# Can Obamacare be Fixed?



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2013)

OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.

What would you want to be changed?


----------



## ron4342 (Oct 3, 2013)

Single payer!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Single payer!



Yeah, because socialized medicine has worked so well everywhere else.

lol, get real.


----------



## boedicca (Oct 3, 2013)

No, it cannot be fixed.

And that's the point - to ruin our private health care system so that the Reactionary Liberals can implement a state run Euthanasia service to rid the country of the unproductive, surplus population that doesn't vote for the Statist Party.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Oct 3, 2013)

Fixed? Listening to the sycophants on this board, you'd think it was the best damn Tax ever instituted.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2013)

boedicca said:


> No, it cannot be fixed.
> 
> And that's the point - to ruin our private health care system so that the Reactionary Liberals can implement a state run Euthanasia service to rid the country of the unproductive, surplus population that doesn't vote for the Statist Party.



Wow, you know, I am starting to expect to agree with you more these days,

so when will the REAL Boedicca return?


----------



## Edgetho (Oct 3, 2013)

I keep hearing people talk about 'across State Lines" and how that can save money...

Somebody want to explain how that works?

After 25 years in the Business, I still have no idea how or why it would save anybody one cent.

Know why?  Because it won't and it can't.

It's just more empty, bullshit, pie-in-the-sky ignorance from dimocraps


----------



## boedicca (Oct 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > No, it cannot be fixed.
> ...




You are making the Noob mistake of confusing me (boedicca) with Bodecea.

I was here first.

She's the one with the beard from the anti-matter universe.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Oct 3, 2013)

boedicca said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


----------



## cereal_killer (Oct 3, 2013)

*Moved to the proper forum. HEALTHCARE folks, HEALTHCARE.....
*
As you were...


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 3, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Single payer!



Oh, yay, Washington morons making our health care decisions for all of us!  What more can we ask for?

The last thing we need is for the corruption in Washington to have a monopoly on the health insurance industry.  Just think as the progressive authoritarian you appear to be, do you want someone like Sarah Palin dictating your every health care decision to you in the future?  Probably not... Well the same goes for me, I do not want that witch from SF making my decisions for me.

What comes around goes around.

Immie


----------



## boedicca (Oct 3, 2013)

cereal_killer said:


> *Moved to the proper forum. HEALTHCARE folks, HEALTHCARE.....
> *
> As you were...





Really?  You think ObamaCare is about Health Care?

It's actually a political maneuver to redistribute wealth, solidify voting blocs, and control the uncooperative population.

It Does Not Provide One Iota of Actual Health Care.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> I keep hearing people talk about 'across State Lines" and how that can save money...
> 
> Somebody want to explain how that works?
> 
> ...



Not necessarily. Everything depends on how things get implemented, but the advantages of allowing insurance purchase across state lines are these, potentially:

1. It allows for states to compete with each other for more participation in their insurance pools, and this should improve efficiency and costs.

2. It gives control to a lower level of government that would be more responsive to the preferences of the local state population.

3. It allows for people to have more choice. We have the ability to choose across state lines for other services, why not health care insurance?

4. It creates an opportunity for state governments to experiment with variations that might add a surprisingly better way of doing things, the states being their own Guinea pigs, in effect.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2013)

boedicca said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Thank you, I stand corrected!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2013)

boedicca said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> > *Moved to the proper forum. HEALTHCARE folks, HEALTHCARE.....
> ...



From a forum of 400  viewing to a forum with only 50 viewing.

Is this a way of killing a thread without literally deleting it?


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 3, 2013)

I believe.it was meant to fail.
just an IMHO


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 3, 2013)

You left out the one that will actually happen -

As problems occur, make the necessary changes. 

Or, we could just do what rw's are so good at - lie and refuse to learn about it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> 
> What would you want to be changed?



Repeal the ACA and implement a single payer system, expand Medicare for all Americans.


----------



## Antares (Oct 3, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> I keep hearing people talk about 'across State Lines" and how that can save money...
> 
> Somebody want to explain how that works?
> 
> ...



Well now it wouldn't because of the ten basic coverages.

Before it couldn't becuase every State had their required coverages.. it would have taken a standardization of coverages nation wide to work.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2013)

Roo said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hearing people talk about 'across State Lines" and how that can save money...
> ...



Why couldn't differences in state-run exchanges implement competition for the best programs among the states?

What about the ten basic coverages you speak of would prevent coverage across state lines?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> You left out the one that will actually happen -
> 
> As problems occur, make the necessary changes.
> 
> Or, we could just do what rw's are so good at - lie and refuse to learn about it.



You are one of the biggest liars and deluded fools on this message board, so who cares what you think? We can get it more easily from the Hard left talking points memo, lol.

BTW, problems ARE occurring, Dimwit.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> ...



lol, yeah right, because socialized medicine works so well....NOT.

Basically you just said, 'Don't listen to me because I am a leftwing ideological sloganeer.'


----------



## PMZ (Oct 3, 2013)

There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare.  It covers over half of the medical costs in the country.  An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.  

Do you know why that will never happen?  

Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hearing people talk about 'across State Lines" and how that can save money...
> ...


Jim,

FYI- in the first quip....this is discussing employees that DO HAVE group insurance available from their employer but choose to forfeit going with their employer contributed plans offered off of the exchange, and decide to buy an independent insurance plan from the exchange....the gvt will not subsidize you, because your employer will subsidize you if you go with one of the Company plans offered.

Those people above and your 1st quote/image is not in any way related to the situation with the Congressional employees.

UNLIKE every other citizen in the USA, the congressional employees were being forced through Grassley's amendment to leave the multi choice healthcare plans that they had been able to choose from, and are being forced to choose from only the insurance companies and policies offered on the exchange....

NO WHERE in his amendment does it mention that they would take away the benefit and compensation package that they were promised upon hire...and yes, health care benefits such as the employer contribution is part of the employee's compensation, in both the private and public sectors....it wasn't even discussed in the senate when Grassley introduced the amendment....the point of issue was that grasley wanted Congress critters to have to have the same insurance policy choices as the people who choose to buy insurance through the exchange only, and not the gazillion billion premium choices they did have at their fingertips....it was NEVER about them losing their employee contribution benefit/compensation....never!

And I find it quite deceiving for you and many many others, to imply otherwise...so maybe you are just misinformed or are crying wolf again for no reason?

Setting that aside, congress critters are paid an awful lot of money, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they lost this benefit, or did the right thing and chose to give it up for themselves...they earn enough to buy their own healthcare...

BUT those that work for congress who don't make nearly what Congressmen and Senators make would be hurt tremendously, by this action...


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 3, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> 
> What would you want to be changed?



A simple business tax on each employee who is not provided health insurance to help defray the cost of subsidies provided to lower income earners.  I think 5% of the employee's salary would work well.  In most cases that would be well below what it would cost to provide insurance but it would still mean employers would be paying something towards the nations healthcare system.  This would actually be done with the idea of eventually getting employers out of the business of providing health insurance and allowing people to buy their own insurance, with a mandate that people must have health insurance.

Next up would be to allow more options for insurance coverage.  In other words, those who do not need maternity coverage should not have to pay for it.  Those who do not need coverage for birth control should not have to pay for it.  Regular preventative care like colonoscopies and mammograms would remain required on all policies because everyone needs these tests.  I would also want to see the catastrophic plan opened up to people over the age of 30.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare.  It covers over half of the medical costs in the country.  An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
> 
> Do you know why that will never happen?
> 
> Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.



There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough.  If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up.  Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers.  To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 3, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare.  It covers over half of the medical costs in the country.  An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
> ...



''If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up.''

I believe that I know doctors whose practice is very largely Medicare and they seem to be doing fine. 

On the other hand,  there certainly are many ways that our health care non system could be made more cost effective.  I believe that Medicare already is the most compelling cost control  force we have. Expanding it's scope,  as an alternative to private insurance for folks under 65,  would expand that influence. 

In addition,  now that private health care insurance companies will have to go head to head on the exchanges,  they may well add to Medicare's influence  in health care cost control. Especially if they will ever have to compete with Medicare head to head. 

All in all, ACA, even without improvement, will be regarded by history as the first and most comprehensive step in the ultimate path to health care that is competitive with the rest of the world.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2013)

Care4all said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



If any person, call him Bob Smith, takes insurance from the exchange, the government will NOT subsidize them, correct? That would appear to be your assertion here unless I am misreading you.

Many people will drop their employer insurance and many employers will drop their insurance giving their employees no choice EXCEPT to go to the exchanges for their insurance. So the government will not contribute to said purchases, fine, it is harsh but at least people have a choice among the plans and the istuation can be improved with revision and amendment.

Congresscritters are being forced to get their insurance from the exchanges just like employees who are being dropped from their employers insurance.

So WHY should Congresscritters and their employees be treated any differently than Bob Smith? If this part of Obamacare is so draconian for them, why is it thought to be just fine for everyone else that isnt a major contributer to the DNC or a Congresscritter?



Care4all said:


> Those people above and your 1st quote/image is not in any way related to the situation with the Congressional employees.
> 
> UNLIKE every other citizen in the USA, the congressional employees were being forced through Grassley's amendment to leave the multi choice healthcare plans that they had been able to choose from, and are being forced to choose from only the insurance companies and policies offered on the exchange....
> 
> NO WHERE in his amendment does it mention that they would take away the benefit and compensation package that they were promised upon hire...



If Bob Smith Worked at Bumpkin Incorporated, and they decided that the insurance packages were too expensive, even if that was part of Bob's hiring package, Bob would have no choice but to go to the exchanges. Why should that be any different for Congresscritters? 



Care4all said:


> ...and yes, health care benefits such as the employer contribution is part of the employee's compensation, in both the private and public sectors....it wasn't even discussed in the senate when Grassley introduced the amendment....the point of issue was that grasley wanted Congress critters to have to have the same insurance policy choices as the people who choose to buy insurance through the exchange only, and not the gazillion billion premium choices they did have at their fingertips....it was NEVER about them losing their employee contribution benefit/compensation....never!



Getting their own  insurance off the exchanges WITHOUT government contribution *IS* what average tax payers will have to do if their employers drop health care insurance...so what makes Congresscritters so exceptional?



Care4all said:


> And I find it quite deceiving for you and many many others, to imply otherwise...so maybe you are just misinformed or are crying wolf again for no reason?



No, I think I understand it just fine, thank you for your concern.



Care4all said:


> Setting that aside, congress critters are paid an awful lot of money, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they lost this benefit, or did the right thing and chose to give it up for themselves...they earn enough to buy their own healthcare...
> 
> BUT those that work for congress who don't make nearly what Congressmen and Senators make would be hurt tremendously, by this action...



AS will a good deal of the REST OF THE COUNTRY, Einstein.

But leftists not living under the conditions that their policies and laws have created for everyone else has long been a hall mark of leftist government from the Jacobins of France, to the Leninists, the Stalinists, the Maoists, Khmer Rougue, etc.

So why should anyone be surprized that leftists in this country dont want to either?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare.  It covers over half of the medical costs in the country.  An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
> ...



Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2013)

cereal_killer said:


> *Moved to the proper forum. HEALTHCARE folks, HEALTHCARE.....
> *
> As you were...



Yep, you killed the thread pretty much dead as a door knob.

Good job.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2013)

Illustrative of the lefties attempts to evade the actual facts, and kind of funy since Hannity loses his cool, lol.

?YOU?RE LYING!?: A FIRED-UP SEAN HANNITY OFFERS DEM CONGRESSMAN A $10K OBAMACARE BET FOR CHARITY ? HERE?S HIS RESPONSE |


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2013)

There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.



Your opinion offers no evidence that supports your claims.  A common problem with Republican politics.  We get that Republicans don't like solutions that they (deservedly) get no credit for.  Until they drop that tone and adopt one of evidence based improvements,  they will continue to be considered irrelevant to health care.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.
> ...



Take your own advice. Not agreeing with Obamacare does not make me a Republican. And yes there is plenty of evidence already that this isn't going to work. Obama flat out lied. He said if you like your policy you will get to keep it. That simply isn't the case.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 4, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



They have to do this.   If the doctor orders a mammogram because he found a lump, it costs $150.00 for the test, and he gets reimbursed at $45.00, of course he's going to find some other way to make up the difference.   No one could continue to support a medical practice if it costs them more than twice what they actually get.   The patient doesn't have it.  They pad the bill.   If we had honest reimbursement doctors wouldn't have to take this kind of reckless action.

While there are many reasons for high costs, there are a couple of major ones.   Continual advances in very expensive equipment.  The outrageously high cost of litigation.   If the government really wanted to bring down the cost of healthcare, we would have tort reform and subsidized medical equipment.  The government could buy thousands of MRI machines at a substantial discount and rent them to doctors.  Instead, the idiots in the white house decided to tax medical devices.

It's not about providing good medical care.  It's about providing substandard medical care to as many people as possible.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



That's a pretty interesting idea actually. Instead Obama did the opposite. He's taxing medical decice manufacturer's. Raising the costs to the service providers, which will get passed on to paitents. It's so ass backwards from the stated goal.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Please don't deny that you are a Republican.  Hopefully,  that would be beneath you. 

Where is the evidence?  Claiming that there's evidence isn't evidence.  It's conspiracy theory.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



You make it sound like the health care insurance non system that ACA replaced was world class.  Not even close. Nearly the worst in the developed world. 

The only functional health care insurance that we have is Medicare.  And it's up against nearly the most inefficient health care system imaginable.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



I agree about tort reform but have seen no evidence that a realistic improvement in it would have a significant impact on health care costs.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

All insurance is only shared risk of catastrophic losses.  Our health care system ran off the track when companies,  desperate for top employees,  promised that they'd cover all medical costs.  Not insurance at all.  Merely compensation with an accounting advantage.

Now that corporate America has solved the problem of competition for good employees, by off shoring,  they are running away as fast as possible from their promises. 

That is effectively a cut in pay for most workers that will make our problems bigger until the government is in a position to deliver on the former promises of corporate America.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Please don't deny that there are major problems with Obamacare and that their is evidence for it. You really are stupid to think that someone has to be a Republican to disagree with Obamacare. Anyone with a modicum of COMMON SENSE should disagree with Obamacare. Insurer Aetna has dropped out of half a dozen states. All of the customer in those states must now find new policies. Again Obama told us that wouldn't happen. Premium costs are going up for younger healthier people to make up for the fact that Obama has mandated that insurance companies can't take pre-existing conditions into account when pricing insurance plans. One fact I shouldn't have to state is the medical device tax. This means it costs providers more to purchase them, which means consumers must pay more to pay for them.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> All insurance is only shared risk of catastrophic losses.  Our health care system ran off the track when companies,  desperate for top employees,  promised that they'd cover all medical costs.  Not insurance at all.  Merely compensation with an accounting advantage.
> 
> Now that corporate America has solved the problem of competition for good employees, by off shoring,  they are running away as fast as possible from their promises.
> 
> That effect cut in pay for most workers will make our problems bigger until the government is in a position to deliver on the former promises of corporate America.



And do you know how that happened? It would have never happened had, you guessed it, GOVERNMENT not stepped in and legislated a national pay freeze during WWII. Since employers couldn't compensate good employees with more money, they started offering to pay for medical care instead.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > All insurance is only shared risk of catastrophic losses.  Our health care system ran off the track when companies,  desperate for top employees,  promised that they'd cover all medical costs.  Not insurance at all.  Merely compensation with an accounting advantage.
> ...



Our health care problems today are caused by inflation fighting fiscal policy from 7 decades ago?????.  

Did you consider the impact of the Emancipation Proclamation or the effect of the end of the dinosaurs???


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I always interpret the phrase ''common sense'' to mean that there is no evidence.


----------



## nicolondon (Oct 4, 2013)

I think theres a lot of misinformation about European models of healthcare, the French have a great system which is a mix of national health insurance and top up with choice for patients. It's crucial however for the ACA to have the individual mandate because without that you don't have a sufficient pool of money. The one very bizarre thing about the constant GOP moaning about the ACA is it does the thing they continually push, personal responsibility, why should people who pay cover those that go to the emergency room and have never put anything in to the system. Interestingly when you poll people more like the ACA than Obamacare! It's clear that there are portions of the ACA which even GOP supporters like such as the coverage for children upto 26 and also coverage for pre- existing medical conditions.

The current shutdown by the GOP to be honest is simply a way of delaying the ACA in the hope that it won't become popular and that they can use this at your mid-terms.  If for arguments sake people begin to like it what then? Any change is always going to be difficult, its understandable people have a fear of the unknown, the ACA isn't perfect but there is no system in the world that is, you can't please everyone.

I'd like to ask GOP supporters in here what would you think of Democrats if the role was reversed and they refused to fund the government unless a GOP President watered down or stopped one of his signature Acts, or said either bring in more gun laws or else! How can you have any sort of smooth government running when one side threatens such action, what does it do for democracy. 

If the ACA turns out to be a disaster then the GOP will likely win control of both houses and then the election, they can scrap it and come up with something different, this I thought was how democracies are supposed to work. The current shutdown is an embarrassment and not befitting of the USA, you'd expect this type of shambles in the Third World not in the richest country in the world. American politicians need to start acting like adults, maybe you guys are used to all these constant dramas but surely this must really start hacking people off.

I do understand you have this unique constitution which does have some great things but surely most Americans have enough to worry about without their government making life harder.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So you deny any of the above actually happened? Interesting. I'm sorry, but I don't play with immature children. I'm not going to cite there is in fact medical device tax or that there Obama did say people could keep their insurance when people are losing it anymore than I'm going to cite that the sun rises in the east. Have you noticed that you haven't provided any evidence that Obamacare _is_ is working. If it is cite it. Quid pro quo and all.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 
Ahh yes you idiot. tThat is when it started. How about you pony up with some evidence smart guy. Can you prove that employers would have started providing health insurance anyway had there not been a mandated pay freeze? Because it didn't exist before that happened.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I interpreted our President's comments to mean that the law would not remove current choices, not that it would legislate that insurance companies and employers cannot do what they feel inclined to. 

You were looking for a heaping helping of socialism apparently. 

You expect that less than a week was all it would take to understand the good and bad consequences of AGW?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



In fact it wasn't prevalent for many years after WWII.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

I always feel good when Republican insults begin.  They're like an affirmation.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 4, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


although smaller numbers, it did happen and employers were offering forms of health care as benefits before the wage freeze Bern....


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Connecticut Small Business Health Insurance - Aetna

Connecticut Small Business Health Insurance Plans

Maryland Small Business Health Insurance - Aetna

Maryland Small Business Health Insurance Plans

I am getting the impression that it doesn't mean that Aetna don't offer health plans in those states, just that they aren't offering them on the exchange.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

I notice that, in all these converstations there is never an actual reference to the actual law.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

nicolondon said:


> I think theres a lot of misinformation about European models of healthcare, the French have a great system which is a mix of national health insurance and top up with choice for patients. It's crucial however for the ACA to have the individual mandate because without that you don't have a sufficient pool of money. The one very bizarre thing about the constant GOP moaning about the ACA is it does the thing they continually push, personal responsibility, why should people who pay cover those that go to the emergency room and have never put anything in to the system. Interestingly when you poll people more like the ACA than Obamacare! It's clear that there are portions of the ACA which even GOP supporters like such as the coverage for children upto 26 and also coverage for pre- existing medical conditions.
> 
> The current shutdown by the GOP to be honest is simply a way of delaying the ACA in the hope that it won't become popular and that they can use this at your mid-terms.  If for arguments sake people begin to like it what then? Any change is always going to be difficult, its understandable people have a fear of the unknown, the ACA isn't perfect but there is no system in the world that is, you can't please everyone.
> 
> ...



I read an editorial,  I  don't remember by whom,  that said that the current game is merely a distraction for the real issue to come up during debt limit negotiations.  That being arbitrary spending cuts based on the conservative position that somehow they know that our government is too big.  Another abstraction for which they offer no evidence. 

Of course the real motivation is wealth redistribution up, even though we are already at a global extreme in wealth distribution.  Their goal can only be a typical banana Republic of both obscene wealth and poverty. 

Even a cursory knowledge of American economics reveals that our engine of wealth growth has always been middle class workers who's output is real,  tangible products. It's their making, through work,  and buying by their wages, that supports the entire country.  But they are the people who get added to the poor as wealth redistribution up works to it's nefarious end. 

We can only hope that democrats stand firm and united as the consequences of giving in to tyranny are much greater and longer lasting than the damages that Republicans are willing to inflict during their tantrum.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

This is a graph of discretionary spending per capita in real dollars.





It has been on a constant increase for some time.  I haven't determined why it must, but it has.

Now, we should be careful not to blame Bush for that last jump at the end of his admin, it was  due to the stimulus necessary to keep us from going into a recession.

In order, the expenditures are 

1)  National Defense
2)  Income Security, not including SSI which is non-discretionary and deficit neutral.
3)  Health, which I believe includes the booming costs of Medicare, the reason that ACA was implemented.

Income Security: consists of a range of income security programs that provide cash or near-cash assistance (e.g., housing, nutrition, and energy assistance) to low-income persons, and benefits to certain retirees, persons with disabilities, and the unemployed. Housing assistance programs account for the largest share of discretionary funding in this function. Major federal entitlement programs in this function include unemployment insurance, trade adjustment assistance income support, food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, foster care, and Supplemental Security Income. Federal and other retirement and disability programs comprise approximately one third of the funds in this function.

Health: Function 550: Health

Function 550 includes most direct health care services programs. Other health programs in this function fund anti-bioterrorism activities, national biomedical research, protecting the health of the general population and workers in their places of employment, providing health services for under-served populations, and promoting training for the health care workforce. Some of the agencies funded in this function include the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration. The major mandatory programs in this function are Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), federal and retirees' health benefits, and health care for Medicare-eligible military retirees.


----------



## regent (Oct 4, 2013)

This is like a rerun of Social Security, same arguments same stances by the political parties and so on. Social Security was socialism, communism and all the other isms but the nation was more united at that time behind the Democrats and FDR, and SS was passed. Many changes have been made to Social Security since that day in 1935 and it is still subject to change. Obamacare will be changed many times in the next seventy years, each change hopefully an improvement, correcting a mistake or meeting a new need. 
We know Republicans are not afraid of socialism or communism so what is their real fear of Obamacare?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This is a graph of discretionary spending per capita in real dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A great reference on discretionary spending. 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

regent said:


> This is like a rerun of Social Security, same arguments same stances by the political parties and so on. Social Security was socialism, communism and all the other isms but the nation was more united at that time behind the Democrats and FDR, and SS was passed. Many changes have been made to Social Security since that day in 1935 and it is still subject to change. Obamacare will be changed many times in the next seventy years, each change hopefully an improvement, correcting a mistake or meeting a new need.
> We know Republicans are not afraid of socialism or communism so what is their real fear of Obamacare?



They committed publicly to doing nothing about health care.  It was the wrong answer.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

regent said:


> This is like a rerun of Social Security, same arguments same stances by the political parties and so on. Social Security was socialism, communism and all the other isms but the nation was more united at that time behind the Democrats and FDR, and SS was passed. Many changes have been made to Social Security since that day in 1935 and it is still subject to change. Obamacare will be changed many times in the next seventy years, each change hopefully an improvement, correcting a mistake or meeting a new need.
> We know Republicans are not afraid of socialism or communism so what is their real fear of Obamacare?



The military and the VA is socialism.  It is exactly what the structure of the USSR was, a centralized command structure in that pyramid style.

 It is the ironic thing about it.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > This is like a rerun of Social Security, same arguments same stances by the political parties and so on. Social Security was socialism, communism and all the other isms but the nation was more united at that time behind the Democrats and FDR, and SS was passed. Many changes have been made to Social Security since that day in 1935 and it is still subject to change. Obamacare will be changed many times in the next seventy years, each change hopefully an improvement, correcting a mistake or meeting a new need.
> ...



Of all the training that conservatives get from the media,  the most intense is that anything derived from the word ''social'' is bad.  A properly trained conservative will have an immediate and profound reaction to any such word.  The training does not reveal the why of such a response,  only that it is required.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> nicolondon said:
> 
> 
> > I think theres a lot of misinformation about European models of healthcare, the French have a great system which is a mix of national health insurance and top up with choice for patients. It's crucial however for the ACA to have the individual mandate because without that you don't have a sufficient pool of money. The one very bizarre thing about the constant GOP moaning about the ACA is it does the thing they continually push, personal responsibility, why should people who pay cover those that go to the emergency room and have never put anything in to the system. Interestingly when you poll people more like the ACA than Obamacare! It's clear that there are portions of the ACA which even GOP supporters like such as the coverage for children upto 26 and also coverage for pre- existing medical conditions.
> ...



That much is true. That an ideal system would be one where individuals purchase plans themselves and not through a third party. If the Republicans were smart (which they're not, which is why I don't really identify with them). They would not fight the individual mandate. Is it wrong for the government to make people purchase things? Of course it is. But the silver lining would be that people actually see what things cost. They would see what Obamacare is making them pay for that they may not need or want. Many would see why they are paying significantly higher rates due to the community rating mandate. Yes, the right has been doing a lot of chirping about how aweful Obamacare is. I guess if we really want people to wake up, they need to get hit in the pocket book. For that reason the Republicans should stop fighting the individual mandate and just let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> nicolondon said:
> 
> 
> > I think theres a lot of misinformation about European models of healthcare, the French have a great system which is a mix of national health insurance and top up with choice for patients. It's crucial however for the ACA to have the individual mandate because without that you don't have a sufficient pool of money. The one very bizarre thing about the constant GOP moaning about the ACA is it does the thing they continually push, personal responsibility, why should people who pay cover those that go to the emergency room and have never put anything in to the system. Interestingly when you poll people more like the ACA than Obamacare! It's clear that there are portions of the ACA which even GOP supporters like such as the coverage for children upto 26 and also coverage for pre- existing medical conditions.
> ...




Our federal  budget spends three dollars for every two in takes in, and government spending continues to grow almost every year.

Yes, that is evidence that the government is too big in case you missed it, bubba.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > nicolondon said:
> ...



One of the huge points that has been obscured to conservatives is that this world of 7B highly connected people is not,  in almost any way,  the reality of the past. 

Healthcare is a good example. 

The main thing wrong with our past healthcare non system was that we gave people the choice  to cover the cost of their own health care,  or not. 

Those of us who were lucky enough to have worked through the years when comprehensive health care insurance was table stakes for employing good people,  didn't have to make the decision then,  and also had no choice but to fund our retirement health care through Medicare. 

Many of those who had to decide were protected from the consequences of a negative coverage decision by our cultural aversion to allowing obviously ill people to die in the streets.  Everyone could get free treatment just by ''playing'' the system and adding their costs to the expenses of those insured. 

Now that corporations have raised unemployment to the level where benefits are no longer required of them,  more and more citizens have the choice to opt out.  

The fix is obviously mandated health insurance.  But,  for many,  the pay required to be insured has already been removed from their compensation. So it has to be made up for through taxes. 

So Obamacare is the least expensive way,  given that universal government administered insurance for the half of expenses not covered by Medicare is not politically possible,  to hold people accountable for taking card their own health.  

In the final analysis it is the path to making our health care costs globally competitive. Not from day one,  given private insurance companies following the one rule of business.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others. But over time. 

So the GOP position is only what's right for the party over what's right for the people.  While they've done their best to obscure that,  they've failed.  The cat is out of the bag. So they are paying,  and will pay,  and should pay, the political price for their position


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That isn't the only alternative. The alternative is we continue to let people figure out and choose how to pay for their own health care. The catch would be, and I honeslty think this is a hang up of the left, you have to let people suffer the consequences of their decisions. If you can't pay or figure out some protracted way of paying, you don't get service. And don't start with the 'but people dieing in the streets'. 

It also doesn't follow that this system will lower the cost of services. That's another detail that the left misses. As a basic economic rule, you don't see the cost of a good or service fall when you remove the impact of that cost to the consumer. If anything if the consumer doesn't feel the financial burden the cost of that something usually goes up. Ideally we would set up a market place not for insurance, but for actual services so we can finally establish what they really cost and lower them through competition for them. Obamacare works in the short term for lower cost to the consumer through the subsidies and so forth, but a market based solution will be better long term in keeping the cost of services down.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I have been to places that let people suffer the life and death consequences of poverty.  The problem is that people don't just die,  they do anything,  anything at all,  to delay it,  a day at a time. 

I agree that corporate America led us into this swamp by promising to cover all health costs,  not just share risk through insurance.  

Once they defaulted on that promise,  one of the effects was the movement of the insurance industry back to selling insurance against catastrophe rather than merely prepaid predictable costs. The exchange is full of such plans. 

So,  the real choice is between mandated insurance,  or crime and public humiliation,  for everyone, by people surviving. 

As I said.  Been there.  A terrible and avoidable collapse of society.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In my opinion, your fear of the alternative is unfounded. Before there was an abundance of employers providing insurance, there weren't people dieing in the streets. You could pay for a lot of things out of pocket. I think we can get back to that, but the direction we've gone as really inflated the price of services. The predominant form of insurance before third party employer insurance came about covered primarily catastrophic events.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Your economic model is flawed. First off, the very nature of healthcare is not a typical free market system. It cannot be, not if it has insurance in between the consumer and the service provider.  It also doesn't have identical market forces on the supply and demand side. The market forces favor the supply side.  

You are half right. Right, pay for actual services can drive down costs.

You are basing your assessment on an idealized economic model that doesn't exist in reality. In fact, there are no ideal markets with perfect information and competition.  The real world simply doesn't work that way.

There are so many details as to why health care is not and never will be the ideal free market that you imagine.  I don't know where to begin.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 7, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> 
> What would you want to be changed?


 Democrats will not negotiate, and have sought to solidify ties between government branches, which are supposed to operate separately. It's called the Separation of Powers.

By their failure to operate America within the parameters of American tradition, I cannot support any part of Obamacare. 

Can Obamacare be fixed? The answer is an emphatic NO. 

We can't get rid of the criminal element that engineered the fiasco due to shady voting practices by precinct chairmen, who advocate voting frequently and Democrat.

America is just screwed. There's no fix.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The cost of medical care has taken an increasing share of GDP every year of my life.  It's pushing 20 percent of everything we spend.  That means that the average American spends 20 percent of what he earns on health.  Unlike things like autos and houses there is not bargain health care for the poor.  So if the average wage earner spends 20 percent,  what is that as a percentage of poverty wages?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> ...



Zero evidence presented for 100 percent of your post.  It is absolutely,  therefore,  nothing more than what you wish was true.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Market solutions work only in free,  commodity markets.  There are virtually none of those left in our economy.  A free market requires that every aspect of a product be the same,  and known,  from multiple suppliers.  I can't think of such a product off hand.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The only effective force in America today for health care cost reduction is Medicare. 

It can't be effected by individuals.  Why?  Because nobody in their right mind would shop for the cheapest medical service no matter what it is. K mart blue light specials don't cut it in services that your life,  or the ability to continue doing what you've always done, are concerned.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Competition among commodity providers would suggest that there would be some variation in quality and price among commodities, so how do you get this 'it should all be the same' idea?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



That's the definition of a free market.  One in which only price varies among suppliers.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And I think you're putting up road blocks that don't exist. One lesser known reaction to Obamacare is the creation of cash only clinics. Clinics that won't accept insurance of any type. Many of them are actually making money. There services cost the same as a lot of services would cost someone AFTER insurance. Why? Because the provider can afford to sell their services for less because they don't have to deal with the red tap nightmare of insurance and government's regulation of insurance. So if a free market for health care doesn't work why are these cash only clinics surviving. 

I suppose one would argue that the shear necessity of health care is one reason. So look at another commodity that could be considered nearly as necessary as health care. Cars for example. And look at the insurance model they use. So much between the two is comparable. Car insurance doesn't cover or partly cover ever single expense you incur. When you do have to have your vehicle serviced do you go where your insurance says you have to or do you shop for the best price and reputation? Explain why these same concepts can't be applied to health insurance and the health care industry.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LMFAO. No where in the definition of 'free market' is there anything that says, that the only difference allowed between suppliers of the same commodity is price. What about quality of the product? How does that violate the concept of a free market?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You imply incorrectly that cheaper = inferior. That simply isn't true.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Read all about it. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market


----------



## Rozman (Oct 7, 2013)

I don't think Obama and the Dems feel that there is anything wrong with it....


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'm not sure where you're going with this.  Obamacare is not health care nor health care insurance.  

The only health care provided by the government are the VA and military. 

The only health care insurances are Medicare,  Medicaid,  and Tricare. 

Obamacare is health care insurance regulation,  the mandate,  and the exchanges. The mandate and exchanges are both previous features of Medicare.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Do you shop around for the cheapest doctor for each health care need that you have?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Do you shop around for the most expensive place to repair your car assuming they provide the best all around service based solely on what they charge? If we had such a system, I would base my decision on where to be treated on many factors. Yes, cost would be one of them. Others would be distance from me. The service providers reputation. The particular service I need, etc., etc. But again you are implying that cheaper equates to inferior quality. Which again, is not an accurate assumption.



PMZ said:


> Read all about it.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market



Might want to read it yourself. There's nothing in there that says the only way two suppliers of the same commodity may differ in a free market is on price.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2013)

Rozman said:


> I don't think Obama and the Dems feel that there is anything wrong with it....



Nah, most of them know it isn't going to work the way it is set up now, but they want total control in revising it.

Some of them want it to fail so they can go to an even worse single payers system, so they are happy with how Obamacare is now; flailing in throes of bad implementation of bad law.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No, that is not true.

Try this for a definition and explanation.

Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This idea that there can be no variation in quality and supply is a socialist concept, not a free market concept.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Yeah, I referenced that same article in a previous response, and I couldn't find any such idea of uniform quality and supply.

Imagine my shock when I see he quoted the same article in support of his claim! lolol


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 8, 2013)

We're probably stuck with it.

All that can be done is to make sure that everyone has to follow the law therefore no exemptions for businesses, unions or the congress.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Whatever a majority of people make demand decisions on,  is what that market optimizes.  Don't pretend that a market based on service quality optimizes cost or price.

Why do you think cars and Drs are so expensive?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Dude you just contradicted yourself in the span of two sentences. If no one cared about quality, and only price, then expensive cars would be of poor quality. Those demand decisions are based on factors like quality. Answer my question. When you need your car repaired do you seriously always take it to the repair man that's the most expensive and assume the quality of their work ONLY on that?


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 8, 2013)

obamacare was designed to fail.  It was supposed to fail, spectacularly, so that democrats could provide their real solution, single payer.


----------



## SeanParnell (Oct 8, 2013)

The basic idea is that it will increase competition, and also allow plans that don't have to offer all the benefits mandated by the state to be sold. Even under Obamacare, some states mandate more benefits than others, which drives up the cost.

My own opinion is, this will only work in areas where there is significant cross-border population areas, because of access to networks. So in Rhode Island, nearly everybody has relatively easy access to doctors in Connecticut and Massachusetts, likewise in Moline, IL people could buy insurance from across the river with a network of doctors in Bettendorf and Davenport, but I wouldn't expect to see too many people in Dallas buy from a neighboring state, because there's not much access to doctors in the network.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> obamacare was designed to fail.  It was supposed to fail, spectacularly, so that democrats could provide their real solution, single payer.



One certainly has to think so, given how illogical it is in basic economic principle and how in opposition so many aspects of the act are.


----------



## Destroyer2 (Oct 8, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> ...


Definitely this.

You can complain "Socialism!" all you want, but I really don't care and probably won't respond to anything silly like that; we have plenty of things that are on the free market, health care doesn't have to be one of them.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 8, 2013)

Destroyer2 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So what product will you lobby to take next?  How about electrical power?  You know once you have control of that then you can freeze your enemies out or here in Florida you can bake us out just by shutting off the power to those of us who will not capitulate.

Automobiles?  Guns?  Cellphones?  Just think, if you controlled those things your fellow countrymen would be under your complete control.  Isn't that what you are after, after all.  It is what Obama and Congress are seeking

Immie


----------



## Destroyer2 (Oct 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Last time I checked, I wasn't lobbying to take out any more products.

But I'm sure you can tell me what I believe better than I know what I believe, so...


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I know what you are saying but that there are cash only clinics doesn't mean that it is an ideal (or nearly) free market.  We are discussing the overall healthcare market, right?  Not some sub market that exists?

Sure, cash only clinics where you go and get your thumb sewn up after cutting it with a box cutter is a bit closer.  Even then, there are considerations that still make it not a free market system.

A single one is that the AMA exists and that there are a host of regulations and licencing for doctors, nurses, etc.  And we want them. It is nearly impossible to take the product back.

The thing is, that is the typical failure of understanding, is that there really are few markets that approach the ideal free market.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 8, 2013)

Destroyer2 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Destroyer2 said:
> ...



Well, the post I quoted you on was enough wasn't it?  Obviously, if you are seeking to take this product, you have no qualms about taking others.

Immie


----------



## Destroyer2 (Oct 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



You know what happens when you assume.

I don't believe health care should be considered the same way as automobiles, cell phones, etc.; the free market works perfectly well for those kind of things. Health care? Not so much.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

Destroyer2 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Destroyer2 said:
> ...



Republicans need reasons to hate Obamacare.  The real reason is that they know that it's a great improvement to our old non-system and they get and deserve zero credit for that.  But,  they can't admit to being so lousy at governance so they have to make up other reasons. Top of the list?  It's socialistic.  It isn't at all of course,  but there are lots of cultists who will believe anything so telling them that it is will be accepted without any thinking. 

Modern cult media run America. 

If we are  on average,  that stupid,  we don't deserve the democracy that the greatest generation gave their lives to preserve for us.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I understand perfectly, that there are very few truly free markets. That doesn't mean getting as close to that ideal as you can isn't beneficial even if you can't get all the way there. It certainly isn't a reason to establish a solution that goes 180 degree in the other direction. 

The notion that you can't take the product back does not render it incomparable. Okay, cars are a good and health care is more of a service. So compare it to some other service, like a mechanic. If they do a bad job they get a bad reputation and you take your business elsewhere. If they're too expensive you go elsewhere. If they want to stay in business they make the appropriate changes in how they operate resulting in better service to the consumer. Why can't the health care system work the same way?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You're hung up on the media message that trusting ''make more money regardless of the cost to others'' is always better than government services. 

There is no evidence that's true.  In fact,  the evidence is contrary to that. The countries that are more competitive than we are all employ health care systems with heavy government involvement. Not surprising given the details of the health care market.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You're hung up on the media message that trusting ''make more money regardless of the cost to others'' is always better than government services.



Not exactly following what you mean here. But in general, yes, the private sector almost always does a better job of providing goods and services than the government. The very simple reason being government has less incentive to insure quality or to efficiently manage costs. The same would be true of health care.  



PMZ said:


> There is no evidence that's true.  In fact,  the evidence is contrary to that. The countries that are more competitive than we are all employ health care systems with heavy government involvement. Not surprising given the details of the health care market.



More competetive than we are, how? There is no economy closer to a free market in the world than ours. And let's not pretend, despite being government run, that other countries don't still have issues with their systems. France's government run system is billions in debt and we know the issues about the waits in Canada.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2013)

Destroyer2 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Destroyer2 said:
> ...



I find that hard to believe.  You are willing to force us to allow the corruption in Washington to make life and death decisions for us without even considering the consequences.  What else are you willing to take from us? Fess up!

Health care works just fine in this country.  What does not work is health insurance and that is because people like you want to give all that power to a corrupt group of individuals.

Immie


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > You're hung up on the media message that trusting ''make more money regardless of the cost to others'' is always better than government services.
> ...



We spend 2X all other countries for decidedly mediocre results.  A huge competitive disadvantage.  We can't possibly do worse.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I am not a Republican.  If it came to a vote between Bush and Obama only, Obama would get my vote.

I am somewhat in favor of single payer.  If I could just figure out a way to separate the "elite" in Washington from the process, I would be all for it.

My problem is by no means the process but rather the who and that includes Republicans as well as Democrats.  I trust neither to do this right and it scares the hell out of me that we are giving them so much more control over our lives.

Immie


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



There is government corruption and business corruption and personal crime.  They all cost us money.  Let's not design any system around crime.  Let's let law enforcement take care of criminals and design each system that we need around honest people.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Destroyer2 said:
> ...



I would agree with you.  But why are so many people so willing to turn such an important aspect of our lives over to the corrupt?

We are doing exactly what you say we should not do, "Let's not design any system around crime".  That is what this bill is all about.

As with most social issues, I think the idea is good, unfortunately, I am convinced the thirst for power, as well as greed, play a huge part in this government solution.  Democrat or Republican bill, makes no difference.  This is about power and freedom loving people are going to suffer the consequences.

I have no problem providing insurance for those who need it and cannot afford it.  I am willing to see my taxes go up for such a noble cause, but truthfully, I do not believe Obamacare even scratches the surface of that.  Do you think the homeless are going to sign up for insurance?  They don't file tax returns, what do they care?

This is a play by rich individuals to take more power.  Nothing more and nothing less and we have fallen for it.

Immie


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Doesn't address much of what I said, but okay. What part of the system is responsible for that? How can we get that number down. We could stop traveling down a road that removes the financial impact of health care costs to the consumer. When you do that obviously the cost of services will go up. We can remove the medical device tax which raises their cost when said tax only exists to pay for this ridiculous plan. We could stop requiring that people purchase coverage they don't need. You see, Obamacare is is not going to make that number go down. If anything it's going to make it go up.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

I recently had to redo how Medicare is delivered to me.  I went to the Medicare Web site and there  laid out for me,  were all of the private Medicare Advantage Plans. Prices,   coverage,  features,  estimates of how much in total someone like me can expect to lay out annually for health care and insurance. 

Private insurance companies competing completely transparently for my business.  The government administering the process and requiring me  to have prepaid a significant part of my retirement health care responsibilities,  and holding my money through all of the years that I worked. 

And,  in the background,  gentle pressure relentlessly applied to the health care business to contain costs. 

No different conceptually than Obamacare.


----------



## Destroyer2 (Oct 9, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Destroyer2 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Fess up to what? My belief in socialism that *you* created?

Besides, how badly can you mess up a single payer health care system? I don't trust politicians with everything, but I trust them to perform simple tasks.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 9, 2013)

Destroyer2 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Destroyer2 said:
> ...



You put way too much trust in them.

Immie


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I recently had to redo how Medicare is delivered to me.  I went to the Medicare Web site and there  laid out for me,  were all of the private Medicare Advantage Plans. Prices,   coverage,  features,  estimates of how much in total someone like me can expect to lay out annually for health care and insurance.
> 
> Private insurance companies competing completely transparently for my business.  The government administering the process and requiring me  to have prepaid a significant part of my retirement health care responsibilities,  and holding my money through all of the years that I worked.
> 
> ...



And if it that is all there was to it, that wouldn't be so terrible. But that isnt' all there is to it. First, try to look big picture. What's the goal? To make health care more affordable right? Even that right there is a nuanced question. Do you want to try to lower the cost of services or do we just want less money coming out of the consumer's pockets? This plan seems to go for the later, which is to me more of a band aid approach than truly fixing the issue. Anyway, to accomplish that Obama chose an insurance based approach, instead of trying to find mechanisms for lowering the costs of services, so that maybe people aren't so dependent on insurance in the first place, he chose a solution to try to get everyone covered by insurance. Not the way I would go, but okay, could work under the right circumstances. 

But then a monkey wrench gets thrown into that. Obama doesn't allow insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work. He doesn't allow community providers to price on the basis of risk. Out the window goes the entire concept of insurance right there. In every other form of insurance your rates are based on your risk to the insurer. The riskier you are the more you're going to pay. In auto insurance for example, this incentivises safer drving. Where is the incentive to take responsibility for yourself and be healthy when you're not going to pay anymore than a healthy person? As a result rates didin't drop to those of healthy people. They went up to the rates of UNhealthy people. 

Next issue is choice. Obama can pretend he's giving us choice with these exchanges, but when he mandates all of these different things everyone plan must cover in reality, that limits options. You're supposed to be able to pick the coverage that's right for you. If you're a young healthy person you should be able to buy a low premium, catastrophic only plan. But you can't do that because Obama requires insurance cover all these preventative tests and mental health coverage and drug addiction coverage. NO. I'll decide what I want to pay for out of my pocket and what I want insurance to cover. That is why this system is doomed to failure.

The only silver lining and what Republicans should stop fighting is the individual mandate. That's the only way I see people waking up is when it hits them in the pocket book. Then maybe finally the MINORITY of people that say they're for Obamacare will change their minds.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

Competitive businesses can't thrive on an unhealthy workforce.  Kids can't learn if they're not feeling well.  Ill parents can't parent. 

So the main purpose of Obamacare is for everyone,  not just the wealthy,  to have affordable health care.  Seeing as how the government is not interested in being any more than we have been in either the insurance or health care business,  Obamacare does not go in those directions.  It sets the standard of care for insurance purposes,  and allows insurance companies to compete transparently for business. How will they do that?  Put pressure on,  and offer help to health care providers and pharmaceutical companies to lower costs to them,  so they can lower costs to us,  and beat their competition. 

As I said before,  Republicans don't have a leg to stand on trying to sabatoge it.  Not that collaboration between the two parties couldn't improve it. But Republicans have killed that idea.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

One consideration is that the business of business pretty much owns the GOP.  Therefore,  whatever the GOP is for, is good for business.  

That means that what was most profitable for business was our old health care and insurance business.  Very lucrative. 

Obamacare will make it harder for people to get rich on health care.  That will translate into lower health care costs for us.  

A necessary direction if we are going to win at global competition.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Competitive businesses can't thrive on an unhealthy workforce.  Kids can't learn if they're not feeling well.  Ill parents can't parent.
> 
> So the main purpose of Obamacare is for everyone,  not just the wealthy,  to have affordable health care.  Seeing as how the government is not interested in being any more than we have been in either the insurance or health care business,  Obamacare does not go in those directions.  It sets the standard of care for insurance purposes,  and allows insurance companies to compete transparently for business. How will they do that?  Put pressure on,  and offer help to health care providers and pharmaceutical companies to lower costs to them,  so they can lower costs to us,  and beat their competition.
> 
> As I said before,  Republicans don't have a leg to stand on trying to sabatoge it.  Not that collaboration between the two parties couldn't improve it. But Republicans have killed that idea.



Except that's not what's actually happening. For an aweful lot of people the cost of health care is going up. The cost of many procedures are going up because Obama is taxing those too. In that cost I'm including insurance premiums. And why does the government need to set the standard? Why can't we make people be responsible for their own standard? I have friends that are insurance reps and the community rating mandate is killing a lot of people. It's literally financially punishing the healthy and rewarding the unhealthy. A friend of mines premiums are going UP $400/mo. as a result. 

I agree Republicans don't have a lot of credibilituy on this because they don't have an alternative plan, but that doesn't mean sticking with this is a good idea.



PMZ said:


> One consideration is that the business of business pretty much owns the GOP.  Therefore,  whatever the GOP is for, is good for business.
> 
> That means that what was most profitable for business was our old health care and insurance business.  Very lucrative.
> 
> ...



The health insurance industry has never been one that rakes in money. They typically have single digit profit margins. That's why with Obamacare premiums are going up. They were barely profitable before. I'm afraid you're thinking is backwards in making it sound like it's bad to make money selling health care. There wouldn't be health care if you couldn't make money selling it. But you're starting to touch on an idea that is central to this conversation. What type of payment system works best is irellevant if a certain premise is not agreed on and that has to be that health care is commodity like anything else. It isn't special. People should be able to sell their services for it for whatever someone is willing to pay like anything else. You, however, seem to be edging toward the notion that health care is a right and money should not be a factor for those that need it. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not a right. It's not a right because you don't have the right to take money from me to pay for you. What happens when you start treating it that way is supply goes down. People keep pointing to the French system and how wonderful it is, but a couple harsh facts are it is deeply in debt and their doctors make a fraction of ours. If that were translated here, that's going to make being a physician a less attractive profession. No one's going to decide to pursue that career especially given the expense involved in becoming one if they can't pay their debts and make a comfortable living at it. That will reduce supply making it harder to find service. Cheaper health care is irellevant if you can't find anyone to treat you.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Competitive businesses can't thrive on an unhealthy workforce.  Kids can't learn if they're not feeling well.  Ill parents can't parent.
> ...



Casinos and insurance companies and banks and investment houses don't take risk.  

If you don't think that is true,  just look at their offices and their executive compensation.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Casinos and investment houses? What do they have to with anything? Given the brevity of the reply it seems you aren't able to counter any of the above and are resorting to the truly nonsensical. I think you know what kind of an insurance I'm talking about. Your kidding yourself if you don't think other forms of insurance don't charge on the basis of risk. The kind of car you drive, your driving record, where you drive, all play a role in your auto insurance rates. Where your home is. Is it in tornado alley, is it somewhere that floods a lot. All of that will come in play in your home owner's insurance rates. Someone who insures you has the right to protect themselves from the risk you pose them.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You said that the insurance business was low return.  Low return investments are low risk.  All of the businesses that I pointed out are low rate of return,  low risk,  but high amount of return because they use other people's money.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I don't think I've ever seen so many incorrect ideas in so few sentences. You really deny that car, home and up until now health insurance are priced based on risk? Dude stop digging.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The insurance business is sharing risks among policy holders.  If you die early,  another client will die equally late.  The business uses actuarial science to avoid risk.  No different than casinos.  They take no risk,  it's all passed on to their customers.  

Plainly,  you are not experienced in risk management.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually I am. And how insurance companies mitigiate their risks is by charging those that are of higher risk more money to be insured by them. That's an undeniable fact.


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 11, 2013)

here is the problem with obamacare.  it was designed to do one thing.  and that was provide healthcare to the poor.   ok, a novel idea, with good intentions.   but it wasn't healthcare reform.  and we need to separate the two issues that exist.   healthcare is borken.  even for people who have it and can afford it.  that has to be fixed first.  you can't just give a broken system with all its issues and unacceptable costs to those who don't have it and expect those who have it to pay for it.   

obamacare is nothing more than a massive entitlement program consuming 1/6th of the GDP.   it is not affordable, it is not sustainable.   it doesn't address reforming the issues within our current healtcare system at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> here is the problem with obamacare.  it was designed to do one thing.  and that was provide healthcare to the poor.   ok, a novel idea, with good intentions.   but it wasn't healthcare reform.  and we need to separate the two issues that exist.   healthcare is borken.  even for people who have it and can afford it.  that has to be fixed first.  you can't just give a broken system with all its issues and unacceptable costs to those who don't have it and expect those who have it to pay for it.
> 
> obamacare is nothing more than a massive entitlement program consuming 1/6th of the GDP.   it is not affordable, it is not sustainable.   it doesn't address reforming the issues within our current healtcare system at all.



Exactly right. But it didn't even do that much right.

College Grad Says Obamacare ?Has Raped My Future? In Viral Letter « CBS DC


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 11, 2013)

roflmao

Obamacare ? More Than a Glitch ? Hilarious Ad Destroys Obamacare (Video) |


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 11, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=81DBEKlrJsM]CBS Calls Obamacare Website Launch 'Nothing Short of Disastrous' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 11, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > here is the problem with obamacare.  it was designed to do one thing.  and that was provide healthcare to the poor.   ok, a novel idea, with good intentions.   but it wasn't healthcare reform.  and we need to separate the two issues that exist.   healthcare is borken.  even for people who have it and can afford it.  that has to be fixed first.  you can't just give a broken system with all its issues and unacceptable costs to those who don't have it and expect those who have it to pay for it.
> ...


the sad part is the element of society that is doing nothing, not working, not contributing to society in anyway, are already sponging off the system with welfare, food stamps, housing, obamphones, will get full free coverage.  but the lowincome worker pulling two jobs to try to make ends meet will get a meager subsity and face a high deductible


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> here is the problem with obamacare.  it was designed to do one thing.  and that was provide healthcare to the poor.   ok, a novel idea, with good intentions.   but it wasn't healthcare reform.  and we need to separate the two issues that exist.   healthcare is borken.  even for people who have it and can afford it.  that has to be fixed first.  you can't just give a broken system with all its issues and unacceptable costs to those who don't have it and expect those who have it to pay for it.
> 
> obamacare is nothing more than a massive entitlement program consuming 1/6th of the GDP.   it is not affordable, it is not sustainable.   it doesn't address reforming the issues within our current healtcare system at all.



How can the government fix our private corporate health care non-system? The only leverage that they have is Medicare and  I think that the cost pressure from that is pretty much maxed out.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> here is the problem with obamacare.  it was designed to do one thing.  and that was provide healthcare to the poor.   ok, a novel idea, with good intentions.   but it wasn't healthcare reform.  and we need to separate the two issues that exist.   healthcare is borken.  even for people who have it and can afford it.  that has to be fixed first.  you can't just give a broken system with all its issues and unacceptable costs to those who don't have it and expect those who have it to pay for it.
> 
> obamacare is nothing more than a massive entitlement program consuming 1/6th of the GDP.   it is not affordable, it is not sustainable.   it doesn't address reforming the issues within our current healtcare system at all.



It designed to do many things.  

Providing an alternate for the poor to get their own  coverage rather than using emergency rooms. 

Mandatory health insurance for everyone. 

Shut down insurance problems like pre-existing conditions. 

Keep young adults on their parents policies longer. 

Exchanges to promote cost/coverage shopping more transparently.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > here is the problem with obamacare.  it was designed to do one thing.  and that was provide healthcare to the poor.   ok, a novel idea, with good intentions.   but it wasn't healthcare reform.  and we need to separate the two issues that exist.   healthcare is borken.  even for people who have it and can afford it.  that has to be fixed first.  you can't just give a broken system with all its issues and unacceptable costs to those who don't have it and expect those who have it to pay for it.
> ...



It is intended to do many things, it is designed to not work.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Criminals cost us billions.  They are part of every segment of society.  We spend billions trying to catch and prosecute them. Welfare cheats are just a minor subset of all  criminals.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Lots of ignorance about Obamacare from GOP propaganda.


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > here is the problem with obamacare.  it was designed to do one thing.  and that was provide healthcare to the poor.   ok, a novel idea, with good intentions.   but it wasn't healthcare reform.  and we need to separate the two issues that exist.   healthcare is borken.  even for people who have it and can afford it.  that has to be fixed first.  you can't just give a broken system with all its issues and unacceptable costs to those who don't have it and expect those who have it to pay for it.
> ...



so like i was saying,  its a giant entitlement program


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Lots of ignorance about Obamacare from GOP propaganda.



Yeah, you're the one to talking about ignorance. The only one ignorant of anything here is you. Ignorant of basic economics just like our President. You haven't even attempted to debunk anything I've said. Naturally because you can't. You can't deny the insurance premiums of an aweful lot of people are going to go up. You can't deny an insurance based solution that can't charge on the basis of risk has zero chance of bringing costs down. You can't deny taxing medical devices is going to get passed on to conusmers. You can't deny Obama lied about people being able to keep their doctors and plans.


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



they wouldn't cost much at all if i was running things.  and why do you use another one of your failed liberal policies to try to justify one of your new failed liberal policies


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Simple. Because I think as someone said earlier, if said liberal, government intervention policy fails, it just means government didn't intervene enough.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



You mean like the Bushman's wealth redistribution tax cuts? 

If we are so entitlement minded,  how come we have one of the most skewed wealth distributions towards the wealthy on the earth?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of ignorance about Obamacare from GOP propaganda.
> ...



You can't deny that treating the poor using appropriate health care rather than emergency services will save lots of money. 

Nor that a healthier population will be great for business. 

Nor that better management of contagious diseases because everyone has access to health will be a cost saver.  

You seem to want to ignore that we are paying 2X the rest of the world for mediocre health care. And you seem to see no room for improvement. 

Bizarre.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



So,  with smaller government we'd have better law enforcement?  Sounds like the 1984 police state. 

I think that your going to have a hard time selling what you apparently fell for.  That crime is a recent invention by liberals.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That sounds like the conservative mantra.  If doing nothing doesn't solve problems,  try doing less.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of ignorance about Obamacare from GOP propaganda.
> ...



One other thing.  What in the law requires people to change health care insurance plans?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You really do get dumber by the post. How exactly do tax cuts for EVERYONE become wealth redistribution?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I see plenty of room for improvement. I'm just not dumb enough to believe that what our health care expenses are entirely attributable to the current system. The habits of individuals play a large role in that. We are one of the most obese nations in the world. You think all the problems that come with that don't play some role in how much gets spent on health care?

There are plenty of improvements that can be made. I've never said otherwise. This particular solution is just completely illogical. If YOU were really interested in improving the system you would see that.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The part of it that says not only must you have a plan, you must have a QUALIFYING plan. The other is yet another unintended consequence of the law that the insurance industry and employers had to adjust to the new law by dumping the benefit. Even Obama could have been so stupid as to think that wasn't going to happen. So when he says you can keep your plan and Walgreens dumps a bunch of people from their plan that becomes a lie.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



No. It means you wake the fuck up and realize government tends to screw more up than they actually help. Obamacare is already turning out to be no exception.


----------



## Politico (Oct 11, 2013)

Yeah it could be fixed. Would take about five minutes.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



It's what Republicans failed to do.  Take action to make our health care non-system competitive.  They took the typical conservative action of doing nothing.  What was accomplished by that? 

Why,  nothing of course.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



By making tax cuts for the wealthy large and long lived and tax cuts for the middle class small and very temporary. Where do you think our massive debt came from?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually it was the poor and middle class that received the largest cuts in income tax and they were permanent. It was only the tax cuts on the wealthy Obama wanted to repeal.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 12, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



If anybody falls for this bullshit they deserve to be ignorant. 

Most middle class people got two checks for around $250.

The wealthy got substantial rate reductions for a dozen years which Obama ended as soon as Republicans could no longer hold stimulus money hostage for continued tax rate reduction for the wealthy. 

This is all on top of a max rate for taxes on income from wealth of 15 percent.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Are you stupid? It was a tax CUT. Not a one time check. I repeat, the income tax rates for ALL Americans went down. The income tax of the middle class and poor were cut the most.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



No.  I have a memory. I listen to news.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

From:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811

''The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.''

''The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households  those least in need of additional resources  at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.''

''The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost.  In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.''

Between tax cuts and wars,  the Bushwacker all but guaranteed two things.  

Massive deficits rather than PAYING OFF the entire NATIONAL DEBT. 

The most dysfunctional wealth distribution in American history. 

Conservatives want power to continue in these directions.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> From:
> 
> Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> ...



The above is what we call 'passing the buck'. 'No, it's not our spending that's the problem. It's that you, John Q. Taxpayer, aren't giving us enough money.' And the idea that any of the above is actually bad is predicated on the assumption that it's bad if government takes in less money. The only way it's 'bad' is to the politicians who have less money to spend. Them not adjusting their spending accordingly doesn't mean the cuts were a bad idea.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 14, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


*If your company does not offer you health insurance, you can buy off the exchanges and you will be eligible for the government subsidy if your family income does not exceed 400% of federal poverty level.
Translated in family income, if you are single, you can get a subsidy with an income up to $46,000.  For a family of 4, the subsidy is available for family incomes up to $94,200.

The subsidy puts a cap on your monthly cost of insurance at 2.5% to 9.5% of family income.  It also lowers the deductible and yearly maximum out of pocket costs for lower income families.

Only about 15% of Americans will be eligible to buy insurance off the exchanges and most of them will receive a subsidy.*


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > From:
> ...



You have a different reaction to massive debt than I do.  I'm surprised,  given that,  of your claim to being a successful businessman. 

On the other hand,  it's the typical conservative economics that came close to costing us our country and has already cost us much of our economy. 

Cut costs and hope something good happens.  

Business and government is about growth by great products and satisfied customers.  Costs are what they have to be to achieve product and customer satisfaction growth.  If that's not true,  you aren't in a successful business or government. 

Any business that believes that great products and high customer satisfaction are unaffordable, deserves the inevitable end that they face. 

The Bushwacker,  and you,  and most conservatives,  don't believe in this country.  They don't believe that we have what it takes to be successful.  They want to sell off and move on. 

If that happens it will be over my dead body.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I don't think most of our citizens understand that Obamacare is nothing but opportunity for those who previously had no option but the worst health care possible.  If it's not an opportunity for any one of us,  like it's not for me,  ignore it.  Take your better option.  

Government,  like all good businesses,  have already solved how to offer competitive compensation,  including health care insurance,  that's adequate to attract and hold qualified employees. Obamacare exchanges don't apply to them any more than they do to most large successful companies. 

What irritates conservatives is that people they don't like are being offered a better,  healthier life,  because of successful government. 

A more successful country.  

They hate that.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 14, 2013)

I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.

2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost.  This subsidy needs to be taper.

3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements.  The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant.  You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.

4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs.  They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.

5.  The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.

6.  The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid.  Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7.  Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer.  It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You're confusing me with someone else. I'm not a businessman, or business owner, if that's what you mean. I certainly do believe in growth through quality products and satisfied customers. I'm not really sure what that has to do with taxes. Perhaps it's simply that you keep jumping to new topics every time you see you're so obviously wrong.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
> 1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.
> 
> 2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost.  This subsidy needs to be taper.
> ...



Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 14, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
> ...


All goods and services including healthcare are rationed.  In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service.  Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need.  It's unavoidable.  In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.

Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost.  For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.

The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances.  This trend is not going to reverse because people are  demanding more and better healthcare.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



So if this affects only those $115,000, then why do Democrats keep whining about those poor Congressional staffers that have to have the subsidy?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



No, they are not motivated by fear that poor people will get medical care, lol, that is a Marxist Big Lie again.

Conservatives are legitimately concerned about the impact this massive program will have on the federal budget which is already way over its head in debt. If this continues we will all lose with hyperinflation or a decades long depression.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I don't think that your concept of rationing is the same most people use. If I have the cash enough to go buy any insurance I want, then it is not rationed in any sense of the word.

Also, why not a two tier system of private and government controlled health care? Why only single payer?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



You seem misinformed on what a right actually is in the first place. Not that health care is even a legally assured right or even an individual human right, but if it were just because something is a right doesn't mean you get to force someone else to provide it for you. You have the right to a gun too, under the constitution. That doesn't mean that I, via the government, am required to provide you one.

You say it's rationed already. So what's the reason we're switching? Why would I pay taxes into a system that's need based? At least with private insurance I know health care is going to be there for me. Why would I pay the government, in your argument, not to provide me health care, but to be the decider on whether or not I even receive health care?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'm fine with you changing your worldview to liberal.  

Both businesses and governments have products and customers.  They both should operate to continually improve their products and better satisfy their customers. 

One way that they differ is that businesses compete for customers and price their products for each sale to each customer.  Government services are typically those that can't be provided in a competitive market.  Military services are an example. So they are not priced per product per customer because it's not practical. On the other hand,  nobody would rely in markets that can't be competitive on businesses one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others. 

Conservatives focus on cost cutting.  Their worldview is defensive and they hate risk.  

Liberals are optimistic and assume that better products and better customer service will lead to growth which is better for everyone. They are offensively oriented and risk is seen as necessary for progress. 

Look at the damage that conservatives have done to our economy and country by their focus on cheaper rather than better. It's unaffordable.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
> ...



There is nothing liberal about ACA.  There is no attempt to put the government in charge of either health care or health care insurance even though they are in the health care business for the VA and Tricare military health care,  and they are in the health care insurance business with Medicare. Both work fine. 

Many people thought that the only way that America could really be competitive with the rest of world in health care would be to expand Medicare to everyone and become single payer.  Maybe.  I think that the big downside would be the transition.  All of the present health care insurance business put out of business.


----------



## HenryBHough (Oct 14, 2013)

I do believe Obamacare can be fixed.

As one might "fix" a tomcat.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



On the cost side you have subsidies to the people business chooses not to pay a living wage to. 

On the savings side you have those poor treated with cost effective health care rather than the most expensive least effective,  emergency services. 

I don't see the additional costs that I  attribute to Republican propaganda.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Wealthy people can always buy whatever health care they want.  If not here,  someplace else.  They are simply not any part of the problem. 

The problem is keeping the mainstay of our economy,  the middle class,  creators of everyone's wealth,  in an optimum state of health.  The only way that we can compete around the world. 

The question is can we do that without single payer, through private for profit health insurance companies,  and for profit but not really competing health care providers?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
> 1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.
> 
> 2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost.  This subsidy needs to be taper.
> ...



I always respect your posts, but I have to say, you are absolutely insane if you really believe ANYTHING run by the government, and that is exactly what single-payer means, is "cheaper in the long run".

Immie


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 14, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
> ...



Interesting how many forget that Medicare is a government run program, a program thats run by the government successfully, and is indeed cheaper in the long-run: 

Analysts: Medicare costs may keep declining

And expanding the successful Medicare program is the single-payer system most refer to.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 14, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


$115,000??

Cancelling government group health insurance for Congressmen and staff and thus forcing them to buy individual health insurance off the exchanges was a ridiculous political ploy.  The OMB said they will continue to pay half the cost of their insurance since the government subsidizes half the cost of health insurance for all federal employees.  Large group health insurance policies such as the ones federal workers have are much cheaper than individual  policies bought off the exchanges.  So now congressman and staff will purchase plans that will cost the government more money and will provide less benefits than the previous group plans they had, another brilliant Republican idea.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 14, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Single payer insurance doesn't preclude private insurance because single payer will not pay all medical bills.  Medicare only pays 80% of covered medial services and does not cover all healthcare options plus there is no  maximum yearly out of pocket costs. So even with Medicare, you can be left with some very large medical bills.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

It's interesting how concerned Republicans are about the ability of the wealthy to buy the best health care including cosmetic surgery.  And the best cars.  And the best mcmansion.  And the best trophy wives.  And the best resort property.  And the best vacations. And the best recreational drugs.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 14, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Most people's medical care is rationed by their insurance company.  The company decide what procedures will be covered.  Companies that have networks, will decide what providers you are allowed to see.  You can only go in hospital with approval of  your insurance company.  The companies use the approval process to control cost and thus ration healthcare based on their financial needs, not your medical needs.

Insurance companies make money by collecting premiums, not paying claims.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 14, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


I'm not claiming that there is any constitution right to healthcare, although some people would probably argue the general welfare clause.  What I'm saying is more and more people feel they should have the right to quality healthcare regardless of their financial situation so no one need suffer or die from a serious health problem just because they can not afford the cost of treatment.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



No, insurance companies that are short sighted see it that way.

Better insurance companies know that in the long run it is happy customers that make them their money, else they go elsewhere.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's interesting how concerned Republicans are about the ability of the wealthy to buy the best health care including cosmetic surgery.  And the best cars.  And the best mcmansion.  And the best trophy wives.  And the best resort property.  And the best vacations. And the best recreational drugs.



Why do you just make stuff up?

The factors I have read/heard are:

1. budget busting cost

2. Unfair waiver usage; if its good enough for Obama's cronies why not the rest of the country?

3. It simply does not work according to the one-sided plan the Dimocraps thought up.

4. It is a threat to current healthy but not huge insurance companies.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


The answer will be provide by the success or failure of the ACA.  If it's not successful, I think we will see and a slow expansion of Medicare until it becomes the primary insurance for everyone, relegating private insurance to a role of secondary coverage.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

ACA is the minimum government can do to push America towards competitive health care costs and results.  The minimum. Either health care insurance and delivery responds,  or they don't.  If not,  more stringent steps must be taken until we are competitive with the rest of the developed world. 

We can't afford anything less.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 15, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
> ...


I agree there are many services government offers which are very inefficient.  However, I believe Medicare is one of the most efficient. Their claims processing overhead is realities low, they have no marketing cost, no profit margins, and since they have a stable client base unlike most insurance companies they have very low client service costs.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

All services offered by business and government could be improved.  A given.  Human's are imperfect and constantly striving for better. 

But,  we're stuck with human imperfection no matter what we do.  Reality.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your notions about conservative vs. liberal beliefs are as backwards as I've ever seen. Most business owners are conservatives. They are the risk takers you speak of. Your liberals are the McDonalds employees of the world screaming that the should get to make a living wage at $15.00/hr for flipping burgers. 

The reality is most succesfull businesses engage iin a combination of both cost cutting and product improvement. Cost cutting is usually in the form of eliminating wasteful spending. You don't spend money on that which is innefficient or doesn't help grow the company.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And yet the bill inserts more government into the health care industry. If competition and lower pricing is really what you want than you have to actually allow private businesses compete. Both hospitals and insurance companies. And that means govcernment needs to get out of the way. It means government has to put fewer resistrictions on what insurance must cover, not more, so that consumers can decide what they really want. It means eliminating unncessary taxes on medical device providers so the cost of those service isn't artifically inflated.  In short, we need to found out what health care really costs. To find that out government has to get out of the way because Obamacare is ADDING artificial costs into the system, not taking them away.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> All services offered by business and government could be improved.  A given.  Human's are imperfect and constantly striving for better.
> 
> But,  we're stuck with human imperfection no matter what we do.  Reality.



But there are certain mechanisms that do a better job of striving for perfection than others. The free market does a better job of that than goods and services provided by government. The reason is because of the direct relationship between the consumer and business in the private sector. As you so aptly put, a private business sinks or swims based on the satisfaction of their customers. There is a direct correlation between their revenue and the satisfaction of their conusmers. 

Conversely, there is no such meachinsm with a government provided service. The consumer does not directly consume the service and its revenue is not generated by customers purchasing it. There is no link between what a government employee makes and what they produce. As there is no cause and effect here there is no incentive to be efficient in spending or even provide a superior product. All of this is why government run health care is a really bad idea. If there is one industry where quality matters to people, I would think it would be health care. And we want to set up a system where health care is provided through a mechanism that doesn't respond to consumer demands and has no economic mechanism to insure quality? Thanks, I'll pass.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > All services offered by business and government could be improved.  A given.  Human's are imperfect and constantly striving for better.
> ...



Make more money regardless of the cost to others is not magic.  Competition is.  The services typically provided by government are those that competition cannot be maintained for.  The military for instance. Private warlords would be an awful idea.  Air traffic control. The coordination of private energy companies. FDA regulation.  Financial regulation.  Health care and health care insurance regulation aka Obamacare 

Conservatives have been trained by Republican propaganda media to hate our country and government by having a reflexive response to anything that's not business, of business can do everything better.  Just not true. Business is only the answer when competition can be maintained and regulations can protect the consumer. 

The concept of less government is an easy sell,  because of the only way that government services can be priced.  Everybody pays their share rather than by individual transactions which would be totally impractical.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Most successful business managers are liberal.  Why? Solving problems is a liberal concept.  Actions to produce a better future.  Growth.  Some successful managers are Republicans,  some are Democrat,  but all are liberal.  

Reduction in waste is a necessary focus in all endeavors.  But it's not the basis of success.  Growth is.  Better products and more satisfied customers.  Waste is that which is not connected to those objectives and is best eliminated by refocusing resources to the objectives. 

Conservatives view employees as costs.  Liberals view them as assets and contributers.  

Our present moribund economy is the result of conservatives trying to run business.  They instituted shrink to success in business and now want to do the same with government.  The Bushwacker destruction is the result.  It was and is unaffordable.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Health care and health care insurance are notoriously hard to maintain free markets in.  Business made that worse by promising employees totally free health care. 

Obamacare is the first successful attempt by government to undue the damage businesses did by promising free health care and health care insurance,  and put them back into a competitive marketplace.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LMFAO. Seriously, I did. Liberals are the WORST problem solvers on earth. Look no further than Obamacare for proof. Look at the gun control debate. We will agree on what a lot of the problems are, but the liberal solutions to them are just plain stupid. 

We both want to lower the cost of health care. We already know of an economic meachism that lowers costs; Competition, as you pointed out. That isn't what Obamacare is. What little competition it tried to insert with the exchange it counters with other policies in the bill that hinder competition. Requiring people to purchase a product, mandating what that product must have, mandating what can be charged for it, taxing medical devices. All of those things HINDER competition. 

Liberals are good problem solvers?! Thanks bud, I haven't laughed that hard in a while.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Conservatives are handicapped in recognizing solutions.  Exactly where the Republicans,  who offer no solutions,  want them. Thats the beauty of propaganda.  Minions exactly aligned with the program. 

Obamacare is a textbook example.  If Republicans had come up with it, they would be touting it as the perfect free market solution to our inability to be competitive in global markets. 

As they simply can't afford another political defeat,  they've turned the propaganda blasters on high,  leading to.......... still another massive political defeat.  Probably their final swan song.


----------



## boedicca (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Health care and health care insurance are notoriously hard to maintain free markets in.  Business made that worse by promising employees totally free health care.
> 
> Obamacare is the first successful attempt by government to undue the damage businesses did by promising free health care and health care insurance,  and put them back into a competitive marketplace.





You are a loon.

We've had NOTHING like free markets in health care and health care insurance ever since FDR put wage controls in place.   

ObamaCare is an attempt to fully enslave a formerly free people to The State...it has absolutely nothing to do with actually providing health care to anyone.   If it did, they so many cronies would not be desperate for waivers to be exempt from it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your first sentence was going well then you fell into the partisan hack mode and accuse Republicans of hating their country when their is no evidence. The neocons LUV our country, ESPECIALLY the federal government and it's teet it stays attached to 24/7, and the Dimocraps also.

Less government is an easy sell, yes in deedy, but it is an especially easy sell when it spends so much money it is more than five times its annual income indebt and many expect it to go bankrupt in the not to distant future, which is undermining faith in the US dollar world wide.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You keep making these statement that you have zero evidence for. The evidence that you're wrong is pretty obvious. Have you not noticed in our back and forth how every time I point out how wrong you are instead of continuing to defend the point you change the subject? Most managers are liberals? Where's your evidence? Liberals are better problem solvers? Where's your evidence?

Republicans would not tout Obamacare as a free market solution, because IT'S NOT A FREE MARKET SOLUTION. And stop hiding behind the Republicans this and the Republicans that. They have plenty to answer for themselves. But what we're concerned about here is the substance of the actual policy which you clearly can't defend as evidence by the fact here that you have to resort what Republicans did or didn't do as if that has anything to do with the actual policy.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually 60 odd years ago when we were as close as we've ever been to a free market for health care it worked quite well. Yes, the problems started when employers started offering it as a benefits. But _that_ bad idea was also spurred by government and yet another democrat who disobeyed the law of unintended consequences, when the national pay freeze was mandated in WWII. This strongly encouraged businesses to provide other benefits instead of cash compensation. And healthcare through your employer is not free. People just don't think about it because it comes right out of their checks and is less expensive than buying it themselves. I agree that has to be undone. But if you really want a competitive market place, you have to undo the parts of Obamacare that stifle competition.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


My neighbor's son works at McDonald and could be a poster boy for the Tea Party.  I've owned 3 businesses and have actively managed investments most of my life, yet my views are mostly liberal.

Conservatives and liberal images are created by the media from the most extreme elements of the political spectrum. If you are seeking the truth, you have to reject stereotypes and cliches.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

boedicca said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Health care and health care insurance are notoriously hard to maintain free markets in.  Business made that worse by promising employees totally free health care.
> ...



Obamacare is health care insurance regulation plus requiring everyone to be accountable for the cost of their own health care plus subsidies to those who business chooses not to pay enough to to allow them to pay for their own health care. 

I don't know which other planet you came from but here the health care business was competitive until full health care insurance was introduced as expected compensation for work. Around the 60s.

Obamacare is a necessary response to business dropping that compensation.  In a perfect world it is merely moving what was part of the cost of virtually every American made product to a smaller tax increase.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Clearly the thoughts of someone who hates our country and it's government.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



What aspect of Obamacare do you believe is anti enterprise?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm all in favor of not painting people with too broad a brush. 

However when you claimed to be liberal you revealed quite a bit about yourself and your worldview.  It would be foolish for people to think that a statement like that was meaningless. 

It's like the cliche use of 'profiling', which is a life skill that everyone is taught and learns from an early age.  When it's said benignly it usually comes out 'first impression'.

The adjectives liberal and conservative are meaningful impressions.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


It matters not how we got to this point because we aren't going back. Over the last half century, healthcare has become much more important in people lives and most people believe that everyone is entitle to the miracles of modern medicine science, not just the  wealthy.

If you want a really competitive market place in healthcare, you would have to do a lot more than repeal Obamacare. You would have to dump Medicare, Medicaid, employee sponsored healthcare insurance and create an environment where prices would be ruled by the laws of supply and demand.   However, that's not going to happen because that's not what Americans want.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

A rather timely excerpt from Atlas Shrugged;

_"I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago. Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everythingexcept the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it." | Doctor Thomas Hendricks, P3C1_

Pretty darn close to what's actually happening and this was predicted decades ago. This is exactly why Obamacare won't and is not working. Obama has completely ignored, and in some cases worsened, the supply side of the equation.  You can not address the cost of health care without doing that. Maybe had there been something in there about reforming malpractice litigation. Or how about not taxing medical device manufacturers? How about some modicum of understanding as to how providers and insurers are going to react to your singular focus on the demand side.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

Flopper said:


> It matters not how we got to this point because we aren't going back. Over the last half century, healthcare has become much more important in people lives and most people believe that everyone is entitle to the miracles of modern medicine science, not just the  wealthy.



That fundamental issue is what needs to be talked about because policy going forward depends on the position of the idea whether it is an entitlement. Again even if you consider it a right, a right is not something you can require someone else provide you. I think it's interesting, nuanced argument. For instance the founding fathers thought man had the right to life, but does that mean you have the right to make someone else protect your life? I don't think so.  And if you want to get real philosophical perhaps we need to discuss whether, in the grand scheme of things as in health of planet not just the humans on it, we should try so hard to save so many.



Flopper said:


> If you want a really competitive market place in healthcare, you would have to do a lot more than repeal Obamacare. You would have to dump Medicare, Medicaid, employee sponsored healthcare insurance and create an environment where prices would be ruled by the laws of supply and demand.   However, that's not going to happen because that's not what Americans want.



That's another distinction; do people want free healthcare when needed or would they be satisfied with less expensive health care? Because that would be the end result of the above free market. If you insist you're entitled to care when needed regardless of ability to pay, morally that's something you need to get everyone to agree to because again, you don't have the right to make me responsible financially for your health outcomes.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The individual mandate; how do you expect to establish the real market price of something when the consumer doesn't even have the choice of whether they want the product or not?

The medical device tax; this is merely Obama attempting to pay for Obamacare. It serves no purpose for either the producer or buyer. This artifically inflates the the cost of medical devices like implants and pacemakers. Adding extra cost on the production side means there's extra cost on the purchaser's side. It is an artificial inflation of the cost of a product which would cost less if the tax were not there.

The community rating mandate; This required insurance providers within their region to average out, the cost of their risk pool. Basically you take one particular plan type that you sell and avg. the premium cost of all of the people who own that plan in the region. This avg. is what the government has mandated the policy be sold at rather than based on the health circumstances of the individual. In a free market the insurance company would be allowed to charge on the basis of risk. This has had the effect of artificially inflating the cost of premiums to young, healthy people and decreasing the cost to the elderly and/or less healthy. This removes the market incentive on the consumer side to actually take care of yourself. What incentive is there if my premiums will cost the same thing as a healthy person?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> A rather timely excerpt from Atlas Shrugged;
> 
> _"I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago. Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everythingexcept the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it." | Doctor Thomas Hendricks, P3C1_
> 
> Pretty darn close to what's actually happening and this was predicted decades ago. This is exactly why Obamacare won't and is not working. Obama has completely ignored, and in some cases worsened, the supply side of the equation.  You can not address the cost of health care without doing that. Maybe had there been something in there about reforming malpractice litigation. Or how about not taxing medical device manufacturers? How about some modicum of understanding as to how providers and insurers are going to react to your singular focus on the demand side.


What began as healthcare reform ended up being a law that primarily regulated health insurance.  I think that part of the law will work pretty good. The market for non-group health insurance will be more competitive in most states, policy comparison will be much easier, and the subsidies will make make non-group policies more affordable for most families.  

With 21 states not buying into the Medicaid expansion and several holes in the law, millions will be left uncovered.  It will take years before we see anything close to universal coverage.

The impact on employer sponsored insurance has been greatly exaggerated. 75% of the policies had little or no changes. 94% of the companies were not considering  changes in their healthcare insurance offering to employees.  The remainder were considering moving their employees to the exchanges.

I think there will be some amendments to the law after the next presidential election but repeal of the law or major overhauls seems very unlikely regardless of who controls government.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

Flopper said:


> What began as healthcare reform ended up being a law that primarily regulated health insurance.  I think that part of the law will work pretty good. The market for non-group health insurance will be more competitive in most states, policy comparison will be much easier, and the subsidies will make make non-group policies more affordable for most families.



That's not turning out to be the case. Because of the community rating mandate, the insurance premiums for most people are going up. Is non-group health insurance more competitive? By the mere fact there is an exchange now, it should be. But there are so many other parts of Obamacare that counter act this competition that I'm not sure you'll really notice it. 



Flopper said:


> With 21 states not buying into the Medicaid expansion and several holes in the law, millions will be left uncovered.  It will take years before we see anything close to universal coverage.



This is the fundamental problem with Obamacare. You have to stop looking at this as an insurance coverage problem and start looking at it as a provider cost problem..



Flopper said:


> The impact on employer sponsored insurance has been greatly exaggerated. 75% of the policies had little or no changes. 94% of the companies were not considering  changes in their healthcare insurance offering to employees.  The remainder were considering moving their employees to the exchanges.



That depends on how define 'changes'. The one that most people immediatly notice is the impact on their pocket book and I can't say I know anyone, group plan or otherwise who hasn't seen a bigger bite out of their pay check every year from premiums going up. Mine will be again this year.



Flopper said:


> I think there will be some amendments to the law after the next presidential election but repeal of the law or major overhauls seems very unlikely regardless of who controls government.



Probably true, but if you don't repeal it what are you left with if you take out things like the medical device tax or the community rating. Just another layer of beauracracy and increasing the health care costs of most americans for the sake of the few.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> A rather timely excerpt from Atlas Shrugged;
> 
> _"I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago. Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everythingexcept the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it." | Doctor Thomas Hendricks, P3C1_
> 
> Pretty darn close to what's actually happening and this was predicted decades ago. This is exactly why Obamacare won't and is not working. Obama has completely ignored, and in some cases worsened, the supply side of the equation.  You can not address the cost of health care without doing that. Maybe had there been something in there about reforming malpractice litigation. Or how about not taxing medical device manufacturers? How about some modicum of understanding as to how providers and insurers are going to react to your singular focus on the demand side.



Every day Medicare addresses the supply side of health care.  Also private health care insurance companies forced to publicly compete. 

I'm very surprised that you didn't realize that.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > It matters not how we got to this point because we aren't going back. Over the last half century, healthcare has become much more important in people lives and most people believe that everyone is entitle to the miracles of modern medicine science, not just the  wealthy.
> ...



What specifically changes if you call health care an entitlement or not?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

How many billion dollars do you suppose have been spent obscuring the reality of Obamacare by all of those who hope to make more money by killing it?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > A rather timely excerpt from Atlas Shrugged;
> ...



Again, you can't keep saying things as if they are so when they're not. How exactly does medicare address the supply side issue in the above excerpt?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



An entitlement is something owed to you without out any cost to you.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > A rather timely excerpt from Atlas Shrugged;
> ...



I think that repeal of Obamacare has about the same odds as repeal of Medicare.  And every day that voters are exposed to the reality of it,  rather than propaganda about it,  repeal gets less likely.  Another example why truth is conservatism's biggest enemy.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



''how do you expect to establish the real market price of something when the consumer doesn't even have the choice of whether they want the product or not?''  

Nobody wants health insurance.  Everyone but the very wealthy needs health insurance. 

The same can be said about auto liability  insurance. Do you plan to go after the laws requiring that too?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > It matters not how we got to this point because we aren't going back. Over the last half century, healthcare has become much more important in people lives and most people believe that everyone is entitle to the miracles of modern medicine science, not just the  wealthy.
> ...



How about if we raise minimum wage to above poverty level?. Or required all jobs to provide health care insurance.  Or made all health care workers government workers and provided it free and covered the cost with taxes.  

All alternatives to Obamacare.  

See any that you like?

The problem is 2x every one of our global competition into health care.  
Republicans are silent about that problem.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Not an apples to apples comparison. And you asked the question how is it not an enterprise solution. Any solution that reduces choice, whether it be in purchasing the product entirely or in what form it may be purchased, runs counter to a market solution and therefore drive prices up. Not down.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



How about we establish that health care is not an entitlement. That the cost of your health care is your responsibility. How about we focus on policy that will get people to actually engage and understand how their health and how they take care of it, directly impacts their finances instead of policy that removes people from the direct impact of their health care choices? Not only would such free market solutions reduce the cost of actual health care it would lead to a truly healthier society.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > It matters not how we got to this point because we aren't going back. Over the last half century, healthcare has become much more important in people lives and most people believe that everyone is entitle to the miracles of modern medicine science, not just the  wealthy.
> ...


I don't think people want a system where healthcare is free.  I think people want a system where healthcare is at a cost they can afford and that's were government has to enter the picture.  You could reduce the cost of treatments for serious disease by 50% and it would still be well beyond the means of most Americans.  I don't think there is anything that can be done to make healthcare affordable for low income earners   other than some type subsidy.  If you have a family income of twice the federal poverty level and you come out of the hospital with a $10,000 bill, which is low these days, even a payment of a few hundred dollars would be hard to manage and paying the whole bill would be just about impossible.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 15, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Well think about it another way. Look at the other things Americans don't see to get too concerned about going into debt over; higher education even credit card debt. No one seems to have a problem making monthly payments on those things.  I would think providers might even be amicable to that more as it would be a more constant revenue stream. There is a place for insurance of course, but it should be handled more like auto insurance. You don't use it for everything like your yearly physical or other run of the mill illnesses.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 15, 2013)

Obamacare can be fixed the same way you can 'fix' a stray alley cat. 

Since the precedent has been set granting waivers and exemptions contravening the law itself, waive and exempt everyone from it by Presidential fiat. Poof, no more Obamacare.

I know, we have to wait until 2016, but nothing else is going to work.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



That is such an over simplification.  No wonder you fell for the propaganda so readily. 

How much choice do you have when you buy any necessity?  Can you buy a gallon of gas for a buck?  

Tell us how exchanges drive prices up? Tell us how information about what's covered and not covered by a specific policy doesn't empower the consumer?  Tell us how requiring people to cover the cost of their own healthcare isn't good? 

You say that there's a difference between requiring auto liability insurance and health care insurance but you avoided explaining what that difference is.  

Think!


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



We've had a completely free market for health care and health care insurance for as long as I've been alive.  It got us 2X the cost of our competition and mediocre results. All of whom have government supplied health care to one degree or another.  

Explain that!


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Business was the driving force behind fully covered health care.  I agree that it was a big mistake.  Business for the most part agrees that it was a big mistake and have backed away from what was once standard practice.  

One enterprise that avoided the same mistake was Medicare.  They have always insisted that health care  be not free but rather risk shared among their clients.  Real insurance.  Business could learn from government but chose not to.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 15, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


The plans on the exchanges certainly discourage usage of healthcare providers for minor problems.  For family incomes at twice the federal poverty level, I could not find any plans with less than a $1,000 deductible.  At 3 times FPL, deductibles were mostly $2,000 with only few at the $1500.  If that doesn't discourage people from running to doctor with trivial problems I don't know what would.  However, group health insurance is different. People like low deductible plans so most employee sponsered health insurance plans will have $250, $500, and $750 deductible plans.

In my experience, health care providers have little interest in carrying debt. They are more likely to discount the balance for a full payment, sell it to a collection agency, or just write it off.  

According to the American Cancer Society, the average cost of treating an occurrence of  Breast Cancer is $21,000, $42,000 for prostate cancer.  The total cost of coronary bypass surgery is $80,000 to $250,000.  If complications occur or their is a re-occurrence, then the costs can go through the roof.   An average American family whose income is about $45,000 a year could not handle these costs if they half what they are.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Gosh I thought I was being clear on this, but apparently you just don't listen. I've said on multiple occasions that the concept of the exchange is not a bad thing. In theory, yes, such a mechanism that presents people with options should drive prices down. The operative words there are 'in theory'. In the real world of the Obamacare policies whatever help the exchanges may contribute in lowering costs is being counteracted by all of the other moronic mandates in the policy.

Here's an easy way to look at it. Forget the politics and just start looking at the mechanisms in place and their effect on price. What econmic mechanisms of Obamacare drive costs down and which drive costs up.

Down:
Exchanges

Up:
insurance mandate
tax on medical devices
community rating mandate
pre-existing condition mandate

Can you come up with other mechanisms that would drive cost of services and premiums down? I don't think choice counts, because the choices were there before. The exchange is just a means of presenting those choices.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



People with no option but emergency room services,  the most expensive,  least effective health care conceivable,  finally having an affordable option. 

The savings to businesses of having a healthier workforce. 

The reduction in contagious disease due to many fewer untreated carriers. 

Economically more robust health care delivery and insurance business with many more customers. 

Preventative medicine for everyone,  not just the wealthy. 

A replacement for the previous system,  health care insurance as part of workforce compensation,  for which business is dropping the ball as quickly as possible.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 16, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


I don't see how the individual mandate will raise the cost of healthcare.  The mandate provides an incentive, for healthy people who might otherwise not purchase health insurance to do so, thus adding more healthy people to the insurance pool which lowers premiums.  At worst, the cost of healthier people buying insurance will be offset by lower premiums.

The medical device tax is 2.9% of the sale price.  Most sales to the public are exempt from the tax so almost all of the tax is collected on sales to healthcare providers. So how much would this really raise the cost of healthcare in the US?  This tax is suppose to raise maybe 10 billion dollars in ten years or a billion dollars a year.  The size of the US healthcare market is approaching 3 trillion a year.  The impact on the overall healthcare costs is negligible, in order of .03% and that's only if the entire cost of the tax is passed on to health providers and thus to patients. The uproar over the device tax is ridiculous.  Increase sales of medical devices due to the increase in the size of the market will certainly overcome the cost of the tax.  The fact is Republicans fought, this not based on economic impact but rather because it was a tax and it would help offset the cost of Obamacare.

I agree eliminating preexisting conditions will push premiums higher although there are some offsets.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 16, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Because lack of choice is a product is a mechanims by which the price of said product is increased. Put yourself in the position of insurance company. Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you? Your notion above rests on the presumption that there are actually enough healthy people who currently don't purchase insurance to make that work. What we're currently observing simply does not bare that out. The actual cost of premiums is going up for most people. Dave Ramsey has said it best so far. You can be liberal, you can be conservative, whatever. You DON'T get to be exempt from math. It's not an opinion or rhetoric. It's a simple statement of fact; when you mandate that insurance companies not only must accept people with pre-existing conditions and they can't charge them more for the same policy as someone else, what does that mean for an insurance companies numbers? it means they will be paying out more than they previoulsy were because they actually have to take in and cover known sick people. Therefore the cost of premiums must go up. The proof is we're already seeing it. The only way(s) government has been able to claim that the cost of coverage is going down is either for those that were in poor health to begin with or by factoring in their subsidies, masking the true cost of premiums.

As to the medical device tax, this I have a little inside knowledge as my brother is a sales rep for one that makes hip implants. The 2.9% is a tax on the purchase of their product, which is the hospital. Hospitals not making much money to begin with pass that on to consumers. You're right, that the consumer will probably never feel that from a combination of their insurance and subsidies, but doesn't that seem extremely inefficient to you? Why not find ways of actually lower the cost of the implant instead putting policy in place to cover the unintended consequences.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And where does the above come from exactly? How exactly does the workforce become healthier? it appears you're no longer denying that health care will cost more as a result, rather you're contending the extra cost is worth it for a healthier society. Accept there's no real eveidence that will happen either. You typically don't see people taking more responsibility for themselves by removing the financial consequences of being irresponsible.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



How does Obamacare reduce choice?  Choice of what? 

''Why would lower the cost of something you know someone must purchase from you?''

Because they don't have to buy from you. You have competition.  And customer's are empowerd by having a convenient tool to make meaningful comparisons between your product and your competitors.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Because again, there really is very little choice. If you have comapny x, y, z selling widgets and you (government) tell them they all must sell widgets for x amount and they all must make them basically the same way where is the real difference in products? And that's what Obamacare has told the insurance companies. You ask questions that have such obvious answers. I no longer have the choice to purchase insurance or not. The choices within the insurance I must now purchase have also been reduced because Obamacare has to told me not only must I purchase insurance, but I must purchase insurance that covers specific things (see: a GOVERNMENT APPROVED plan).  Look at the ridiculousness of that. I could conceivably defy the law by purchasing the specific insurance I want so I'm paying for that and STILL pay the fine as well for not having a 'government approved' plan. Things I may not want to pay for.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 16, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Where did you get the idea that there are less plans available for people looking for non-group insurance.  There are plenty of individual plans available, not just on the exchanges but from insurance brokers.  In my state there are 35 plans listed on the exchange from 5 companies.  There are nine other companies with over 40 plans that have applied.  In fact, people looking for individual plans have a lot more choices than prior to the ACA.  Prior to the ACA, preexisting conditions severely limited choice.

If anyone makes the statement premiums are rising because of the ACA then you must ask for who and where? For those with family incomes less than 300% FPL, they will see lower insurance premiums in most state.  In some states they will be much lower, in others they will about same, and a few will be higher.  For those with family incomes between 300% and 400% FPL, you will see little change in premiums.  In some states it will be slightly higher in other states slightly lower.  Most families with income above 400% FPL, will see a moderate increase in most states.  A few will see premiums significantly lower and a few will see premiums significantly higher.  The variation in cost differentials between states is due to variations in state insurance requirements.  Some states allowed companies to market policies with very limited benefit at very low premiums, which are no longer legal while other states were in line with ACA requirements and thus had only minor changes in premium.

All of the above has nothing to do with group insurance which is where 85% of Americans get their insurance.  According to a survey by the Kaisier Foundation, employers expect cost increases in their plans to be less than 3% to 4% due to the ACA.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 16, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Again, you can't ignore math. If the insurance companies are forced to avg. out the permiums in a given risk pool AND must charge those with pre-existing conditions that same as those without there is no mathematical solution that can occur other than for premium rates to go up. And again the discounts you are citing don't reflect a drop in actual premium costs. They reflect what the plans cost AFTER the subsidy. That's fine if all you're concerned with is reducing the cost to the consumer, but such a solution ignores the real problem of the high cost of insurance and service. It's a 'solution' that doesn't directly address the problem. Obama is basically saying, let's subsidize the individuals and we'll patch of the consequences of that bad idea as we go.

Then you talk about group insurance only going up a little as the result of ACA. As if that's some type of victory. How can it be when the goal was to make health care cost less?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 16, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


I agree that adding people with preexisting conditions to a risk pool will increase premiums.  However, I think you're missing a couple of points.


Adding low risk subscribers will help lower premiums which is exactly what the individual mandate is all about. Of course some people will choose to pay the penalty in the first year.  However, each year the penalty rises.  By 2017 the penalty for most Americans will be $2,085.  In my state a 30 year old male can buy a bronze policy with no subsidy at all for $164.50/mo. or $1974/yr. For someone with low income, the penalty drops but the subsidy rises so again it make no sense to pay the penalty to avoid having insurance.

As the number of subscribers increase, the size of the risk pool will grow reducing premium costs.  In itself, a larger pool size won't lower risk but it will reduce overhead and other costs while increasing profits.

For companies that list on the exchanges, marketing cost will go down.  The cost of listing on the exchanges are very low. No advertising is need and the application process is highly automated.

Lastly the exchanges increase competition because the plans are standardized and you can see a side by side comparison of cost and benefits.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You are assuming that the people today with pre-existing disease,  when told that insurance doesn't cover them,  just go out in the street and die? 

I think that you grossly underestimate the human spirit.  

Why do conservatives believe that an unhealthy workforce is the least expensive alternative?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

What's strange is that ACA sends a huge number of new customers to the health care delivery and insurance business and the so called party of business is dead set against it.  Proving I guess that they're no longer the party of business but merely the party of wealth. 

From that perspective things become somewhat clearer.  What the wealthy really want is exclusivity.  They want tangible proof of their wealth whether it's autos,  fashion,  mcmansions,  trophy spouses,  celebrity,  private jets,  etc. 

Everyone with access to health care makes it ordinary,  the death if exclusivity,  the end of privileged. 

Their worst nightmare.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What's strange is that ACA sends a huge number of new customers to the health care delivery and insurance business and the so called party of business is dead set against it.  Proving I guess that they're no longer the party of business but merely the party of wealth.
> 
> From that perspective things become somewhat clearer.  What the wealthy really want is exclusivity.  They want tangible proof of their wealth whether it's autos,  fashion,  mcmansions,  trophy spouses,  celebrity,  private jets,  etc.
> 
> ...



The neocons are the party of wealth and privilege, but the TPM is not.

They are against Obamacare because thus far it has been a disaster and is going to likely just get worse.

Where are all these millions signing on, bubba?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 17, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



First, I just don't believe you're going to see this big influx of young healthy people who didn't have insurance into the market. I think the bulk of that demographic already has insurance. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, basic supply and demand doesn't bare that out either. Basically what you're saying is quantity demanded of the product is going to go up, right? Well when that happens price of said good doesn't go down. It goes up. 

Now the opposite is true is well; if price goes down quantity demanded should go up. But price going down is something that has already happened in the insurance market. Not something that will happen in the future. The problem is it didn't go down because insurance companies lowered the price of their product. It went down and thus quantity demanded went up, because the price of the product got subsidized to a lot of people. So government has created an increase in quantity demanded and if you look at a supply and demand curve you'll see when that happens price goes up.  Now when quantity supplied goes up, price goes down and I suppose one could argue the exchanges would be perceived as an increase in supply even though it really isn't, but again I just don't believe it's enough to counter all the other mechanisms that raise prices; the subsidies, quantity demanded, the mandated coverages, community rating mandate. 

AND the fact that insurance companies weren't that profitable relatively speaking. Their profit margins are usually in the single digits. Now you add on to their expenses all the beauracracy of Obama care and just the extra things they need to cover. Not only do they have to take in enough to get _back_ to their original profit margins. Businesses just don't do what you're saying either. They don't ever say 'yeah, we're making enough money now, we'll start lowering the price of our product'. Businesses just don't do that. They will lower prices when there is excess supply, or when demand goes down, or cost of proudction decreases. There isn't excess supply, Obamacare is adding to their overhead and cost of what they must actually pay out, and demand is going up, not down.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You seem to be struggling to find reasons that it won't do what it's designed to do.  Let's just wait and see.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I'm not struggling at all. The basic principles of economics and its mechanisms are on my side. Not yours. Wait and see? We're already there. We already know the cost of premiums has risen. And basic economics already tell us what is most likely to happen. There's no reason to wait and see.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



When is the last time in your memory that health care insurance costs have gone down?  They never have.  Thats under the system that you espouse.  Good health as a privilege of wealth. There is absolutely nothing to recommend or support the doing nothing that conservatives want.  We have by far the most expensive non system in the world,  and, at best,  it's effectiveness is mediocre.  

Yet you stand in the way of any improvement. 

As they say,  lead,  follow, or get out of the way.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance.  The ones without jobs will receive subsidies and end up increasing the cost of Obamacare.  

So what is the benefit to society of adding people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance to basically another form of Welfare?  Oh that's right, if you make them slaves of the government when they are young, they will remain as such for the rest of their lives.

Immie


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



''The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. '' 

Some do,  some don't.  Companies are running away from paying that compensation as fast as they can get away from it. 

''people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance''

Who does not need health insurance? Companies price health insurance based on risk.  Insuring a group without risk would cost nothing.  

What would you do if you were a young person w/o health insurance who required hospitalization?  Die in the street?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No it isn't. Not agreeing with Obamacare does not mean I support the status quo. There are several things that contribute to our high health care costs. A big one, and you libs won't like this, is about personal responsibility. It's our damn fault that we spend so much in health because we do so much crap to our bodies that that's what it costs. I can tell you anecdotal after anecdotal story about kids I know who live basically off of sugar and were diabetic before they were 20. The reality is most individuals don't take real good care of themselves. The majority of our country is obese to one extent or another and guess what? That causes health problems. And your surprised that we spend more money per capita than any other country on health care? That and people like you continue to insist that we implement policies that further remove people from the financial impact of their health choices. If there aren't any financial consqequences to you, what do you care what those decisions cost?

My plan, in a nutshell is that we have policy that makes it affordable to simply pay for services rather than relying on insurance for everything and get to a point where health insurance is used more like auto insurance. This used to work back before the government icentivized business to make health insurance a benefit.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 17, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


We can only guess at what will happen to the cost and quality of healthcare but time will tell.  I think it will be 2017 before there is a really good picture.  One thing is for sure, there'll be a lot more people with healthcare coverage in a few years.  I seriously doubt if it will meet the expectations of the administration but that's to be expected.

Premiums before the subsidy for Non-group policies on the exchange in my state are less than last year.  However, the deductibles are about $500 more.  Yearly out of pocket maximums are much lower.  All the plans have more preventive care which are not subject to the deductibles.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 17, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> ny financial consqequences to you, what do you care what those decisions cost?
> 
> My plan, in a nutshell is that we have policy that makes it affordable to simply pay for services rather than relying on insurance for everything and get to a point where health insurance is used more like auto insurance. This used to work back before the government centivized business to make health insurance a benefit.



From the plans I have seen on the exchange, they certain discourage people from running  to the doctor with trivial problems. Deductibles like monthly premium payments are on a  sliding scale dependent on income. For even very low income earners, deductibles are about $500.  At higher income levels they are $1,000 to $1500.  Group insurance is a different ballgame.  There are loads of low deductible plans which most people seem to prefer.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 17, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> 
> What would you want to be changed?



Open up the exemption to be nonrestrictive, where people are equally free to go through private charities or businesses to cover their own health care.

A. for public health per state, tie the costs of coverage to criminal justice reform, so that people are held responsible for incurring costs to taxpayers for damages from crimes or abuses, require that to be paid back as part of citizenship, and use those funds for health care

B. for programs people disagree on politically or religiously, such as insurance mandates, prochoice prolife or singlepayer, require groups to organize their membership to pay for their own policies. Starting with the ACA as written, requiring those who passed it and approve of it to pay for, support and manage it themselves by their own organizations.

C. for nonprofits and charities, give taxbreaks for businesses and individuals investing in medical education and training to pay for internships to serve the public to work off student loans; and for investing in research and assistance in spiritual healing to cut the costs of crime, disease and treatment

Basically remove the restriction on exemptions and make the ACA optional, where people have a choice of providing their own health care programs, and the main requirement is that they do not impose their costs but take responsibility. Only if people require something by law like insurance mandates are they required to pay for that policy themselves.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance.   Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose.  The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.

As for employers getting away from offering health insurance it is about time you woke up!  They are getting away from it because liberals gave them the prefect excuse for dropping coverage by passing Obamacare.  It is cheaper for them to pay the fine than cover their employees and employees supposedly can now buy insurance on the exchanges.  Liberals gave employers an escape clause.  Now employers don't have to cover employees nor are they required to give employees raises for the difference when they stop covering them.  So you fools royally screwed the middle class.  When my employer decides to stop offering health insurance, I will have to pay for it on my own, but my employer is under no obligation to increase my wages to supplement the additional costs to me.  In other words you liberals just screwed the hell out of me.

Immie


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



If you think that employers running away from health insurance as compensation didn't happen until Obamacare you are grossly misinformed.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> ...



You say return to the system that led to our health care costing 2X our global competition and mediocre effectiveness. Why?  Why would we do that?  It would be like committing economic suicide.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



'' The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance.   Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose.  The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.''

To whatever degree what you want to be true,  is,  it would be reflected in their premiums from private health care insurance companies.  Little risk,  little premiums.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Not under Obamacare.  By the way, there are no more "private insurance companies".  They are now all puppets of the US Government allowed to make a profit as long as they capitulate to liberal ideals.  If they don't capitulate, they don't exist.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The phenomenon has greatly increased since Pelosi shoved her prod up America's rear end.

Immie


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

I see that you hate your country.  Your privilege.  But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum.  We are going to keep solving problems as they come up.  It's called progress.  You don't like it because it makes the country better.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 17, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Paying a fine of $2,000/employee plus discontinuing a benefit that most employees value is apparently enough of a reason for 94% of the employers to state that they will continue to offer health insurance to their employees.

IMHO, moving away from employer sponsored health insurance would be a good thing.  Employer sponsored health plans began as a carrot to attract upper management and were not a significant part of compensation.  Then the unions jump on the band wagon.  As healthcare cost rose in 80's, insurance companies became much more selective and before long health insurance became a prime consideration for many employees. Since the ACA has done away with preexisting conditions and the cost of health insurance is no longer just a carrot but significant part of compensation, I don't see the need for it.  It would be better to pay employees more and let them buy the insurance plan that best meet their needs rather than their employers needs.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Of course most employers are slowly but steadily reducing that compensation for employees but not upping other compensation.  That makes the money that used to go to a large number of wealth creating workers available for a relatively few non wealth creating executive bonuses.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I see that you hate your country.  Your privilege.  But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum.  We are going to keep solving problems as they come up.  It's called progress.  You don't like it because it makes the country better.



That's quite thoe load of crap. Our country? your the one who doesn't seem to get this country was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and limited government. And why there certainly problems that need solving, health care being one of them. Liberals show time and again they are horrible problem solvers. Simply because your solution to everything is usuall more government. You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I see that you hate your country.  Your privilege.  But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum.  We are going to keep solving problems as they come up.  It's called progress.  You don't like it because it makes the country better.
> ...



This country was founded as a plutocracy.  It took we,  the people,  a couple of centuries of blood,  sweat and tears to bring about democracy,  the true freedom of being citizen decision makers. 

Companies don't choose to be small and neither should governments.  Both should be the size that they need to be to produce their products and satisfy their customers. And when democratic governments do a better job of satisfying their customers they get to keep their jobs.  

We have always followed our Constitution in exactly the way that it prescribes. In other words,  government has always stayed within the Constitutional by-laws. 

Conservatives think that we are no better than they in falling for the propaganda that cult leaders know best what the founders were thinking. It just doesn't matter.  We follow what they agreed to and wrote down in the Constitution.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I see that you hate your country.  Your privilege.  But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum.  We are going to keep solving problems as they come up.  It's called progress.  You don't like it because it makes the country better.
> ...



''You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.''

Classic.  What does ''unintended'' mean?  

Do you really believe that conservatives can predict the future?  That is extremely cultish.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No it most certainaly hasn't. Just a couple off the top of my head. There's no provision in the constitution that allows for the department of education or really any of the social programs we have today. Everyone knew the Nw Deal was unconstitional and the only way FDR got it passed was by threatening to pack the supreme court with justices that would uphold it. 

And no, our constitution does not say 'do whatever you gotta do to make society work'. Government, according to the authors of the constitution, was not meant to produce anything. The federal government's singular purpose was to defend the liberties of the people. That's really about it. They understood the folly of government being a business and why it doesn't work. Maybe one day you libs will figure out too.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Unintended consequences are me giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He told us the cost of insurance would go down, yet he passed measures that make the cost of insurance go up. So either he and you are too stupid to understand what increasing demand does to price or you knew and you lied. Pick one.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



He said that ACA was the first government measure since Medicare that addressed the 2X the cost,  and half of the effectiveness, of our old non-system compared to our global competition. 

You believe yourself capable of predicting the future.  

It's your uneducated opinion vs years of analysis by experts.  

I'm going with those who know vs those driven by politics.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The Constitution is very clear about interpretation.  Your name wasn't mentioned.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Which is a non response just like all of your responses when you're wrong. There's nothing in the constitution and perhaps it's single folly was assuming elected officials would have the integrity to stand by it. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents congress or the president from passing unconstitutional laws. And people like you who claim the constitution is open to interpretation are simply trying to rationalize policy you already know is unconstitional falling back on excuses like 'well the supreme court (which I picked to reflect my views, not the constitution) said it was okay'.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



ACA was designed by much better qualified people than you and I.  

Including many in the health care delivery and insurance business. 

Here's some advice.  Discount the Republican propaganda from Fox.  It is pure politics and zero economics.  They are trying to recover from the biggest bullet hole,  among very many,  in their foot.  Trying to unseat the people's choice.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'm talking about the US Constitution and the power it gives the Federal Court System in insuring that the Federal Government stays compliant with its Constitutional by-laws. 

It's about as specific as the Constitution gets about anything. 

And the reason?  So politicians could  not base their actions on what they thought that some founder had in mind rather than what all of the founders negotiated,  wrote down,  and ratified.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



''There is nothing in the constitution that prevents congress or the president from passing unconstitutional laws.''

The President doesn't pass laws.  The Federal Court System can't evaluate a law until there is a law.  Their adjudication typically comes when any law's enforcement is challenged. 

None of this is new or rocket science.  It's all stuff that every American is taught and should know. 

And it's all stuff that the Republican Party has tried to obscure with Fox News propaganda.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



"Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]

Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.  

It says that;

*when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN*.

Here is the supply and demand curves for you to look at







Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.

People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.

Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity, then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases.  Then, all other things being equal, the supply price increases.

And, I see that you haven't read the ACA bill, either.

So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.

The supply and demand curves for a market do not say that when demanded quantity goes up that price is guaranteed to go up.  It just says that, ceterus paribus, all other things being equal, then it will.  And, it is on a particular market structure.

What can and does usually happen is that both the supply and demand curves shift at the same time.  This is why following the market equilibrium prices doesn't tell us anything about the supply and demand functions. (unfortunately).

The reason for this is that there are four degrees of freedom for the supply and demand curves.  There is the demand shift, the quantity demanded, the supply shift and the quantity supplied.  Because of this, without some further constraints, there is not telling what will occur when only one is specified as changing.



[1]  http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/briggs-p/introduction and syllabus/supplydemandworksheet.pdf


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Again not much of a rebuttal nor any actual evidence for the above statement. The evidence is mostly to the contrary when compared to what the stated goal was.

And for about the fourth time, diagreeing with Obamacare does not require that I be a Republican or only get my info from Fox News. Being a self ascribed libertarian, believe me, I have plenty of problems with the Republican party too.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your bolded statment does not reflect the graph you posted or reality. Look at it. It shows changes in supply. I am talking about a change in demand. Instead of an S2 curve, there would be a D2 curve to the right of D1 which you can see indeed would mean price goes up. Your bold statement basically says the more people want something the less they're willing to pay for it. Does that really sound right to you? If you had a graph with a D1 and D2 and just an S1 the statement would be as demand increases, supply price increases.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

I





Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



As a Libertarian your foundational beliefs are severely flawed.  

The freedom in a democracy is the right to vote,  not impose.  We have built from that freedom what we,  together want.  You don't have to want it,  but,  unless you relocate,  you have to accept it.  

There are many,  many marginal positions among Americans.  Their common flaw? They are based on a small picture rather than the big picture.  They assume a narrow view is the big picture,  rather than only part of it.  

Freedom from government is a mythological state that assumes only responsible people. 

A nice place to visit until the real world creeps in.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Really? In the graph I present, quantity is shown going up and price goes down.

And, it is exactly the condition that we are talking about in the health care markets with ACA.  The supply curve shifts to the right as the quantity demanded increases.

Yes, that is a change in the supply.  And it is a change in the quantity demanded.  "quantity demanded", your term.  As I learned it, the standard, is to apply the word "quantity" to a change along the curve and to refer to a movement of the curve as being an increase or decrease in supply or demand.  

And, I am quite sure you will find this if you search on the terms.

Quantity Supplied and Demanded

"Demand refers to the overall demand for a good or service and "shifts" only when there is a change in income, taste, or in the demand for substitutes and/or complements. *Quantity demanded refers to a specific quantity* of a good or service consumers are willing to purchase at a given price."

"Changes in demand, therefore, are represented by "shifts" to the left or right of the original demand curve whereas *change in quantity demanded are represented by "movement" along the demand curve.*"

That is what you said, "When quantity demanded goes up" and I showed, a movement along the demand curve.

------

I hate to get all definitional, but on this one I have to because it is the thing about these terms that is highlighted in micro econ.

And, in review, I see you try to change the term you use from "quantity demanded goes up" to "a change in demand".

Not the same thing, and you are incorrect about the markets.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And yet you subscribe to a policy that allows the government to 'impose' that people purchase heath insurance. To impose what kind of health insurance they must buy. Our freedom is based on the constitution. Not decided as we go along. Just because not everyone is responsible does not mean you don't strive for a society that expects. You don't run a society on the notion that people need to be baby sat and structure your government accordingly as you are suggesting.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Your graph shows SUPPLY going up. I said DEMAND going up. How is this difficult for you to grasp? You take the S2 line out of your graph and replace it with a D2 line and price will indeed go up. I admit my error in stating quantity demanded increased rather than simply demand increase, but you did the same thing. You said your graph shows a shift in supply demanded. It doesn't. It shows an increase in supply. Again ask yourself from a purely logical perspective; does it make sense to say that the more people want something the less they're willing to pay for it? Because that's what your original bolded statement really says. I made an error in terminology. Yours is fundamental understanding.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You said, *"quantity demanded goes up"*

The graph shows quantity demanded going up.

Don't try to bs your way out of it.  It is in print.

Is that why you are so continuously wrong, because you are in denial about having made the error in the first place?

Really, how difficult is it for you to grasp? You do understand that "quantity demanded goes up" means that the quantity gets larger, right?  You do see that the quantity is on the horizontal axis and price is on the vertical axis, right?

It is right in front of you.  I cannot begin to comprehend what it is you are missing.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 18, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


There's was no provision in the constitution for Social Security, Medicare, Environmental Regulations, Welfare, Food Stamps, Aid to Education, regulation of intrastate commerce, space exploration, food and drug safety, and thousand other government services because no one saw a need for them in 1776.  Times have change.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Healthcare is far from being a free market ruled by market forces. Both government and insurance distort the free market as they should.  Although some people see the free market as a solution to the healthcare situation, I seriously doubt the majority would agree.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.*

Holy crap, are you bad at econ.

*People will purchase more of it at a lower price and if the price is higher, then they will purchase less of it.*

You got 1 right.

*Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity*

When demand shifts to the left, that's a lower quantity.

*So you might consider taking a college course in both micro and macro economics.*

Man, the irony is thick in here.

Tell me some more about this claim.....

*Costs spread out across every product, spread out across every individual, are no costs at all because they are nothing relative to everything.*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-40.html#post8003823

Cause that's some funny stuff right there.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You do realize that you are no longer talking about Obamacare,  right?  

Obamacare is not a product for sale.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Obamacare won't increase demand for healthcare? Really?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Flopper said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Health care has never been a free market commodity.  Free market requires that every consumer is perfectly aware of all feature and quality issues so that purchase decisions can be based solely on price.  

About the only consumer product that's like that is gasoline,  and oil companies still advertise that their product is ''special''.  WTF?????


----------



## dblack (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



No, a free market 'requires' no such thing. It only requires freedom.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Healthcare insurance is a product.  Obamacare is not.  Why is that confusing to you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Obamacare won't increase demand for healthcare?

Then why all the fuss?

Why is that confusing to you?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're the one making the fuss.  Why are you?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Your inability to read a graph and do math doesn't change reality.  I'm amazed at the level of denial.  With a graph showing quantity increasimng and price falling, you are simply unable to grasp the obvious.

What is wrong with you?  Do you know?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Actually, no.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

How hard is it for them to read this graph?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> How hard is it for them to read this graph?



Math and science have become table stakes for life.  That leaves a lot of people not at the table.


----------



## dblack (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What do you mean? What gives you the idea that a free market requires perfectly informed consumers?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > How hard is it for them to read this graph?
> ...



Yeah, it is intentional insanity. I do believe that they read that and see quantity decreasing.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I didn't say it did.  I said this is incorrect, "It only requires freedom".

Still, now that you mention it, one of the requirements for the ideal of a free market is perfect information.  Better stated, it is market imperfections.  This includes no limitations to information,  a statistically large number of buyers and sellers, and no economies of scale, no imbalance in market leverage, and much more.  Contract enforcement is necessary as well.


----------



## dblack (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Fair enough. I could argue that freedom is what makes it 'free' - but yeah, you need basic laws protecting private property and individual rights. But, again, my point is that you don't need perfectly informed consumers. You never have that - in any market.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Definition of 'Free Market'
A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation. 

Free Market Definition | Investopedia

Healthcare is one of the least free markets we have.  Most buyers have no idea what they are actually buying, don't know the price, and pay little or nothing directly for the service.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So you're actually a sane person, cool.

"You never have that - in any market."  You are right, and this is the point.  The concept of a free market that passes of as am actual reality by many seldom exists.  It is an ideal model that gives us something to compare the real markets to.  Some come closer than others. 

Health care is one that is far from being a free market.  There are all manner of market imperfections.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



free mar·ket
noun
1. an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

Free markets are defined as those where price is the only variable in the consumers purchase decision.  That requires perfect information for the consumer,  including price of alternatives.  

The only free markets left anywhere are commodity markets and even they are compromised.  

Take oil for instance.  It's not even priced to cover all of the costs of maintaining it's supply.  

Probably the only true free market left are slot machines and there nobody even tries to compute the odds of payoff.  And if they did they wouldn't be in the market. 

Free markets are based on unrestrained price competition and no business,  following the one rule of business,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  wants competition.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

I'm all for a free market, where it can be.  Even close enough.  The gov has learned all sorts of thing not to do, like price ceilings and floors. Those are disasters.  

On  the other hand, monopolies are perfectly not free market entities.  They are often the result of economies of scale.  Prior to ACA, medical insurance companies were exempted from he anti-trust or monopoly laws.  This was one of dozens of issues with the health care market.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

The US has always depended on the rule of law to prevent actions in restraint of trade.  Every business in the world wants to operate without restrictions against regulated competition.  That is so compelling to them that they are blind to its impossibility.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yeah, I gave it some thought.  The "free" in "free market" doesn't mean "freedom".  It is just a term that was loosely applied.  I agree, it sucks when they do that.

Indeed, "freedom" is mostly an illusion, unless you are Ted Kaczynski. Frankly, if your up for it, homesteading in Alaska is better than free.  You get a small payment from the gov.  And, with global warming locked in, the weather is just getting more and more hospitable.

There was a great documentary that followed the lives of a few folks in Alaska.


----------



## dblack (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



uh... ok


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The point being if you really want freedom, try Alaska.   Other wise, man is the ultimate pack animal.  Freedom is an illusion.  In an ideal free market, everyone are price takers.  There is no "freedom".


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Microeconomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theory of supply and demand usually assumes that markets are perfectly competitive. 

Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"perfect competition (sometimes called pure competition) describes markets such that no participants are large enough to have the market power to set the price of a homogeneous product. Because the conditions for perfect competition are strict, there are few if any perfectly competitive markets."

"Perfect information - All consumers and producers are assumed to have perfect knowledge of price, utility, quality and production methods of products."


----------



## Flopper (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


On a scale of 1 to 10, one being the most competitive, healthcare services would rank about 9 with or without Obamacare.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Obamacare is going to shift the supply curve to the right? OMG! Hilarious.

If Obama could actually do something to increase supply (doctors are retiring, to escape Obamacare), prices could fall.

Instead, shift the demand curve up and let me know what will happen to price. 

Maybe Obamacare can treat your confusion?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> how hard is it for them to read this graph?



lol!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > How hard is it for them to read this graph?
> ...



That leaves you under the table.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The real question of course is,  what would doing nothing change.  The obvious answer is........ Nothing. 

The strategy of conservatism.  Do nothing and hope for the best!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The real question of course is,  what would spending trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount really change?  The obvious answer is........ Nothing. 
Except for reducing our standard of living and making fossil fuels cheaper for China and India to burn, offsetting our tiny reduction.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



''The real question of course is,  what would spending trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount really change?  The obvious answer is........ Nothing. '' 

That answer is not obvious to science,  and science is the only approach with a basis other than hope. 

The question is how much of the carbon currently sequestered in the ground could be kept there with more rapid progress towards our necessary goal of sustainable energy. Why? Because carbon released to the atmosphere will be increasingly expensive.  The more released,  the more the climate that we adapted civilization to will change,  requiring a different adaptation.  

What's that going to cost?  Because we don't know exactly what the weather will be 1, 10,  100 years from now,  science can't predict with certainty,  

So we have to play the odds. 

The odds are that weather will be more extreme,  sea level will rise precipitously,  and rainfall patterns will change significantly. 

The IPCC has the global responsibility to determine those odds.  And determine the least cost path.  And advise political policy makers of those probabilities.  

The enemies of progress don't want informed action.  They want to ignore the odds and hope for the best.  If they get what they want,  others will be stuck with whatever costs emerge.  Of course those costs may be substantially higher than necessary but the fact that others will be stuck with them is a savings to today's denialists. 

Science vs hope.


----------



## HenryBHough (Oct 19, 2013)

Sequestering carbon dioxide in the ground is simply creating a new target for terrorists.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 Obama said "I will not negotiate." It's on 30 videos at Youtube, and you're saying there's no evidence? 

I wish it weren't true. I wish Obama had not called Congressmen and women who oppose him as "deadbeats."

A deadbeat is a person who creates spending in excess of his means, then tries to get out of paying it back.

The president in 5 years has added 6 trillion more, now wants the debt ceiling terminally open to more sky's the limit crap he has absolutely no intention of worrying about and is going to shift it on to the next person who holds his miserable job.

Democrats foisted this incompetent-in-business person on the nation in order to do dirty stuff to poison this nation into the communistic realm of socialism that is unspeakably unjust to people who work hard by taking half their income and giving it to people who do not work, have no incentive to do work, and have time on their hands to plan how they will get more than their fair share to live on by welshing more and more from the government in devious ways. I just viewed 3 videos of someone who was telling women to "f---" have babies, and get into the bucks." And she adds another statement that she now has the power to get taxpayers money for herself for free. I think the young woman and her greedy disciples will have a bad end if she thinks doing crude things will bring her wealth beyond her wildest dreams.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

HenryBHough said:


> Sequestering carbon dioxide in the ground is simply creating a new target for terrorists.



What would they do?  Release it as we would have done if we didn't sequestered it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The question is how much of the carbon currently sequestered in the ground could be kept there with more rapid progress towards our necessary goal of sustainable energy. *

The question is, how much money must we waste if we follow your suggestions?
How much lower will CO2 be if we follow your suggestions?
Will it be 500 ppm, instead of 510 ppm? 
Will we delay 510 ppm, by a few years, at the cost of $60 trillion? $70 trillion?


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 19, 2013)

How the heck did carbon sequestration get inserted into the Obamacare bill?

I guess Nancy Pelosi was right....


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



As big a load of crap as I've seen.  

The writer is selling Fox News propaganda that is based on one premise.  The only way that the GOP can recover from Bush's incompetence is to drag Obama down to Bush's level.  I agree with the premise.  It's all that they have left.  It just ignores one point.  Obama led a complete recovery from the catastrophic damage of Bush. 

So Republicans,  desperate for redemption,  have a story to sell.  

It's based on the premise that on the date of Obama's first inauguration,  Bush's policies ceased affecting the country,  and we're immediately replaced by Obama's. So Bush's unaffordable holy wars became Obama's.  The Great Recession that started on Bush's dime,  became Obama's. Bush's massive unemployment became Obama's.  The recovery begun under Bush to the Great Recession created by Bush,  was caused by Obama. 

Such illogical propaganda has created millions of wrong information voters unable to defend themselves from the herd mentality of Fox addicts. 

It will stand in history as a low point in American politics.  Modern Republicans have redefined political dirty tricks and it has claimed millions of victim cultists.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


No need to hurl feces, the many youtubes recording Obama's speeches are across the board more liberal than conservative. It came to my attention by posting Obama's words I read here at USMB into a search engine and tapping "videos." His negativism is worldwide, I can assure you, and Fox News is only one of the many sources that had Obama's speech down. The words are the very same on all of them. Obama is coddled along by one of his favorite liberal commentators, George Stephanopoulos, and of course no hard questions are posed to him. When you get to the end of his contrived-to-accuse-conservatives for his obstinancy, you hear just a little of what is cut off almost before he finishes saying "I will not negotiate the debt ceiling."

Convenient commercial break? I don't know. But the words are there. The evidence you accused me of not having is ubiquitous.

You don't let the truth affect you. That's why you are a bona-fide apparatchik of whatever Obama says, complete with your built-in filter for bad things he says that pertain to 60% of the population, who are liking him less and less with each paranoid spew he makes about "deadbeat" congressmen, creating an "enemies" portrayal of Republicans to chicano gatherings to get as many votes as he can ahead of time with these cheap, cheap, brassy shots. When he has no facts, he portrays others so egregiously, it's a lie known as calumny--gaining votes through falsehood and trickery.

With no other role model, you do the same thing Obama does. You already have your mind made up before you get here, and I'm not worried about you pretending to know nothing that's out there so commonly it's household knowledge to the rest of America.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

I like posts like yours as they demonstrate the tactics that Fox propaganda is based on. 

Lots of words and zero content. 

As the addicts snooze in their Lazy Boys they forget to check for facts and ride the wave of innuendo to their favorite place.  Where their hero Dixiecrat Bushwacker captured their votes with his down home golly gees but before he had demonstrated how dysfunctional conservative, we're entitled to the center of the universe,  is in practice. 

Now the country knows.  And every time Fox pulls the trigger their foot suffers.  

The autopsy coming up will show suicide by natural causes.  Naturally the American electorate insists on truth,  whole and nothing but. Naturally the American electorate insists on results.  Naturally the American electorate insists on fiscal responsibility.  Naturally the American electorate insists on country before party.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.

And now you want to change the subject to distract from the fact that you couldn't read a graph.

That's typical of you Todd, can't admit you made a mistake.

This is what you disagreed with

"*Notice it shows the quantity demanded increasing and the price going down.*"

You reply, "Holy crap, are you bad at econ."

I did mispeak with; "*Alternatively, when the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity*"  I shpuld have said lower quantity or right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*So now you have actually read the graph and see it says that quantity demanded is increasing and price falling.*

Wrong, you silly twit, it shows supply increasing, leading to lower price and higher demand.

You see (you don't, smart people do) that the supply curve shifted.
Do you see it now? After I told you multiple times?
See, supply curve S1 and now a new supply curve S2?
Which leads to Price P1 dropping to a lower Price P2
which gives us quantity demanded Q1 rising to a new, higher quantity demanded Q2.
That's typical of you, can't admit you made a mistake.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The application of this to Obamacare is? 

Obamacare is not a product.  Healthcare delivery is one of the most closed markets ever. 

A graph that depicts what happens in a theoretical perfect market has zero application here.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You pleading smart is worth the price of admission here.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Todd, you are so full of shit.  You have the attention span of a poodle and the memory of a mouse.  All you manage to do is keep up the bullshit so long that the original quote drops of and you can imagine whatever you want.
Here is the original conversation.


> "Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]
> 
> Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.
> 
> ...




Now you are finally getting it.  There is no change to the demand curve.  The change is an increase in demand quantity.  

Typically, what happens in markets, is the both the supply and demand curve shift simultaneously. We seldom, if not every, actually see the equilibrium point following one of the two curves.

Still, what evidence do you have to support that the demand curve alone is going to shift?

Oh, in your imagination.  That's right, you don't actually have evidence of anything, you believe if you ask stupid question, somehow reality magically changes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The other guy posted it, and misread it, ask him.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



We've already seen that, compared to you, I'm a freakin' genius.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*It says that;

when the quantity demanded increases, then the demand price goes DOWN.*

Your original error, still funny.

*Now you are finally getting it. There is no change to the demand curve. The change is an increase in demand quantity. *

Maybe you have some examples where an increase in demand leads to a drop in price?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




You are an idiot.  What do you think you are talking about? 

This was the orginal post by Bern80



> No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When *quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up*.



 You make up your own arguments to have.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

KissMy said:


> I mostly see reports of skyrocketing premiums and deductibles. Obamacare is a copy of Romneycare in Massachusetts enacted 7 years before Obamacare. This is what our Obamacare future holds in store for us. Study: Massachusetts Residents Wait Up To 2 Months For Doctors
> 
> Here some interesting statistics from United Nations International Health Organization.
> 
> ...



Which is why ACA isn't national health insurance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*What do you think you are talking about? *

I'm mocking your claim that an increase in demand leads to falling prices.

Perhaps you'd like to revise your claim?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Dude, your an idiot that doesn't know micro econ because that is exactly what micro economics says, than an increase in quantity demanded is accompanied by decreased prices.  The opposite is that price increases are accompanied by a decrease in the quantity demanded.

What part of micro economics don't you understand?

Or are you creating an argument where non exists?

Microeconomics/Supply and Demand - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

"If there is a strong demand for gas, but there is less gasoline, then the price goes up. If conditions change and there is a smaller demand for gas, for instance if everyone started using electric cars, or the commodity becomes more available, for instance a new oil field is discovered, then the price of the commodity decreases."






What part of quantity up, price down, price up, quantity down, don't you get?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I can't stand your idiocy anymore.






See? 
An increase in demand causes an increase in price.

Your chart shows an increase in supply.
Get it yet? 

*What part of micro economics don't you understand?*

The part where your idiotic claim comes up.

*If there is a strong demand for gas, but there is less gasoline, then the price goes up*

This will be the result of Obamacare, demand for healthcare will rise, leading to higher prices.

*If conditions change and there is a smaller demand for gas, for instance if everyone started using electric cars, or the commodity becomes more available, for instance a new oil field is discovered, then the price of the commodity decreases*

Look at that, in your own source, demand had to drop for prices to decrease.
The opposite of your moronic claim that increased demand for gas would cause a drop in price.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You are absolutely correct.  Obamacare is not a product.  It is an obscenity.

Immie


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The idiocy is entirely on your part.  You have to get out of the fantasy land of your own head.  Like Don Quixote, you have created some imaginary argument that simply doesn't exist.

The only comment I was referring to and the only point I made was that the quantity demanded is inversely proportional to the demand price. That is it.

Your living in a fantasy land, Todd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*Dude, your an idiot that doesn't know micro econ because that is exactly what micro economics says, than an increase in quantity demanded is accompanied by decreased prices. *

Wow! I can't think of a better example of your ignorance, though I'm sure you'll try to post one.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thats not a word that I would use to describe you.  You typically have nothing to offer.  You read what others post,  look up what might be spun into an error,  then come a brag that you're smart.  Maybe  for a conservative you are.  But then so was  the Bushwacker and little Ronnie.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here's a huge contribution straight from the Fox boobs and boobies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Thats not a word that I would use to describe you.*

That's 'cause you're an idiot.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Obviously, the only type of argument you can use is name-calling.  You're more than likely not worth the bandwidth you waste let alone the air you breathe.  The only argument you seem to be capable of presenting is "you're a poopy head".

It is about time that you grow up.

By the way, I don't watch a lot of Fox.  I just never wrapped my lips around Obama's member as you seem to have done.

Immie


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here's another smart post.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



You watch Fox a lot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Nah, this is a smart post.

*We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life. *

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...should-listen-to-the-97-a-33.html#post7815379


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

janeeng said:


> Damn, from what was a 17 - 0 game, in favor for Baltimore, the damn Giants are winning now!



Another screw up numbnuts.  I was talking about the complete absence of intelligent life,  you were talking about plants.  An easy mistake for you as,  compared to conservatives,  plants are ubber intelligent.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So your sticking with the belief that the demand curve has a positive slope?

You go with that.  Either that or you don't know the difference betweem the quantity demamded and demand.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Then why exactly did you quote just the first sentence of what I said? You know, instead of the part afterward where I admitted my mistake. This is a very simply yes or no question; If you take out your S2 line which reflects an increase in supply of some good, which we are not talking about at all and replace it with a D2 line to the right of D1 which reflects an overall increase in demand, which is what I am talking about, does the price of that good go up?

I have been big enough to admit my mistake. You are now the one denying that which you yourself posted plus put right in front of your face by others.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No there isn't. And relative to these programs, no, times haven't changed. There were poor people back then too. And it's easy to say there is a need for those things, but the more nuanced question is who's duty is it solve the problems associated with the above. You could argue the states have that right. The federal government does not. Again, in this aspect, the authors of the constitution understood that the road to tyranny would be paved with the best intentions. They understood you have to look past policy that makes us feel good about helping people and look at what it really means for individual liberty.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 21, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Then why exactly did you quote just the first sentence of what I said? You know, instead of the part afterward where I admitted my mistake. This is a very simply yes or no question; If you take out your S2 line which reflects an increase in supply of some good, which we are not talking about at all and replace it with a D2 line to the right of D1 which reflects an overall increase in demand, which is what I am talking about, does the price of that good go up?
> 
> I have been big enough to admit my mistake. You are now the one denying that which you yourself posted plus put right in front of your face by others.



This whole conversation is three days and five pages old.
It began with 



> No it's what a learned in Economics class in high school that apparently you didn't. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime. When quantity demanded goes up, which is essentially the goal of Obamacare, price goes up.


To which I replied, 





> "Decrease in Price causes an increase in quantity demand."[1]
> 
> Apparently you didn't learn your material very will.
> 
> ...



To which you replied



> Your bolded statment does not reflect the graph you posted or reality. Look at it. It shows changes in supply. I am talking about a change in demand. Instead of an S2 curve, there would be a D2 curve to the right of D1 which you can see indeed would mean price goes up. Your bold statement basically says the more people want something the less they're willing to pay for it. Does that really sound right to you? If you had a graph with a D1 and D2 and just an S1 the statement would be as demand increases, supply price increases.



I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity," which is clear from the context as I followed it with "then the equilibrium price follows the supply curve, such that the quantity supplied increases"

Then we get three days and five forum pages of you and Todd busy going on and on about every manner of what not. Three days and five pages later, I really don't care.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Then why exactly did you quote just the first sentence of what I said? You know, instead of the part afterward where I admitted my mistake. This is a very simply yes or no question; If you take out your S2 line which reflects an increase in supply of some good, which we are not talking about at all and replace it with a D2 line to the right of D1 which reflects an overall increase in demand, which is what I am talking about, does the price of that good go up?
> ...



Then you're just saying exactly what I was trying to say in just using the wrong term, demand, instead of quantity demanded. So we agree then on the statement that when demand increases, price increases. The only question remaining than with regard to Obamacare would be is supply of the product (insurance) going to increase along with demand?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You having a problem reading the charts I posted?
That makes you zero for four.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Then why exactly did you quote just the first sentence of what I said? You know, instead of the part afterward where I admitted my mistake. This is a very simply yes or no question; If you take out your S2 line which reflects an increase in supply of some good, which we are not talking about at all and replace it with a D2 line to the right of D1 which reflects an overall increase in demand, which is what I am talking about, does the price of that good go up?
> ...



*I said, "left" when I meant "right" in "the demand shifts to the left, to higher quantity," *

Yes, the demand curve shifts to the right.
You posted the supply curve shifting to the right, idjit.


----------



## Politico (Oct 21, 2013)

Still only a five minute job.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The Constitution is perfectly clear about its interpretation and enforcement.  It in no way authorizes you or any other citizens opinion to decide  what it says or doesn't say.  That is completely the responsibility of the Federal Courts.  Using a process that has always been followed.

You can express any opinion on any topic that you want but in this case your opinion has nothing to do with reality. 

What's not Constitutional is what the Supreme Court has said is.  Everything else,  until adjudicated otherwise by them,  is Constitutional.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Okay. Cite it. Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. It really is amusing watching you libs fall back on this. Basically you just said even though the constitution says the government can not engage in something like illegal search and seizure, if congress passed a law allowing it, that would be constitutional.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




''Where in the constitution does it say that all laws passed by congress are therefore inherently constitutional. '' 

It doesn't. 

If Congress passes a law,  and someone questions it's Constitutionality,  the process of adjudication goes through the Federal Court System reaching the Supreme Court through appeals. 

Read all about it. 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx


----------



## KissMy (Oct 21, 2013)

Obama outsourced the building of Healthcare.gov to the Canadian firm, CGI Group. Didn't he say he was the insourcing president? What about jobs in the USA?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



So you would have simply excepted the Dred Scot decision and moved on I guess?

It is ironic that those that are liberal today or leaning that way are the most by the letter interpreters of the Constitution and US Code. Guess that comes from people sharing your world view taking over all the institutions that educate our jurists and legal professionals.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You said it does;



PMZ said:


> _Everything else, until adjudicated otherwise by them, is Constitutional._



So which is it? Is, is not, congress capable of passing laws that are unconstitutional?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 22, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



No human process is without flaw.  That should never be the expectation.  But the process set forth in the Constitution for its interpretation,  just like for a jury trial,  is considered the most reliable possible.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 22, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Congress is certainly capable of passing unconstitutional laws and has. Congress,  like you or I, is not the Constitutional authority. The Federal Courts will,  however, overturn any law, that's challenged, that they judge to be prohibited by the Constitution. 

Didn't you learn any of this in school?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Todd, I am not going to write a book for you.  If you Re intent on chamging the context of statement so that you can fool youself into feeling like you aren't simply ignorant, you are quote welcome. 

The facts remain that the S-D model is an ideal that is used to compare the real imperfect markets.  It requires numerous constraints such as the assumption of ceterus paribus and perfect competition.  The equilibrium point shifts on four changes; demand and supply shifts as well as a chamge in the quantities supplied and demanded.  Picking one as "proof" is simple ignorance because it ignores the other three and the reality of the market imperfections an inefficiencies.

Now, go read Dr. Suess, "One Fish Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" as that seems more your speed that micro and macro econ.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Nope. Just confused because you said they could then you said they couldn't.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Except now you're backpedaling. Because in your incorrect initial response to me, you tried to use those same curves to prove you were right. Now you're saying, well they don't really apply to the conversation. 

I would maintain that they can indeed be used to see what will happen to insurance prices. You simply look at the effect the various policies contained in the bill would have on supply and demand of health insurance policies.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I haven't backpedaled on anything.  I presented on graph which applied to your statement because you said to look at that one.  There are two basic examples, I didn't present both.  Like I said, I'm not going to write a book.  You may believe that I made some incorrect response, but you not understanding the material hardly qualifies you to make that determination.

Here are numerous curves

https://www.google.com/search?q=sup...KqsiALx7IG4AQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=988&bih=659

I suggested that you might want to review because you were mistaken in your presentation.  Somewhere, I also presented the definitions for a change in quantity vs a shift.  I get it, it's easy to misunderstand the difference unless it has been specifically highlighted as a common error.

The supply and demand model is an ideal model and can't be applied directly to the healthcare markets without actually looking at the details of the health care markets.  And, unless the ACA has been examined in detail, the simply ideal model can't be applied either.

Yes, you look at the details of the bill.

On the other hand, I do note that when presented with the actual effect of change to the demand quantity, you went immediately to "well, if you change D to S and S1 to D1 and S2 to D2 then it works", then completely ignore the shifting supply, which is equivalent to saying, "I know what the answer, now I just need to make up the facts that fit it."

Mean while, Todd is over in the corner, drooling on himself and making up every manner of crap, creating some delusional argument that doesn't even exists.

And it is all so stupid, going on for three-four days along with five forum pages without once actually finding and reading the bill.  You can't simply imagine what the bill says then apply an ideal micro economic model.

Here is the bill;

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

The table of contents covers pages and is a good start.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 22, 2013)

It's already being fixed.  Mika made a call to buy insurance this morning on the Morning Joe show and got through to a real person in 20 seconds.  I'd like to see them do it everyday for the next two weeks to show that wasn't a fluke.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

And, Windows has a new fix to Windows 8.  The private free market, the one that Microsoft is in, has a routine of fixing software after deployment.  It is, the scary part, how drugs are tested.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

The inclusion of a quantity of new customers in the health care market is an increase in the quantity demanded, not a shift in demand.  

The establishment of the loan payback program to incentive doctor, nursing and technician education is a shift in supply.

The setting of a floor to insurance company expenditures at 80% is not even directly covered by the ideal micro-economic supply and demand model because the ideal model is based on perfect competition and zero profit.  It is, thought, when the theory is expanded to account for it, a shift in the supply curve.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

The health care market includes numerous sub-markets in both horizontal and vertical chains. 

It includes the

 insurance companies,
 hospitals, clinics,
 testing laboratories, 
 doctors, 
 nurses,
 technicians, 
 colleges and universities,
 text book publishers, 
 the financial markets that provide loans to students, 
 the general labor pool, 
 medical device manufactures, 
 medical equipment manufactures, and 
 drug companies. 

There is the American Medical Association that establishes standards along with the state and federal governments.  

It is a huge market covering 4000 miles from sea to shining sea, as well as Hawaii and Alaska. It covers rural, suburban and metropolitan areas.  It includes both the private markets as well as Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid.  It is also impacted by both the minimum wage and OASDI. 

None of this makes for a market that is even close to the ideal market of supply and demand in micro-economics.  

The PPACA has twelve pages in the Table of Contents.  It is a huge bill, some 900+ pages, though keep in mind that the margins are also large. (Apparently, law makers make a lot of notes.) 

Not by any stretch of the imagination can simple ideal micro econ 101 theory be applied.

It is absolutely that they managed to come up with a law as comprehensive as the PPACA.  Still, it is exactly what Congress is suppose to do.  It is called "working".

It would be interesting to go down the table of contents and try to figure out exactly how the models of supply and demand fit.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS

Here is an interesting supply curve, the supply curve for a monopoly







Insurance, especially in today's computerized markets, has a supply curve with a negative slope, with diminishing marginal costs.  It doesn't take much more energy or labor to service another policy.  The capital costs, like the cost of the computer and facilities, is divided by a larger pool of customers.  

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf200up/node/139

It is notable that, prior to PPACA, the medical insurance companies were specifically except from federal anti-trust laws.  This alone tells us that they are in fact oligopolies.  We do, in fact, want efficiency gains from computerization when those saving are shared by customers and businesses alike.  Unfortunately, this is not how the free market necessarily functions.  It can, depending on the detailed structure of the market.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I made an error in stating quantity demanded rather than simpluy demand. I have admitted that several times now. I used the wrong term for my intent. I'm not ignoring a change in supply. I have simply stated I don't believe there is one. To get back to square one, I have stated that because the government is now subsidizing premium costs to millions of american, this translates into an increase in demand that is a new demand curve pushed to the right. Which, supply staying the same, means price of insurance goes up, when all the Obamacare supporters contend it's going down. That there must be a shift in the demand curve from D1 to D2 should not be up for debate. That's Obama's intent. From the get go his contention was if not but for the cost, more people would get the health care they need. How can you not see that translates into an increase in demand? 

Now what I'm perfectly happy to debate and am genuinely curious about is whether the supply curve would indeed shift or not. I maintain it won't. I don't believe there are more policies available, the evidence is they're simply being replaced by 'government approved' policies on the exchange. I can certainly be persuaded by a compelling argument, but this cop out, that 'well it's just too complex an issue to apply supply and demand to' is bullshit. It reeks of the desperation of wanting Obama's policies to work when everything logical in your brain tells you it won't.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



It wasn't you so much as Todd.  He been a dick for about three days running.  

Adding more individuals to the market is an increase in the quantity demanded.   Really, it is.  That's the easy one.

Now, that isn't to say that there isn't also some other part, like the tax credits (or whatever they are) that shifts demand.  On the other hand, the capping of insurance companies "profit" to 20% is a shift in supply, at least for that specific market.

It is too complex to apply the simple perfect market supply and demand model.  As soon as market imperfections become part of it, the simple "perfect competition" model is out the window.  Frankly, there are very few, if any, markets that are the perfect competition, simple supply and demand model markets.

I don't know if I got this up here,

LINK: Supply and Demand

What were gonna see is more like











or 






where the equilibrium point moves as all four changes occur simultaneously, quantity demanded, quantity supplied, supply shift and demand shift.  It is what almost entirely happens.  This fact actually sucks because we can't determine the curves from just watching the price/quantities in the markets.

If we pick through the PPACA, we can probably assign some expectation to each of the line items in the TOC.  I doubt that even the CBO can predict the exact balance of all of it.

I've looked at the TOC of PPACA a number of times, imagining going through and line item assigning expectations.  The very thought is exhausting.   Still, it is clear that it attempts at market reform in the right ways, not like the silliness of the 70's.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

One thing to keep in mind is that the ideal supply and demand curves are boundary conditions, what supplier and consumer would charge and pay in a perfectly competitive markets. 

Fact is, most are not perfectly competitive and have imbalances in the market forces that lean either towards the supplier or the consumer.  Usually the supplier, but not always.  

The supply and demand curves really put upper and lower limits on the supplier and customer prices.  Customer's will happily pay less and suppliers will happily take more, if the market will bear this out.  The supplier cost is an obvious lower bound.  Suppliers can't sell below cost for very long. 

The only thing that restricts the demand curve is the other markets, how much we have to spread around. I'll happily pay less, but at some point I have to have enough for food, housing, gasoline, etc. And property management companies know what minimum wage and Social Security pays.  So, COLA goes up, up goes rents.  

Still, say for instance the local service stations, act as oligopolies.  I talked to one owner who said, "We don't get into price wars.  That's just tacky."  They price as high as the market will bear.  They don't compete for the most customer's and don't price at rock bottom cost.  They don't talk to each other, but they do watch each others prices.  Those price signs aren't just for you and I.  The advertisements that say, "will beat any price in town" aren't for you and me.  Those are for the competition.  The owner of the Shell station knows that the owner of the Arco knows that the Shell station owner knows that the Arco owner is watching Shell prices.

When insurance becomes part of it, the whole thing is up for grabs.  Dentists typically charge different prices for insured than non-insured.   The difference is that out of pocket is the same, they just get more when insurance is picking up a portion.  A 50% deductible and I pay $1000 for a root canal and my insurance picks up $1000.  No insurance and I get half off, so I pay $1000.  And, frankly, that's the game and no-one can to otherwise because if they do, they get buried in the market.

As far as ACA goes, it is a hugely complex bill and if anyone says they know what is going to happen, they are fooling you, me and themselves.  

Put in incentives like loan repayment programs to medical students and tuition costs will rise.  Typically, the difference gets split.  Like the Cash For Clunkers program... A $1000 rebate and price of autos went up. Depending on the elasticity of the supply and demand curves, it got split between buyer and seller.  Depending on how many students take advantage of the loan repayment, the demand for professionals in the hard to fill geographic areas, and the increase in monies gets split up between saving students money and increasing profits to medical schools.

Having insurance companies capping operating expenses and profits to 20% keeps them from being a bottomless well for the rest of the industry.  Still, that isn't going to be enough.

Medical device manufactures make bank. So implementing a medical device tax isn't going to increase the price of a $350 hip joint from $35,000 to $45,000.  It won't happen.

Medicare is a huge player in the health care markets.  So whatever Medicare does, it holds prices down.  In a free market system, someone gets less for a lower price.   The price of a McDonald's cheeseburger from the $1 menu keeps the price of a Wendy's hamburger down.  Union wages at Safeway increase wages at the non-union Raley's.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*Todd, I am not going to write a book for you.*

That's good, because you're wrong from page one on.

Show me how an increased demand for oil will reduce the price of oil.
Be sure to use the correct chart.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

The ideal supply and demand curves are based on "ceterus paribus", all other things being equal.  The reason that a market typically has increasing costs is because they are demanding it from a limited pool of resources, like the labor pool.   But, that doesn't mean that the real markets actually have a limited supply.   And, there are economies of scale, especially these days.

The medical markets have moved a lot of tasks over to technicians.  More techs, like phlebotomists, etc, means fewer high paying nurses and doctors are needed to supply the demand.  More customers means that the demand can be supplied more efficiently.   Doctors have become more like medical managers than anything else.  Nurse don't do so much of the paperwork. Specialization means greater efficiency and greater quantity drives efficiency.  I wouldn't be surprised if, in a decade or so, we see computer aided diagnosis.  Oh, wait, actually the nursing staff does have protocols for doing over the phone diagnosis.   I know someone that has been diagnosed with sinus infections four times a year without ever seeing the doctor's office.

And, with less demand for manufacturing, we have a larger supply of labor that is available to fill medical jobs.  We've been stuck at about 7.5% for some time now.

I'm not copping out in saying "well it's just too complex an issue to apply supply and demand to'.  It is too complex to apply simple ideal supply and demand models to.  It isn't the simple supply and demand market.  We can poke at it here and there.  It is a good exercise to go through it and see what we can make out of it.  But the reality is that even when we can tell the general direction that things will go with something simple like "Cash For Clunkers", there is no way we are going to even guess if the rebate will get split 25:75, 50:50 or 75:25.  

Can we say exactly how much savings will occur, given all the other market changes, with insurance companies putting 80% of premium revenues into patient care costs?

Can we easily determine what *"Sec. 4205. Nutrition labeling of standard menu items at chain restaurants"* will do?  (Not shit for a half generation if at all, I suspect).

How about* "Sec. 2501. Prescription drug rebates"*?  Will that shift demand and supply simultaneously?

Can we say exactly how many more doctors and nurses will be added to the supply in two to four years due to "*TITLE VHEALTH CARE WORKFORCE*"?

The most fundamental tenant of micro economics is ceterus paribus.  There is nothing, "*all other things being equal*" about this.

I'm not copping out.  I have to be realistic.  The very nature of the ACA is that nothing is being held equal.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Todd, blow it out your ass.  You are being a dick.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yeah, it hurts when I make you defend your stupid error for pages and pages.

I notice you haven't bothered to defend your claim that when green mandates raise the cost of everything, that it costs nothing.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Todd,  you are a legend in your own mind.  Out here,  a legendary asshole.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 22, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



No.  I said they could pass an unconstitutional law,  because they can.  The law can't be enforced by the executive branch,  if someone challenges the Constitutionality of it,  unless the federal courts rule it is Constitutional.  Remember the Republican ACA massacre?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


----------



## KissMy (Oct 22, 2013)




----------



## freedombecki (Oct 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Yes, your being called to admit your mistakes is so uncomfortable that rather than admitting them, you have to smear the messenger.

That will get you nowhere fast, motormouth.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 22, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Point out a mistake.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by *Toddsterpatriot*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which one?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 22, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by *Toddsterpatriot*
> ...



Any.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





> We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...should-listen-to-the-97-a-33.html#post7815379


 
There you go.


----------



## Dante (Oct 22, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> 
> What would you want to be changed?



Not much, obama has not commanded we speak for ourselves


----------



## Dante (Oct 22, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > Single payer!
> ...




List of Countries with Universal Healthcare | COTO Report

http://progressivewomencolorado.com/list-of-countries-with-universal-health-care/


----------



## Dante (Oct 23, 2013)

Wonder what the rightwing and conservative spins are on this one?



> Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year&#8212;making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.
> 
> .Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults&#8212;more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64&#8212;will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.
> 
> And if you think only Americans without health insurance face financial troubles, think again. NerdWallet estimates nearly 10 million adults with year-round health-insurance coverage will still accumulate medical bills that they can't pay off this year.


 Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> One thing to keep in mind is that the ideal supply and demand curves are boundary conditions, what supplier and consumer would charge and pay in a perfectly competitive markets.
> 
> Fact is, most are not perfectly competitive and have imbalances in the market forces that lean either towards the supplier or the consumer.  Usually the supplier, but not always.
> 
> ...



On the medical device tax I have to say you're just plain wrong. Now admittedly I only know that because that's what my brother does for a living. He sells replacement hips, but yes the tax does have a significant impact on their bottom line and he has to work more to stay where they were before the tax. They either have to lower the price of their product or the hospital has to pay more. If the later the price gets passed on to the consumer.  You have to remember changes in prices of anything, especially when forced by government, don't happen in a vacuum. The market reacts.

As far as our supply and demand curve goes not only is demand going to go up overall, supply is going to go down (supply curve shifts left) because of things like the medical device tax. This makes the actual devices cost the hospital more, which gets passed on to the consumer. You can say medicare will cover that for the consumer, but the double whammy to the hospital is their remibursement rates are going to god down as well under Obamacare. Obama had to do this because he took $700 million and some out of medicare to pay for the 30 million uninsured. The reality of Obamacare is most doctors are going to take a pay cut, which makes being one a less attractive professional option.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > One thing to keep in mind is that the ideal supply and demand curves are boundary conditions, what supplier and consumer would charge and pay in a perfectly competitive markets.
> ...



You act like health care is a free market when,  in fact,  it's about as far from that as one can get.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 23, 2013)

Dante said:


> Wonder what the rightwing and conservative spins are on this one?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What spin? While we can disagree about Obamacare, I don't think anyone is going to disagree that the actual cost of health care is high. That's there's problem is not what is being debated. It's the solution.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Why is it not and why can't it be?


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 23, 2013)

you want to know the real truth about obamacare?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder what the rightwing and conservative spins are on this one?
> ...



Health care costs are not only high,  but highly variable.  The only solution to the variability is to spread the risk. Insurance.  

The high average cost comes from the fact that health care is practiced in a market where effective competition is impossible.  Who would go to the cheapest Dr or hospital they could find to cure a serious disease?  

Most countries doing better than we in health care solve those problems by socializing it.  So far,  the evidence is that's an effective solution.  

Will that ever happen here? 

We collectively apparently aren't smart enough to do what works elsewhere.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> you want to know the real truth about obamacare?



Of course your solution is to ignore the problem.  I  guess we all contribute as we are able to.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > One thing to keep in mind is that the ideal supply and demand curves are boundary conditions, what supplier and consumer would charge and pay in a perfectly competitive markets.
> ...



There is a difference between price, cost and utility.  Now, I am just going on the recent article

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?_r=0

"An artificial hip, however, costs only about $350 to manufacture in the United States, according to Dr. Blair Rhode, an orthopedist and entrepreneur whose company is developing generic implants. In Asia, it costs about $150, though some quality control issues could arise there, he said."

We don't even need to know this information to know that price is above cost.  First off, in the ideal of micro economic supply and demand, there are no profits.  Perfect competition drives profits to zero.  Then there is the simple disparity between regions that is not accounted for by simple costs.  Price is above cost, at the level of demand willingness to pay.

Regardless, there will be no change in supply due to the medical device tax.  For one thing, supply doesn't change as a result of a tax.  A tax doesn't increase cost.  A tax applies only to earnings before taxes.  This one is an excise tax of 2.3% that applies to the sale and is calculated on the price, like the excise tax on car tires.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

I was considering the details of demand shifts and quantity changes. 

Demand shifts are only caused by changes in the real income available for purchase of product or services in the specific market in question along with a desire for more.   The desire for more is not sufficient alone.  The fact that the quantity and price increase can be seen in that a demand curve shift to the left is a supply quantity increase.  Given the existing production efficiency, the only way that more units may be made available to an existing desire for more product by existing buyers is that the equilibrium point moves up the supply curve to a point of higher price and quantity.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

The biggest error I see repeatedly made in applying economics is the idea that a tax affects the "bottom line".  It doesn't.  

The simplest way to see it is to consider the following accounting.

Costs include fixed cost and variable costs.  Fixed costs (FC) are capital equipment cost and building rents.  Variable costs (VC) are material costs and labor costs.

The total cost for producing is 

TC = Q * (FC/Q + VC).  Fixed costs are spread out among the quantity of units while variable costs are on a per unit basis.

Revenues are total sales quantity times price

R = P * Q

Earnings before taxes, or simply earnings, are revenues minus total costs.

EBT = R - TC = P*Q - Q * (FC/Q + VC).

Taxes are on earnings, not on revenues and profit is what is left over after taxes.  The taxes are a percentage of earnings (t), not a fixed amount.

Profit = EBT*(1-t)

First off, profit cannot go to zero unless t = 1.  Secondly,

Profit = (R - TC)*(1-t)

and 

Taxes =  (R - TC)*(t)

Note that we can rearrange as Taxes = R*t - TC*t.  So, if we really are going to consider taxes in terms of "costs", the quantity  -TC*t  reduces taxes.  Taxes produce a negative cost, total taxes are reduced by the amount  -TC*t which is essentially a credit.  If we want to apply the tax rate directly to revenue then we have to also apply it directly to the costs.  And applied to the cost, it becomes a credit.

By no stretch of understanding do taxes increase costs.   They may increase price, but price isn't cost.  Price is cost plus profit.  Now, in many cases, it is odd that CEO salaries and bonuses are a cost, but that is how it goes.  Taxes can be eliminated entirely by increasing the owners salary to the level that there are no earnings.  Of course, then personal income taxes become an issue.  That is the trade off.  It is why company cars are so useful.  The company car is a cost and reduces revenue and earnings.  As a personal car, it isn't a deduction.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

The health care market has all sorts of imperfections that make it not a competitive free market.  There are efficiencies of scale in some markets, like drugs and insurance, which results in natural oligopolies.  There are regulations on education level that restricts the supply of doctors and nurses, thus increasing doctor and nursing salaries.  There are every manner of regulations for health and safety reasons which creates barriers to entry.  

There is no "shopping around" when it comes to most medical procedures simply because when one is bleeding to death, any hospital will do.  There is an utter imbalance in information.  We are, after all, paying medical professionals for the very fact that they have the information and we don't.  

The health care markets, are definitively not the ideal competitive free market that the introduction to micro-economics presents in the model of supply and demand.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The health care market has all sorts of imperfections that make it not a competitive free market.  There are efficiencies of scale in some markets, like drugs and insurance, which results in natural oligopolies.  There are regulations on education level that restricts the supply of doctors and nurses, thus increasing doctor and nursing salaries.  There are every manner of regulations for health and safety reasons which creates barriers to entry.
> 
> There is no "shopping around" when it comes to most medical procedures simply because when one is bleeding to death, any hospital will do.  There is an utter imbalance in information.  We are, after all, paying medical professionals for the very fact that they have the information and we don't.
> 
> The health care markets, are definitively not the ideal competitive free market that the introduction to micro-economics presents in the model of supply and demand.



No markets are 'ideal competitive free market's, and the above arguments can almost always be used to justify limiting free trade. Most medical concerns aren't emergencies, and even emergencies can be planned for.

Health care evokes emotional responses, which is why it's used as a leverage point to inject the socialist ethic. But it's only that - and will be used as a wedge to eliminate freedom across the board. Statists won't be satisfied until we're under their thumb(s).


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Health care costs are not only high,  but highly variable.  The only solution to the variability is to spread the risk. Insurance.



Not even a little bit true. There are plenty of mechanisms that can be used to be bring the cost of health care down.  



PMZ said:


> The high average cost comes from the fact that health care is practiced in a market where effective competition is impossible.  Who would go to the cheapest Dr or hospital they could find to cure a serious disease?



Wrong again. You've said this before and again you presume that less expensive is the same thing as inferior quality. That simply isn't true.  



PMZ said:


> Most countries doing better than we in health care solve those problems by socializing it.  So far,  the evidence is that's an effective solution.
> 
> Will that ever happen here?
> 
> We collectively apparently aren't smart enough to do what works elsewhere.



Wrong a third time. What is your criteria for 'works'? Simply that it costs the consumer less? That's a pretty poor measurement of the quality of an entire health care system. In sustainability terms it's not working a lot of places. Frances system is billions in debt. It's not working from a supply side as we know it takes longer to be seen in many cases.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

There is this gross error made in applying the ideal model of supply and demand to the real markets as if it was some hard-fast rule.  

The fact is that it is an ideal model, just like the binomial distribution in probability.  Applying the ideal supply and demand model to real markets is like saying, "the last coin flip was heads so the next is guaranteed to be tails because the probability is 50:50"  Ideal models simply don't work this way.'

The supply and demand curves in macro economics set the upper and lower bounds for prices and quantities.  For the demand curve, this is called "willingness to pay" which includes simply income availability as well as "utility" of the product.   Customers will happily pay less.  The supply curve is based on production costs which is not the same as price.  Suppliers will always happily take more.

In perfect markets with perfect information, no barriers to entry, no inefficiencies of scale... that is no imperfections, the number of buyers and sellers is sufficiently large that both buyers and sellers are price takers. Profits don't exists because any profit attracts new suppliers, supply increases, and price falls to cost.  

The curves set boundary conditions for the equilibrium point where, typically, the price is taken as cost.  What the actual equilibrium point is depends on market imperfections.  In the case of monopolies there is not price cap due to costs.  In the case of oligopolies, there is a natural movement to a price level above cost.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The health care market has all sorts of imperfections that make it not a competitive free market.  There are efficiencies of scale in some markets, like drugs and insurance, which results in natural oligopolies.  There are regulations on education level that restricts the supply of doctors and nurses, thus increasing doctor and nursing salaries.  There are every manner of regulations for health and safety reasons which creates barriers to entry.
> ...



That is the point, "no markets are 'ideal competitive free market's".  Exactly.  S-D simply provides an ideal model to compare the real world to. Some are close enough to that the difference isn't significant.   Some markets are much further away from the ideal than others.  Before, or while, applying the concepts of introduction to micro-economics, the nature of the imperfections has to be considered.  If not, any conclusions are meaningless.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The health care market has all sorts of imperfections that make it not a competitive free market.  There are efficiencies of scale in some markets, like drugs and insurance, which results in natural oligopolies.  There are regulations on education level that restricts the supply of doctors and nurses, thus increasing doctor and nursing salaries.  There are every manner of regulations for health and safety reasons which creates barriers to entry.
> ...



"wedge to eliminate freedom" is an emotional assessment, not a scientific assessment.  And there is no attempt to inject a "socialist ethic" unless you mean giving a shit about others.  In this case, symmetry becomes significant and I am under no moral obligation to give a shit about someone that doesn't give a shit about myself or others.

So your opinion is now meaningless in any social context.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

This is interesting;

"We examined a total of 19 368 adult patients hospitalized with appendicitis. The median hospital charge among all patients was $33 611, with a lowest observed charge of $1529 and highest of $182 955."

JAMA Network | JAMA Internal Medicine | Health Care as a ?Market Good?? Appendicitis as a Case Study


The Table provides results of the hierarchical model for percentage increase in median charge for various patient and hospital factors. When analyzing patient factors, increasing ages were associated with increased median charge. There were slightly increased charges for Medicaid patients (2.3%; 95% CI, 1.3%-3.4%) and the uninsured (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.5%). When considering hospital-level factors, the estimated median charge for appendicitis from a county hospital was 36.6% lower (95% CI, 22.5%-48.2%) than from nonprofit hospitals, and for-profit hospitals had 16.3% higher charges (95% CI, 5.4%-28.4%).


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "wedge to eliminate freedom" is an emotional assessment, not a scientific assessment.  And there is no attempt to inject a socialist ethic unless you mean giving a shit about others.



Right, and 'giving a shit about others' is an utterly rational assessment. Obviously, anyone who doesn't endorse the coercive state doesn't 'give a shit about others'.



> So your opinion is now meaningless in any social context.



Good to know. I'll keep that in mind when considering your 'social context'.


----------



## KissMy (Oct 23, 2013)

These people discovered they will pay more for healthcare due to the Obamacare law.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "wedge to eliminate freedom" is an emotional assessment, not a scientific assessment.  And there is no attempt to inject a socialist ethic unless you mean giving a shit about others.
> ...



There is no "coercive state".  There is a democratic-republic, a cooperative state.

Actually, giving a shit about others is a rational assessment.  You will find that sociopath is the clinical term for an illness.  It is also higher before the age of adulthood as the prefrontal cortex has not fully developed.

It is a rational behavior to have empathy for the people around us.   Human beings are the ultimate pack animal and cooperation is the single greatest achievement in economic efficiency.

Seeing as money is a social tool, you should avoid using it.  Voting is also a social act. You should avoid that too.  You should avoid using language, far to social.  I'd suggest avoiding books, but I believe you have that covered already.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



But as you've so aptly pointed out, the above is not reality. A company that doesn't make a profit can't do business. Hips are actually sold for a few grand. And 2.3% on a few grand per hip a hospital purchases is not chump change. My brother only does hips. He travels to the same doctor 2-3 times per week for replacement procedures. You do the math. Why are we burdening hospitals with more unneccessary bearuacratic red tape and expenses when they already have enough overhead?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is this gross error made in applying the ideal model of supply and demand to the real markets as if it was some hard-fast rule.
> 
> The fact is that it is an ideal model, just like the binomial distribution in probability.  Applying the ideal supply and demand model to real markets is like saying, "the last coin flip was heads so the next is guaranteed to be tails because the probability is 50:50"  Ideal models simply don't work this way.'
> 
> ...



I wouldn't call it a gross error. It's not like there's nothing we can learn or that can be predicted by applying these concepts to Obamacare. If they were useless tools in a real world economy or market I would imagine it's a concept we no longer teach since it has no real world application as you seem to be contending. That's simply not true. You know and I know that we can quite easily determine whether policy x or some aspect of policy x has on supply and demand. We know reducing the cost to the customer has an effect on demand. You've agreed to that, so don't pretend there's nothing we can learn from it. Personally I think the reason you would rather have us all ignore supply and demand is when we do look at them and how Obamacare effects them it really doesn't make the program look real good, which in turn doesn't help the argument of anyone advocating for Obamacare.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 23, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



"A company that doesn't make a profit can't do business."

This is simply not factual.  Most businesses do not make a profit.  They pay salaries, they cover costs.  They make no profit.  Profit is not a requirement for a business. It is nice, it isn't required.

This doesn't even begin to approach the fact that the term "profit" means everything from $1 to $1,000,000,000,000,000.00 and beyond. It is pretty meaningless without quantification.

The whole idea of patent laws is to give an inventor time to see a profit, a return on his initial investment of time and money, before competition comes in and drives market profits to zero.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Nah... most all modern governments are coercive in nature. Ours certainly is.



> Actually, giving a shit about others is a rational assessment.  You will find that sociopath is the clinical term for an illness.  It is also higher before the age of adulthood as the prefrontal cortex has not fully developed.
> 
> It is a rational behavior to have empathy for the people around us.   Human beings are the ultimate pack animal and cooperation is the single greatest achievement in economic efficiency.



I have plenty of empathy for others. That's why I'm opposed to forcing my will (or yours) on them via government. Community and altruism flourish as voluntary acts, not as mandates.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



True. There are of course not for profit organizations. It is also true that most businesses are not profitable. What you left out of that is this typically results in the business failing. Your expenses can't exceed your revenue or you're simply not going to make it.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The health care market has all sorts of imperfections that make it not a competitive free market.  There are efficiencies of scale in some markets, like drugs and insurance, which results in natural oligopolies.  There are regulations on education level that restricts the supply of doctors and nurses, thus increasing doctor and nursing salaries.  There are every manner of regulations for health and safety reasons which creates barriers to entry.
> ...



What the heck is the ''socialist ethic''.  It's an economic system, not a religion.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Health care costs are not only high,  but highly variable.  The only solution to the variability is to spread the risk. Insurance.
> ...



I don't need criteria.  WHO has it.  They say that we have by far the most expensive health care in the world and our results are mediocre. 

Don't you ever think about evidence?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Thats the beauty of democracy.  Government of,  by,  and for we,  the people.  What you're talking about is called tyranny.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



It is? By what definition?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Ummm how is a government not forcing people to do things considered tyranny?


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That's what I'm wondering. Seems kinda inside out.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A government without laws and the ability to enforce them is called an anarchy.  

A government with laws and the ability to enforce them that's directed by a majority of the people is called a democracy. 

A government with laws and the ability to enforce them that's directed by a minority of the people is called a tyranny.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I haven't advocated for any of those things, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Only 3 choices.  Anarchy,  democracy,  tyranny.

You don't advocate for democracy?


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You don't advocate for democracy?



I'm a strong proponent of liberal democracy. But I think what confuses you is my conviction that for a democracy to remain viable, the rights of minorities must be protected. Constitutionally limited government is what makes democracy tolerable when we find ourselves in the minority. When those limits are removed, and the majority can use government to impose its will arbitrarily on the minority, all bets are off - the minority can and will fight back, regardless of the 'will of the people'.

That's the unfortunate direction we're headed now, as the Court allows Congress to erode Constitutional limits, and government intrudes on more and more areas of our life, political differences become intractable and democracy disintegrates.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > You don't advocate for democracy?
> ...



Everybody's rights are protected by the Bill of Rights.  Specific limits to federal government that have always been maintained. For everyone. 

The only way to define the will of the people is democratically. Majority decision making. 

In today's world,  minorities are represented as special interests.  Most of us think that their interests are over represented in today's government.

''the Court allows Congress to erode Constitutional limits''

This is an opinion and the very reason why the founders gave the responsibility of interpretation to the Supreme Court and not the people.  Just like the very reason we empowered the IPCC to find the science relative to AGW.  They're experts.  They've devoted their lives to the study of a narrow field and are head and shoulders above us amateurs in their field.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Everybody's rights are protected by the Bill of Rights.  Specific limits to federal government that have always been maintained. For everyone.



The Bill of Rights has been largely neutralized, especially via disregard for the ninth and tenth amendments.



> The only way to define the will of the people is democratically. Majority decision making.



Agreed.



> In today's world,  minorities are represented as special interests.  Most of us think that their interests are over represented in today's government.



Sad but very true. Corporatism turns the foundations of liberal democracy inside out, replacing universal, individual rights with group rights and special interest politics. Rule of law is subverted and the regulatory regime ensures that everybody gets a different deal, depending on how much political influence they can bring to bear. That's clearly the direction of "today's world" and I think it's a dreadful mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to return to your claim that my views represent tyranny. I'm not sure what you base this on. I'm not an anarchist, nor am I opposed to majority rule. You seem to be equating principles of limited government with tyranny, which seems almost Orwellian to me.


----------



## shikaki (Oct 23, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Fixed? Listening to the sycophants on this board, you'd think it was the best **** Tax ever instituted.



Not sucking up, just cautiously optimistic.  It hasn't had to time to be proven the worst one yet.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Everybody's rights are protected by the Bill of Rights.  Specific limits to federal government that have always been maintained. For everyone.
> ...



My opinion is that while democracy,  rule by majority,  is not flawless,  it's the best government possible. Because if you empower fewer people than democracy,  a minority,  it has to be determined which minority to empower. In the extreme case a minority could be one person.  A dictator. 

The basis of democracy is that mischief starts small and grows.  If the power to hire and fire representatives is based on a majority,  that is the greatest protection possible to prevent a nefarious movement from gathering power in government. 

I personally don't think that there is any better example of this principle than the recent rise and fall of conservatism.  It's fundamentally a propaganda based cult product of 24/7/365 Republican propaganda.  As powerful a force as we've encountered.  

Yet it has been defeated by majority rule.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Ok, but that doesn't really explain why you're accusing me of supporting 'tyranny'. I'm not disputing that majority rule is better than minority rule. I'm simply saying that government power, regardless of how decisions are made, should be constrained to specific means and purposes.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's really just a matter of one's perspective and bias. One could just as easily state that the propaganda of liberalism has won the day by majority rule. It's not hard to see why liberalism is more appealing to people. It's the government version of the easy button. Most liberal policies absolve people of personal responsibilites. This is certainly reflected in Obamacare. Who wouldn't want that?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It is. The Constitution.


----------



## Hoffstra (Oct 24, 2013)

16 peeps say it can be fixed.

8 say it cant.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Alright. You seem to be giving up on the 'tyranny' claim.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 24, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Liberalism has displaced conservatism primarily because conservatism in practice failed miserably.  Look at the trajectory of the country under Bush policies.  Look at the country under Obama's.  Of course,  in order to do that one has to turn off Fox and turn on news.  

Conservatism failed because it's a completely self serving religion.  It has no consideration for national issues.  And national issues are what we have government for. 

While it's just plain fun messing with conservative minds here,  most of what's said is simple truth. 

Fox is Republican 24/7/365 propaganda.  

Government and business are complementary to each other.  

We do have wealth inequality here that is extreme to the point of dysfunction. 

We do have a mediocre health care non-system here that is a huge economic anchor and ACA is an effective first step in addressing it. 

AGW is real and costly and the IPCC is the body of science that will empower politics to find the least expensive path by it.  

The transition to fuel and waste free energy is necessary,  and a very long and expensive project,  and we've run out of time to waste. 

These are all simple but inconvenient truths. The Fox propaganda obscures them.  That's why it has and will fail.  And why conservative politicians are nationally unelectable. 

They earned the disrespect that they are shown daily by the American people.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You seem to have some mistaken understanding of business finances and the meaning of terms.  I have noy left out anything and if you studied the definitions I presented the it would be clear to you.  Profit is in excess of all expences, the remaimder after expences have been met.  So while your point of a business needing to meet expences is true, it is a complete nonsequiter given what we have been discussing.  Sure expences cannot exceed revenue but this has nothing to do with taxes and profits.  

There is some very poor understanding of business, micro, and macro economics floating about.  I can see why our government is so poorly run whej so much of the voting public holds nonsense concepts.

The two most glaring is the simultaneous rules of business competition drives prices down to costs and companies must make a profit to survive.  Not only are these two ideas fundamentally incorrect, they cannot even exist simultaneously. The issue that I see is a failure to think things through.  Each "rule" gets evoked as a response at different times but are neber examined together.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Oh, bs... I am sure you "feel" like you have empathy.   But when it comes down to actual action your "empathy" doesn't go any further than that you're perceiving others as like you and as long as there are no real costs.

You are mistaking narcissistic projection as empathy.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I stated pretty clearly that minority rule is tyrannical.  Do you disagree?


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Not at all. You're dodging. I've never advocated for 'minority rule'. Put up or shut up.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Direct quote. 

A government without laws and the ability to enforce them is called an anarchy.  

A government with laws and the ability to enforce them that's directed by a majority of the people is called a democracy. 

A government with laws and the ability to enforce them that's directed by a minority of the people is called a tyranny.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When you are a self centered sociopath, all laws seem tyranical.  Very few adults find traffic laws tyranical though I have met a few that do.

The reality is that the economy and society doesn't function optimally unless everyone follows certain rules.  As soon as someone cheats, the system collapses to some lesser equilibrium. It is why oil cartels consistently failed.  As soon as one broke from the cartel and lowered prices, the rest are forced to.  The concept is so basic and obvious that most of us cannot grasp why it is so mysterious to sociopaths.  People in law enforcement deal with them all day long, people that feel like the government is oppressing them, forcing then to follow these tyranical laws.  Most people have no problem with them, taxes, traffic laws, etc.

Most people see it as a democratic-republic where we are fine following the rukes like everyone else because it is more efficient.  Sociopaths see it as a tryanny.  Every discussion leaves the details behind and everything gets abstracted to this idea of a tyranny.  It's a friggin mental problem.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



No, what I'm talking about is the opposite of tyranny.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You don't even have the level of intellectual objectivity to know what tyranny or it's opposite is.  All you have managed to demonstrate is narcissistic projection.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

It should be obvious that if one wants to discuss "Can Obamacare be Fixed?", the very least would be to 

a) Go to https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/

b) Read the table of contents of http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...fdsys/pkg/BILLS.../pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf or https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text

The current Congressional hearings struck me as a bit stupid given that anyone can go to the website and find out directly.   The other absurdity occurred to me when I thought about how much easier meetings at work always were by comparison to Congressional hearings.  In one hour, we listed the problems, people took tasks, due dates were assigned, and we were done.   My spouse nearly fell off the chair laughing at the comparison.  The Congressional hearings are simply a joke.  

As far as the healthcare market place is concerned, the first question is "what state are you in?"  If you pick California, you are given the link to the California market place.  If you pick Kansas, you are not sent to an official state marketplace because Kansas didn't create one.  

So, whatever the issues might be with healthcare.gov, it is pretty meaningless as if you are complaining then your state governor and legislator had every opportunity to make one and didn't bother.  If you are not willing to do the work, given the opportunity, then you really have no right to complain.

So here are some samples of the states that have their own site

Alabama                  No
Alaska                      No
Arizona                    No
Arkansas                  No
California                  Yes
Colorado                   Yes
Connecticut               Yes
Delaware                  No
DC                             Yes
Florida                      No
Georgia                     No
Hawaii                      Yes
Idaho                        No
Illinois                     No
Indiana                   No
Iowa                        No
Kansas                     No
Kentucky                  Yes
Louisiana                  No
Maine                      No
Maryland             Yes
Massachusetts     Yes
Michigan              No
Minnesota           Yes
Mississippi           Yes
Missouri               No

So if you live in any of these states,

California,Colorado,Connecticut,DC,Hawaii,Kentucky,Maryland,Massachusetts,Minnesota,Mississippi

it simply isn't a problem because your state made the effort.  And the odd thing, for all the conservative ranting about state rights and responsibilities, if they really meant it they would a) have made their own state site or b) not complained because they didn't want it anyways.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Basic to conservatives is the dream of being alone in the world and free of responsibility.  They view other people as obstacles to overcome.  

I think that it's a shame that it's not possible to give them their dream.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

The most prolific misunderstanding by the economic narcissists is in the following incorrect rules.

a)  All companies must make a profit
b)  Competition drives prices down to costs.

Not only are the two completely wrong, they are incompatible with each other.  Selling at cost is to realize no profits. 

The reality is that where there are profits, it isn't a true free market system.  The free market model says that where profits exists, competition is attracted until companies sell at cost.  If to much competition is in the market, one or more fails until the remaining companies are able to meet costs.  This is the most basic functionality of the free market system.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2013)

I have no idea what you two are going on about, but it has nothing to do with my views. And you've yet to show how limited government equates to tyranny. It is quite an elaborate strawman though. Please continue.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Actually, they can.  People still homestead in the Alaska wilderness. Not only can they enjoy their self reliance, independent living dream, after a year of so, the state sends them a check from the oil rights.  It is the best of both worlds, independent living and socialism.  It is perfect for them.

They really have no excuse except that they really don't want to back up their bs with actual action.

New Book Offers How-to Tips for Aspiring Homesteaders | Alaska Public Media

How to successfully live off the grid in remote areas is the subject of a new book called &#8220;The Alaska Homesteader&#8217;s Handbook: Independent Living on the Last Frontier.&#8221;

Alaska Land Offerings

"The State of Alaska Sells State Land for settlement and private ownership. ... This program is similar to the previous remote parcel and homestead offerings."

The Homestead Act in Alaska

Someone picked up 2.5 acres for $5000  1057 GLENNALLEN AREA I 203336 $5,000 2.50
Kristina M Epperson Rush John Williams Brian S Epperson

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/landsale/472IOTCwinners.pdf

I don't know if it is as accessible as it was ten years ago, still there really is no excuse for the economic narcissists except they really don't mean what they claim to mean.

And with global warming, it is getting better and better.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> I have no idea what you two are going on about, but it has nothing to do with my views. And you've yet to show how limited government equates to tyranny. It is quite an elaborate strawman though. Please continue.



You have yet to present anything specific or to show how government is equal to tyranny.

All you have done is strayed away from specific details of the PPACA and gone to abstract nonsense where everything is equal to socialism and tyranny.

The fact that you have no clue what is being talked about just demonstrates what I've been saying, that your a narcissistic sociopath. In order to learn from others you have to have some basic level of empathy so that you can understand what they are saying.  I know what you think you are talking about.... so the problem is on your end.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The problem with your list is that the tenents of actual conservatism aren't reflected in any of those. It can as easily be stated the MSNBc is liberal propoganda 24/7/365. That isn't to say Republicans don't have things to answer for, but Republican, the political party, and conservatism the ideology are different things. Republicans are guilty of all kinds of things from being too liberal to engaging in crony capitalism. 

But don't be so naive as to think conservatism is losing out because it's a bad idea. It reality hasn't been tried much. Nor should we fool ourselves into thinking liberalism will result in utopian society. The evidence is already there that all it does is make people more dependent on government. I wouldn't pat myself on the back over liberalism winning the day. I don't ask myself why it is favored by the majority. I asked why it would not be. Again who wouldn't want to absolve themselves of life's responsibilities and just have someone else deal with our issues, like paying for health care, redistributing wealth instead of having to actually earn it, etc.?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

This link provides a better formatting for the PPACA

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The most prolific misunderstanding by the economic narcissists is in the following incorrect rules.
> 
> a)  All companies must make a profit
> b)  Competition drives prices down to costs.
> ...



That's true, but there's a difference between driving to cost and saying the outcome is required to sell at cost.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea what you two are going on about, but it has nothing to do with my views. And you've yet to show how limited government equates to tyranny. It is quite an elaborate strawman though. Please continue.
> ...



Because I've made no such claim.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 24, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I don't know anyone here who doesn't believe that capitalism is a great tool.  Like a hammer.  What would we do without hammers. Of course quite marginalized on screws. 

I believe in accountability. Demonstrated success that can be rewarded with more responsibility.  Thats why I love democracy. The ultimate in political accountability. 

Business at the moment is failing the country.  By the only measure that really counts,  growth.  But instead of accountability,  what do we hear?  Pitiful whining by the professional mourners recruited by Fox propaganda for their business partners,  the Republican Party. 

Even worse,  we are rewarding failed and failing business leaders lavishly.  Like royalty.  For screwing customers and employees for the one group that adds zero value.  Shareholders.  

Business is broken.  Government was, but has been recovering.  

Of course as a Fox addict,  you have no idea of what's going on.  You hear the opposite of what's going on 24/7/365. Why?  That makes you useful to the people who are failing,  so that they can avoid accountability. 

In today's competitive world,  America can't afford failure.  The path away from it involves massive accountability changes.  

That's what informed people in America are working on.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The problem is that you have yet to present anything accurate and precise enough, anything specific enough, anything of substance, to have any real meaning.  All of your presentation is simply emotional bs.  

So, as you&#8217;re style sets your standard of specificity, then by those standards the following statements are examined for meaning.

&#8220; it's used as a leverage point to inject the socialist ethic.&#8221;
&#8220;Statists won't be satisfied until we're *under their thumb(s*&#8221;
&#8220;Obviously, anyone who doesn't endorse *the coercive state*&#8221;
&#8220;Nah... most all* modern governments are coercive in nature*. Ours certainly is.&#8221;
&#8220; I'm opposed to [/b]forcing my will (or yours) on them via government[/b]&#8221;
&#8220;and *government intrudes on more and more areas of our life*, political differences become intractable and democracy disintegrates.&#8221;
The bottom line is that you haven&#8217;t been specific enough so anyone reading your bs is left in the position of having to figure out what it is that you are talking about.  That is your fault.  And, PMZ gave you some choices, some avenue to be more specific.

Still, as I read it, it is reasonable to classify what you have presented under the heading of &#8220;tyranny&#8221;.  If you want it different, then present something of substance.

I find it tremendously funny as I recall a line from First Knight, "What I offer you is freedom; freedom from Arthur's tyrannical dream; freedom from Arthur's tyrannical law; freedom from Arthur's tyrannical God."


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The most prolific misunderstanding by the economic narcissists is in the following incorrect rules.
> ...



What?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> It should be obvious that if one wants to discuss "Can Obamacare be Fixed?", the very least would be to
> 
> a) Go to https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/
> 
> ...


I think it's pretty clear the designers did not take into account the traffic on the site.  They have been making some changes and in a few weeks it will become tolerable.  However, it could have been done so much better.

There are political aspects that are a lot harder to fix than the technical ones.  In Red states there was little if any support for the exchanges.  Many of the these state insurance commissions approved only a few companies for listing.  In order to create a large coverage gap of about 5 million, republican governors opted out of the medicaid expansion blocking coverage for tens of thousands of their own people even thou there was no impact on state budget.  The federal government picks up all cost of the expansion for the first few years, then picks up 90%.  Fixing these problems is going to be a lot harder than fixing website code.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When the basis of your argument is something you can't prove (I'm a FOX addict) you start to look kind of silly. The truth I don't watch much of any of the them. There's your conservative news outlets like FOX and there's your liberal ones like MSNBC and CNN. The big difference though is at least FOX is honest about who they are. For the most part they admit they're conservatives while you have MSNBC who doesn't seem to have the pride to admit their liberal bias and are trying to pass themselves off as objective journalists.

As a liberal kool aide drinker you believe government is getting 'better'. Better at what I have no clue. Anyone with a level of objectivity can see otherwise when we have a President who has so brazenly ignored the limitations of his office and lied repeatedly.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> When the basis of your argument is something you can't prove (I'm a FOX addict) you start to look kind of silly. The truth I don't watch much of any of the them. There's your conservative news outlets like FOX and there's your liberal ones like MSNBC and CNN. The big difference though is at least FOX is honest about who they are. For the most part they admit they're conservatives while you have MSNBC who doesn't seem to have the pride to admit their liberal bias and are trying to pass themselves off as objective journalists.
> 
> As a liberal kool aide drinker you believe government is getting 'better'. Better at what I have no clue. Anyone with a level of objectivity can see otherwise when we have a President who has so brazenly ignored the limitations of his office and lied repeatedly.



"As a liberal kool aide drinker you believe government is getting 'better'."

Strawman, hyperbole, ad hominum.....all at one time too.

Oh, and "FOX is honest about who they are"  hardly, their slogan is "Fair & Balanced".

And when you are standing with your right shoulder to the wall, everyone is to the left.  Fox viewers are the most ill informed of all viewership.  Every news media presents the info that their subscribers want.  That's a fact.  The more left or right leaning the viewership, the more left or right leaning the media.  So  if the viewership really want's to be lied to, to hear what they want to believe, the media will give them that.  And unbiased studies of news media puts Fox up front in being divorced from reality.  

You are about to say that the studies have a liberal bias?  That'll work for you.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/foxs_misinformation_effect/

http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/475 PIPA MisperceptionsofIraqWar_10_02_03.pdf

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/12/17/umd-report-regular-viewers-of-fox-news-more-lik/174484


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

Kaiser is a good source of info on national health care costs. 

Health Costs | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Health care spending has dropped in growth rate from 8% to 4%.  Premium cost growth is down to 4%.  23% of the decline is due to changes in the system.

Of course, it really is kinda amazing that there is any effect, seeing as the body of the PPACA hasn't really been in effect yet.

What most annoyed me about health insurance was that every time I changed companies, I'd end up with a completely different list of providers.  The average employee length of stay is about 3.8 years.  For most, it isn't a problem. But if you have a particular long term health issue, it is a problem as it takes quite a while for a doctor to get to know a patient personally.  15 minute appointments, 7 hours a day and we are talking about 30 patients a day.  Do that for five days and the doctor will see 150 in a week.  That is a lot of people and medicine, like everything else, is a volume efficiency program in our economy.  See a doctor once every three months and you are one in 150*12=1800 people.  See him or her once a year and we are talking being one in 7800.  I've never been in a volume people business so I find that actually quite amazing.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

The most fundamental effect on prices is simply supply.

In July of 2002, someone did a study on nurses.

http://www.ahcancal.org/research_data/staffing/Documents/Registered_Nurse_Supply_Demand.pdf

A shortage was anticipated 

The projected shortage in 2020 results from a projected 40 percent increase in demand 
between 2000 and 2020 compared to a projected 6 percent growth in supply. Demand 
will grow steadily at a rate of 1.7 percent annually, a relatively modest growth rate when 
compared to the 2.3 percent annual growth in demand projected by the Department of 
Labor&#8217;s Bureau of Labor Statistics. Factors driving the growth in demand include an 18 
percent increase in population, a larger proportion of elderly persons, and medical 
advances that heighten the need for nurses. In contrast, the projected growth in supply is 
expected to reach a peak of only 10 percent by 2011 and then begin to decline as the 
number of nurses leaving the profession exceeds the number that enter.

Subtitle C of the PPACA includes

Subtitle C--Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce
Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds.
Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program.
Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs.
Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs.
Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps.
Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics.

Subtitle D of the PPACA includes the following sections;

Subtitle D--Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training
Sec. 5308. Advanced nursing education grants.
Sec. 5309. Nurse education, practice, and retention grants.
Sec. 5310. Loan repayment and scholarship program.
Sec. 5311. Nurse faculty loan program.

The following examines the barriers to increasing the workforce, up to 2012.

National League for Nursing - Nursing Education Statistics

Faculty and placement is the big issue in 2012.  Placement won't be in the future, not with increased demand.  So that leaves faculty.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Kaiser is a good source of info on national health care costs.
> 
> Health Costs | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
> 
> ...



The rate of increase has dropped? Yeah we've heard that spin before. "yes it's going up, but not as much as we thought or not as fast." As if that's some kind of victory. That's kind of like when you here schools complaining about their budgets being cut because they didn't get as much MORE as they wanted.

I do agree with the annoyance of networks and what not changing with employers. That would be a good reason to get away from employer provided insurance and just have people purchase it on their own so their policies are more portable.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Kaiser is a good source of info on national health care costs.
> ...



In the sciences, it is called acceleration.  It is a pretty normal metric.

The far more important question is if it is in real or nominal dollars.  If in nominal dollars, then we expect it to increase at least at the rate of inflation.

And, of course, in your usual style, you don't actually have any new information to add.  Why is that?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

This was the rate over the last decade.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 24, 2013)

To put it in context, with the rate of inflation at 2.5%, then nominal prices increase at 2.5%.  Unless wages are increasing at better than the rate of inflation, every real dollar increase in health care spending comes out of something else.  It comes out of gasoline, food, clothing, transportation, Christmas or whatever.   

And, in fact, at the very least we know minimum wage has not kept up with inflation.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf

So, a deceleration of health care costs is significant.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 24, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Fox addicts are easy to spot. They are all misinformed in exactly the same ways.

Perhaps the point that you're trying to make is that government better than Bush's is a pretty low bar. He was the worst we've ever had. So we've gone from the worst to the modern Lincoln. And that's why Fox addicts are so easy to spot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*So we've gone from the worst to the modern Lincoln. *

Wow! That's funny.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Another Fox fan. Tell us more about what they've said about our president.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> To put it in context, with the rate of inflation at 2.5%, then nominal prices increase at 2.5%.  Unless wages are increasing at better than the rate of inflation, every real dollar increase in health care spending comes out of something else.  It comes out of gasoline, food, clothing, transportation, Christmas or whatever.
> 
> And, in fact, at the very least we know minimum wage has not kept up with inflation.
> 
> ...



Sure it is, but there are better ways to do it and ways that would not just deccelerate the increase, but actually make them go down. Government red tape is a huge expense for providers and Obamacare just adds to it, not to mention the extra expenses in taxes to them. Then there's the insurance side of the equation and it's difficult to see with how various parts of Obamacare effect them how prices would come down there either.

The big picture is this. We were told this would be good for everyone. We'd get to keep our health care plans and our doctors. No exceptions. The cost of premiums would go down. None of that is happening. It's getting to the point where even democrats are starting to say we need to pull the individual mandate. And the big problem I have with it is all of these market reactions to Obamacare were pretty easily predictable. It's not difficult to predict what will happen to the premiums of healthy 20 - 30 year olds would look at community rating and pre-existing conditions mandates. Ironically the system working at all is heavily dependent on this age group buying insurance to offset all the new costs of actually paying for sick people. Except the system totally disincentivizes them from doing so. It's just a giant clusterfuck, with a few winners in the form of sick people and mostly losers, everyone else.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



This is referred to as a strawman argument. Just label your oponent as something and argue against that whether it's actually true or not (which it isn't). I'm objective enough to know that Bush wasn't the greatest President in the world, but as far as abuse of the office of President goes, it is undeniable that Obama takes the cake. Understanaly since you have no objectivity, you won't see that.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 25, 2013)

Bern continues to report Republican propaganda he was issued on Fox,  and continues to believe that it's news.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern continues to report Republican propaganda he was issued on Fox,  and continues to believe that it's news.



And PMZ continues to give immature responses he has no real evidence for.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 25, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern continues to report Republican propaganda he was issued on Fox,  and continues to believe that it's news.
> ...



There is ample evidence for what I claim but,  for some reason,  it hasn't been reported on Fox.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > To put it in context, with the rate of inflation at 2.5%, then nominal prices increase at 2.5%.  Unless wages are increasing at better than the rate of inflation, every real dollar increase in health care spending comes out of something else.  It comes out of gasoline, food, clothing, transportation, Christmas or whatever.
> ...



Man, I don't know what to tell you except that like so many you are obviously and incredibly biased, obstinantly misinformed, and have a flawed model of economics that is in error at its very basic principles.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

These look interesting;


*www.census.gov:* the Census Bureau released revised figures on health insurance coverage from the 2000 to 2010 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements (CPS ASEC), reflecting enhancements to the editing process. Because the data after the enhancements is not consistent with earlier data, the Census Bureau introduced a new historical series (HIB-1 to HIB-8) and discontinued the HIA- series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

*www.ncsl.org:* Health Insurance Premiums: This report summarizes the health plan choices and premiums that will be available in the Health Insurance Marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

* Data | HealthData.gov* : The National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) are the official estimates of total health care spending in the United States. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

*www.aetna.com* The Facts About Rising Health Care Premiums  Underlying Health Costs Drive Growth April 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*bea.gov: * Measuring health care costs of individuals with employer-sponsored health insurance in the U.S.: A comparison of survey and claims data
------------------------------------------------------------------

*bea.gov: * Changing Mix of Medical Care Services: Stylized Facts and Implications for Price Indexes
--------------------------------------------------------------

*bea.gov: * BEA compares healthcare data sets
--------------------------------------------------------------

Search in BEA on Healthcare providing numerous PCE health care data sets.


*bea.gov: *healthcare - U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Search Results


*stlouisfed.org: *bea, health, pce, price index - Economic Data Series - FRED - St. Louis Fed
--------------------------------------------------------------

Some care must be made in determining what the data actually is and what to use.

There is the real dollar price for healthcare given a constant basket of healthcare goods.

There is the actual quantity and real dollar supplied healthcare per individual.

There is the quantity of individuals that are actually purchasing health care.

These are all significant in that they mean different things and misinterpreting the data will lead to a completely erroneous conclusion.  An increase in percentage of GDP, even real GDP, isn't necessarily informative.  The single factor that $ pays for is labor added value.  

If there is an increase in the employment to pop ratio where that employment goes to the healthcare markets, percentage RGDP can increase with a commensurate increase in standard of living, not a decline in other products. That is what we really want.   And, we would also like to see efficiency increases as well.

Simple increase in expenditures, even real dollars per cap can be misleading.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

Oh, this is annoying:

*May 6, 2013* - A new report finds that individual health insurance premiums *will drop* in ... on health history, the institution of a health insurance mandate helps

Obamacare: Lower Health Insurance Premiums in New York, and Higher Premiums Most Everywhere Else - Hit & Run : Reason.com

*Mar 22, 2013* - Big health insurance companies are predicting huge *premium increases*

Health Insurance Premium Increases Vowed By Companies For 2014

2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
*Aug 20, 2013 2013* Employer Health Benefits Survey , The key findings from the survey, conducted from January through May 2013, include *modest increases* in premiums for both single coverage (5%) and family coverage (4%).


*SEP 25, 2013* - Until today's report, little information was available about insurance...Average Obamacare Premiums Will Be Lower Than Projected

Average Obamacare Premiums *Will Be Lower Than Projected* - Kaiser Health News


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 25, 2013)

the only way to fix obamcare is with a republican president and republican control in both the house and senate


----------



## dblack (Oct 25, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> the only way to fix obamcare is with a republican president and republican control in both the house and senate



LOL... it's always good to start out the weekend with a belly laugh. Thanks, Spoonman.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 25, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> the only way to fix obamcare is with a republican president and republican control in both the house and senate



No chance of that until they dump the dixiecrats and the propaganda machine.


----------



## dblack (Oct 25, 2013)

Voting for Republicans to get rid of PPACA makes about as much sense as voting for Democrats to repeal the PATRIOT Act.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> the only way to fix obamcare is with a republican president and republican control in both the house and senate



And what is "broken"?

These are the real dollar rate changes from 2008 to 2009 to 2010.

State	'10-9	'09-8
US.....4.1.....6.8
AK	-25.6.....14.7
AL	28.8.....12.7
AR	31.2.....-4.9
AZ	-5.7.....3.8
CA	2.2	8.6
CO	-0.3	6.6
CT	6.3	3.9
DC	9.4	4.3
DE	12.1	5.1
FL	12.2	-0.3
GA	0.4	13.2
HI	2.6	7.8
IA	-0.5	7.8
ID	17.4	3.9
IL	4.4	2.1
IN	-9.9	8.3
KS	9.4	1.3
KY	6.3	8.5
LA	7.5	20.3
MA	3.7	9.3
MD	-3	12.1
ME	4	4.6
MI	-5.7	12.4
MN	6.2	4.2
MO	5.1	6.9
MS	1.3	8.8
MT	4.4	4.8
NC	5	5.2
ND	13.7	8.1
NE	17.8	-1.5
NH	-3	0
NJ	-3.9	2.5
NM	13.2	11.7
NV	5.9	18.2
NY	-9.3	10.8
OH	7.8	4.6
OK	8	4.6
OR	9	7.1
PA	2.7	5.9
RI	8.1	3
SC	5.6	0.9
SD	9.3	1
TN	2.8	6.8
TX	8.3	7.4
UT	4	1.8
VA	10.8	9.6
VT	-2.4	2.4
WA	-0.5	12.2
WI	-5.4	7.8
WV	12.7	-3.6
WY	8.9	2.1

they vary from state to state, with an average of 4.1% for 2009 to 2010 and 6.8% for 2008 to 2009.  The standard deviations are 9.121505724	5.079998456  respectively.  

So, given these baselines, you can present evidence of something "broken".  The disparity between states is huge.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

Here is an interesting article from 

State Trends in Premiums and Deductibles, 2003?2011: Eroding Protection and Rising Costs Underscore Need for Action - The Commonwealth Fund

December 12, 2012

State Trends in Premiums and Deductibles, 20032011: Eroding Protection and Rising Costs Underscore Need for Action

Rapidly rising health insurance premiums and higher cost-sharing continue to strain the budgets of U.S. working families and employers. Analysis of state trends in private employer-based health insurance from 2003 to 2011 reveals that premiums for family coverage increased 62 percent across statesrising far faster than income for middle- and low-income families. At the same time, deductibles more than doubled in large and small firms. Workers are thus paying more but getting less-protective benefits. If trends continue at their historical rate, the average premium for family coverage will reach nearly $25,000 by 2020. The Affordable Care Acts reforms should begin to moderate costs while improving coverage. But with private insurance costs projected to increase faster than incomes over the next decade, further efforts are needed. If annual premium growth slowed by one percentage point, by 2020 employers and families would save $2,029 annually for family coverage.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

The Supply and Demand model of micro economics is based on the perfect market, perfect information, perfect competition, etc.

In fact, real markets have imperfections such as barriers to entry  and  economies of scale that yield oligopolies and monopolies.  Ideal markets are such that any price above cost is profit and attracts new suppliers until prices drive down to costs.  Excess supply causes prices to fall below cost and demand increases to consume all excess, eventually driving quantities to equilibrium or driving competitors out of the market.

The typical supply and demand model, with supplier favored market imperfections, is





The equilibrium point is above the cost of supply.  Due to barriers to entry, such as capital equipment start up costs, the equilibrium price is in the profit region.  This was the condition of health insurance premiums prior to implementation of the PPACA. With a 20% cap of earnings, price was nearer to the cost line.  This is established fact. 

A point arose as to how the demand would react to an increase in customers.  The simple fact of the demand curve is that it is for all of the population, not just those purchasing.  If the price were free, everyone would happily take an infinite quantity. If the price were infinite, no one would take any.  Everyone that is purchasing will happily take their quantity at less than the equilibrium price.





So the demand curve sets the boundary above which product will not move given the price.

Now, given that the demand curve account for the entire population, the remaining point is what it means that the demand curve shifts.





It means that the population of consumers has more real income available for purchase of a larger quantity.  Exactly how much more and what the price break on increase quantity is depends on the price elasticities. 

The question is, then, what is the supply curve for a monopoly or oligopoly dominant market and how will the equilibrium point shift?

(This is all based on the assumption of identical pricing.  More typically, like movie tickets, there are price differentials.  How do we account for price differentials?)


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

This is the supply and demand for the condition of oligopoly or monopoly markets with efficiency of scale.  The supply curve falls in price as quantity increases because the fixed cost of production is divided out over more quantity.





The demand curve is actually unconstrained by what would otherwise be increasing prices to quantity.   It can actually shift without increased real income available because no increased income is required.


----------



## dblack (Oct 25, 2013)

Man, those sure are some charts and stuff.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

The health care market does not consist simply of insurance carriers.  There are a host of markets along  vertical chains.  The structure is more like a tree.

Some categories are

Financial System:
.....Student Loans:	
Education:
.....Faculty:
.....Publishers:	
Trained Labor:
.....Doctors:
.....Nurses:
.....Medical Technicians
Capital Equipment and Facilities:
.....Hospitals:
.....MRI Equipment:
Products:
.....Drugs:
.....Medical Devices:
.....Supplies:
.....Lab tests:
Health Insurance:

Health insurance is simply the end point of price payment for the majority of demand.  Each of these markets have their own particular supply and demand curves.  Some, like insurance, have efficiencies of scale, others, not so much.  Student loans have efficiencies of scale.  Drug manufacturing as well.  Some tests do, not so much for others.   

MRI equipment has to be fully utilized otherwise cost per test goes up as the equipment cost spreads out over fewer individuals.  Still, at some point, they are fully utilized. 

Medical Technicians are a labor efficiency of scale as tasks previously performed by nurses are given to techs.  Larger cities, high technician employment per nurse/doctor.  Rural areas, kinda depends on when demand reaches the critical point that technicians become viable.  

And there is a point, rural vs metropolitan areas have their own particulars.

And then the whole issue of price differentiation.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> Man, those sure are some charts and stuff.



A picture is worth a thousand words......


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 25, 2013)

Problem is that Health Insurance premiums are the very end of the vertical supply chain.

Financial System:
.....Student Loans:	
Education:
.....Faculty:
.....Publishers:	
Trained Labor:
.....Doctors:
.....Nurses:
.....Medical Technicians
Capital Equipment and Facilities:
.....Hospitals:
.....MRI Equipment:
Products:
.....Drugs:
.....Medical Devices:
.....Supplies:
.....Lab tests:
Health Insurance:


Any increase in prices above Health Insurance is going to result in an increase in premiums, regardless of the 20% cap.  That 80% can increase simply because tuition costs went up.  Oh, and here is the kicker, if that 80% goes up, so goes the 20%.  Unless there is something to cap that, higher are the prices for hospitals, doctors, labs, whatever be the prices that the insurance carrier pays, the higher is the over all cost and the higher the 20% is in real dollar terms.

Think about this.  If the average prices paid to the market by the insurance companies is $80, then they have $20 to cover average internal costs for a total premium of $100.  If the average price goes up to $100, total premiums can be $125 and net to the insurance carrier is $25.  They aren't incurring an additional $5 in costs, still $20. They just get to keep an extra $5.

Hmmm.....

And this has nothing to do with PPACA.  It is purely a free-market functionality issue.   If they act as ologopolies, like they have been, nothing holds insurance premiums down except demand willingness to pay.

Back to square one.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 25, 2013)

So far,  technology has mostly improved results in health care,  and increased costs.  Clearly we've reached the cost limit.  Nearly 20% of GDP.  

We got here because,  except for Medicare,  nobody cared what things cost as long as everyone pulled through the current crises,  at least until the next one. 

Certainly the potential for technology lowering costs is as high as the potential for improving results.  But who,  anywhere in the health care delivery business, benefits from lower costs? Nobody. 

So health care delivery businesses have no incentive to lower costs except for their Medicare patients.  Granted,  on average,  that's half of their business.

While Obamacare is not a product at all,  and it's main goal is to get everyone cost effective health care, it does make it harder for health care deliverers,  under considerable pressure to save Medicare costs,  to shift those costs to non-Medicare patients.


----------



## dblack (Oct 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> So far,  technology has mostly improved results in health care,  and increased costs.  Clearly we've reached the cost limit.  Nearly 20% of GDP.
> 
> We got here because,  except for Medicare,  nobody cared what things cost as long as everyone pulled through the current crises,  at least until the next one.
> 
> ...



There's no incentive to lower costs because most of us aren't paying for our own health care. We're all chasing the fantasy that we can get 'someone else' to foot the bill.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > So far,  technology has mostly improved results in health care,  and increased costs.  Clearly we've reached the cost limit.  Nearly 20% of GDP.
> ...



Unfortunately that perception has been reinforced by companies backing away from health care insurance compensation without making up for it in other compensation. 

Net result?  Lower total pay.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 26, 2013)

There is a problem with so many that see insurance as a program where they expect to recover the full cost of their premiums, (sometimes they are even expecting more).  OASDI (aka Social Security Insurance)[1], auto insurance, and health care insurance are not intended that you, I or anyone in particular is going to recoup their total "investment".  They aren't investment programs at all. 

I'm sure that people understood this at one time.  Businesses are clear on this as business practice is considerate of risk.  Individuals seem to miss the point that an accounting of payments vs returns means that they are likely to see negative return on insurance.  The average or expected return on insurance is negative as the program has to be managed.

I know that people don't get this with OASDI (SSIns) as they see it as some 401k plan.  It isn't. It is insurance and it isn't designed solely for the individual receiving it.  It is designed for the rest of us so we don't have to deal with people who, for whatever reason, find themselves in dire straights come old age.

Insurance is an accounting loss program.  The expectation is probability of loss times the expected value of the loss.  And the greater the expected loss value, the greater the insurance premium. 

There is also a difference between economic and accounting costs.  People only see the accounting costs.  Nobody sees economic costs because that is dependent on the "otherwise" scenario, the cost of "if no one had insurance."

I believe, also, that there is a huge disparity in terms of actuary information.  People really don't know what the value of their insurance really is because they are terrible at understanding and reacting to real probabilities.  This, along with a myriad of other factors puts far to much market leverage on the supply side of insurance and healthcare.  

Nobody can be prepared for the catastrophic event.  The only way to prepare for that is pooled risk.  Catastrophic insurance, like Medicare Part A (hospitalization) makes sense.   And, frankly, everyone should have that regardless.  It covers hospitalization.  Here are some stats from the CDC.

Hospital inpatient care [2]
Number of discharges: 35.1 million
Discharges per 10,000 population: 1,139.6
Average length of stay in days: 4.8

If I read it right, it is simply about 11.4% of the population will be hospitalized in any given year with an average stay of 4.8 days.  (Can that be right?  One in ten people per year? I dislike these kinds of rate calculations, like divorce rate.  Still, another source says, yeah, about 10% in the first year. Higher for risk factors, like 65 years or older. [3][4])

Hospitalization is expensive, everyone is likely to be hospitalized.  The costs are [5]

United States
    State/local government hospitals  $1,625
    Non-profit hospitals  $2,025
    For-profit hospitals  $1,629

A simple estimate of the variance for the days is 4.8^2 and the 99% length is 3x4.8^2 or 70 days.  So to be fully prepared would require $139,968 in cash.  No one is prepared for that, or could prepare for that, though one in 100 of the 10%, or one in 1,000 people will end up in the hospital for a two month stay.[6] 

Another source says, "with more than 6 million accidents in the United States, alone, that means there are more than 2 million accidents resulting in more than 3 million injured men, women, and children each year." This yields 3/300 = 1% of the population in some sort of injury related accident each year. [7]

What's the minimum for automobile insurance liability?  $15k? That is about 10% of what is necessary.

It should be patently obvious that everyone should be carrying, at least, catastrophic injury insurance.  And it isn't some investment club where we expect to see a return for out money.  It is suppose to be a total loss.  We want our insurance to be a total loss because we are hoping we don't get injured. 

And that insurance isn't for the guy that has it. It is for the rest of us so we don't end up footing that $141,000 bill because he didn't bother.
--------
[1]  SSI is Supplemental Security Income, not to be confused with OASDI.
[2] FASTSTATS - Hospital Utilization
[3] http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi25/25/st/25p272.pdf
[4] http://www.acg.jhsph.edu/acgdocuments/Wednesday_Salon_Lemke_AnalyticTechniques.pdf
[5] Average Cost Per Inpatient Day Across 50 States in 2010
[6] Anecdotally, I know someone that was in a head on collision and it did cost $140k for the trauma center ICU alone.
[7] Medical Issues Related to an Auto Accident - InjuryBoard.com


----------



## PMZ (Oct 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is a problem with so many that see insurance as a program where they expect to recover the full cost of their premiums, (sometimes they are even expecting more).  OASDI (aka Social Security Insurance)[1], auto insurance, and health care insurance are not intended that you, I or anyone in particular is going to recoup their total "investment".  They aren't investment programs at all.
> 
> I'm sure that people understood this at one time.  Businesses are clear on this as business practice is considerate of risk.  Individuals seem to miss the point that an accounting of payments vs returns means that they are likely to see negative return on insurance.  The average or expected return on insurance is negative as the program has to be managed.
> 
> ...



I believe that it's at least approximately true that Medicare pays for about half of the medical care in the US.  And a huge portion of that is in the last year of life. 

It is,  of course payed for as a payroll deduction which is matched by an employer contribution throughout our working years,  but the costs continue after retirement at a little over $100 per month per person,  and co-pays and deductibles as well as limits to coverage.  

And I suppose the average number of years that it covers is perhaps 15 or so.  

I think all that is pretty demonstrative of how much old age medical bills can rack up.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > There is a problem with so many that see insurance as a program where they expect to recover the full cost of their premiums, (sometimes they are even expecting more).  OASDI (aka Social Security Insurance)[1], auto insurance, and health care insurance are not intended that you, I or anyone in particular is going to recoup their total "investment".  They aren't investment programs at all.
> ...


In 2011, Medicare spent a total of $549.1 billion on health care coverage for 48.7 million beneficiaries. This accounted for roughly 15 percent of the national budget and *21 percent of overall U.S. health care spending,* according to the Congressional Budget Office. 
How much Medicare costs - Health care costs | Medicare News Group

Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life.
Before I Die: Spending on Care


----------



## PMZ (Oct 26, 2013)

Flopper said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Some additional info. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare.  It covers over half of the medical costs in the country.  An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
> 
> Do you know why that will never happen?
> 
> Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.



*There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare*.

yeah it so great that it requires supplemental plans from the 

private sector to work


----------



## PMZ (Oct 26, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare.  It covers over half of the medical costs in the country.  An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
> ...



It is what it is.  The minimum insurance requirement for those > 65. That's what you pay for,  that's  what you get.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 27, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare.  It covers over half of the medical costs in the country.  An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
> ...



Requires?

I know someone that has been on Medicare for 30 years. What supplemental plan are we talking about?


----------



## HenryBHough (Oct 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Requires?
> 
> I know someone that has been on Medicare for 30 years. What supplemental plan are we talking about?




That word "requires" should not be construed to mean that any government agency forces anyone to buy a supplement.

A supplement, however, might be required by a person who understands the limits of Medicare and is unwilling to personally bear the costs it does not cover.

More, You don't have any choice about Medicare Part A if you are over 65.  You're stuck with it.  You can elect to improve what's covered by purchasing (from the feds) Part B which helps quite a bit but does nothing about your prescription costs.  You can take it further by buying (from a private vendor), Medicare Part D which will cover a lot of your medication costs - but NOT all of them. There are still deductibles, co-pays, and limits to coverage (the "donut hole") to be considered.

The holes left by Parts A and B can be protected against by buying a private supplement that will pick up deductibles and cover (in most cases) the 20% of costs that Medicare does not cover.

People with any assets and sufficient income to afford a supplement are wise to buy one lest their assets (like their home) be seized for non-payment of those non-covered (by Medicare) portions of health care in the event of a serious illness.

Of course if you have few or no assets then no point in buying a supplement because you have nothing to lose other than perhaps a few bucks in a savings account should you be sued.  Of course if you have income that can be grabbed, well then why keep on working?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 27, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare.  It covers over half of the medical costs in the country.  An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
> ...


Medicare works fine for the beneficiaries of it. It just has deductibles and co-insurance.  A lot of people simple can't afford a 20% copay of a hospital bill or prefer to have all of their medical bills paid by the insurance company which make life a lot easier if you have lots of medical bills.

The major problem with Medicare is the same as most government services.  We like the service, we just don't want to pay for it.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 27, 2013)

HenryBHough said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Requires?
> ...



That wouldn't be a "requirement". It would be a preference or an opinion.

See, tires on an automobile are REQUIRED in order for it to work.    Power steering and bucket seats aren't required, they are preferred.

You are also over explaining.  Like I said, I know someone that has had it for 30 years.  I am well aware of what Medicare A, B, C, and D are, how they work, what the deductibles, formularies, program management companies, limitations, improvements, supplements, and co-pays are.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 27, 2013)

Flopper said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And for the average person, the actual accounting return is always less than the average accounting price.  It has to be, it has to cover administration costs on top of health product payments.

The biggest problem with insurance in this country is that people think that they are suppose to recoup what they paid.  Everyone wants insurance tailored to exactly what they personally will draw from it.  It makes no sense, obviously.


----------



## dblack (Oct 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The biggest problem with insurance in this country is that people think that they are suppose to recoup what they paid.  Everyone wants insurance tailored to exactly what they personally will draw from it.  It makes no sense, obviously.



The psychology used to sell insurance is even more insidious than this. Most people actually think insurance will _save_ them money. Any logical understanding of the economics of the situation makes it clear this *can't* be the case. For most of us, it will make our health care _more_ expensive. Insurance only make sense for the extremes - the circumstances that would otherwise drive us into bankruptcy. For everything short of that, we're much better off paying out of pocket, or financing via loans etc....

That's what's so infuriating about PPACA. We need less insurance, not more. Obamacare doubles down on the irrational insurance sales pitches and forces all of us aboard a sinking ship. It's sheer idiocy that does nothing as much as it funnels taxpayer money to the insurance industry - with precious little net benefit to health care consumers.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem with insurance in this country is that people think that they are suppose to recoup what they paid.  Everyone wants insurance tailored to exactly what they personally will draw from it.  It makes no sense, obviously.
> ...



oh brother another glitch

this time 

*obamacare call centers go down *

--LOL


----------



## dblack (Oct 27, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I don't get all the freaking out about the program "glitches". If has no real bearing on whether ACA is good policy or not. They'll get the technical problems ironed out eventually - then what?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem with insurance in this country is that people think that they are suppose to recoup what they paid.  Everyone wants insurance tailored to exactly what they personally will draw from it.  It makes no sense, obviously.
> ...



I would say that for most people you don't get back what you pay in (including matching employer contribution).  But for some,  you get a whole lot more out than in.  Shared risk.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem with insurance in this country is that people think that they are suppose to recoup what they paid.  Everyone wants insurance tailored to exactly what they personally will draw from it.  It makes no sense, obviously.
> ...



'' We need less insurance, not more''

I would say that the high number of medical care caused bankruptcies are evidence of the opposite.  We need more insurance.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 27, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Geeze,  that's never happened anywhere before.


----------



## dblack (Oct 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Not overall. As I alluded to, the insurance that prevents bankruptcies - relatively cheap catastrophic insurance - actually makes some sense. But for everything that we _could_ be paying for ourselves and instead run the insurance pipeline we're loading our health care expenses down with overhead and waste. Add to that the upside-down market incentives, for both doctors and patients, that insurance care creates and it's no wonder things are so screwed up.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Obamacare is a dating service.  It allows people to find whatever insurance fits their needs best.  Would you deny the average person an informed decision?


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Obamacare is a dating service.  It allows people to find whatever insurance fits their needs best.  Would you deny the average person an informed decision?



Oh man...a dating service with $5000 a night hookers that look like


----------



## dblack (Oct 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Not at all. Informed decisions are great. It's forced ones I'm opposed to. If the 'dating service' forced people to get married, yeah - i'd be opposed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*It allows people to find whatever insurance fits their needs best. *

Which is why people are getting cancellation notices on policies that already fit their needs.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Of course you don't know what to tell me. Because everything I said is happening actually is happening. On the other hand the only economic 'model' you've been working off is the one that says 'well yes that's how supply and demand work, but it doesn't really apply here'. That's awefully convenient. The lies Obama told us about Obamacare are many and undeniable. No not everyone get's to keep their doctors. How many hundreds of thousands of Americans have been told the coverage is being cancelled despite Obama telling the nation we can keep the coverage we have? Anyone who understands economics can completely understand why this is happening. What flawed model of economics do you speak of? What observations specifically am I contending that simply aren't true? Because the economics model I'm using says if you do this to insurance companies this is what is going to happen to premium prices and low and behold that's EXACTLY what's happening. Here it is in a nutshell; In an attempt to buy votes, Obama and the dems are providing cheaper premium coverage for a few at the expense of the many.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 28, 2013)

*Incoming from Democrats*

&#8220;Dem Party is F****d.&#8221; That was the subject line of an email sent to me Sunday by a senior Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill. The body of the email contained a link to this Los Angeles Times story about Obamacare &#8220;sticker shock:&#8221;

&#8220;These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.&#8221;

&#8220;Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public support for President Obama&#8217;s signature legislation.&#8221; [...]

The Democratic consultant said none of this is news to him, but he wonders why Obama wasn&#8217;t honest with Americans. He predicted surprise and outrage over higher costs and lesser coverage. &#8220;We will own this problem forever,&#8221; the Democrat wrote.

Obama Takes Friendly Fire - NationalJournal.com


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The only thing that people are forced into is taking care of their own medical bills.  You're against personal responsibility?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



They had inadequate coverage.  Now they have adequate coverage. Tell us why you hate that.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The gist of the Republican argument is that the wealthy are,  and deserve to be, a privileged class.  That the people that they choose to economically enslave,  deserve it.  God loves plutocracy and aristocracy.  The American and French Revolutions and Civil War were fought only to change who the plutocrats and aristocrats are,  not to eliminate them. 

That puts them in direct and irresolvable conflict with the present Constitutional democracy.  

And reveals why they deny that Constitution.  It's an inconvenient truth.  Also why their future is the giant foot of the electorate planted directly onto their thinking part.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> *Incoming from Democrats*
> 
> Dem Party is F****d. That was the subject line of an email sent to me Sunday by a senior Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill. The body of the email contained a link to this Los Angeles Times story about Obamacare sticker shock:
> 
> ...



We know of course of all the Republican success in reducing the cost of health care.  Remind us though of the details of those reductions.  Who?  When?  How?


----------



## dblack (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No they're not. They're being forced to buy insurance from a cartel. It's not the same thing.


----------



## dblack (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Because adequacy is subjective.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Again. You can't have it both ways. You can't applaud the faux choice people have while at the same time telling them the government gets to decide for them what constitutes adequate coverage.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Now you're just babbling incorhently because you have no real counter argument. Guess I have to give you some credit. Obama undeniably lied. At least you didn't actually try to deny it, so kudos for that I guess.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Cartel?  Of private insurance companies?  Pretty serious charge against them.  Evidence?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It was.  Now it has been defined.


----------



## dblack (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



'Subjective' doesn't mean 'undefined'. It's a recognition that different people have different opinions on what is acceptable or desired. ACA denies individual judgment on what is adequate, replacing it with state decree. That's why I hate it.


----------



## dblack (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's in the design of the law. PPACA creates a limited list of acceptable vendors and plans. You could, technically, buy insurance other than that approved by the state, but you would be fined for doing so.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You can't stand the truth.  It's monstrously inconvenient to your lifestyle.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It makes available, products with adequate coverage. It discards those without. 

It holds individuals responsible for their own health care costs.  

It makes those that business chooses to under compensate,  able to care for themselves. 

It promotes competition between alternative suppliers. 

Which of those things do you hate?


----------



## dblack (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



All of them, because they are all essentially Orwellian euphemisms. 

It dictates 'adequate coverage' overriding personal decisions. That's not doing us a favor, it's cramming something down our throats we might, or might not, want or need.

It doesn't hold individuals responsible for paying for health care. It demands that they buy health insurance from government appointed vendors. That's a different thing entirely. 

It doesn't make people able to care for themselves, it makes them dependent on subsidies from the state.

It doesn't promote competition. It stifles it by limiting our options to a list of acceptable state-approved policies. It squelches innovation when we need it most.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I fell out of my chair laughing at ''Orwellian euphemisms''.  

''It dictates 'adequate coverage' overriding personal decisions. That's not doing us a favor, it's cramming something down our throats we might, or might not, want or need.''

Nobody knows who will be effected by pre-existing conditions.  How,  therefore,  can any consumer ever make an informed decision on their value? Allowing insurers that out creates a shysters paradise.  Insurance works by spreading risk,  not ignoring it. 

''It doesn't hold individuals responsible for paying for health care. It demands that they buy health insurance from government appointed vendors. That's a different thing entirely.''

In the Republican do nothing non-system of today,  many people are encouraged to not be responsible for the cost of their health care.  Just dump the consequences on others at the emergency room,  or through bankruptcy. No risk.  Now there is personal accountability. ''Government appointed vendors'' is merely a lie. 

''It doesn't make people able to care for themselves, it makes them dependent on subsidies from the state.''

People who business chooses to not pay a living wage to can't take care of themselves.  That's a given that has nothing to do with government. 
''It doesn't promote competition. It stifles it by limiting our options to a list of acceptable state-approved policies. It squelches innovation when we need it most.''

Giving consumers reliable information always promotes competition. 

I can't wait to hear the rationale behind ''It squelches innovation''.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*They had inadequate coverage. *

Sez King Obama.

*Now they have adequate coverage. *

But the King said they could keep the stuff they already had, if they wanted to........did he lie?

*Tell us why you hate that.*

Higher prices, less choice and bigger government!


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What truth would that be? The bottom line is you haven't presented a shred of evidence for anything you've said.


----------



## Antares (Oct 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



By the Gov in its own subjective way, you aren't very good at this.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



There is nothing less subjective than the law.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 28, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> 
> What would you want to be changed?


The size of the bill. No bill should be longer than two pages nor 500 words, whichever is shorter. The laws were originally written so that anyone could understand them.

Now, legislators are writing bills so long they are obviously nothing but trouble.

Any legislator who submits a bill having more than 500 words in its entireity should be remanded to the stocks where he or she should be shackled to for no less than one week per offense.

And I mean it.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 28, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> ...



Here's as good a reason as there is to eliminate conservatives from anything important like government  and business.


----------



## Jroc (Oct 28, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> ...



There's too many special deals and payoffs in that law, that's all it is a bunch of crony deals


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Apparently not. It takes a rather subjective reading of the constitution to somehow interpret from it that the federal government has the authority to make citizens buy things.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 29, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



The Constitution defines the bylaws for our government.  It restricts them from legislation in certain areas of life.  Those are called our rights.  

It also,  according to how it's words have been interpreted,  doesn't give you,  or anyone else other than the Supreme Court,  any responsibility or authority to impose on anyone what you'd like it to say.  

That's why we're a Constitutional Democratic Republic. 

And why each of us can vote for what we want.  And a majority rules the government.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


And love him or hate him, even those who hate him the most know that this man has his ear to the ground:



> Heres whats really interesting. This is the difference between progressives and conservatives or libertarians. We say we want to secede. The progressives say Im moving to France. We dont want to move to France. We want to live here. We love it here. We love the Constitution. We want to live here, under our Constitution. You want to live in France. So when you want to make us France or China, we say theres already that country. You should go try that country because youll love it, Glenn said.
> Secession talk grows to all 50 states ? Glenn Beck


Obamacare has divided the nation. Those who know their pocketbooks are being picked by usurpers in Congress are quite disinterested in being taxed without having their better interests represented and want out of the fraud-filled election process the Democrats who have been bragging about voting 30 times apiece for years have perpetrated on the nation. Many are so frustrated, they're saying they're just not going to take it any more.

Cheating at the polls and lying about nationality and bending the Constitution to perpetrate Marxist wealth distribution--which is aka pure communism just doesn't cut the mustard with the American citizen whose fathers died for being free from monarchs who had more crushing power over their lives than they deserved. You expect a free people to lie back for the full subjugation Obama would place us under the unloving hands of the United Nations whose members are screaming to wipe Israel and America off the face of the map? Perish the thought!


----------



## PMZ (Oct 29, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Republicans have divided this nation, as it is essential for them,  given the disastrous results that follow them,  to avoid extinction. 

Finally real Republicans are fed up.  There's a newspaper article nearly every week here in Naples FL,  the epicenter of the Tea Party,  about the rift growing between business and dixiecrats. 

Republicans assumed that they could not get elected without the dixiecrats. Now they realize that they can't get elected with them. 

It will be an ugly divorce as ugly is fundamental to conservatism but necessary.  

It's clear that Hillary will be our next President so the right time is now for the split.  Nothing to lose. 

The GOP has to get back to its traditional focus on being friendly to business but not subservient.  To be in favor of a strong,  competent American government. 

They have to support the best of business not the worst.


----------



## dblack (Oct 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The question is not whether _law_ is objective or subjective, but rather whether the judgment of _adequacy_ is subjective or objective. Since adequacy always hinges on the questions "Adequate for what end?" and "For whom?", it is always going to be a subjective judgment. Converting that judgment into objective legal criteria doesn't change that. What some of us find adequate, some of will find wanting.


----------



## dblack (Oct 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The GOP has to get back to its traditional focus on being friendly to business *but not subservient.*  To be in favor of a strong,  competent American government.
> 
> They have to support the best of business not the worst.



This is a deeply ironic criticism in a discussion of ACA, possible the biggest sellout to business interests in my lifetime (rivaled only by the bankster bailout, also ironically presided over by Democrats).


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No majority does not rule government as per the constitution the majority can't simply do whatever it wants (unless of course the majority repealed the constitution). It was also written EXclusively. Which does not mean the constitution lays out that which government _can't_ do. It lays out specifically what government _can_ do in Article I, Section 8. Meaning if it isn't spelled out the federal government can't do it. 

I'm not the one imposing that which the constitution doesn't say. You are. You are the one insisting the constitution gives government the authority to make people purchase things insisting it is okay for government to impose that which you would like the constitution to say.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*And a majority rules the government.*

no it doesnt


----------



## dblack (Oct 29, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I think the majority rule argument, pro or con, misses the point. You have to look at it from their point of view - what is the alternative? Minority rule? I don't think that's what you're advocating, is it?

The thing is, even most staunch conservatives would prefer majority rule to an autocratic dictatorship. The question isn't whether government should follow the will of the majority when making decisions; the question is what sort of decisions should government be making in the first place, and that's where the Constitutional definition of government's scope and power is fundamental.

What most of us reacting to the 'we the people' sloganeering are bristling against isn't the idea that government should follow the preferences of the majority, but rather a fear of unlimited government. Because, often those trumpeting the 'will of the people' take the view that anything and everything the majority wants should be catered to by government.

This is why the exclusive/inclusive argument over Constitutional limits on government is so important. By the prevailing liberal view, the federal government can do anything and everything not expressly prohibited by the Bill of Rights in the name of majority rule. Conservatives, and moreso libertarians, want a tighter restriction that says government can only do the things authorized by the enumerated powers. These are radically different views, and central to our current political divide.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 29, 2013)

dblack said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Well thought out and presented. 

The counter argument is:

We live under the rule of law based on our Constitution.  Any position otherwise must assume an interpretation of the Constitution that is different than those given the responsibility to interpret it have concluded. 

So the government that we have is the one that the majority must want. 

The position that it's too big or over reaching is not based on any evidence as it is competitive with all other alternatives. Otherwise people would be moving out instead of in.  Free choice. 

That doesn't invalidate the idea that there could not be improvements made. Only that they have to be argued on substance which ''too big'' lacks.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution? The answer to that is an obvious yes. The rule of law you speak of in the constitution is not directed toward the citizenry. It doesn't say these are the rules by which the citizens must live by. It says these are the rules by which the government must live by.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 30, 2013)

U





Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



"Actually 'too big' can be substatiated quite easily. Is the federal government engaged in activity beyond the scope and duties outlined to it by the constitution?"

The answer to this is obviously no.

The words of the Constitution imply it's interpretation and enforcement.  That's the process that we've always followed. 

One of the reasons that it has stood the test of time is that we don't let every nutball coming down the street tell us what he would like it to say.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> U
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does the constitution grant the federal government the authority to make people purchase things from other private parties?

Does allow the federal governmet to establish a department of education?

Look at how it says government can collect taxes and start looking at all the tax laws that don't fit that criteria.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 31, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > U
> ...



The recent SCOTUS ruling is yes.


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 31, 2013)

sure, obamacare could be fixed - if we want to go back to the drawing board


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually they didn't even really debate that point. What was argued was whether the penalty is a tax or a fine. The reality is PMZ, is that you keep resorting to SCOTUS as your essentially one word response because it happens to be convenient for you where Obamacare is concerned. When there is law you find unconstitutional that SCOTUS doesn't rule as such you may gain some objectivity as I have that even they can misinterpret the constitution and/or more beholden to political ideology than the constitution. It should be much simpler to select SC judges instead of the massive debates we always have over them. Here's the constitution. Here's what it says government can do. Rule accordingly. Under that objective standard it should be a relatively clean, debate free process. But it's not. Liberals try to insert judges who take a 'broader' view of the constitution. Broad is putting it mildly because some liberals readily admit we shouldn't have to follow the constitution as it doesn't fit with the times and other such nonsense.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 31, 2013)

Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing.  Not Obamacare which is neither.  It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing.  Not Obamacare which is neither.  It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.



Regualted how? Obama has tried his way in the form of essentially saying I know better than you what you need coverage for so here's what you must buy? He's regulated it such that people can't be charged more for the same policy based on their health which has driven up the cost of premiums for the young and healthy. Pre tell what regulations should be put on insurance companies that would actually bring the cost of premiums down?


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing.  Not Obamacare which is neither.  It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.



so please explain why it is making prices rise?


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 31, 2013)

one thing i'm starting to notice, whe nit comes to obamacare, liberals can't even put up a good line of bullshit.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 31, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing.  Not Obamacare which is neither.  It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.
> ...



The quickest to bring premiums down  is allow inadequate coverage.  That way people with those policies could pawn off their costs on those with adequate coverage. 

Obamacare aims at reducing total cost though.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 31, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> one thing i'm starting to notice, whe nit comes to obamacare, liberals can't even put up a good line of bullshit.



Conservatives, on the other hand merely repeat Fox News professional propaganda.


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



if thats the case i think their scope is a little out of adjustment, infact i think they are aiming blindly


----------



## PMZ (Oct 31, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Health care insurance and delivery needs fixing.  Not Obamacare which is neither.  It's useful regulation of the insurance market which is notoriously in restraint of trade. Uncompetitive.
> ...



Make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 31, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Obviously you do.  The rest of us insist on evidence though.


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



log onto the website,  if you can.  check out the plans, check out the coverage, check out the deductables.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 31, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



That's how I would do it if I needed to.  In fact that's exactly how I picked my Medicare Advantage Plan.

The Internet can be a powerful consumer tool if you find objective sources.


----------



## Spoonman (Oct 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



i've been on it. i've seen the options.  thats what you call evidence.   they need to readjust their scopes


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 31, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It can 'aim' at it all it wants. Nothing about basic economics says that's going to happen with the policies put in place. And who are you or the president to determine what constitutes adequate coverage for me?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 31, 2013)

*Can Obamacare be Fixed?*

Doesn't need to "fixed": haven't seen any proof in this thread of such.

However, it can be improved, and there a lot of good ideas.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 31, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> *Can Obamacare be Fixed?*
> 
> Doesn't need to "fixed": haven't seen any proof in this thread of such.
> 
> However, it can be improved, and there a lot of good ideas.



Something that has to be 'fixed' implies it is broken. If you don't think an insurance based solution that saves money for the old and sick at the expense of the young and healthy is broken, I'd be interested to know how bad it has to get for you to admit it is indeed broken.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 31, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > *Can Obamacare be Fixed?*
> ...



The concept of insurance is difficult for you.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 31, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Not at all. The concept of insurance, I'm well aware, is to spread risk around. But the rules behind that Obama has put in place would never fly in the private sector. The higher risk you are to the insurer the more money they need from you to protect themselves from your increased risk. People of lower risk get charged less. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it comes to safer drivers paying less than unsafe drivers or higher home owner's insurance rates for people that live in flood prone areas. I don't really see why people think it's unfair to charge sick person more for the same policy than a healthy one. If you're going to insure someone you have the right to protect yourself accordingly to the financial risk they pose upon you. 

Obamacare comes along and says you can't do that. You can't charge for insurance on the basis of risk. Insurance companies now have a major expense they did not have before. Sick people. The ability to offset this expense is dependent on the young and healthy purchasing insurance. Except there are built in disincentives into the plan for doing so. You increased how much they would normally pay for premiums, not by small increment that happen yearly, but doubling their rates. You've essentially told them not only am I gonna make you purchase insurance, but I'm gonna make you pay twice as much for it, including a bunch of coverages you probably don't want or need. That's the undeniable reality of what we're seeing, so I think I understand insurance just fine. 

Again, anyone with a brain understands why the premiums for the young and healthy are going up. Your buddies in the democrat party are hardly fighting this point anymore. Maybe that should be a clue to you to stop pretending it's not happening.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 31, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Except you have absolutely no data to support what you are supposing.  And, insurance may be based on risk over the live time of the insurance, not on your particular risk for one particular month of one particular year in one particular county.

The is nothing incorrect or inappropriate about the insurance premium being based on life time usage.

Here is Kiaser's presentation of insurance premiums back to 1999







Note that they have been growing since 1999.  That is before PPACA.  PPACA didn't start in 1999.  See, cause comes before effect.  Not after.  If there is an effect before something, then the something didn't cause it.

Here it is on the Kiaser web site.






It's not a "republican"/"democratic" thing. It is called reality.  It is a reality thing.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 31, 2013)

Here is the PPACA bill.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

Where does it say insurance companies cannot price based on risk?

I find this;

"IN GENERAL.&#8212;With respect to the premium rate
charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage
offered in the individual or small group market&#8212;
&#8216;&#8216;(A) *such rate shall vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved only by&#8212;
&#8216;&#8216;(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual
or family;
&#8216;&#8216;(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with
paragraph (2);
&#8216;&#8216;(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary
by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section
2707(c)); and
&#8216;&#8216;(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not
vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
&#8216;&#8216;(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved by any other factor not
described in subparagraph (A).*


So age and tobacco use are valid rate variation.

And

RATING AREA.&#8212;
&#8216;&#8216;(A) IN GENERAL.&#8212;*Each State shall establish 1 or more
rating areas within that State for purposes of applying
the requirements of this title.*

So it is State managed.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 31, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So the premium rates for the young and healthy are in fact not and will not be going up? That's what you wanna stick with?


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 31, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The community rating mandate and pre-existing condition mandate portion of the bill say that.

(F) the issuer shall offer the plan in participating
States across the country, in all geographic regions, and
in all States that have adopted adjusted community rating
before the date of enactment of this Act; and
(G) the issuer clearly notifies consumers that


----------



## Doubletap (Oct 31, 2013)

Repeal this immoral law.
By what right do these despots have to impose their vision of healthcare on me or anyone else?


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 31, 2013)

Doubletap said:


> Repeal this immoral law.
> By what right do these despots have to impose their vision of healthcare on me or anyone else?



Since when has fascism ever been concerned with individual rights?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 31, 2013)

Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.  

Let's throw them more money!  Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition.  Let the flimflam roll.  

What a bunch of puppets.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.
> 
> Let's throw them more money!  Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition.  Let the flimflam roll.
> 
> What a bunch of puppets.



Actually it was Obama that assured we have to throw them our money. And it reduces competetion by narrowing people's chocies thanks to Obamacare mandates about what all health care plans must offer. I'm not too worried about them making a profit. They will. The premiums of the young and healthy are simply going to go up to accomplish that.


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Let's throw them more money!  Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition.



This is exactly what ACA does.


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.
> 
> Let's throw them more money!  Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition.  Let the flimflam roll.
> 
> What a bunch of puppets.



Regarding the phoniness of Republican opposition to ACA, I have to agree. Most of it is purely partisan, and it's my opinion that if Romney had won nothing substantial would have been changed in the law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.
> 
> Let's throw them more money!  Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition.  Let the flimflam roll.
> 
> What a bunch of puppets.



*Let's throw them more money! Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition. Let the flimflam roll. *

Damn those solar and wind power scammers! And their enablers in government.

Glad you finally agree.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.
> ...



I've seen their offices.  They are vacuuming up all that they need to support even their high living lobbyists.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Let's throw them more money!  Let's make their business easier by eliminating competition.
> ...



Unfortunately,  the cure for poor health is money.  Of course, not curing poor health, costs even more money. 

Business arbitrarily chooses to send the bills that workers not being paid enough to live on,  accumulate,  to us,  the taxpayers. Among them is the cost of keeping them healthy enough to work.  

Before ACA, those same bills came at us, instead of through taxes,  through higher health care premiums paid to emergency rooms.  The most expensive least effective treatment for poor health. 

Of course health care insurance companies have their eyes set on keeping those premiums to be excess when emergency room treatment of common illness go down. 

The ACA standards for coverage are one tool to pry them out of insurance profits in get them where they rightfully belong,  in the taxpayers pockets.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody doubting Republican brain washing only has to read the posts here worrying that the insurance companies are not going to be able to make enough profit due to the regulations of Obamacare. Clearly the message from the insurance companies.
> ...



Explain how ACA manages to "narrow people's chocies".


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



By constraining the types of policies we can choose. And, of course, by taking away our right to choose entirely different avenues for financing our health care.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Just like most regulations it narrows our choices to what's adequate.  

Adequate to make sure that we aren't dumping our personal risks on others.


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Right. The question isn't whether it narrows our choices (it does), but who gets to decide what's adequate.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2013)

Doubletap said:


> Repeal this immoral law.
> By what right do these despots have to impose their vision of healthcare on me or anyone else?



The law is constitutional and ethical and moral, and your are a loony to suggest otherwise.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> > Repeal this immoral law.
> ...



Hit out of the park!

The brown shirts of the reactionary far right do not give a damn about individuals other than themselves.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 "You shall not covet anything that is thy neighbor's."

Ancient man organized killing parties to apprehend thieves intent on taking the nice things other people had.

Using the government to do your dirty work is lower than snakesnot, and it will come right back to your doorstep, because "You can't fool all of the people all of the time," to use a more pragmatic and contemporary quotation.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 1, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Indeed.   Big Government Cronyism is actually worse than criminal mugging - because the government sponsors the Cronies, and makes their mugging legal.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Every law on the books narrows our choices down to only those things that don't impose on other people.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



While I like "lower than snakesnot" I hate anarchy.  Your chances of a country electing it are zero.  Any country.  Ever.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

boedicca said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually the best scapegoat is " Big Government Cronyism" because it's a complete abstraction.  It allows you to blame everyone for everything and create a completely unsolvable set of problems.  

It's the whiners nirvana.


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



As I've pointed out, a lack of insurance doesn't impose on anyone else.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 1, 2013)

boedicca said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


That's why I'm grateful Judicial Watch is monitoring the situation in their Annual list of the 10 Most Corrupt Politicians in alphabetical order, 2012:

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice
Attorney General Eric Holder
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
President Barack Obama
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius

*Dishonorable Mentions for 2012 include:*


Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY)
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
Gen. David Petraeus
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Ten Most Corrupt Politicians, 2012

Why are we keeping these people in office?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Why are you unable to make up your own mind?  Sheeple all in a row.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



As I've pointed out,  full comprehensive insurance is the most effective way of achieving a healthy population.  

I don't know why you believe that an unhealthy population is more competitive in the global market.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2013)

> Ancient man organized killing parties to apprehend thieves intent on taking the nice things other people had.



Our segregationists were quite good at extra-judicial murder as well.


----------



## KevinWestern (Nov 1, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> 
> What would you want to be changed?



Costs are rising BECAUSE of the insurance model. We - the consumers - do not price shop, and therefore there's not much incentive for a doc to charge $250/visit vs $125/visit. 

Obamacare does nothing to change this broken insurance model, as it only forces people to buy the insurance! How in the hell is that supposed to drive costs down (especially when throwing in preexisting conditions)? 

If they want to fix Obamacare, they need to start by adding some element of price shopping to the healthcare market. A lot of companies are doing this now with the HSA (health savings accounts) that encourage patients to compare price/quality of the doctors they choose. 

Just my two bits.


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's not the job of government to "achieve a healthy population". If that's your aim, we should start up state fat farms and mandate our diets as well. But that's simply not the kind of government I want. I can't imagine why you would.


----------



## KevinWestern (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Full and comprehensive (mandatory) insurance is also extremely expensive and CAN make someone's life worse off if they are not actually sick. 

A population with no disposable income is also less competitive in the global market..


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

KevinWestern said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> ...



Costs are rising because health care delivery is as progressive a market as exists. People are not willing to pass up any opportunity for a long productive life.  We are,  first and foremost,  survivors. It's hard wired.  That makes healthcare among the most research and development oriented markets with the attendant costs and new product stream benefits. And minimal price competition. 

Insurance premiums,  first,  follow health care delivery ever escalating costs. 

Given that,  the best tool for enhanced competition is consumer information.  That's the biggest aspect of Obamacare,  and it gets more necessary everyday as businesses realize that pernicious unemployment is an opportunity to pay workers less,  and backing away from health care insurance that used to be table stakes is now possible. 

Over my entire career my employers did the competitive research for me.  And they had huge clout to negotiate prices for me. That picture is changing before our eyes. 

I personally don't think that the researching benefits of Obamacare are an improvement over what my companies did for me,  but the option to continue what works best is not available any longer as we didn't legislate it into place. And the benefit that I realized is available to only a relatively few today. 

The Republican alternative of doing nothing assumes that if government does nothing,  nothing changes,  which is pure delusion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> 
> What would you want to be changed?



It doesn't matter if it can be fixed, it needs to go period.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> ...



As good a picture of Republicanism as I can imagine.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



That's what the country was built to be A REPUBLIC.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



" It's not the job of government to "achieve a healthy population"."

According to who? 

You keep avoiding my question.  

Who benefits from an unhealthy population? 

Our global competition is the only one that I can think of.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And it is.  A democratic Constitutional Republic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Art. 4
Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yes.  That means no monarch.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



unless that's what a democratic Constitutional Republic would want, that's why we are a republic with a Constitution that prevents this from happening.


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



According to me. The last thing I want is a government preoccupied with deciding what's best for me and pushing me toward it against my will. 

In my view, government is there to make it possible for us to get along in a pluralistic society, free to pursue our own unique aspirations for our lives. Not decide what those aspirations should be and push us toward them against our will.



> You keep avoiding my question.
> 
> Who benefits from an unhealthy population?
> 
> Our global competition is the only one that I can think of.



I guess my answer is, "I don't care". A nation is not a corporation. I certainly don't want it run like one.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 1, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...




I can't believe that Al Gore isn't on the list.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Prevents democracy in favor of tyrannical minority rule? 

That will never happen here.  As of 1930 our Constitution prevents it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We aren't a democracy we are a constitutional republic. Nothing more or nothing less.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 1, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are only wrong believing that we have rule by minority.  

We used to and gave it up in favor of universal suffrage democracy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually I said nothing like that. We live in a country where the majority doesn't rule and the minority is protected. There by it's a Republic, with rule of law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2013)

Thank you, bigrebnc1775, for stating that.


----------



## AquaAthena (Nov 1, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> 
> What would you want to be changed?


*
Not according to Jimmy Carter.*

_*Hes [Obama] done the best he could under the circumstances. His major accomplishment was Obamacare, and the implementation of it now is questionable at best.*_ 


A Truly Wicked Blow: Jimmy Carter Hammers Obama for Ineptness « Commentary Magazine


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

AquaAthena said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
> ...



Last sentence 



> So it may be that Jimmy Carter has a right to sit in judgment of Barack Obama. Which is among the worst things that could be said about Americas 44th president.


 That's going to sting.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So now you say that we should be paying attention to the guy who you've been saying is the second worst President in our history? 

Next thing that we know,  you'll be quoting Bush.  The worst.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That's gobbledygook.  Someone decides.  In a democracy it's the majority.  In a plutocracy or aristocracy,  it's a minority.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Constitutional limitations are what make democracy viable in a pluralistic society. Without them, letting someone you disagree with run things becomes intolerable.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Your first sentence is correct but irrelevant because it's never happened. 

Your second is gobbledygook.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Constitutional limitations have always been maintained and respected.  

A good assumption is that democracy will give you personally,  on the average,  what you want, half of the time. Thats as free as life gets.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Just keep lying to yourself, it does not change reality


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A constitution and rule of law doesn't work in a democracy


----------



## AquaAthena (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority. ...Edmund Burke

This is what we have today.....oppression and stagnation....


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What do you mean?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If SCOTUS says that all unconstitutional laws have been adjudicated as such,  what's left is,  by definition,  Constitutional.  

What you believe along those lines is irrelevant.  We can't allow something as fundamental as our Constitution to be changed by every nutball movement that comes along.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

AquaAthena said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



But it's the least tyrannical government possible.  

What you want is total freedom for you, which only tyrants have.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



" A constitution and rule of law doesn't work in a democracy"

America is proof that you are wrong.


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

It seems there's some equivocation going on around the term 'a democracy'. Those criticizing it seem to be assuming unlimited and/or direct democracy, which I'm not sure is fair - unless that's actually what those defending it are arguing for. I don't think PMZ has been advocating for anything beyond a constitutionally limited, representative democracy and I tend to agree that that's the "the worst kind of government except for all the others" - ie, the best we've come up with thus far.

This question of whether Constitutional limitations have been maintained is, at least as PMZ is presenting it, definitional - if the Court says our government is following Constitutional limitations, it is. But that's just evading the point.

There's no denying that the ways in which those limits have been interpreted has changed over the years, and that's really where the problem lies. For constitutional limitations to meaningfully limit democratic power, they must resist change. That's why the framers made it so difficult to change the Constitution.

Changing the Constitution shouldn't be something we avoid, when it's necessary, but taking shortcuts and pushing judges to simply reinterpret it hasn't served us well. It's not only changed specific limitations without real consensus, it's watered down the overall power of the Constitution to constrain the federal government.

All of this puts us in the position where our democracy is coming apart at the seams. Without solid guarantees that political opponents won't run roughshod over our most cherished values, adversaries have everything to lose with each successive election cycle. The bitter, polarized, political climate is a direct result of our diminished maintenance of the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


majority does not rule sorry.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It makes our democratic constitutional republic work.  Always has, except for the War of Southern Agression, in which the Old South was executed.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> It seems there's some equivocation going on around the term 'a democracy'. Those criticizing it seem to be assuming unlimited and/or direct democracy, which I'm not sure is fair - unless that's actually what those defending it are arguing for. I don't think PMZ has been advocating for anything beyond a constitutionally limited, representative democracy and I tend to agree that that's the "the worst kind of government except for all the others" - ie, the best we've come up with thus far.
> 
> This question of whether Constitutional limitations have been maintained is, at least as PMZ is presenting it, definitional - if the Court says our government is following Constitutional limitations, it is. But that's just evading the point.
> 
> ...



I would disagree on only one point.  The only limitations to government in the Constitution are "rights".  Specific areas of life the government is restricted from legislating within. 

Those have been honored without exception.  

Presuming that the Constitution says more about the reach of government is a myth. 

I understand why people who are not willing to settle for the half of the time that democracy averages for anyone getting their way,  would like more. The tension in most marriages and partnerships is the same. 

But,  as you point out,  there is no more freedom to be had than majority rule.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And what you just stated has nothing to do with what I have said. What nut ball group are you talking about?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Conservatism.


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > It seems there's some equivocation going on around the term 'a democracy'. Those criticizing it seem to be assuming unlimited and/or direct democracy, which I'm not sure is fair - unless that's actually what those defending it are arguing for. I don't think PMZ has been advocating for anything beyond a constitutionally limited, representative democracy and I tend to agree that that's the "the worst kind of government except for all the others" - ie, the best we've come up with thus far.
> ...



That's a fundamental misconception of the Constitution, and here I'd offer you the same response you're giving others - _the Court disagrees with you_. They still require that any law implemented by the federal government rests on specific powers granted by the Constitution. In fact most of the 'work' they do involves finding ways to rationalize federal power in terms of the enumerated powers. If your view held sway, they wouldn't bother.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Regardless of what you believe the work of SCOTUS is,  they do it as prescribed.  What we have is what the Constitution prescribes. 

I think that it is useful to consider that the Constitution is a product of diplomatic compromise.  Opposing views were resolved. Mostly the opposing perspectives stemmed from states rights vs a strong union.  Not between strong vs weak government.  

Like we expect from diplomacy both sides were satisfied.  The federalist thought that the general clauses adequately described a strong union.  The states rights people thought that the specific limitations did not usurp the authority of the separate colonies. The autocratic founders really didn't worry much about we,  the people,  but understood that their vision ultimately rested at our pleasure as we didn't have a traditional aristocracy in place. 

The bottom line,  which is the strength of the document,  is that it can be interpreted multiple ways.  But,  as time has gone on,  the strong union has become our greatest strength,  reinforcing that interpretation. 

You don't have to agree with the conclusions of history but they will remain.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



He answered your question correctly, bigreb.  That you disagree with that means nothing at all except that you are susceptible to nutball thinking.


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I s'pose. But the view that explicitly protected rights are the only limits on federal government isn't one that the Court has adopted - yet. Our government is, nominally, constrained to the powers delegated to it by the states via the Constitution.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 2, 2013)

We're saved!  Sebelius has a new book!


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



In the beginning,  when the Constitution was written,  it was close to true that the colonies were all the government that existed.  The Constitutional Congress was almost like an attempt to unify Europe or herd cats. 

IMO,  the Federalists pulled off a major diplomatic victory in the Constitution as it was ratified. 

After that, the direction of the country evolved by natural selection.  What worked best prevailed and grew.  

And our DNA,  the Constitution,  became what supported success. A strong union.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

boedicca said:


> We're saved!  Sebelius has a new book!



She may need help on Web site design but not on skewering Republicans.


----------



## regent (Nov 2, 2013)

With a democratic type of government where two or more parties have input in legislation, the end product is usually far from perfect. But as the political battle quiets down, the legislation is added to, improved, fixed and so on. 
Obamacare has been a bigger battle than even Social Security, passed in the 1930's, but as Social Security has been added to, changed and finally accepted by the Republican party , so this will happen to Obamacare. 
One of the big differences might be the name goes into the history books, even Social Security is not known as FDR-Security, and it would be ironic if Obamacare retains that name for as long as the nation endures, thanks to Republicans.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

regent said:


> With a democratic type of government where two or more parties have input in legislation, the end product is usually far from perfect. But as the political battle quiets down, the legislation is added to, improved, fixed and so on.
> Obamacare has been a bigger battle than even Social Security, passed in the 1930's, but as Social Security has been added to, changed and finally accepted by the Republican party , so this will happen to Obamacare.
> One of the big differences might be the name goes into the history books, even Social Security is not known as FDR-Security, and it would be ironic if Obamacare retains that name for as long as the nation endures, thanks to Republicans.



Obamacare is a baby step,  but the biggest one that could squeeze through a Congress where one party's sole objective was the failure of the other.  A little law but a major victory for the country. 

It does not address our biggest problem.  Health care delivery cost that every year out pace wages for the vast majority of us,  the middle class. 

My prediction is that after 2016,  Hillary will get credit for the next  major step, because the obstacles to progress will have been largely removed from Congress.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 2, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Well here we go toad speaks up thinks he's an authority never in my three years here has toad given any proof. FUCK OFF TOAD.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Dude if you think conservatism is some nut ball group you're more bat shit crazy than I suspected. liberalism/progressives is the nut ball group.


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > With a democratic type of government where two or more parties have input in legislation, the end product is usually far from perfect. But as the political battle quiets down, the legislation is added to, improved, fixed and so on.
> ...



Indeed. ACA throws gasoline on that fire.

We face two distinct problems with health care: what to do about people who can't afford health care, and the fact that health care prices are out of control. The Democrats chose to address the first problem and ignore the second - which is senseless because if health care prices keep going up, none of us will be able to afford it. 

If, instead they'd sought to first address the dysfunctional market forces driving inflation, then the issue of helping those on the bottom rung would have been an easier problem to solve.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



I agree that it would have been better  to solve the bigger problem.  Ask Boehner why he eliminated that option.

BTW,  how does insurance regulation make the covered service more expensive?


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I don't buy that excuse at all. ACA was passed written and passed by Democrats and their lobbyists (google Liz Fowler). I'm not necessarily saying Republicans would have done better, but blaming them for a bill that none of them voted for is pathetic.



> BTW,  how does insurance regulation make the covered service more expensive?



By increasing coverage, and throwing even more money at health care via subsidies, it further reduces consumer demand for lower health care prices. People worry less about looking for bargains, and doctors worry less about offering them, when they're not spending their own money.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You're ignoring the fact of free health care at hospitals.


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm not ignoring it, it's just not a major factor in the price inflation of routine health care. Most health care concerns aren't emergencies, and the costs associated with EMTALA have little impact on the cost of seeing a doctor for regular health concerns. 

Are you ignoring the obvious impact that consumers with virtually no motivation to look for lower prices will have on a market? I'd even argue that it not only diminishes such incentives, but turns them upside down. If you're covered, why wouldn't you opt for the most expensive treatment (which would presumably be higher quality) at every decision point?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I think that you are way off on your assessment of EMTALA contributions to health care insurance premiums.  

I'll research it for you.


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm not talking about insurance premiums. I'm talking about health care prices. Might want to re-read my last few posts if that was your assumption.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

From Wikipedia 

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[6] Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented."[7] Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8] The uncompensated or non-reimbursed amounts are written off as bad debt thus becoming a tax write off and the unpaid bills are also sold to third party collection agencies for an average of 20 cents per dollar[citation needed]. Health insurance reimbursements for services provided have continually been reduced by the health insurance companies[citation needed]. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for services have also been reduced[citation needed]. EMTALA is independent of the payers, EMTALA is not similar to bad debt or charity care that many not-for-profit hospitals enjoy. In spite of EMTALA the number of emergency room clinics or emergency rooms not attached to a traditional hospital have increased, as they are generally more efficient and cost less to operate than a traditional hospital-based emergency room[citation needed]. There is debate[by whom?] about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S.


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> From Wikipedia
> 
> The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is ....



You asked how insurance regulation (ala ACA) makes health care more expensive, and that's what I was addressing. I'm not denying the negative impacts of unfunded mandates like EMTALA - I think I've made it clear I'm opposed to them. But that's irrelevant to my point here. There's simply no denying that when consumers aren't spending their own money, they'll be very little demand for cost-efficient services. Whether that's because they're insured, or because they're getting free treatment at the emergency room doesn't really matter. In neither case are they concerned about the prices being charged on their behalf.

I wonder, have you given much thought to how using EMTALA as an excuse for the individual mandate sounds to those of us opposed to both? You're saying you want there to be a law like EMTALA that requires that people get medical treatment regardless of whether or not they can pay, yet you're indignant that it might cost you money. And you want to force everyone, not just those who abuse the law, to buy insurance via a state mandate so you won't have to pay for a law that you insist should stay on the books. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I don't see how that is defensible at all.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > From Wikipedia
> ...



How do you figure that consumers won't be spending their own money?


----------



## dblack (Nov 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Insurance.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



They will be spending their money on insurance.  Because unless you're a multi-millionaire you don't have enough wealth to cover health care delivery's worst case scenario.


----------



## dblack (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Hmmm... you seem to be missing the point. The problem is that hardly any of us are responsible for own health care bills - they're either being paid by our insurance or through government programs - and so no one really cares how much it costs. That's why the prices for _health care_ keep rising unabated. Neither health care consumers, nor health care providers, have an genuine interest in keeping prices low.


----------



## Politico (Nov 3, 2013)

My bills are being paid for? Someone should have told me.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You really believe that someone writing a thousand dollar check every month for healthcare insurance has no interest in reducing it????


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



They have no interest in choosing lower priced health _*care*_. In fact, they have the opposite incentive. If you're paying $1000/month for insurance, and you have a choice of doctors, which are you going to choose? The cut-rate doctor or the premium provider? Even if both are highly rated, wouldn't you err on the side of caution and assume the doctor charging more is offering better service?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



As far as health is concerned, people always err on the side of caution. 

That's why countries that are successful at managing health care don't leave it up to consumers. 

In addition,  you act like there's an alternative in health care to spreading risk.  

What is it?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

I'm on Medicare,  an option that I've been paying for my whole life after school. I continue to pay for it.  

After shopping around,  I found a Medicare Advantage Plan HMO.  

Mr Black believes that my decision was unusual as people don't care what health care costs,  so nobody would elect an HMO,  which restricts choice, over a PPO which does not.  

My selection though is the most popular Medicare Advantage Plan in the country. 

Why?


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Which is exactly what we ought to be learning from those other countries. And why anyone who gives a wit about freedom of choice doesn't want government managing health care.



> In addition,  you act like there's an alternative in health care to spreading risk.
> 
> What is it?



There are always alternatives, but it's not spreading _risk_ that's the problem. If insurance were being used merely as a hedge against catastrophic risk, we wouldn't be in such a bind. What we've been trying to do is use insurance to spread _expense_ rather than just risk, and it simply doesn't work well for that. As a means of financing regular health care expenses, health insurance is just a scam. A kind of pyramid scheme where everyone thinks they're going to come out ahead, but in the end we all lose - except for the insurance companies, who are in the middle of every transaction skimming their profits.

Which comes back to what I've been saying all along. What we need is LESS insurance, not more. The more we pay for health care out-of-pocket, the more money we'll save, and the more health care prices will come down.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You're in luck!  Less insurance is what we're getting.  Not because of the liberty scam but because health care delivery costs are unaffordable, yet we demand more.  We are the health care cost and quality failure of the developed world.  

Why?  Because of Conservatism's wholey mythical boogeyman of socialist economic systems.  Despite the fact that they are employed by virtually every country in the developed world including ours from the beginning. 

There is nothing more costly than ignorance and we've empowered it!


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Not from what I've seen bubbling out of the ACA cauldron. We're going to get less health _care_, but we're getting even more insurance - whether we like it or not.



> Why?  Because of Conservatism's wholey mythical boogeyman of socialist economic systems.  Despite the fact that they are employed by virtually every country in the developed world including ours from the beginning.
> 
> There is nothing more costly than ignorance and we've empowered it!



No doubt about that. But the 'conservatives' responsible for ACA are all Democrats.

The really frustrating thing is, if we were just socializing health care, it wouldn't be such a sadistic cluster-fuck. When Obama was elected, I'd pretty much conceded that we'd see socialized medicine by the end of his run, and I was somewhat ok with the idea. Things were (and still are) so screwed up in the health care market that I figured Congress couldn't possibly make things worse. Of course, they proved me wrong.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I don't think that it's arguable that full socialized health care will come.  Sort of like the fossil fuels business though,  those who profit from the status quo will delay it as long as they can. 

Obamacare care is a small but necessary step towards ultimate solution. 

It removes from those who profit from the status quo, the illusion that if some people have effective health care,  regardless of the cost,  that's good enough.  

Obamacare gives everyone responsibility for their own.  And puts the cost of that for people we choose to not pay a living wage to, front and center. 

The whining of those getting wealthy is the pain of those who operate in the shadows who find the shadows suddenly illuminated. 

No place to hide now.  

The only question in my mind is will this allow Hillary to finally restore our global competitiveness,  or someone following her.


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I don't think that it's arguable that full socialized health care will come.  Sort of like the fossil fuels business though,  those who profit from the status quo will delay it as long as they can.
> 
> Obamacare care is a small but necessary step towards ultimate solution.



Wake up man! Both liberals and conservatives are falling for the same lie - the claim that ACA is a 'step' toward socialized medicine. What we're getting is neither socialism, nor capitalism. It's corporatism, combining the worst aspects of both.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that it's arguable that full socialized health care will come.  Sort of like the fossil fuels business though,  those who profit from the status quo will delay it as long as they can.
> ...



It's health care insurance regulation.  

It's making and allowing everyone to pay for their own health care. 

Which one are you afraid of?


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Both. Because neither are what they purport to be. 

The "health care insurance regulation" of ACA is, primarily, the regulation of health insurance _customers_ - indeed, forcing the unwilling to become customers.

And, the idea that ACA makes everyone pay for their own health care isn't true, as I've been pointing out.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



All regulations impose responsibility.  Thats their purpose.  Why you want to allow irresponsibility is the question.  

The idea that ACA makes everyone responsible for cost of their own health care is absolutely true. No more dumping your cost on others.


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Failing to meet someone else's idea of minimum insurance coverage is not irresponsibility. Racking up bills and not paying them is. And that can happen whether you have insurance or not. Your justification for the mandate assumes that people without your idea of enough insurance are guilty until proven innocent. It's antithetical to the basic notions of liberty and justice.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



People with insufficient coverage rack up bills and can't pay them.  That's what's insufficient about their coverage. 

Liberty and justice are measures of responsibility. 

People who risk other people's money to save theirs are irresponsible.


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Not unless they do. This is what I mean by guilty-until-proven-innocent. Our justice system isn't supposed to work that way.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

There is no justice in health care.  If you get sick,  you seek a cure.  You should be able to pay for that care.


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no justice in health care.  If you get sick,  you seek a cure.  You should be able to pay for that care.



Ok. No justice. Got it.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no justice in health care.  If you get sick,  you seek a cure.  You should be able to pay for that care.
> ...



Justice is insuring that people who break the law are held accountable. 

Health care is insuring that people aflicted by disease or injury  get restored to health. 

You see a connection?


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your reasoning is circular. There is such a thing as an unjust law. Justice is more fundamental than law.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What is an unjust law?  Give me a definition and an example.


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Justice is insuring that people who break the law are held accountable.



Your reasoning is circular. There is such a thing as an unjust law. Justice is more fundamental than law.[/QUOTE]

What is an unjust law?  Give me a definition and an example.[/QUOTE]

A law that dictates behavior, rather than protects rights. ACA's individual mandate is a fine example.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



All laws dictate consequences for behavior that imposes on others. We each have a right to live without unnecessary imposition by others.  Your freedom can't be at my expense.  Do you agree?


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes, but as I've stated repeatedly, you are presuming that people who do not have insurance will impose on you. That is not necessarily the case. Our justice system doesn't operate on presumption


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The only way that your "system" would work is if people gave up the survival instinct.  How do you accomplish that?


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm not proposing a 'system'.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You are proposing that people who have no resources for healthcare just give up the instinct for survival.  I hope that I never would. And I suspect that most people wouldn't.


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm proposing that you mind your own business, and stop trying to tell other people how to live.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Not when they try to impose what's best for them on me.  I am free.


----------



## dblack (Nov 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Stow your presumptions. If people impose on you, we can punish them. Until they do, mind your own business.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I'm fine with folks who live their lives independant of mine and successfully. That's my goal too. People who have suffered from misfortune,  I try to share my good fortune with. People  who have the same good fortune as I,  but want more,  I ignore.  

Those that can afford to take care of themselves,  I expect to.  Those that can't,  I help.  

That's Obamacare.


----------



## dblack (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No it's not. Obamacare is about people who want to avoid helping others. You want to force others to buy insurance so you won't be bothered.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If you can afford to take care of yourself,  I expect you to. Of you are not paid enough to,  I will make up for that. 

Pretty simple.  Others may have a different standard.  If you are one of them,  state your standard.


----------



## dblack (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Apparently, you expect people who can take care of themselves to buy insurance.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That's how they take care of themselves unless they are multi millionaires.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Simple. It mandates what coverages people must purchase. A particular coverage within that plan, like say, drug rehabilitation coverage, I may have CHOSEN not to purchase. Now I don't have that choice. Think of it like grocery shopping. The cart is your entire policy. The things you put in the cart are the various coverages you want on your plan. Obama basically has put a bunch of items in the cart before you even start shopping. Items I may not want, but not only am I required to have them, I am required to pay for them on top of the coverage I actually do want. Hence why premium rates on the individual market are going up.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I think he means why require people to pay for insurance if they have the means of paying for their own medical care without it.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Premiums are going up because health care costs are going up as they do every year.  

If it wasn't for the Obamacare coverage requirements irresponsible people would just buy minimum coverage and we'd still be at risk of having to pay their bills.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Million dollar hospital bills are not that unusual.


----------



## dblack (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I just can't get past the sort of no-win situation you're willing to force on people. You want laws to exist that will force you to pay for those who don't have insurance, and then you want to use those as justification for punishing them for not having insurance. If you don't want to pay for the 'irresponsible', just get rid of the laws forcing you to. Why drag everyone else through your inner conflict?


----------



## dblack (Nov 5, 2013)

In the end, I can't help but see the whole 'personal responsibility' angle as just a bullshit excuse. The point of the mandate is to compensate insurance companies for the banning of pre-existing condition exclusions. A quid pro quo in an attempt to socialize health care costs via private corporations - using unwilling customers as the financing mechanism. 

If we want to socialize health care costs, we should do it honestly via taxes and government. Piping it through the insurance industry is, essentially, privatizing tax collection - outsourcing it to corporations who will profit from it. It's a seriously screwed up way to run things.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Premiums are going up because health care costs are going up as they do every year.



You are truly drinking the Obama kool aide if you think the reason premiums are going up for some is because of increased cost by providers (though Obamacare is making that go up too). The reason premiums are going up is obvious. You have to pay more to get more and Obama has mandated that people buy more. Next would be the community rating mandate. Again obvious to see what's going to happen; if a region is required to avg. the rate of a certain plan among its regional risk pool obviously the rates for the young and healthy are going to go up. AND when you you tell insurance companies you can't drop (one mandate I actually agree with) and can't deny on the basis of pre-existing conditions it ultimately means insurance companies are going to be paying a lot more covering sick people. The money to do that comes in the form of increased premiums.




PMZ said:


> If it wasn't for the Obamacare coverage requirements irresponsible people would just buy minimum coverage and we'd still be at risk of having to pay their bills.



This is nonsensical as well. Why would you pay someone x amount of dollars per month for health coverage that doesn't actually cover what you need. If the above is your logic why pay a premium at all? The problem with the above is, unlike what you contest, liberals refuse to let people bare the consequences of their actions. The alternative is NOT that everyone else foots the bill. The alternative is we stop treating people who can't or won't pay. 

This


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Million dollar hospital bills? Actually yes, that's pretty unusual. Tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars maybe. But those are the types of bills you should have insurance for. What we're saying here, is don't make a relatively young healthy individual over pay for a bunch of things he/she doesn't need. A yearly physical is maybe a few hundred bucks at most and that would probably be the extend of their medical use in a year, which a person can easily manage paying out of pocket. And don't come back with well that's still too much for some people because you've already essentially said a few hundred dollars per month in the insurance YOU are requiring them to buy is perfectly reasonable.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

One of the ways that some Americans have been missled is the notion that business is holy and government is a threat.  So they spend their energy looking for proof of that presumption. 

I believe that all organizations of humans are flawed,  as are all humans,  but there is nothing inherently good or bad about any collection of human effort.  Organizations are merely tools for collaboration,  be they businesses,  governments,  unions,  religions,  or families.   

One of the correlaries of the irrational fear of government is worship of the pure abstraction of freedom and liberty.  What do they even mean? 

Because of our government we are the most free people to ever walk the earth. The closest thing to the remaining compromise of that is poverty. 

Yet people whine all of the time about the burden of responsibility.  

"I should be free to do whatever,  whenever I want. 

Nobody ever was.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Premiums are going up because health care costs are going up as they do every year.
> ...



You just described America pre Obamacare. irresponsible people would just buy minimum coverage and we'd still be at risk of having to pay their bills. 

"liberals refuse to let people bare the consequences of their actions."

If you owned a business is this how it would be managed?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



What would it cost for a new heart for someone who thought themselves to be young and healthy? 

Or to make viable a one pound infant? 

Or to take care of a paraplegic resulting from a totally unexpected car accident?


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the ways that some Americans have been missled is the notion that business is holy and government is a threat.  So they spend their energy looking for proof of that presumption.
> 
> I believe that all organizations of humans are flawed,  as are all humans,  but there is nothing inherently good or bad about any collection of human effort.  Organizations are merely tools for collaboration,  be they businesses,  governments,  unions,  religions,  or families.
> 
> ...



I don't believe business is holy. Obviously it is capable of frauding people. The difference YOU fail to see is that there are mechanisms built into a free market system that hold business accountable for their actions and incentives for business built in for them to do right by their customers. Those mechanisms are not present in government. A government employee's pay is not tied directly to how well they perform their job, therefore there is no incentive for them to do that job well. 

And the reason we are the most free country in the world (relatively speaking) is because the founders of the country saw fit to limit government's power and what the can subject citizens to. This has been eroded slowly ever since.

Your also right that organization is a good thing in terms of productivity and so forth. FORCED collaboration is another matter entirely and that's really what you're advocating.

As to the importance of freedom, right again. There is NOTHING more important than individual freedom. The one part of your definition you missed is the end '....until it inteferes with someone's right to do the same.'.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Answered. You seem to have completely missed the point.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You really are full of nonsense and unspportable claims today. I don't see how this correlates to managing a business. What I mean by allowing people to reap the consequences of their choices is exactly that. If you don't like the fact that you have to pay via taxes for the freeloaders then how about we just don't anymore.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One of the ways that some Americans have been missled is the notion that business is holy and government is a threat.  So they spend their energy looking for proof of that presumption.
> ...



" Those mechanisms are not present in government."

We have much more control over government than business.  

We hire and fire government management. 

Most of us have two relationships to corporations.  As workers and as customers. 

As workers, there is little choice for workers when unemployment is high.  In fact the best state for business is what we have today.  An over supplied labor market and tax payer supported consumption to dig out of recession. 

The result.  Lower compensation for workers,  higher compensation for executives who are able to sell their country club friends on their ability to "save"  struggling businesses. 

As consumers.  Price competition is based on consumers being fully informed and price conscious.  The reality today is that brand advertising has rendered consumers unknowingly fashion conscious and uninformed.  How else can you explain bottled water,  multi millionaire entertainers and Facebook. 

So there is little correlation between beneficial products and business success.  It's a lottery. 

 Business built propaganda outlets like Fox to sell what's beneficial to them.  Strong business and weak government.  That became fashionable among dixiecrats and other extreme conservatives at the expense of America. 

What we are learning now is that we have traded off the success of a few businesses for $17T in debt for all of us.  

And the beat goes on.


----------



## dblack (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So why are you in favor of forcing people into the clutches of corporate insurance?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'm in favor of personal responsibility. Thats one way to accomplish it.  

Why are you against personal responsibility?


----------



## dblack (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm your inside-out conception of it, yes.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I think that many confuse irresponsibility with freedom. 

Unfortunately,  irresponsibility is always unaffordable.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

One of the things that's unfortunate is that the insurance business could have played these days in such a way as to enhance the case against a Medicare like replacement for them in the future.  Instead they're shooting at their own feet demonstrating make more money regardless of the cost to others. 

Piss poor business choice.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't be a liberal and be in favor of personal responsibility or be for Obamacare. This is how personal responsibility would like as it pertains to an individuals health care:

You realize that illness in some form or other is part of life. At some point you'll need a doctor for something. Possibly minor. Possibly catastrophic. Knowing that, you take RESPONSIBILITY to plan for that outcome financially. You purchase an insurance policy appropriate for your needs selecting the coverage YOU choose. Not what the government says you must have. Should you become ill with something that isn't covered, well that was your choice. You either make arrangements to pay for it somehow out of your own pocket or you don't get treated. THAT is taking personal responsibility and is far different from what you are talking about.

And no we do not have more control over government than we do the private sector. Yes we can elect officials, but those officials have the ability buy votes and are in office able to do whatever they want for many years regardless of the campaign promises they make. On the other hand you buy a product and it's substandard they will likely hear from you immediately and either make it right or suffer the consequences of no more business from you or other people should you inform others of the experience.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



"You can't be a liberal and be in favor of personal responsibility or be for Obamacare"

WTF????


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I believe that your point is that responsible people aren't irresponsible.  I agree.  Responsible people already have adequate coverage insurance so the law has no impact on them. 

All laws only effect irresponsible people.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You're assuming that the only relationship people have with business is as consumers.  

The whole truth is much,  much different.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the things that's unfortunate is that the insurance business could have played these days in such a way as to enhance the case against a Medicare like replacement for them in the future.  Instead they're shooting at their own feet demonstrating make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> Piss poor business choice.



Again more statements with absolutely no evidence to back them up. It's financially beneficial to insurance companies to keep their members healthy. All kinds of insurance companies are taking strides to introduce programs that prevent illness before they occur. My insurance company PAYS me to get a physical every year. My cousin works as wellness coach for another major health insurance company. It is not unreasonable to see that premiums would go up some as a result of these new services. Though these increases are not nearly what have been put upon by some by Obamacare. Normally it's a few percent increase each year. Now thanks to Obama, many are seeing doubling or more.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One of the things that's unfortunate is that the insurance business could have played these days in such a way as to enhance the case against a Medicare like replacement for them in the future.  Instead they're shooting at their own feet demonstrating make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> ...



First of all my post was about "these days",  the introduction of Obamacare insurance regulation. 

Second of all you forgot any evidence of premium increases caused by the regulations other than to insure coverage adequate for reasonable assurance that people are being personally responsible for the cost of their families health care.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

How great would it be if Republicans came out with a solid legislative proposal to control health care costs, the real cause of all of this trauma. 

I think that might even allow them to get elected some day again.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I've presented the evidence several times. The community rating mandate portion of the bill MUST and IS making premiums for the young and healthy increase. It's called the law of averages. Learn about it sometime.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I love how conservatives love to simplify things hoping to create a boogeyman. 

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...nd-premium-joy-under-the-affordable-care-act/


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually the above link says the same thing I did in a bit more detail. Are you saying the article you sighted is wrong too or does it just not say what you think it says?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



It sounds like normal insurance practice to me.  Some people win the insurance bet,  some people lose.  That's the nature of risk.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No that's not how it works at all. Up until Obamacare ALL forms of insurance charged premiums on the basis of risk. The greater the risk financially you are to the insurer the more you pay in premiums. The graph in the article you posted shows exactly what I said previously.

_'This form of premium setting is known as &#8220;community rating.&#8221; Because it forces healthier individuals to subsidize sicker individuals through the community-rated premiums,'_ 


 That the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating. Of course now that you cited an article that supports my argument rather than yours, you're trying to weasel your way out of it.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



" the premiums for the young and healthy are going up as a result of the community rating."

No. The premiums for some are going up and are counterbalanced by others going down.  Otherwise it would be just a scam on the part of insurers to make more profit.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> As workers, there is little choice for workers when unemployment is high.  In fact the best state for business is what we have today.  An over supplied labor market and tax payer supported consumption to dig out of recession.
> 
> The result.  Lower compensation for workers,  higher compensation for executives who are able to sell their country club friends on their ability to "save"  struggling businesses.



In fact, the relationship is quite clear.

The relationship between wages and the supply and demand for labor may be divided into two time periods.  In the most general sense, the trend for employment to population ratio changed in the year 2000. The yearly trend, from 1985 through 2012 is show here.





From 1985 through 2000, the employment to population ratio rose from 60.4% to 64.4%.  This trend was a continuation of the upward trend that began in 1962.   From 2000 through 2012, the employment to population fell, from 64.4% to 58.3%, in 2009 when the global economy receded.  From 2009 to 2012, has remained relatively flat, rising .3%.  

The relationship between wages and the supply of labor becomes apparent when the wage index is presented as a function of the employment to population ratio.  This is shown here.



 

From 1985 through 2000, the global economy continued on the upward growth that began after the end of WWII.  This growth created a demand for labor.  As the availability of labor tightened up, the wages increased.  After 2000, changes to the global economy shifted the labor market leverage from the supply side to the demand side.   As more and more people were not employed, wages real wages stagnated, flatenning out.

So, absolutely, what we have now is an economic condition that drives wages down.

Data Source:  
BLS : Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 SSA : Average Wage Index (AWI)
CPI : ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Then why did you cite an article that says otherwise? What part of math and averages do you not understand? 'Some' in this case are the young and healthy. Fun watching you squirm though.


----------



## dblack (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> How great would it be if Republicans came out with a solid legislative proposal to control health care costs, the real cause of all of this trauma.
> 
> I think that might even allow them to get elected some day again.



Or Democrats. Yeah, it would be cool.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So your assessment is that community rating is a scam by which insurance companies merely raise rates independent of risks.  That is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  and I don't think that's a goal of regulation.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No it's not a scam. It's an Obamacare regulation that requires insurance companies to avgerage out the rates of a given policy across a given risk pool. There is only one possible outcome of that which the graph in YOUR article reflects; the premium rates for the young and healthy go up while the premium rates of the sick and elderly go down. Seriously PMZ, there is plenty that can be legitimately debated about on Obamacare, but this isn't one of those things. It's not political. It's math. I still don't get why you cited the article you cited since it quite clearly explains exactly this and what I've been telling you for two pages now and you've been denying.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 5, 2013)

Sure, it is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance. 

Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.

It is true that people that would not have purchased medical insurance and are lucky enough to not need substantial medical care will end up paying more than they might otherwise have, during the period of time for which they would not have otherwise purchased insurance.

Not purchasing health insurance and not getting sick or being in a sever accident doesn't have either insurance or medical costs associated with it.

These are the only things that are true.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Sure, it is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance.
> 
> Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.
> 
> ...



We're not talking about going from paying nothing to paying something. We're not talking about the people that didn't have insurance at all and now have to buy it. We're talking about people who had plans that are seeing drastic increases or plans that are being canceled altogether and being forced to purchase significantly more expensive plans. We're talking about going from paying something to paying more. Again the article PMZ posted has an illustration of this. We're talking about people on the individual market. Young, healthy people who were paying one rate pre-Obamacare who's rates are doubling or more post-Obamacare due to the community rating and pre-existing condition mandates.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, it is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance.
> ...



It is easier to just list the couple of things that are correct rather than all the others that aren't.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 5, 2013)

*Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds*  AUG 20, 2013

"For the second year in a row, health insurance premiums for job-based family coverage rose a relatively modest 4 percent, reflecting slowed health spending."

"The average cost of a single employees insurance premiums rose 5 percent, to $5,884, with workers paying an average of $999, the survey found. "

"'The premium increase this year is very moderate, but the pain[sic] factor for health insurance cost has not disappeared," said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the foundation. "Over time, what people pay for health care has dramatically eclipsed both their wages and inflation.'"

Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds - Kaiser Health News


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You keep saying that yet can't seem to provide any evidence for it. Are the small business owner's I know seeing their raties nearly doubling lieing? Is the gentleman in the article PMZ posted simply mistaken about what will (see is) happening to the raties of the young and healthy. If so, I'm afraid simply saying I'm wrong doesn't cut it. At some point you have to show evidence for it.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> *Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds*  AUG 20, 2013
> 
> "For the second year in a row, health insurance premiums for job-based family coverage rose a relatively modest 4 percent, reflecting slowed health spending."
> 
> ...



More info irellavant to the conversaton. We're talking about people on the individual market. Not employer based insurance and not young and healthy people who didn't previously have it.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



For the math to be correct, you have to do the right math.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > *Family Insurance Premiums Rise 4 Percent For 2nd Year In Row, Survey Finds*  AUG 20, 2013
> ...



Regardless, your math is wrong.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



How so? Did you read PMZ's link. Did he get the math wrong too? Again, if so, how? Last I checked when you avg a group of numbers the low numbers in the range rise to the avg. and the high numbers in the range fall to the average.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Well, nothing you have presented is evidence of anything.  Why should anyone else have to live up to a standard higher than the one you apply to yourself?

There is a funny story about two economics students.  One announced his intent to switch majors to physics.  His friend replies, When you do, the average IQ for the physics department will go up and the average for the economics department will go down.  There is no law of averages that requires the average to be higher.

I've already provided my response to the presented article.

It is true that people whom would not have otherwise buy medical insurance will be paying more in terms of medical insurance.   Not buying insurance doesn't have a direct insurance cost associated with it.

It is true that people that would not have purchased medical insurance and are lucky enough to not need substantial medical care will end up paying more than they might otherwise have, during the period of time for which they would not have otherwise purchased insurance.

Not purchasing health insurance and not getting sick or being in a sever accident doesn't have either insurance or medical costs associated with it.

The article sited doesn't definitively predict health care premiums. It does provide some insight into some of the effects that will affect health care premiums.

So, What evidence do you think can possibly be provided that will definitively predict prices in the future?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Just what I said.  Some go up.  Some go down. Balance.  That's always true of insurance.  There are winners and losers.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Actually, yes, he got the math wrong.

There is no rule in math that says that when new numbers are added, the mean must go up.  And, there is no rule in micro-economics that says that the equilibrium price must go up with quantity.  And there is no rule in macro-economics that says that the real "price" must go up.

There is no evidence that demonstrates all these new numbers are higher risk.  This is the assumption made in the article. The article depends on this "adverse selection" criteria that it never proves.    There is just as much reason to consider that the opposite is true.    Even if adverse selection were at work specifically in the health insurance market, that doesn't mean it is at work in the aggregate health care markets.  The insurance market is the end use point for the majority of the health care market.  

One point is that the total cost of health care, including insurance premiums, is primarily a function of the service used, not a function of the service insured for.  This is true for insurance premiums as well.  Adding covered service to a health plan does not necessitate that the price rise.  If pap smears were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only men, it wouldn't add a dime.   If prostate examinations were added as a service to an insurance plan that accepted only woman, it wouldn't cost a dime.  There is no rule that says adding a service increases cost.

Even then, approaching the problem from a "price" perspective is completely useless.  To begin with, there is service provided the uninsured.  Then there is the simple fact that "price" and "cost" are not the same thing.  Nominal and real price are not the same.  And, there is the issue that wages are not fixed. They are highly dependent on numerous factors, including the employment to population ratio.

To apply the simple micro economic models, market imperfections have to be ignored.  And the fact is that the health care markets, including insurance, includes every imperfection imaginable.  And this includes the effects of the general labor market.

In addition to the note above regarding covered but underutilized service, if we are to apply a simple model, it would be this;    

1)	 The aggregate price paid for all healthcare services provided is divided up among the consumers that pay for health care and insurance as well as the tax payer.  That aggregate price is simply not assigned to the uninsured though they do receive health services.  The poor and disabled are already insured. They are insured under Medicare, Medi-caid, or simply by the cost write offs by health care providers.   Regardless,  every working person is covering the cost of healthcare, including the uninsured.   Those not paying for insurance are essentially off book.

2)	The real price of health insurance and care  is dependent on simply the nominal price but also upon the wages earned.   The difference between an economy where no one purchases a good and one where everyone purchases a good is exactly the price of that good.  The only caveat is if the production of that service detracts from the production of some other service or good.  For that to occur requires that the employment to population ratio be at it&#8217;s highest level.  That is no less than 64.4%.

3)	Much of the health insurance and care market is a volume, efficiency of scale business where the significant costs are fixed costs.  The insurance market is definitively such.

The simple essence of these are that the change in the health care markets will be a shift in supply along with an increase in quantity demanded.  And this is just to start.

The point of presenting the available data on group coverage is that it is real data available about the real market.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 5, 2013)

Here is something;

http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf


Check out the conclusion and the table on page 40

Appendix Table 3. Relation Between Insurance Status and Personal Characteristics in 1992 and the Probability of Death by 2002, by 2004, and by 2006 (OLS Regression Results for HRS cohort ages 51&#8211;61 in 1992)

The paper brings up an interesting distinction between the voluntarily and involuntarily uninsured as well as makes effort to determine the real health status for these two groups.

The article's direction was not specifically regarding premium prices, so the conclusion isn't directly answering the question.  

IT does give us an idea with "The unadjusted difference in mortality between the voluntarily uninsured and the privately insured is only 3 percentage points at the start and it falls below 2 percentage points after controlling for differences in characteristics."

This suggests that the article on "adverse selection" makes a bold assumption.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



One of the gross errors made about our health care non-system is that it is somehow separate from other systems.  So if a person becomes insured for health care our costs must go up. 

Whether total costs go up or down depends on many factors. 

If the person obtained health care before insurance from hospital emergency rooms,  that is the most expensive,  least effective treatment possible for anything other than dire emergencies.  Insured diagnostics and treatment will be much cheaper. 

Experience shows that very often preventative medicine is very cost effective compared to treatment.  Those costs will go down. 

Prompt treatment of contagious diseases will limit their spread and therefore cost. 

Freeing up emergency treatment facilities for true emergencies will allow better treatment of them. 

Business medical lost time will be reduced and productivity increased.  
The overhead of insurance companies will be spread over more policyholders thus increasing the productivity of those companies. 

Fewer workers and drivers with marginal health will reduce accidents.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The community rating mandate does that. It perfectly predicts what will happen to the price of premiums. Again it's simply math. It's a mandate that requires insurance companies to avg. premiums across a given risk pool. Therefore some permiums MUST go up. That this regulation exists is your evidence that premiums are and must go up.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



We're not talking about adding numbers. We're talking about average them. And yes when you avg. a group of numbers the new avg. is indeed going to be greater than some of those numbers. That's what the community rating does. It says this group of people have this plan. The group of people pay different premium prices currently based on their risk factor. The government now says you can't do that. You have to charge them all the same price for the same plan. And you are simply naive or want so desperately for Obamacare to work that you're willing to be willfully obtuse about the fact that it's the premiums of the young and healthy that MUST go up.

At the end of the day basically what you're left claiming is that you don't know what will happen while at the same time claiming what I'm telling isn't what's going to happen (despite the evidence here and now that it is).


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Do you really expect that spreading risk should result in everyone getting the same 'return'  on their insurance dollar? 

With insurance,  the lucky ones get no return and the unlucky ones get max return. 

No insurance company creates a whole new rate structure for every customer.  They have to be grouped somehow.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually no what you said was the rates of the young and healthy would not go up. Further why should the young and healthy be the losers? You agreed with me that one should not be obligated to another's outcomes yet support a system that does exactly that. The elderly and sick are obligating the young and healthy to their medical expenses. So which is it?


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



We're not talking about how much people get out of insurance. We're talking about how much they put in. Though since you bring it up how exactly is it fair that a group of people all put in the same amount of money, but some get to take more out than others?


----------



## dblack (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



It's socialized health care costs run through the pipeline of private, for-profit corporations. Everybody 'wins'.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 5, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The elderly are on Medicare and that is completely unrelated. 

When I worked, my company provided health care insurance.  The rate that they paid was based on the health of their population.  

But we were part of a community.  

Others,  in the same community,  on the average were higher risk (the community risk was higher than our company risk),  so paid higher rates. 

The way that worked out was good for the company but at the expense of the community. 

That could be called fair to the company but unfair to the community. 

It has to be done one way or the other. 

Obamacare chose community rating.  If you are young,  you boo,  if not,  you cheer. 

It sounds like you want the young cheering and every one else booing.


----------



## Antares (Nov 5, 2013)

Most companies already used Community Rating, this is a very minor thing in relation to the ACA.

The usual rating method was broken down down to zip codes.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That isn't unfair to the community. Paying more than someone else is not an inherently unfair situation. It's dependent on why they pay more and you just said it was because they were higher risk, so no it is not unfair that they pay more as a result.

What I want, if we're going to use an insurance based approach is one that is fair and makes sense. An inurance model that punishes healthy people for the sake of sick people can't work nor is it even moral. One thing you as a liberal really probably don't want to here is a lot of the illness in this country is self inflicted from our diets and lack of exercise. You have just removed the financial incentive for doing that. Not only are your rates not going to go up as a result of the choices you make, but someone else, a healthy person making good choices, is being forced to pay for someone elses bad choices.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Life is not fair.  If it was,  there would be no random illness. 

All that the Obamacare community rating mandate does is to adopt one of the standards already in use by the insurance industry.  There is no inherently right or wrong one.  They are all more fair to some and less fair to others. 

I'm still waiting to hear,  maybe today is the day,  where all of the money that people claim has resulted from huge premium increases is going.  

Obscene insurance company profits? 
New medical technology. 

More Dr's all of a sudden? 

All of the real costs now on the table? 

A huge increase in disease and accidents? 

Where?


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Well at least your honest in thinking you have the right to obligate other people to your well being. You don't actually have the right, but again, thank you for being honest in thinking you do. Most liberals try to rationalize endlessly that isn't what they really believe. You're honest enough to at leat acknowledge the unfairness of the system, but are fine with it because it happens to be policy advocated by the left which you fall on politically.

As to where the money is going. That's been answered several times, but once more for the slow; the premium increases on the young and healthy are being used to subsidize the extra cost on the insurance company of having to cover the sick and older.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I am honest in recognizing that every law obligates people to be responsible. In the case of Obamacare it's to be responsible for the cost of their own health care. 

If your explanation is correct, than whatever more the young and healthy are paying is offset by others paying less.  No increase in total premiums.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's not true. Obamacare does not require people be responsible for themselves. It requires that young healthy people be responsible for the medical expenses of the elderly and sick.



PMZ said:


> If your explanation is correct, than whatever more the young and healthy are paying is offset by others paying less.  No increase in total premiums.





Agreed, accept that isn't what we're talking about. We're not talking about what the avg premium cost is doing regardless of risk pool. And further who cares about no increase in average premiums (assuming that's even true, which you've provided no evidence to support). What is that a measure of? That when you averaged across everyone in the country that single number might be lower than the national premium average previously? You're having to generalize so much at this point that that is meaningless. It tells us nothing.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Republicans,  in an attempt to recover some of their lost relevance,  are implying that Obamacare is costly to the nation rather than what it is.  The measure of that would be total premium increase due to its mandates.  

I think that on the short term the effects of it are economicly neutral and it's benefit is,  over the long term,  a necessary step to getting our completely out of control health care delivery system globally competitive. 

Calling what you don't want to be true "meaningless" is not productive.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It is meaningless. I for one have not contended it will be expensive to the nation (though it will be). I have maintained it's going to be costly to a lot of individuals and this has been proven. It's going to be costly to young, healthy individuals on the individual market. Obama lied about that. He sold this as healthcare being less expensive for everyone. We clearly see now that isn't going to be the case. It's just another example of stupid liberal problem solving. You reward the negative and punish the positive. You know that and again you're just trying to change the subject. 

Globally competitive is anther vague, meanignless term. Competitive in what exactly? Because in terms of delivering health outcomes the U.S. is ranked at the top by the WHO. It's the cost that causes us to get ranked lower. But any one that understands a market should obviously see that superior quality is going to cost more.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 6, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Oh billshit.  You complain when others make statements without evidence, then you make a sweeping claim based on nothing except some unstated assumptions.  Your math is simple, for sure.  Unfortunately, it doesn't represent reality.

My question was, "what evidence do you think can possibly be provided that will definitively predict prices in the future?"

And your response makes it clear that evidence doesn't mean anything to you.  You continue on this oversimplistic and inappropriately applied average.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Again I fail to understand how a mandate that says insurance companies must now average out rates across a risk pool doesn't predict what will happen to some people's rates. Hell the community rating mandate isn't even a prediction. It's essentially a flat out statement that some people's rates are going to go up as a result. You simply keep characterizing the above as simplistic because as a liberal you don't like the fact that it makes a liberal policy look bad. The community rating mandate isn't complicated. It says take number of insured on a given policy in a given region and average out the premium rate. The reality is not that I haven't provided evidence. You've admitted what I'm saying is true in theory you just don't believe that's how it works in practics and YOU haven't provided any evidence to support that. The evidence that supports my positions is in the news every day. There's your evdience. That you wish to remain obtuse to it is no refutation of the fact.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



" I for one have not contended it will be expensive to the nation (though it will be)."

This oxymoron speaks for itself. 

" He sold this as healthcare being less expensive for everyone."

Never.  It isn't healthcare.  It's health care insurance regulation. That's not going to change the price of healthcare at all. 

" You reward the negative and punish the positive. "

Requiring people to be responsible for the cost of their families health care has no impact on responsible people,  who have always been,  and discourages irresponsibility with a non-compliance tax. 

" Globally competitive is anther vague, meanignless term."

Not if you're in business. 

America is spending about 10% of GDP more on health care than our global competition.  Thats a huge obstacle to selling American products overseas.  People blame wages,  which we have always offset with productivity,  but just paying that much more for mediocre health care results is a huge strike against American business success. 

" Because in terms of delivering health outcomes the U.S. is ranked at the top by the WHO."

An absolute fabrication. 

You keep sharing Republican propaganda in the hopes that some of it is true.  It's just plain not.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Community rating has been in use by the insurance business for decades.  You would like to imply that it's an Obamacare invention.  All alternatives, other than no insurance, have the same effect.  All that changes is who pays slightly more and who pays slightly less. 

Your Republican campaign advertising attempting to drag democrats and the country down to the level of incompetence demonstrated time after time by Republicans is just lies.  It's not going to work any better than all of the other Obama lies told by the GOP over the last four years. 

Hang it up.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> " I for one have not contended it will be expensive to the nation (though it will be)."
> 
> This oxymoron speaks for itself.



Nothing paradoxical about it. At no point in this overly long conversation, prior to the above, has the conversaton been about whether or not our health care expenses as a nation will go up. It's been about for what individuals will costs co up. 



PMZ said:


> " He sold this as healthcare being less expensive for everyone."
> 
> Never.  It isn't healthcare.  It's health care insurance regulation. That's not going to change the price of healthcare at all.



Wow. That's pretty interesting spin. You're claiming that teh President was up front that insurance would cost more but the new regulations will be worth it? I don't think you're gonna find a soul that remembers that speech. No, the argument by Obama all along was if not but for what it cost, more people would receive the health care they need.  



PMZ said:


> " You reward the negative and punish the positive. "
> 
> Requiring people to be responsible for the cost of their families health care has no impact on responsible people,  who have always been,  and discourages irresponsibility with a non-compliance tax.



Again. Not talking about the individual mandate here. We're talking about the community rating mandate which essentially holds the young and healthy responsible for the medical costs of the old and sick. 



PMZ said:


> " Globally competitive is anther vague, meanignless term."
> 
> Not if you're in business.
> 
> America is spending about 10% of GDP more on health care than our global competition.  Thats a huge obstacle to selling American products overseas.  People blame wages,  which we have always offset with productivity,  but just paying that much more for mediocre health care results is a huge strike against American business success.



Again can't have it both ways. You said this wasn't about cost cutting. Rather it's about regulat, but complain about us spending more than other countries on health care. If it never was about cost cutting as you previously contended why bother bringing up how much we spend on health care. 



PMZ said:


> " Because in terms of delivering health outcomes the U.S. is ranked at the top by the WHO."
> 
> An absolute fabrication.



No. Look at the report. I've studied it extensively and the rank any given country has in the report is based on subset of factors such as efficiency of delivery, outcomes and cost. In the former areas the U.S. ranks quite high. It's the cost to the individual that tends to drop our rank in the eyes of WHO.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Community rating has been in use by the insurance business for decades.  You would like to imply that it's an Obamacare invention.  All alternatives, other than no insurance, have the same effect.  All that changes is who pays slightly more and who pays slightly less.



Yes it has been around before. Except prior to Obamacare, risk could be factored into that community rating which is why prior to Obamacare sicker person was a paying a higher premium than a healthier person for the same policy on the individual network. Nor is it slightly more or slightly less. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are seeing their rates increase by double digit percentages or are being dropped all together and forced to purchase plans with higher premiums and deductibles. You liberals can keep your head in the sand. Not pay attention to ANY news outlet that is reporting these things on a daily basis, but that doesn't change the fact it is happening. 

There is no part of Obamacare that provides a real mechanism of driving costs down anywhere. That was brutally obvious. 

What on earth would make you think a mandate that forces insurance providers to charge the same rate for the same product to all comers would result in the cost of the premium going down for everyone?

What on earth would make you think a mandate that doesn't allow insurers to deny people with pre-existing conditions would make you think that would make premium costs go down?

What on earth would make you think that tax that makes medical devices cost more for providers would make the cost of services go down?

Those are established, known requirements of Obamacare not open for debate. Nor should it be open for debate as to what they do to the price of a good or service. The only people who will see their premiums go down are the unhealthy and elderly. To accomplish that the way this bill was crafted REQUIRES that the young and healthy pay more. You could have an actual debate over whether that's a legitimate obligation of society or not...for the haves to essentially pay for the have nots, but could we please stop pretending it's not happening and that Obama didn't lie about it?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Community rating has been in use by the insurance business for decades.  You would like to imply that it's an Obamacare invention.  All alternatives, other than no insurance, have the same effect.  All that changes is who pays slightly more and who pays slightly less.
> ...



You've made your point that you are sticking to the propaganda whether it's right or wrong.  Your choice.  Just don't pretend that it's rational or based on facts.  You reject facts like water off a duck's back.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Sorry. Again you're projecting. You can pretend hundreds of thousands and possibly millions by next year aren't or won't seeing their premiuns sky rocket. That doesn't change the fact it is happening. I am a far more objective person than you are clearly. I do recognize that there is plenty of room for improvement. I am not however a liberal partisan hack like you that will defend bad policy to the end out of party loyalty as you are doing. I am perfectly comfortable resting on what I've said because the outcomes I have said are observable here and now. You on the other hand have provided nothing to support any of your contentions. The bulk of your time as been spent telling me I'm wrong without any evidence as to why or unsubtatiable claims that I'm a parrot for someone. Instead it's been mostly excuses and back pedaling.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



"I am a far more objective person than you are clearly."

Only in your closed mind.  

You're on your own. Not worth debating. 

Sell your wares.


----------



## dblack (Nov 6, 2013)

I don't really care what kind of impact ACA has on the market, or how it effects me personally. This is a matter of vital principle. I don't care what Congress says, what the President says, or what the Court says. *I refuse to recognize the power of corporations to levy and collect taxes.* And I'll do everything within my power to throw a monkeywrench in this shit.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> I don't really care what kind of impact ACA has on the market, or how it effects me personally. This is a matter of vital principle. I don't care what Congress says, what the President says, or what the Court says. *I refuse to recognize the power of corporations to levy and collect taxes.* And I'll do everything within my power to throw a monkeywrench in this shit.



I refuse to recognize the power of corporations to levy and collect taxes. 

Is this somehow connected to ACA?


----------



## dblack (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really care what kind of impact ACA has on the market, or how it effects me personally. This is a matter of vital principle. I don't care what Congress says, what the President says, or what the Court says. *I refuse to recognize the power of corporations to levy and collect taxes.* And I'll do everything within my power to throw a monkeywrench in this shit.
> ...



It's the heart and soul of ACA.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Whatever you need to tell yourself.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If I were you I wouldn't send tax money to corporations. I certainly don't and wouldn't. 

You guys keep saying that corporations are near God. That,  as a consumer you just pick the company that you want. 

Why the sudden change of heart?


----------



## dblack (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What in the world are you talking about???


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



He's hoping the shotgun effect of say all kind of bullshit will confuse.


----------



## dblack (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ, you seem fixated on some really weird misconceptions of what libertarians advocate. It certainly isn't corporations colluding with government to control us.

Is ACA really your idea of a 'free market' approach to health care reform? If so, I'd suggest you do some reading.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 6, 2013)

When I buy a gallon of gasoline for my car, Shell collects a tax from me and sends it to the State of Texas Treasury, who levied the tax and suborned the oil company to collect it at the point of sale.

Like... am I the only human on the planet who has ever noticed this?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ, you seem fixated on some really weird misconceptions of what libertarians advocate. It certainly isn't corporations colluding with government to control us.
> 
> Is ACA really your idea of a 'free market' approach to health care reform? If so, I'd suggest you do some reading.



It is a free market.  Just as free as before Obamacare.  In fact more free as customers are empowered with better means to compare different offerings. 

Responsible families will see no differences except whatever covered health care delivery cost increases there are. 

Irresponsible families will see their options to push their costs off to others limited. 

The problem with personal responsibility is........


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 6, 2013)

A true free market in medical care would have medical care responding to demands for lower prices by consumers of medical care. It has not been a free market in a long time because of 3rd and 4th party influences on the transaction.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> A true free market in medical care would have medical care responding to demands for lower prices by consumers of medical care. It has not been a free market in a long time because of 3rd and 4th party influences on the transaction.



That need has not been addressed yet as Republicans would consider that objectionable socialism.  

What's been addressed is free market insurance to cover health care delivery costs.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > A true free market in medical care would have medical care responding to demands for lower prices by consumers of medical care. It has not been a free market in a long time because of 3rd and 4th party influences on the transaction.
> ...



Same problem. When State/Federal agencies, as third parties, dictate the allowable terms of insurance, there is no free market. States have been regulating these transactions for a long time. Corporations, participating as fourth parties to the transaction, make it even less of a free market to the extent that they either fund or self insure the purchase of the product.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 6, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



I think that people should be free to do whatever doesn't impose on others.  Don't you?


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That is a good general litmus test on any issue.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ, you seem fixated on some really weird misconceptions of what libertarians advocate. It certainly isn't corporations colluding with government to control us.
> ...



Heh... that's what I thought. Nevermind.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Where has any one in this thread who opposses Obamacare said anything about worshipping corporations? This is why you fail so miserably in your arguments. They're all strawmen because those are the only ones you can win.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ, you seem fixated on some really weird misconceptions of what libertarians advocate. It certainly isn't corporations colluding with government to control us.
> ...



No it unequivocally is not as free as choices have been limited. It truly is amazing how someone can lie just to themselves the extent that you do. Especially making statement that are so observably false. The choice of what type of coverage one can purchase has been reduced which is why we are seeing so many policies canceled. That equates to choice elminated and being a less free market. The choice over whether to purchase insurance at all has been taken away also making it a less free market.

The problem with personal responsibility is you would not know it if it bit you in the ass. Obamacare is not a case of personal responsibility. Personl responsibility is suffering the consequences of your CHOICE not to pay for your health care. Not someone forcing you to buy insurance. Please stop telling everyone you're this personal responsibility advocate when you so clearly aren't. Personal responsibility where it comes to health care in no way requires the existence of Obamacare.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes. The problem is Obamacare doesn't do that. The community rating mandate combined with the individual mandate essentially says the sick can impose the costs of their care on the healthy.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

Antares said:


> Most companies already used Community Rating, this is a very minor thing in relation to the ACA.
> 
> The usual rating method was broken down down to zip codes.



Again it's not the community rating wasn't done before. It's how the government is forcing the industry to formulate that community rating that is having the severe impact on the premiums of many people.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



And here is yet another article showing exactly what I'm talking about. Are the people in all of these articles just lieing about what is happening to their premiums?

Popular Provision Of Obamacare Is Fueling Sticker Shock For Some Consumers - Kaiser Health News



> Im kind of shocked, said Leo Lenaghan, who lives in the Chicago suburbs. The $336-a-month BlueCross Blue Shield policy for his wife and daughter, which had a $2,250 per person annual deductible, is being discontinued and the plan his insurer says is most similar to it in benefits will cost an additional $205 a month. It has a $3,000 per person deductible. I guess were just going to have to suck it up.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Coming back to this, it's rather stunning that you're able to accuse others of worshipping corporations when you're advocating for a law that gives them the power to tax us. You don't see any hypocrisy in that?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Corporations have no power to tax. 

When private companies exist in competitive markets,  the only places they should exist,  you are free to pick among them. That has nothing to do with having to buy from one of them. 

For all intents and purposes we all have to buy food and drugs.  But we can choose where.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



People without the resources to cover their potential health care costs are counting on imposing those costs on others if they happen.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



ACA give this insurance industry exactly that. The individual mandate is a forced payment for a service whether you want it or not. That's a tax. The only difference between it and legally imposed tax is that we have no directly control over the cost associated with the mandate because we don't elect those setting the rates. It's truly 'taxation without represenation'.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Why do conservatives always want to reward and empower irresponsibility? 

Did you raise your kids that way?


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



C'mon. Skip the phony dodge and defend your position. How can Democrats pretend to be defending us from corporate excess when they're forcing us into their pens as unwilling chattel?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The real problem,  that Republicans offer no solutions for,  are people dodging responsibility for their own health care costs and counting on others to carry them if need be. 

When Republicans have a proposal for solving that problem,  they can offer it.  

In the meantime threatening to let mobsters out of the closet is merely childish.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 7, 2013)

The only way Obama can "Fix" Obamacare is to control the narrative so that the gullible public is fooled into thinking it is fixed.

And here is how they are trying to do it:  training news reporters what to say about ObamaCare.

_Reporters with the Society of American Business Editors and Writers received "training" on how to cover Obamacare's rollout from a policy expert who works with President Obama's former health information technology adviser.

The Commonwealth Fund's Sara Collins claimed during the training that healthcare.gov's chronic dysfunctionality does not signify "deeper issues" with the law.

"I don't think it signifies deeper problems, I think it is a website issue," Collins told SABEW during the Oct. 28 training seminar.

Her optimistic take on the law's difficulties is unsurprising since she works for an organization led by David Blumenthal, who was President Obama's national coordinator for health information technology from 2009 to 2011.

What is surprising is that an organization claiming to represent professional journalists would endorse "training" delivered by advocates for the program they are covering, which would violate SABEW's code of ethics.

That code encourages journalists to "avoid any practice that might compromise or appear to compromise objectivity or fairness."

A SABEW spokesman did not respond to a request for comment..._

Pro-Obamacare team trains reporters on covering Obamacare website problems | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So, nothin?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Powerful narrative.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Are you saying your response is a 'powerful narrative' and I'm not recognizing it? I just don't see how it makes any sense as a response to my question. What gives?


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I'm saying "So, nothin?" says nothing.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Where's the evidence for that. If you were really for personal responsibility you would be for essentially no government oversight into health care what so ever. Then it would be the individuals responsibility to pay for their own health care however they see fit. The would not be able to dump health care expenses on to others in one form or other if they can't pay. They simply wouldn't get treated. It would be the individuals responsibility to find out and know what their plans cover and under what circumstances they can be dropped. It would be the individuals responsibility to work out a payment plan with the provider if they can't pay all at once. THAT is what personal responsibility as it pertains to health care would look like. You advocating for Obamacare looks nothing like that. Stop pretending you're Mr. personal responsibility. If there's one commonality among liberals it's the extreme aversion they have to exactly that.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The real problem,  that Republicans offer no solutions for,  are people dodging responsibility for their own health care costs and counting on others to carry them if need be.
> 
> When Republicans have a proposal for solving that problem,  they can offer it.
> 
> In the meantime threatening to let mobsters out of the closet is merely childish.



The real problem is no politician could campaign on what elminating that would actually entail. No politician is going to be able to sell the idea that if you can't pay you don't get treated. 

Obamacare on the other hand feably attempts to not remedy that problem. It simply shifts who does the paying for those that can't.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

Interesting reactions to the one purpose of law: holding people accountable for being responsible for not imposing their wants and needs on others. Freedom from for all rather than their revered freedom to.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Interesting reactions to the one purpose of law: holding people accountable for being responsible for not imposing their wants and needs on others. Freedom from for all rather than their revered freedom to.



You can deny it all you want, but the stated purpose of the AFFORDABLE Care Act was to make health care more affordable, and not just for some, for everyone.

Keep pretending you're Mr. Accountability while holding the paradoxical position of being for Obamacare. In the real world you can't be both. We can do personal accountability really easily. Get government out of it. Don't treat people that can't pay. = personal accountability achieved.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

One of the provisions of ACA are Medical Loss Ratio mandates. 

"Value for Your Premium Dollar: 80/20 Rule and MLR"

"The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend your premium dollars primarily on health care. It does this by enforcing a policy called the 80/20 rule to hold insurance companies accountable."

"What Medical Loss Ratio Means for You"

"The percentage of your premium dollars that an insurance company spends on providing you with health care and improving the quality of your care (as opposed to what it spends on administrative, overhead, and marketing costs) is known as Medical Loss Ratio or MLR."

"The new law limits how much of your premium dollar your insurer can spend on things other than providing health care and improving its quality. If your insurance company exceeds that limit, it must provide a rebate of the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit."

"Some Important Details"

"The law requires insurers selling policies to individuals or small groups to spend at least 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care.  Insurers selling to large groups (usually 50 or more employees) must spend 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement."

"This rule does not apply to employers who operate what is called a self-insured plan. If youre not sure whether your plan matches this description, ask your employer or check your plan materials. 

"Your health insurance company must report yearly to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the share of premium dollars spent on health care services and quality improvement and any rebates required. The first report, covering calendar year 2011, was filed on June 1, 2012."

"Insurers are required to make the first round of rebates to consumers in 2012. If you are owed a rebate you will receive a reduction in your premiums, a rebate check--or, if you paid by credit card or debit card, a lump sum reimbursement to your account. If your employer paid all or part of your premium, the same share of any rebate may go to your employer."


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the provisions of ACA are Medical Loss Ratio mandates.
> 
> "Value for Your Premium Dollar: 80/20 Rule and MLR"
> 
> ...



This proves what exactly in your opinion?


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 7, 2013)

If you wan't job security, get a job educating dimocraps.  

You will have a job for all eternity because you can teach and preach and yell and stick their noses in it, but give them a Coffee Break and they forget everything they've "learned"

Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes


*Comprehensive Republican health reform plans introduced in Congress*

Lets start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congresssome well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.

Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.

Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.

Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.

Patients Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.

H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).

*Comprehensive conservative Obamacare replacement plans*

Likewise, conservative market-oriented health policy scholars have developed a rich menu of potential replacement plans for Obamacare:

Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.

Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.

Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.

Fixed tax credits. A variety of proposals have centered on using fix tax credits to replace the current inefficient and unfair tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Two good explanations of how that would work are here:

James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, How to Replace Obamacare, National Affairs, no. 11 (Spring 2012).

James C. Capretta. Constructing an Alternative to Obamacare: Key Details for a Practical Replacement Program. American Enterprise Institute, December 2012.

Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USCJay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipsonreleased Best of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits.

Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001.

Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly).

Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured).

*The forgotten history of George W. Bushs comprehensive health reform plan*

Too many people conveniently ignore that *in his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform* plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bushs health plan was declared dead on arrival by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed.

Edge:

dimocraps are some stupid bitches.  All of them.  ALL.OF.THEM.

Either that or they're supremely lazy and trusting.  You know them; The people who would rather somebody else do something for them poorly than do it themselves.

Lazy and stupid.  Typical dimocraps.

I bet their OL's can pull the wool over their eyes without even thinking hard.  Gotta be tough, being that stupid.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 7, 2013)

Obamacare, _over 6 people served!_


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 7, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting reactions to the one purpose of law: holding people accountable for being responsible for not imposing their wants and needs on others. Freedom from for all rather than their revered freedom to.
> ...



Bull shit.  

What you are saying is simply that you want to not have to pay for your health care.  What you want is to not pay for insurance, spend the money on whatever you want, ignore the easily calculated risk, and go use the system for free when you really do need it.

Narcissistic sociopath.

I think it would be great to stamp your head with a tattoo that says, "In case of emergency, do not treat."


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Isn't amazing the confusion between responsibility and freedom.


----------



## itfitzme (Nov 7, 2013)

"Freedom" doesn't mean "free for all".  It is a subtle concept, apparantly.  The conservative position is the one most corruptable by the sociopathic, narcisistic personality.  At the extreme, it plays out as freedom in their minds while what they are really ascribing to is anarchy and some sort of tyrany.  

The hippies tried it in the 60's and most soon found out that it came to am equilobro where one guy had all the pot and chicks.  It doesn't lead where they fantasize it will.

It is the same reason Soviet socialism never lead to communism.  The people in power will never give it up.  (That and planmed economies only work on small scales.  Like the military.)

Truth is, Democracy is a much better direction as long as it doesn't devolve to corporatism, our current problem. 

The difference betweem Socialist China amd the US is in China, the govt owns the big corporations where in the US the big corporations own the govt.

The problem will never be solved by the right wing perception because their rules don't reflect reality. They don't even understand how the money supply functions.  I'm not sure the majority of politicians on either side of the isle do.  And as long as the mechanics of the money supply aren't understood, every manner of fiscal policy and republican meme will just screw things up. At least the Dems stumble in the right direction.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Have you really stopped to think about the twisted double standard at the core of your argument? You insist that there should be laws that put you at risk of being stuck with the health care expenses of the 'irresponsible', but then you turn around and use that as an excuse to chain everybody - not just people who abuse the system - to corporate insurance servitude. Gee, thanks for the 'tender mercy'. If you're so goddamned selfish and worried you might get stuck picking up the tab for people who can't afford health care, then fucking change the laws that make it so. Don't piss away our freedom because you're a selfish prick.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



This is typical Republican, we have no idea of how to solve problems ourselves, but we can whine about every one of everyone else's solutions. 

Combined with Libertarian, my freedom is worth any cost to anyone else including death.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "Freedom" doesn't mean "free for all".  It is a subtle concept, apparantly.  The conservative position is the one most corruptable by the sociopathic, narcisistic personality.  At the extreme, it plays out as freedom in their minds while what they are really ascribing to is anarchy and some sort of tyrany.
> 
> The hippies tried it in the 60's and most soon found out that it came to am equilobro where one guy had all the pot and chicks.  It doesn't lead where they fantasize it will.
> 
> ...



Business pays for propaganda that says, distrust government,  they'll steal your freedom. 

Why? Government is the only force limiting corporate power. 

They know that we hire and fire government but have no say,  except for government,  over business. 

The corporate coup. The harvesting of America.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "Freedom" doesn't mean "free for all".  It is a subtle concept, apparantly.  The conservative position is the one most corruptable by the sociopathic, narcisistic personality.  At the extreme, it plays out as freedom in their minds while what they are really ascribing to is anarchy and some sort of tyrany.
> ...



Wow. The hypocrisy of this is stunning. It's hard to tell, online like this, if you're actually typing that with a straight face. Can you really sit there defending a law that forces all of us into the corporate insurance pens as unwilling customers, and claim that the people who don't want to play along are serving corporate interests???


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Nothing I've said comes even close to suggesting that. You're arguments are as horse shit as PMZ so you have to resort to strawman arguments just like him. My contention hasn't changed. I don't want to be paying for OTHER people's health care on top of my own, nor should anyone else have to. Hopefully you'll muster some objectivity and realize how stupid this particular post makes you look.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "Freedom" doesn't mean "free for all".  It is a subtle concept, apparantly.  The conservative position is the one most corruptable by the sociopathic, narcisistic personality.  At the extreme, it plays out as freedom in their minds while what they are really ascribing to is anarchy and some sort of tyrany.
> 
> The hippies tried it in the 60's and most soon found out that it came to am equilobro where one guy had all the pot and chicks.  It doesn't lead where they fantasize it will.
> 
> ...



The extent that you liberals project your own practices on to others is truly stunning. Your policies center around one central concept; people are not to be responsible for their outcomes. That the situations people find themselves in, particularily negative ones, are not their fault nor should they be responsible for fixing them. THAT is not reality. Yet it is the only rationale for most liberal policies.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I don't want to pay for your healthcare if you can afford it yourself.  The question is,  why do you want me to?


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I've been very clear that I don't.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Great.  Assuming that you are a responsible person,  you'll insure against all of the possibilities that could cause you to be unable to pay your medical bills.  

That means that the only impact of ACA on you is the benefit of an Internet tool to help you shop for the best deal.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Nope. You're assuming that the only way to be responsible is to carry health insurance - indeed, to carry the government's idea of 'adequate' health insurance. That's a completely unfounded assumption. First, it's not true that insurance is the only way to pay for health care, and second, it's not true that if someone can't afford health care it will impose on you. You're assuming guilt, and insisting that people who pose no threat to you whatsoever 'prove' their innocence by carrying an arbitrary amount of insurance coverage.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yes.  that's a practical solution to a real problem. There are many who have no problem at all forwarding their healthcare bills to others even though they can afford their own coverage. They just don't think that it will happen to them,  but it does,  all of the time.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 7, 2013)

Conservatives and libertarians worry about their freedom to do what they want to do.  They feel that anything but minimal government will limit their freedom to do. 

But the main reason for laws and government is to establish consequences for imposing on others. 

Which creates the most freedom? 

Freedom to do, was maximized in cave man days. We didn't like that so mankind instituted laws so that law enforcement,  not personal weapons,  insured freedom from the impositions of others. 

I think that going back to the caves and jungle that we left would be figuratively and literally a big step backward.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Conservatives and libertarians worry about their freedom to do what they want to do.  They feel that anything but minimal government will limit their freedom to do.
> 
> But the main reason for laws and government is to establish consequences for imposing on others.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No. If I'm a reasonable person owning an insurance company I will provide coverages for what my customers ask to be covered for. 

The impact of the ACA is being reported on a daily basis. Hundreds of thousands of plans that don't qualify being cancelled and rising premiums and deductibles. THAT is the impact of Obamacare, but you go ahead a stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "Freedom" doesn't mean "free for all".  It is a subtle concept, apparantly.  The conservative position is the one most corruptable by the sociopathic, narcisistic personality.  At the extreme, it plays out as freedom in their minds while what they are really ascribing to is anarchy and some sort of tyrany.
> ...



Wrong. In a free market the consumer and press are supposed to be the group responsible for limiting corporate power. Nothing, on the other hand, limits the power of government. In our country the only reason it is limited is our constitution and even that has not been very strictly adhered to.


----------



## PMZ (Nov 8, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives and libertarians worry about their freedom to do what they want to do.  They feel that anything but minimal government will limit their freedom to do.
> ...



I don't think that Ben was defending the law of the jungle.  Might makes right. The cave man creed. 

The need to limit criminals from imposing what's best for them on responsible people is a basic tennant of civilization. It's the basis for all of our laws. 

Returning to lawlessness in these high tech overcrowded days,  especially in a country like ours of extreme wealth inequality, would be the end of civilization.


----------

