Page 87 of 141 FirstFirst ... 78798081828384858687888990919293949596 ... LastLast
Results 1,291 to 1,305 of 2108

Thread: 2017 American Political Scene

  1. #1291
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote 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.

  2. #1292
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,907
    Quote 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

  3. #1293
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,907
    Quote 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

  4. #1294
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,530
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  5. #1295
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,965
    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

  6. #1296
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,499
    Quote 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.

  7. #1297
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,060
    Quote 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.

  8. #1298
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,530
    Quote 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, at 22:11.

  9. #1299
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,304
    Quote 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.

  10. #1300
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,242
    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

  11. #1301
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,965
    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

  12. #1302
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote 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.

  13. #1303
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,907
    Quote 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

  14. #1304
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote 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.

  15. #1305
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 16 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 14 guests)

  1. zraver

Similar Threads

  1. 2017
    By tankie in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 22 Mar 17,, 12:55
  2. 2017 and the End of Ethics
    By bigross86 in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 02 Jun 14,, 21:05
  3. Lotsa great American political news out there today...
    By Bluesman in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27 Aug 10,, 20:00
  4. American political duplication between Riyadh and Israel
    By ahmed in forum International Politics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 29 Apr 07,, 22:06

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •