Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by citanon View Post
    Right. To replace the individual mandate you essentially have to make sick people who only join after they become sick pay a significant financial penalty to compensate for not being a part of the insurance pool.

    I'm fine with that.
    Unfortunately once you become sick no company will touch you. Best for them is the emergency room with very high costs and then stiff them on the bill one can't pay. Then it ends up being paid by everybody but in a different manner. It's what people did before the ACA and what they will do after the ACA once again.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
      It's oversimplified and a wrong assumption. This is not how insurance should work.

      Insurance companies buy the risk FOR you. There is no risk if they accept you into the pool and you are already sick. I want to insure my burning house.
      No its not. Both of us buy home insurance. Your home burns down. The compensation that you get is partly out of my premiums, and my house did not burn down. If more people have their houses go up in flames, premiums will rise. If less people have burning homes, they will come down.
      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

      Comment


      • Originally posted by citanon View Post
        Right. To replace the individual mandate you essentially have to make sick people who only join after they become sick pay a significant financial penalty to compensate for not being a part of the insurance pool.

        I'm fine with that.
        In other words, you do want individual mandate, coupled with a much higher penalty for not joining.
        "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
          Unfortunately once you become sick no company will touch you. Best for them is the emergency room with very high costs and then stiff them on the bill one can't pay. Then it ends up being paid by everybody but in a different manner. It's what people did before the ACA and what they will do after the ACA once again.
          In the proposed system, insurance companies are forced to take you, but they are allowed to apply a surcharge.

          Originally posted by antimony View Post
          In other words, you do want individual mandate, coupled with a much higher penalty for not joining.
          No. You need an economic way of allowing people to opt out and take the chance if they want. But, if you say to people that they can opt out, and say to companies that they must take them if they want back in, then you need to allow companies to charge the premium they would have paid had they not opted out, within some bounds.

          This allows you an elective choice with bound negative consequences should chance go against you. It's a hedged bet on your own health to not buy insurance.

          Under the ACA, you are penalized for taking the bet itself.

          Comment


          • citanon,

            Under the ACA, you are penalized for taking the bet itself.
            because you're socializing your individual bet across all of society. emergency care funds do not come from trees.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DOR View Post
              OK, you (Dazed) don't believe there is that much voter fraud.
              I agree.

              It's the unAmerican voter SUPPRESSION that riles me.
              I doubt that.... you don't seemed to be riled by the idea being pushed by the Coastal Liberals that only their votes should count. You don't seem to be riled by the fact that the Left wants to enfranchise as many people with no obligation to pay for the policies they want as possible. The people who have to pay for the liberal schemes have their ability to avoid the theft of their assets diluted by every vote added to the rolls that doesn't have to pay for what they vote themselves. Nor have I seen you support any calls to move the EC system from a generally winner take all system to one that awards the popular vote winner a state's two EC votes for its senators and the rest awarded by who wins the congressional district. Most liberals don't like that idea becuase though they would pick up some votes in more rural states. They would lose far more as rural counties in more urban states like NY and IL suddenly found they had a political voice on the national stage again. I am pretty sure what riles you is that your preferred scheme of voter suppression hasn't been adopted.

              Snapper,

              You are wrong, he was asked a very specific question related to his service to the Trump campaign. Going to a function set up by Obama as a member of the senate is not part of the campaign.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                Snapper,

                You are wrong, he was asked a very specific question related to his service to the Trump campaign. Going to a function set up by Obama as a member of the senate is not part of the campaign.
                He met the Kislyak at the Convention (also attended by Manafort's GRU friend) where the GOP 'program' regarding arming Ukraine was changed on Trumps direct instructions and when the hacking of the DNC was breaking news but when asked about what he would do if the allegations of repeated and continued contacts between the Muscovite operatives and the Trump campaign were true and if there was any evidence of such what would he do? He replied falsely that he knew of no contacts and had none himself. If that is answering the question of telling the truth in your book the world is flat.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  because you're socializing your individual bet across all of society. emergency care funds do not come from trees.
                  A lot of things are socialized across society. The new GOP plan is trying to find a better way forward that enables more individual freedom and improves social mobility while limiting the downside risk and the moral hazard.

                  If you look at the flip side, a full individual mandate socializes the cost of risk aversion across society. So do we socialize risk taking or risk aversion? The answer out of this paradox is we need to find a more flexible system that does better and is more consistent with our values.
                  Last edited by citanon; 12 Mar 17,, 22:11.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                    A lot of things are socialized across society. The new GOP plan is trying to find a better way forward that enables more individual freedom and improves social mobility while limiting the downside risk and the moral hazard.
                    I don't know whether to ask how this is supposed to play out vis-a-vis Trumpism, or to point out that the notions of "The new GOP plan" (how new? post-election?), "enables more individual freedom" (tell that to a woman or a minority!), "improves social mobility" (I suppose downward mobility is still mobility...), "limiting the downside" (nowhere to go but up)' and "moral hazard" (sans morals?) are all fake news.
                    Trust me?
                    I'm an economist!

                    Comment


                    • https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.815bab5eea04
                      The research, published Thursday in the journal*Science, showed a 40 percent increase in emergency department visits among those low-income adults in Oregon who gained Medicaid coverage in 2008 through a state lottery. This runs counter to some health-care law supporters' hope that Medicaid coverage would decrease this type of costly medical care, by making it easier for low income adults to see primary care providers.
                      http://www.nber.org/papers/w13585
                      We measure uncompensated care as the net amount that physicians lose by lower payments from the uninsured than from the insured. Our best estimate is that physicians provide negative uncompensated care to the uninsured, earning more on uninsured patients than on insured patients with comparable treatments. Even our most conservative estimates suggest that uncompensated care amounts to only 0.8% of revenues, or at most $3.2 billion nationally. These results highlight the important distinction between charges and payments, and point to the need for a re-definition of uncompensated care in the health sector going forward.
                      I mean, you guys realize that "emergency room care" is probably a false red herring beyond a few select facilities, right? In general, the idea that we can reduce health care costs by increasing health care costs as an "investment" is as economically bunk as the supply-side tax cuts you all deride. It's bullshit, all the way down.

                      If you want to improve health, you spend more money. It's a question of who pays, who gets the benefits. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
                      "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                      Comment


                      • GVChamp,

                        I mean, you guys realize that "emergency room care" is probably a false red herring beyond a few select facilities, right? In general, the idea that we can reduce health care costs by increasing health care costs as an "investment" is as economically bunk as the supply-side tax cuts you all deride. It's bullshit, all the way down.

                        If you want to improve health, you spend more money. It's a question of who pays, who gets the benefits. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
                        then you will need to explain why the US healthcare spending greatly exceeds other first world countries, -including- the countries with the most expansive single-payer option. it's certainly not tied to overall health outcome.

                        moreover,

                        https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252

                        Including the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period. That estimate takes into account the proposal’s impact on federal revenues and direct (or mandatory) spending, incorporating the net effects of two components:

                        Excluding the effects of macroeconomic feedback—as has been done for previous estimates related to the ACA (and most other CBO cost estimates)—CBO and JCT estimate that federal deficits would increase by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period if the ACA was repealed.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.815bab5eea04


                          http://www.nber.org/papers/w13585


                          I mean, you guys realize that "emergency room care" is probably a false red herring beyond a few select facilities, right? In general, the idea that we can reduce health care costs by increasing health care costs as an "investment" is as economically bunk as the supply-side tax cuts you all deride. It's bullshit, all the way down.

                          If you want to improve health, you spend more money. It's a question of who pays, who gets the benefits. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
                          Link to the study and not to the newspaper.

                          http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...9533#t=article

                          Note the increased lasted about 2 years as per their study. Sounds about right since it takes forever to change a patients behavior.

                          As to being told to go to the ER by their PCP, to lower their blood sugar, I would take that with a grain of salt. Patients evade, patients withhold pertinent information, patients say what you want to hear, just to name a few things about them when dealing with them. Some of that is institutional, some is from nothing paying attention and some from ignorance.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                            No. You need an economic way of allowing people to opt out and take the chance if they want. But, if you say to people that they can opt out, and say to companies that they must take them if they want back in, then you need to allow companies to charge the premium they would have paid had they not opted out, within some bounds.

                            This allows you an elective choice with bound negative consequences should chance go against you. It's a hedged bet on your own health to not buy insurance.

                            Under the ACA, you are penalized for taking the bet itself.
                            It's an illusion of choice, to not buy insurance. But if someone dares to make that choice, then, should something unfortunate happen to them, they would get screwed many times over. In other words, individual mandate, or else (the else being the choice).
                            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                              Link to the study and not to the newspaper.

                              http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...9533#t=article

                              Note the increased lasted about 2 years as per their study. Sounds about right since it takes forever to change a patients behavior.

                              As to being told to go to the ER by their PCP, to lower their blood sugar, I would take that with a grain of salt. Patients evade, patients withhold pertinent information, patients say what you want to hear, just to name a few things about them when dealing with them. Some of that is institutional, some is from nothing paying attention and some from ignorance.
                              You sound like Dr. House - "People lie"
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment


                              • I have an idea.

                                Those who want to pay an extra buck out of solidarity can form a fund and pay for those uncovered. What can go wrong?

                                And those who are selfish and think only for their wellbeing can form their own hospitals.

                                Curios which concept would win.
                                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X