Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[PMZ]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bern80]

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

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

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

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

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

Read all about it.

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

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

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

No, that is not true.

Try this for a definition and explanation.

Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

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

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

Read all about it.

Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

 

[Spiderman]

We're probably stuck with it.

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

 

[PMZ]

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

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

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

Read all about it.

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

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

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

Why do you think cars and Drs are so expensive?

 

[Bern80]

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

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

Read all about it.

Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Why do you think cars and Drs are so expensive?

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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

 

[SeanParnell]

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

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

 

[Bern80]

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

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

 

[Destroyer2]

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

What would you want to be changed?

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

Definitely this.

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

 

[Immanuel]

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

What would you want to be changed?

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

Definitely this.

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

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

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

Immie

 

[Destroyer2]

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

Definitely this.

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

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

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

Immie

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

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

 

[itfitzme]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Immanuel]

Definitely this.

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

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

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

Immie

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

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

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

Immie

 

[Destroyer2]

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

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

Immie

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

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

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

Immie

You know what happens when you assume.

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

 

[PMZ]

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

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

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

Immie

You know what happens when you assume.

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

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

Modern cult media run America.

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

 

[Bern80]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PMZ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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