Quote :

"you realize under ANY system, you pool risk with unhealthy people?"

In a purely voluntary system, I could limit my exposure to risk. There would be gold-tier insurance for people that were willing to follow certain rules. For instance, you could get high quality insurance at a low price point if you were willing to get an annual physical and meet certain health metrics. Who knows what these metrics would be, that's for the analysts to figure out, but they would be metrics highly associated with health care costs.

For the people that couldn't be bothered to get off their ass and stop shoveling chocolate and french fries down their throat, they'll have ridiculously high insurance premiums. This is how the free market deals with "the obesity epidemic".

Quote :

"^^ I do consider other people's concerns, which is why i think we need socialized medicine. you do not consider other people's concerns, only your own. you are an asshole."

Nah, you don't. I actually do care about other people and I try to help them when the opportunity arises. You're too lazy to help them, so you want a government program to handle it for you.

You don't get any credit for forcing other people to do the hard stuff that you don't feel like doing.

Quote :

"what free market?"

Please put at least a tiny amount of effort into your responses.

Quote :

"you edited out the free market, does that mean that we have at least got to the point that oyu recognize that the concept of free markets is a myth?"

Nope, it's still there. I edited out a redundant "highly".

[Edited on March 11, 2013 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/11/2013 6:01:08 PM

what free market?

you edited out the free market, does that mean that we have at least got to the point that oyu recognize that the concept of free markets is a myth?

[Edited on March 11, 2013 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/11/2013 6:02:04 PM

But bro, that's thin privilege

3/11/2013 6:02:20 PM

please explain to me the free healthcare market or a current proposal to make it one

3/11/2013 6:08:45 PM

There are health care service providers. There are health care service recipients. There are, in some cases, third parties that help offset risk (insurance). Any individuals in any of these groups are allowed to contract between each other.

No one is forced to buy or accept insurance. No one is forced to provide health care services. No one is forced to be a health care recipient. This isn't a health care "system" managed from the top down. This is people exchanging goods and services with people on a voluntary basis.

I can't tell you exactly how a system without government intervention would look, just like someone in 1800 couldn't tell you how a post-slavery economy would work. I could speculate, but I simply don't know.

3/11/2013 6:16:13 PM

that's not a free market, there are all kinds of market controls and regulations on it

Pre-obamacare, post-obamacare, vouchers, other proposals... none of it is a free market


its all private industry writing rules that force government money into their pockets, its conservative privatization. we need the government money to stay in the government instead of private profits, keep healthcare inside the government.

[Edited on March 11, 2013 at 6:20 PM. Reason : ...]

3/11/2013 6:18:39 PM

It was a simpler time, a better time. The year, was 1776, and Adam Smith had just penned his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations. But something went very wrong that day. A young man known only as d357r0y3r was thrust forward through the space-time continuum to a turbulent and complex society in the year 2013! There, he attempted to impart his naive wisdom on an unconvinced audience, never once stopping to think that the world had outgrown his basic and tired narrative...

3/11/2013 10:30:56 PM

Healthcare has to be partially socialist, unless you're willing to let poor people bleed out in the ER waiting room.

3/11/2013 11:26:39 PM

Quote :

"It was a simpler time, a better time. The year, was 1776, and Adam Smith had just penned his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations. But something went very wrong that day. A young man known only as d357r0y3r was thrust forward through the space-time continuum to a turbulent and complex society in the year 2013! There, he attempted to impart his naive wisdom on an unconvinced audience, never once stopping to think that the world had outgrown his basic and tired narrative..."

If you had actually read Adam Smith, you wouldn't be posting this.

Quote :

"Healthcare has to be partially socialist, unless you're willing to let poor people bleed out in the ER waiting room."

Health care services don't require a state at all. People can be trained to provide medical services, machines can be built to assist in the process. The profession of doctor or nurse is not new; medical services existed long before anything like a socialist system existed.

At any given time, there are a limited number of doctors and health care facilities, all with limited abilities, capacities, and of varying quality. How do you think we should determine who gets access to the top quality care, and who gets access to substandard care? Who should determine the price of health care services?

3/12/2013 12:43:03 AM

Quote :

"In a purely voluntary system, I could limit my exposure to risk. There would be gold-tier insurance for people that were willing to follow certain rules. For instance, you could get high quality insurance at a low price point if you were willing to get an annual physical and meet certain health metrics. Who knows what these metrics would be, that's for the analysts to figure out, but they would be metrics highly associated with health care costs. For the people that couldn't be bothered to get off their ass and stop shoveling chocolate and french fries down their throat, they'll have ridiculously high insurance premiums. This is how the free market deals with "the obesity epidemic"."

It looks like your goal is completely different than what the law is designed to do.

The goal, as I see it, is to have more healthy people in general, which should reduce the costs across the system for everyone, at the cost of gov. prescribed healthier lifestyles.

The goal as you see it seems to be to have the cheapest possible cost to yourself, at the loss of giving up some of your freedom to a private company, while having no impact on the systems that you might come to rely on anyway.

And what happens if this private analyst determines genetic screening is the best cost predictor, and you are born locked into the worst cost (or most extreme liftestyle scrutiny bracket, which is de facto the same thing) bracket? Somehow, I don't think this would fly...

3/12/2013 2:34:26 AM

Quote :

"Health care services don't require a state at all. People can be trained to provide medical services, machines can be built to assist in the process. The profession of doctor or nurse is not new; medical services existed long before anything like a socialist system existed."

That may be true for treating common infectious disease and for trauma medicine, but without state assistance, medical research for complex and rare diseases would be majorly underfunded and would not have advances as much it did in 20th century. State-funded university medical research? Gone! Let's not forget the importance of state's involvement in epidemiology, where unified and centralized response is critical. Under your system, would we get rid of the CDC? If such a system is privatized, who would pay for it?

My other concern is that in a perfectly capitalistic system, healthcare providers would be actually interested in deterioration of overall public health as it would bring them more revenue.

3/12/2013 4:34:25 AM

But... Adam Smith

3/12/2013 6:37:50 AM

If we left it to the free market people would still be buying snake oil to cure their remedies, its been a really long time since we had anything that looked remotely like a free market for healthcare and its not something we should try to go back to

3/12/2013 10:09:06 AM

"Hello 911 what's your emergency?"

"OH MY GOD THERE IS SO MUCH BLOOD"

"We don't exist, sorry! Maybe try Bob's ambulance service -- oh but wait they are closed today. It is a Sunday after all. Hmm welp good luck shopping around!"

>dead

3/12/2013 10:37:02 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html

Quote :

"Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own plans. The projections, made in sessions with brokers and agents, provide some of the most concrete evidence yet of how much insurance companies might increase prices when major provisions of the law kick in next year—a subject of rigorous debate. The projected increases are at odds with what the Obama Administration says consumers should be expecting overall in terms of cost. The Department of Health and Human Services says that the law will "make health-care coverage more affordable and accessible," pointing to a 2009 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that says average individual premiums, on an apples-to-apples basis, would be lower. The gulf between the pricing talk from some insurers and the government projections suggests how complicated the law's effects will be. Carriers will be filing proposed prices with regulators over the next few months. Part of the murkiness stems from the role of government subsidies. Federal subsidies under the health law will help lower-income consumers defray costs, but they are generally not included in insurers' premium projections. Many consumers will be getting more generous plans because of new requirements in the law. The effects of the law will vary widely, and insurers and other analysts agree that some consumers and small businesses will likely see premiums go down. Starting next year, the law will block insurers from refusing to sell coverage or setting premiums based on people's health histories, and will reduce their ability to set rates based on age. That can raise coverage prices for younger, healthier consumers, while reining them in for older, sicker ones. The rules can also affect small businesses, which sometimes pay premiums tied to employees' health status and claims history. ....."

Just part of the article, but it's an interesting read if you're in healthcare industry. It's made the rounds here at work.

3/23/2013 5:46:57 AM

Quote :

"And what happens if this private analyst determines genetic screening is the best cost predictor, and you are born locked into the worst cost (or most extreme liftestyle scrutiny bracket, which is de facto the same thing) bracket? Somehow, I don't think this would fly..."

You deal with the associated costs or you don't have insurance. What's the problem?

Honestly, health insurance covers way too much shit. There's no good reason for insurance to be involved in things like regular check ups, mammograms, you know, routine and basic stuff. You should just pay out of pocket for those things or utilize a HSA type plan. Car insurance doesn't cover tire rotation or buying new brakes. Home owners insurance doesn't pay for a lawn service or to resurface your driveway.

Insurance shouldn't be utilized as some kind of pay my bills fund. This weird expectation that employers should pay for insurance makes very little sense. Mandating that people buy into a system that they may not need makes even less sense. There are soooo many things wrong with the current health insurance industry it's hard to start solving the issue, but what the ACA did does almost nothing to remedy the situation and IMO is only going to exacerbate many of these issues.

3/23/2013 1:54:31 PM

It's not causing problems for the health insurance companies, they love it

3/23/2013 1:57:52 PM

I'm sure they do, right now they just got an additional 50 million people paying premiums, many of whom don't need the kind of coverage they have to buy.

3/23/2013 2:01:37 PM

they didn't help write it for nothing, gotta get that privatized money man

3/23/2013 2:22:42 PM

By the way, I know a lot of people love it, but how absurd is it that "kids" can stay on their parents insurance until they're 26?

It would be ridiculous enough if it were allowed only if they could still be claimed as a dependent, or if they lived with the parents, or were full time students, but none of that is required. Idiotic.

[Edited on March 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM. Reason : sdfdf]

3/23/2013 3:20:09 PM

"Kids" are maturing later, so it makes sense.

3/23/2013 4:13:53 PM

So 26 is the new 18?

3/23/2013 4:20:38 PM

Pretty much.

3/23/2013 4:25:41 PM

Man, we are fucked if that's the case. You don't have to be that "mature" to cut the apron strings and live on your own.

3/23/2013 4:31:03 PM

I expect part of it was making sure young adults were covered in that period between being a kid and getting their first job, or between undergrad and getting a first job, since it can take a while, especially in this economy.

3/23/2013 4:42:00 PM

There's no doubt that's why, but it doesn't make it a good idea.

26 is 4 years after you should be getting out of undergrad. I have no problem with it if they're dependents, but after graduation we should not be requiring by law that insurers cover adults on another adults plan. Some insurers did it voluntarily before the law, so it's not like it was unheard of, but mandating it by law, I can't agree with that.

Oh, and it's about as cheap to get individual coverage at that age as it ever will be. 20 somethings pay about the lowest rate of anyone.

[Edited on March 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM. Reason : dsffd]

3/23/2013 4:49:17 PM

they did it because kids graduate college now with a lot more debt on average than they used to and have a lower job placement rate on average than they used to. i don't support any of this terrible conservative legislation, but saying its because of maturity levels is disingenuous (or outright wrong).

^their insurance is the cheapest, but they are also very healthy and have a high debt to income ratio so they are unlikely to get it. putting them on their parents plan is the easiest way to force them to be covered.

[Edited on March 23, 2013 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2013 4:58:15 PM

Quote :

"putting them on their parents plan is the easiest way to force them to be covered. "

Which we shouldn't be doing anyway. If they don't want to pony up and buy it then we shouldn't force them. If you can afford a cell phone bill or cable you can afford health insurance.

3/23/2013 5:02:37 PM

I made an entire thread about how this conservative privatization plan is terrible, you don't need to tell me we shouldn't be doing it

3/23/2013 5:36:38 PM

Quote :

"Ah yes, this "claim" that is based on elementary school reasoning that only requires that you assume that not every company is operating at a hair-thin margin."

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. You accuse me of having the "elementary school reasoning" when you don't even understand how business works.

Quote :

"You could argue that Hospitals shouldn't provide care to people who can't pay, but you'd be imposing your own morals onto the hospitals, since i bet most of them would do so voluntarily."

Then let them do so, but only voluntarily. The great thing about charity is that it particularly adept at figuring out who really needs the help, as opposed to the gov't, which has a vested interest in buying as many votes as possible.

Quote :

"The goal, as I see it, is to have more healthy people in general, which should reduce the costs across the system for everyone, at the cost of gov. prescribed healthier lifestyles."

Incorrect. The goal of the new law is to bankrupt insurance companies so that liberals can then come around with shit-eating grin and say "SEEEEEEEEE?? I TOLD YOU THE FREE MARKET DOESN'T WORK!!!!" and then proceed to impose more of the problem in order to "solve" it.

3/24/2013 9:43:52 PM

Can you stop responding to single sentences and instead respond to people's points? Your incessant quote/response scheme is annoying and is a transparent defense for you not being capable of refuting complete points.


I hope people stop responding to you when you post like that.

3/24/2013 9:51:52 PM

This may come as a shock to you, but individual sentences are *gasp* part of a point. Speaking to a particularly weak part of their point is intended to undermine the entirety of the point. I'm frankly shocked that you have a problem with this

3/24/2013 9:53:42 PM

No, you quote bomb because you can't reply to points or full posts.

3/24/2013 9:54:43 PM

Whatever helps you sleep at night, man.

3/24/2013 9:56:46 PM

What does Xanax have to do with this?

3/24/2013 10:28:13 PM

I figured you were using something a little more heavy duty than that. Good for you

3/24/2013 11:06:46 PM

Obamacare is bullshit corporatist privatization designed by corporatist pro-privatization conservatives to benefit private corporations

9/15/2013 4:53:51 PM

Someone explain why insurers should not be allowed to price based on gender

9/30/2013 11:09:54 AM

I mean, they should probably be pricing on risk and expected payout. I imagine they have models and forecasting that allows them to plug in every detail about a person and determine what kind of risk they represent. Is sex or gender off limits? I don't see why. Women and men are susceptible to different sets of diseases, and some of those may be more or less expensive to treat. Women may give birth and are vulnerable to all types of health problems that could come along with that. So, yeah, is sex or gender one of the many things that should be looked at.

9/30/2013 11:38:00 AM

Quote :

" Is sex or gender off limits? I don't see why"

its off limits now, the why is the Affordable Care Act

(its a big reason why men in my age group are going to see their premiums increase)

9/30/2013 11:44:22 AM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164696/two-three-uninsured-americans-plan-buy-insurance.aspx

Quote :

"Nearly two in three uninsured Americans say they will get insurance by Jan. 1, 2014, rather than pay a fine as mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while one in four say they will pay the fine. Less than half of the uninsured say they plan on getting health insurance specifically through a federal or state health insurance exchange."

If you work out the numbers, that's a solid 15 million Americans planning to get their insurance through the exchanges. That's a very positive adoption rate and really highlights just why some members of the GOP are fighting so hard against the law.

They aren't afraid it's going to fail. If that were the case, they would just let it go on unimpeded and watch it implode as no one signs up for health care through the exchanges. No, what they are really afraid of is that it's going to succeed, and they are going to look all the worse for it. Just like with Medicare.

[Edited on September 30, 2013 at 11:47 AM. Reason : 15 is not 50]

9/30/2013 11:44:54 AM

that's exactly true

9/30/2013 11:45:39 AM

Is there a benefit to not going through an exchange?

Other than not having government health insurance!!!1

9/30/2013 11:52:33 AM

do you have any employer healthcare, or did you lose it entirely? your plan is probably better than what you can get on the exchange if you have any kind of coverage, although you can go online and see what the different levels will offer for what price. but you will have to enter personal information to the government.

(employer healthcare has to meet "minimum essential coverage" guidelines which is probably why you lost your insurance before. if you have new coverage it definitely meets what the basic exchange plans cover and probably a lot more. the exchange plans also keep costs down by limiting the network size)

[Edited on September 30, 2013 at 11:59 AM. Reason : .]

9/30/2013 11:57:53 AM

No employer health insurance; no spousal insurance. I have pretty basic/bare coverage now. The ACA would probably open me to better plans, but at a much higher rate. I was denied coverage from BCBS previously, so the ACA isn't all bad in my book (as I've been saying).

I did read somewhere that HDHPs will be available to those under 30, so I may go that route. Though the cost estimate was still about 2.5x more than what I pay now.

9/30/2013 12:01:57 PM

at the very least I would price out the different levels of coverage and see what made sense

9/30/2013 12:03:26 PM

Quote :

"Someone explain why insurers should not be allowed to price based on gender"

Because that's gender-based discrimination, I suppose. I get the argument for having society fit the bill for normalizing healthcare cost against protected groups. That's essentially what Medicare is anyway.

9/30/2013 4:04:53 PM

The argument is usually that prices should be normalized universally, regardless of protected status. It's just not fair that obese smokers have to pay more for health care services than people who take care of themselves.

[Edited on September 30, 2013 at 5:40 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2013 5:40:20 PM

^^ no, its determining price based on risk. We can price based on other risk factors, but now I have to pay more because women are physically able to get pregnant. That doesn't make any sense at all.

9/30/2013 9:37:09 PM

9/30/2013 11:17:39 PM