Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[regent]

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]

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]

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.

And what you just stated has nothing to do with what I have said. What nut ball group are you talking about?

He answered your question correctly, bigreb. That you disagree with that means nothing at all except that you are susceptible to nutball thinking.

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]

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.

And what you just stated has nothing to do with what I have said. What nut ball group are you talking about?

Conservatism.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

I agree that it would have been better to solve the bigger problem. Ask Boehner why he eliminated that option.

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]

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.

I agree that it would have been better to solve the bigger problem. Ask Boehner why he eliminated that option.

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.

You're ignoring the fact of free health care at hospitals.

 

[dblack]

I agree that it would have been better to solve the bigger problem. Ask Boehner why he eliminated that option.

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.

You're ignoring the fact of free health care at hospitals.

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]

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.



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.

You're ignoring the fact of free health care at hospitals.

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?

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]

You're ignoring the fact of free health care at hospitals.

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?

I think that you are way off on your assessment of EMTALA contributions to health care insurance premiums.

I'll research it for you.

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]

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]

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]

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.

How do you figure that consumers won't be spending their own money?

 

[dblack]

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.

How do you figure that consumers won't be spending their own money?

Insurance.

 

[PMZ]

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.

How do you figure that consumers won't be spending their own money?

Insurance.

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]

How do you figure that consumers won't be spending their own money?

Insurance.

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.

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]

My bills are being paid for? Someone should have told me.

 

[PMZ]

Insurance.

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.

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.

You really believe that someone writing a thousand dollar check every month for healthcare insurance has no interest in reducing it????

 

[dblack]

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.

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.

You really believe that someone writing a thousand dollar check every month for healthcare insurance has no interest in reducing it????

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?