- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,136
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
There was a good editorial comment in the WSJ called RomneyCare 2.0 that discusses many of the points you raise, and how the program has played out (disastrously) in Massachusetts.
The primary mechanism to control costs in the original ACA was the public option, but we had to give that up to calm down the tea party. Ultimately we still need it.
Cost control will be minimal with ACA, but having people insured, thus able to pay for services should lower hospital costs, or at least keep them from growing.
Medicare has some problems, but even if those are fixed, it won't mean more doctors. Our aging population is the most likley to need health care. So, this plces a burden on the government,
As always, that is a glaring contradiction and does not logically follow. "Having people insured" does not allow them to pay for services. It allows them to receive services and forces others to pay.
No, on the working generations.
Cost control will be minimal with ACA, but having people insured, thus able to pay for services should lower hospital costs, or at least keep them from growing. The $16 we pay for a bandaid today may not become $26. Also, the bill does try to encourage more general practicioners, though that is an uphill battle as specialists earn more.
Medicare has some problems, but even if those are fixed, it won't mean more doctors. Our aging population is the most likley to need health care. So, this plces a burden on the government, with not much for a healty population to off set the cost. UHC would help this greatly, along with other benefits, such as removing HC from being linked employment. But we've been unable to make that switch here. Until we do, these problems will continue to greater or lesser degrees.
No, pay for. The hospital actually gets paid, as opposed to recieving no money and having to hike up prices to pay for those who did not pay. And most will pay their own insurance premiums.
Whatever you're trying to say doesn't really respond to what you attach it to. I work, and I don't see anything to what you link.
Are you kidding me? Who do you think is going to be paying MORE so that those NOW unable to pay for insurance (or ER costs) get subsidized care? PPACA does not lower overall costs, it just shifts them around differently and RAISES them. Assume that the average poor person makes $20K/year and that their medical care insurance costs $4000/year. The AVERAGE poor person does not use ANY medical care in a typical year, so without PPACA they cost NOTHING to ANYONE else now. Under PPACA the AVERAGE poor person must pay 2% of their income ($400) in insurance to "the exchange" so the other $3,600 of their insurance premium cost is "on the house" (shared among all other insured people) or paid for directly by TAX MONEY.
That still is not a scenario in which any person (previously uninsured) is paying for health care services. The group of people who don't have insurance typically cannot afford it altogether, or could barely afford it, so under the new system you're (at best) making them poorer by forcing them to buy coverage they already can't afford, or (at worst) entitling even more of them to more services without the requirement to pay. In either case, no one is paying for his/her health care.
The cartoon was just because I felt like it but I realize it's not related to the cost control mechanism discussion. Prior to that I said "no" it (Medicare) doesn't create a burden on the government, because the government assumes no burden. It (Medicare) creates a burden on the working. It will simply have to shut down the benefits, because it's beyond unsustainable.
Isn't that the whole point of insurance? You pay a premium and socialize the losses. Where do you get 2%/$400 from?
Not entirely true. There are those who can afford it, but choose not to.
And we have always paid for it. Every single insured person and tax payer has been paying for it for a long, long time. A bandaid doesn't really cost $16 each. You can get an entire box for $2. Even if you were right, and you're not entirely, being able to give the hospital their money, no mater who it comes from, lowers the price for all of us.
I don't believe that is the case. Overall, it perfoms better than insurance.
Not entirely true. There are those who can afford it, but choose not to. And we have always paid for it. Every single insured person and tax payer has been paying for it for a long, long time. A bandaid doesn't really cost $16 each. You can get an entire box for $2. Even if you were right, and you're not entirely, being able to give the hospital their money, no mater who it comes from, lowers the price for all of us.
I don't believe that is the case. Overall, it perfoms better than insurance. But, the public option would have been better than what we have now, and UHC better still.
It seems the folks who are liberal on the issue of health care don't seem to want to admit the POSSIBILITY that we are trying to entitle ourselves to more care than we can pay for, individually OR collectively. In a scenario where we can't pay for the things we want to promise ourselves, we either go into debt chasing it, or we simply don't reward ourselves with the things we can't afford.
The liberal answer is "force someone to pay for all the excess."
The conservative answer is "don't give anyone the excess they won't pay for."
Of course we can pay for it. Morocco has been doing it for 30 years. Cuba manages to do it. Hell, lots of third world countries have been able to afford it.
But, with something like health care, even if we couldn't afford it, it'd still be better in my book for everybody to get 90% of what they need than some 100% and others 10%. It isn't like we're talking about sports cars or pools or something, we're talking about health care people need to live and be healthy.
Of course we can pay for it. Morocco has been doing it for 30 years. Cuba manages to do it. Hell, lots of third world countries have been able to afford it.
But, with something like health care, even if we couldn't afford it, it'd still be better in my book for everybody to get 90% of what they need than some 100% and others 10%. It isn't like we're talking about sports cars or pools or something, we're talking about health care people need to live and be healthy.
What about the pizza guy who says this is going to put him out of business?
There is no limit to the "nice" things that a gov't can do, yet the federal gov't refuses to actually tax to pay for it, prefering instead to give stuff away now and pay for it (maybe) later. That indeed buys votes, especially from those sure that they will never be asked to pay for it. We now have 1/3 of the entire U.S. population getting some form of direct gov't assistance, yet spend over 40% more than we dare ask for in taxation at the federal level. That is insane.
Does he have more than 50 full time employees? If not, it has no effect on him. If yes, then damn right he should be offering health insurance as compensation.
Of course we can pay for it. Morocco has been doing it for 30 years. Cuba manages to do it.
Hell, lots of third world countries have been able to afford it.
But, with something like health care, even if we couldn't afford it, it'd still be better in my book for everybody to get 90% of what they need than some 100% and others 10%.
It isn't like we're talking about sports cars or pools or something, we're talking about health care people need to live and be healthy.
What if the premiums rise (because the health care costs continue to rise) and the cost to insure those employees exceeds what their labor is worth? Or if the cost that he passes down to the customer turns them off from pizza and his sales plummet? Or he decides to fire the 25 employees the put him over the 50 employee cutoff? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
That's false. As you know, the ACA decreases the deficit. It has taxes built right into it to pay for itself plus some.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?