte diploma result October 2016

[nanban]

were its working thank u Tndte diploma result October 2016
Tndte diploma result October 2016