Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[PMZ]

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

Million dollar hospital bills are not that unusual.

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.

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]

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.

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]

Million dollar hospital bills are not that unusual.

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.

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?

Answered. You seem to have completely missed the point.

 

[Bern80]

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.

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

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?

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]

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.

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.'.

" 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]

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.

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.'.

" 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.

So why are you in favor of forcing people into the clutches of corporate insurance?

 

[PMZ]

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.'.

" 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.

So why are you in favor of forcing people into the clutches of corporate insurance?

I'm in favor of personal responsibility. That’s one way to accomplish it.

Why are you against personal responsibility?

 

[dblack]

" 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.

So why are you in favor of forcing people into the clutches of corporate insurance?

I'm in favor of personal responsibility. That’s one way to accomplish it.

Why are you against personal responsibility?

I'm your inside-out conception of it, yes.

 

[PMZ]

So why are you in favor of forcing people into the clutches of corporate insurance?

I'm in favor of personal responsibility. That’s one way to accomplish it.

Why are you against personal responsibility?

I'm your inside-out conception of it, yes.

I think that many confuse irresponsibility with freedom.

Unfortunately, irresponsibility is always unaffordable.

 

[PMZ]

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]

" 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.

So why are you in favor of forcing people into the clutches of corporate insurance?

I'm in favor of personal responsibility. That’s one way to accomplish it.

Why are you against personal responsibility?

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]

So why are you in favor of forcing people into the clutches of corporate insurance?

I'm in favor of personal responsibility. That’s one way to accomplish it.

Why are you against personal responsibility?

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 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.

"You can't be a liberal and be in favor of personal responsibility or be for Obamacare"

WTF????

 

[PMZ]

So why are you in favor of forcing people into the clutches of corporate insurance?

I'm in favor of personal responsibility. That’s one way to accomplish it.

Why are you against personal responsibility?

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.

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]

So why are you in favor of forcing people into the clutches of corporate insurance?

I'm in favor of personal responsibility. That’s one way to accomplish it.

Why are you against personal responsibility?

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.

You're assuming that the only relationship people have with business is as consumers.

The whole truth is much, much different.

 

[Bern80]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.