Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Bern80]

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.

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]

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.

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.

What aspect of Obamacare do you believe is anti enterprise?

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]

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]

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.

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..

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[PMZ]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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

 

[PMZ]

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.

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]

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.

What aspect of Obamacare do you believe is anti enterprise?

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?

''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]

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.

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.

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]

What aspect of Obamacare do you believe is anti enterprise?

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?

''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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

''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?

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.

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]

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.



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.

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.

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.

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]

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.