High Deductibles Force Many to Opt Out of Obamacare

[dblack]

We're forced to pay whatever the regulatory regime, and their entourage of lobbyists, dictate.

Not familiar with that one. Is it available for Wii?

That's it. Ostrich up!

Odd name, but if it's not available for Wii, I'm not interested. Thanks, anyway.

It's a reference to sticking your head in the sand to ignore uncomfortable reality - a game you're apparently quite familiar with.

 

[Arianrhod]

We're forced to pay whatever the regulatory regime, and their entourage of lobbyists, dictate.

Not familiar with that one. Is it available for Wii?

That's it. Ostrich up!

Odd name, but if it's not available for Wii, I'm not interested. Thanks, anyway.

It's a reference to sticking your head in the sand to ignore uncomfortable reality...

Sounds boring. So let's talk about reality. Do you have health insurance?

 

[dblack]

We're forced to pay whatever the regulatory regime, and their entourage of lobbyists, dictate.

Not familiar with that one. Is it available for Wii?

That's it. Ostrich up!

Odd name, but if it's not available for Wii, I'm not interested. Thanks, anyway.

It's a reference to sticking your head in the sand to ignore uncomfortable reality...

Sounds boring. So let's talk about reality. Do you have health insurance?

I've told you before, that's none of your business. I'm not interested in making this personal.

So let's debate policy instead. I think using government to serve commercial interests is wrong, especially when Congress passes laws forcing people to buy shit they don't want.

 

[Arianrhod]

So let's debate policy instead. I think using government to serve commercial interests is wrong...

That's a pretty broad statement covering all aspects of government from import/export to military procurement to...well, just about everything. But just in terms of health insurance, if government had not regulated the purchase of insurance across state lines, mega insurers would not have been able to become the only insurer in some states, squeezing out competition.

There are plenty of other examples, but that one alone was a major contributor to the mess of health insurance prior to 2014.

 

[dblack]

So let's debate policy instead. I think using government to serve commercial interests is wrong...

That's a pretty broad statement covering all aspects of government from import/export to military procurement to...well, just about everything. But just in terms of health insurance, if government had not regulated the purchase of insurance across state lines, mega insurers would not have been able to become the only insurer in some states, squeezing out competition.

There are plenty of other examples, but that one alone was a major contributor to the mess of health insurance prior to 2014.

Exactly. And ACA will have a similar effect.

 

[Arianrhod]

So let's debate policy instead. I think using government to serve commercial interests is wrong...

That's a pretty broad statement covering all aspects of government from import/export to military procurement to...well, just about everything. But just in terms of health insurance, if government had not regulated the purchase of insurance across state lines, mega insurers would not have been able to become the only insurer in some states, squeezing out competition.

There are plenty of other examples, but that one alone was a major contributor to the mess of health insurance prior to 2014.

Exactly. And ACA will have a similar effect.

On the contrary.

 

[dblack]

So let's debate policy instead. I think using government to serve commercial interests is wrong...

That's a pretty broad statement covering all aspects of government from import/export to military procurement to...well, just about everything. But just in terms of health insurance, if government had not regulated the purchase of insurance across state lines, mega insurers would not have been able to become the only insurer in some states, squeezing out competition.

There are plenty of other examples, but that one alone was a major contributor to the mess of health insurance prior to 2014.

Exactly. And ACA will have a similar effect.

On the contrary.

Why would it be any different, other than the fact that the damage will be nationwide?

 

[Arianrhod]

So let's debate policy instead. I think using government to serve commercial interests is wrong...

That's a pretty broad statement covering all aspects of government from import/export to military procurement to...well, just about everything. But just in terms of health insurance, if government had not regulated the purchase of insurance across state lines, mega insurers would not have been able to become the only insurer in some states, squeezing out competition.

There are plenty of other examples, but that one alone was a major contributor to the mess of health insurance prior to 2014.

Exactly. And ACA will have a similar effect.

On the contrary.

Why would it be any different, other than the fact that the damage will be nationwide?

I'd ask you to prove. With facts. Can you?

 

[dblack]

So let's debate policy instead. I think using government to serve commercial interests is wrong...

That's a pretty broad statement covering all aspects of government from import/export to military procurement to...well, just about everything. But just in terms of health insurance, if government had not regulated the purchase of insurance across state lines, mega insurers would not have been able to become the only insurer in some states, squeezing out competition.

There are plenty of other examples, but that one alone was a major contributor to the mess of health insurance prior to 2014.

Exactly. And ACA will have a similar effect.

On the contrary.

Why would it be any different, other than the fact that the damage will be nationwide?

I'd ask you to prove. With facts. Can you?

What? Prove that similar policies will produce similar results?

 

[Arianrhod]

That's a pretty broad statement covering all aspects of government from import/export to military procurement to...well, just about everything. But just in terms of health insurance, if government had not regulated the purchase of insurance across state lines, mega insurers would not have been able to become the only insurer in some states, squeezing out competition.

There are plenty of other examples, but that one alone was a major contributor to the mess of health insurance prior to 2014.

Exactly. And ACA will have a similar effect.

On the contrary.

Why would it be any different, other than the fact that the damage will be nationwide?

I'd ask you to prove. With facts. Can you?

What? Prove that similar policies will produce similar results?

First you'd have to prove it's a similar policy. You'll probably say something like "It's a government policy; therefore it's similar." Am I right?

 

[dblack]

Exactly. And ACA will have a similar effect.

On the contrary.

Why would it be any different, other than the fact that the damage will be nationwide?

I'd ask you to prove. With facts. Can you?

What? Prove that similar policies will produce similar results?

First you'd have to prove it's a similar policy. You'll probably say something like "It's a government policy; therefore it's similar." Am I right?

I am sort of curious why you'd cite an example of how regulation discourages competition and favors vested interests. And then when I ask why it will be different this time, you resort to "prove it!" Just more diversion I guess. I don't see any substantial difference. ACA is just more of the same. Which is why I asked.

 

[Arianrhod]

On the contrary.

Why would it be any different, other than the fact that the damage will be nationwide?

I'd ask you to prove. With facts. Can you?

What? Prove that similar policies will produce similar results?

First you'd have to prove it's a similar policy. You'll probably say something like "It's a government policy; therefore it's similar." Am I right?

I am sort of curious why you'd cite an example of how regulation discourages competition and favors vested interests. And then when I ask why it will be different this time, you resort to "prove it!" Just more diversion I guess. I don't see any substantial difference. ACA is just more of the same. Which is why I asked.

Because the purpose of the PPACA was not to "favor vested interests," but to give more Americans access to affordable health insurance.

Unless you define working people as "vested interests," the comparison doesn't make sense.

 

[dblack]

Why would it be any different, other than the fact that the damage will be nationwide?

I'd ask you to prove. With facts. Can you?

What? Prove that similar policies will produce similar results?

First you'd have to prove it's a similar policy. You'll probably say something like "It's a government policy; therefore it's similar." Am I right?

I am sort of curious why you'd cite an example of how regulation discourages competition and favors vested interests. And then when I ask why it will be different this time, you resort to "prove it!" Just more diversion I guess. I don't see any substantial difference. ACA is just more of the same. Which is why I asked.

Because the purpose of the PPACA was not to "favor vested interests," but to give more Americans access to affordable health insurance. Unless you define working people as "vested interests," the comparison doesn't make sense.

The stated purpose of regulation is never to favor vested interests. It's always touted to be 'for our own good'. Given that health insurance executives wrote the ACA, why should we believe that, this time, it be different?

 

[Arianrhod]

I'd ask you to prove. With facts. Can you?

What? Prove that similar policies will produce similar results?

First you'd have to prove it's a similar policy. You'll probably say something like "It's a government policy; therefore it's similar." Am I right?

I am sort of curious why you'd cite an example of how regulation discourages competition and favors vested interests. And then when I ask why it will be different this time, you resort to "prove it!" Just more diversion I guess. I don't see any substantial difference. ACA is just more of the same. Which is why I asked.

Because the purpose of the PPACA was not to "favor vested interests," but to give more Americans access to affordable health insurance. Unless you define working people as "vested interests," the comparison doesn't make sense.

The stated purpose of regulation is never to favor vested interests. It's always touted to be 'for our own good'. Given that health insurance executives wrote the ACA, why should we believe that, this time, it be different?

By looking at the fact that insurers can no longer deny coverage for preexisting conditions or impose lifetime caps, for starters.

If you deny those are a reality, you'll have to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[dblack]

What? Prove that similar policies will produce similar results?

First you'd have to prove it's a similar policy. You'll probably say something like "It's a government policy; therefore it's similar." Am I right?

I am sort of curious why you'd cite an example of how regulation discourages competition and favors vested interests. And then when I ask why it will be different this time, you resort to "prove it!" Just more diversion I guess. I don't see any substantial difference. ACA is just more of the same. Which is why I asked.

Because the purpose of the PPACA was not to "favor vested interests," but to give more Americans access to affordable health insurance. Unless you define working people as "vested interests," the comparison doesn't make sense.

The stated purpose of regulation is never to favor vested interests. It's always touted to be 'for our own good'. Given that health insurance executives wrote the ACA, why should we believe that, this time, it be different?

By looking at the fact that insurers can no longer deny coverage for preexisting conditions or impose lifetime caps, for starters.

If you deny those are a reality, you'll have to provide evidence to the contrary.

That doesn't answer my question. How will that prevent the dominant players in the insurance industry from using their lobbying clout to control ACA? It certainly didn't prevent them from writing it in the first place. They were more than happy to agree to nominal limitations on their ability to deny insurance in exchange for removing their customers ability to refuse to buy it.

 

[Arianrhod]

That doesn't answer my question. How will that prevent the dominant players in the insurance industry from using their lobbying clout to control ACA? It certainly didn't prevent them from writing it in the first place. They were more than happy to agree to nominal limitations on their ability to deny insurance in exchange for removing their customers ability to refuse to buy it.

Best argument for single-payer ever.

You don't like it, period, full stop. You'd like single-payer even less. Since you're not interested in presenting data to support your opinion, we'll just keep going around and around on this.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Best argument for single-payer ever.

if there is a best argument for a single payer monopoly in all industries please tell us what it is or admit to being very very stupid and liberal.

 

[dblack]

That doesn't answer my question. How will that prevent the dominant players in the insurance industry from using their lobbying clout to control ACA? It certainly didn't prevent them from writing it in the first place. They were more than happy to agree to nominal limitations on their ability to deny insurance in exchange for removing their customers ability to refuse to buy it.

Best argument for single-payer ever.

Still doesn't answer the question.

You don't like it, period, full stop. You'd like single-payer even less.

I wouldn't support single-payer, but it would be better than the ACA shitshow.

Since you're not interested in presenting data to support your opinion, we'll just keep going around and around on this.

You presented the data that supports my opinion (see post #84)

 

[Arianrhod]

Still doesn't answer the question.

The only answer you'd accept would require either psychic powers or the assumption that "every law is evil." I don't possess the first and I don't subscribe to the latter.

I wouldn't support single-payer, but it would be better than the ACA shitshow.

So the only thing you'll support is the standard "there was nothing wrong with the way it was" canard.

Unless you're prepared to outline a workable plan, and I doubt you can or will.

You presented the data that supports my opinion (see post #84)

Nope. Your contention is "if it's government, it must be bad." Have you always felt that way, or only since January '09?

 

[Slyhunter]

Why would it be any different, other than the fact that the damage will be nationwide?

I'd ask you to prove. With facts. Can you?

What? Prove that similar policies will produce similar results?

First you'd have to prove it's a similar policy. You'll probably say something like "It's a government policy; therefore it's similar." Am I right?

I am sort of curious why you'd cite an example of how regulation discourages competition and favors vested interests. And then when I ask why it will be different this time, you resort to "prove it!" Just more diversion I guess. I don't see any substantial difference. ACA is just more of the same. Which is why I asked.

Because the purpose of the PPACA was not to "favor vested interests," but to give more Americans access to affordable health insurance.

Unless you define working people as "vested interests," the comparison doesn't make sense.

We don't need affordable health insurance. What good is insurance if no doctor will take it. We need affordable doctors. More doctors, flood the marketplace with them. Build more schools. Health insurance ain't gonna cut it.