Affordable Health Care (Warning)

[JohnnyFlotsam]

Someone once said, "You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."

Opinion: The Affordable Care Act was legislation "crammed down the throat" of an unwilling minority.
Fact: Votes determine which legislation is passed. The opponents of The Affordable Care Act lacked the votes to get their way.
Fact: Before this event, The House of Representatives had tried, 46 times, to repeal The Affordable Care Act. They were unsuccessful 46 times.
Opinion: A petulant minority of House Republicans were willing to throw the economy, the nation's credit rating, and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Americans under the bus if they couldn't get their way.
Fact: The economy and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Americans went under the bus two weeks ago.

Opinion: The government shutdown was an acceptable function of our republic's process of government.
Fact: While entirely legal and within the rules, this play by an intransigent minority in the House of Representatives presented profound hardships to tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and sucked tens of billions of dollars out of our economy.

Fact: The reputation of The House of Representatives has been badly tarnished by this episode.
Fact: It's even worse for the Republicans. Last week's WSJ/NBC poll showed the lowest approval rating for the GOP in the history of that poll.

Opinion: The U.S. has "the best healthcare in the world".
Fact: By any credible measure, we do not, despite spending far more per capita than any other industrialized nation, and...
Opinion: ....The Affordable Care Act is not likely to change that.

 

[BryanMaloney]

None of this wouldn't be a problem if the US government didn't spend like someone having a hypomanic episode. Who volunteers to put their favorite program on the chopping block for the greater good?

 

[ufuze]

I work for the software company who is part of the exchanges. All I can say is this: ACA is meant to fail and disrupt. It is doing its job.

My Freemasonry HD

 

[dfreybur]

... despite spending far more per capita than any other industrialized nation ....

By the way, this shows that throwing money at a problem is not always the way to solve it. The US sent men to the Moon by throwing money at the problem but it is not a method that works in general.

The problem is policy and how policy leads to incentives, not budget. I'll go farther than that. What is happening in medicine is predictable based on data from the history of science and technology. It's only partially a policy issue.

Technologies move towards maturity and grow less expensive with improving outcomes as they follow that curve. Then once they are mature there is less and less innovation. Each incremental improvement costs more and more so they become more and more expensive for diminishing improvements. Pick a technology and chart its progress. Eventually they all follow this path until they are replaced with a new science or new technology. Vacuum tubes did this before being replaced by transistors. Large single threaded computers did this before being replaced by parallel computing.

Allopathic medicine is the most successful medical methodology in history. Allopathic medicine has run its course and there is no little room for improvement. What is needed is a new advance in the science behind it (genetics and custom treatment is progressing nicely in science but prevention is not) plus a significant technological change that drives the price down at the same time as driving the results up.

As with any advance in science there is never a guarantee it will ever happen. And so we are faced with a policy issue. Every medical oversight group in the world is facing the conundrum that human life has infinite value but medicine has a finite budget. Someone I know explained it like this "Canada resolved their medical expense problem by pulling the plug on Granny".

....The Affordable Care Act is not likely to change that.

When Health Savings Accounts HSA started coming out I thought it over and liked the concept. Insurance had programmed many to think medicine is free. Just pay the insurance policy and you're done. That lead to the Tragedy of the Commons in medicine. Prices climbed decade after decade. An HSA system shows people that medicine costs money. Every dollar spent comes out of a limited budget set by the HSA. Get in too much trouble and it's handled by the umbrella policy. But the zero up range it's money out of the person's account. That teaches fiscal responsibility at the start. Not quite the ideal system as it drives people to pile on activities in a year where they already hit their out of pocket maximum but it's far better than any policy that depicts medicine as "free".

Public schools are "free" either. They are paid for by taxation. That's the same system shifted from insurance company to local tax board. Sure enough there are studies that show that throwing more money at public schools does not help either. It's policy and responsibility that works not cash, except in cash starved districts. Cash only helps pull up out of desperation not up to excellence. Same thing in medicine.

 

[BryanMaloney]

Why?

ACA is what nobody wants, except the insurance companies. Liberals hate it, conservatives hate it. Everybody except the insurance companies wants it to fail. Liberals will say "It failed when we tried to accommodate insurance companies, we have to adopt socialism." Conservatives will say "It failed when government got this involved, we have to abolish insurance regulations, abolish medicaid, and abolish medicare.

 

[Blake Bowden]

We could have that. We could. We don't want it. We are content to continue to swallow the whole "best healthcare in the world" meme and ignore the plain fact that "the best" is out of reach for the vast majority of us. Increasingly, "just adequate" healthcare is unreachable. But that's OK, as long as we don't have to consider any solution with the word "social" in it, no matter how much sense it makes.

Right on. Rich? No problem. Poor? Medicaid. In the middle? Best of luck.

 

[Proudvet09]

Well said brother

My Freemasonry HD

 

[Blake Bowden]

Just came in the mail! Hey I thought insurance was supposed to be cheaper, at least that's what the Dictator in the White House promised. A 19% increase sucks!




My Freemasonry HD

 

[BryanMaloney]

Insurance will only be cheaper if you are in the list of favored ones. That is how Chicago machine politics works.

Elect a Chicago machine politician, get the Chicago machine.

 

[Tx4ever]

Uninsured Americians 33 to 43 Million , Estamated cost of Obama care 1.1 Trillion , someone do the math

 

[dfreybur]

Just came in the mail! Hey I thought insurance was supposed to be cheaper, at least that's what ... promised. A 19% increase sucks!

We know how government buzzwords work. The word "Affordable" in some program means the price doubles by the time the program is in full swing. Everyone who has thought it through should understand that a 19% increase only means the doubled price will take several years to phase in. Politicians know that the masses are gullible enough that if the word "Affordable" appears in the name of a program enough will vote for it that it will pass. History is not one of the several liberal arts and sciences but rhetoric and logic are. Those who study rhetoric and logic are not among the gullible masses and will not be surprised by either the initial 19% increase nor by the inevitable doubling. The price difference does suck but it was an inevitable and obvious result from the gate.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

If the government establishes a chokehold on healthcare, the best you can hope for is the lowest common average for the masses, which will cost much more and deliver much less than I have right now.

Funny, that's not how it has worked out in every other industrialized nation. They pay less, and get more. Yes, in every case. The problem is that most healthcare consumers lack utterly the ability to make an effective analysis of what they are getting for their money. If they did have that capability, they would be outraged.

 

[BryanMaloney]

Here's a question: Should we repeal laws that require people to have electricity and running water to be permitted to live in a house? How about just repealing the requirement for electricity? After all, aren't those just newfangled luxuries when viewed through the perspective of human history as a whole? Is there one standard, forever and eternal, for what is deemed and enforced as "necessary" by a society, or is it possible that the standard can validly change? If you believe there is only one eternal standard, then you had better start lobbying to repeal all requirements for residential electricity. PS: Yes, the government does subsidize private electricity use by the low-income...

 

[DJGurkins]

I don't believe it is required that you have electricity or pluming in a house you own and live in( Amish). but your point is well taken.

 

[BryanMaloney]

I don't believe it is required that you have electricity or pluming in a house you own and live in( Amish). but your point is well taken.

Old Order Amish houses are not built in jurisdictions that require such things, as far as I know (some Amish do have these things, these days, although they restrict their use). However, try to build a house in Corpus Christi and do it without any electricity or running water--see how far you get with local authorities.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

You might want to carefully research this. By research, I mean that you should spend some time in Europe to get a feel for how much things cost, and then interview Europeans in the U.S. to see why they love to come HERE to work and live.

Socialism places an incredible tax burden it's citizens, most of whom do not have it as easy as you might think. Forgetting that point will put you on a slippery slope where government control will deliver a different bill of goods than it sells.

Actually every single person that I have talked to from those places would not trade things. Yes, my sample size is small, but then so is the collection of "average citizens" trotted out by Fox News to show us how "everyone there hates socialized medicine". In other words, the reality is far different than the conservative echo chamber would have us believe.

Higher taxes? A more even distribution of wealth? I'll take it. I am old enough to remember when we had both of those things in the U.S. The standard of living, for most Americans, was better.

 

[Blake Bowden]

I called Aetna directly and asked them why my premiums are going up and without hesitation I was told "due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act."

 

[Aeelorty]

I called Aetna directly and asked them why my premiums are going up and without hesitation I was told "due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act."

Why don't you change insurance then? Isn't that one of the points of the ACA, that it is possible to shop around now?

 

[buddygcpa]

There are plenty of opinions about this on both sides, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Whether you base your opinion on carefully researched facts or total fiction is also up to you. Whether you support the President or not is also your choice. However, a reference to the President as "the Dictator in the White House" is offensive to me and gives me a great deal of concern about continuing to follow this forum, given the source of that reference.


My Freemasonry HD

 

[Blake Bowden]

Why don't you change insurance then? Isn't that one of the points of the ACA, that it is possible to shop around now?

Because the quote on healthcare.gov is even more expensive and doesn't include dental.

Sent from my SM-N900V using My Freemasonry HD mobile app