[Jotapay]

No health insurance? We got an app for that. NOW YOU WILL ACCEPT THE LOVING, BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT'S HEALTH INSURANCE OR ELSE!

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'I') already feel like I'm mildly Amish. Can we start a new religious order and get the exemption?

[Ludi]

Aww. But I'm not nearly doomy enough to be Our Lady of the Apocalypse. I don't even believe in MZBs!

[evilgenius]

Since the 1970's American's wages have not increased nearly as much technically as the rate of overall compensation American's have been returned. The reason for this is that healthcare has not been included, for tax purposes or otherwise, as income. This has been misleading as it has allowed people in situations like independent contracting to get lumped into the same category as those receiving benefits when the value of the two income situations is actually vastly different.

Today, Feb 22, 2010, there is a new development being talked about, namely that government should become involved in regulating the percentage of increase that health insurance providers can demand from consumers of health insurance. In other words the government is tacitly willing to enable the people to speak through them and say, "I don't think that this level of increase is either legitimate and should be investigated (resulting in a rebate to consumers) or that it is summarily out of hand (obviously too much) in the percentage level it is asking for and will therefore be denied out of hand. This would apply to all demands for increase as a matter of course, presumably.

Another interesting thing has begun to occur today that I don't think I have seen much of before. The administration and the press appear to be communicating better about the requirement to join a healthcare plan that has been part of the discussion. For the first time this is being strictly defined as a subsidized thing for those whose incomes fall too low to afford the cost of the plan they need. Again presumably, as an independent contractor a person would be able to now get insurance very cheaply if, say, they had a no real income reporting situation because of tax write-offs or something. So, if a person runs a business and it is pretty close to the bone health insurance would not kill their financial situation. I find this development interesting. It may indeed have been the offer all along, but they sure weren't discussing it that way before.

It looks to me as if the administration is finally beginning to take a more systematic approach to the healthcare reform problem and put in some market defining and market enabling steps. Market defining in the sense that regulation is being brought into the process. Market enabling in the sense that consumers are for the first time being given a voice other than that of, "I can no longer afford this and will not buy it". Consumers can now enter into their side of the market for health insurance with some hand. What do you people think? Is it enough hand? Is it too much hand? Will insurers simply make an adjustment somewhere involving a separate part of the law? Will something happen economically that short circuits this?

[Ayoob]

Dumb idea.

If you can't afford health care, you're not going to get it.

You might get a 2 minute clinic with a doktir or a ners, but it's not going to be the care you get at a private hospital with good insurance.

"Helf Kare" vs Health Care

[evilgenius]

Also, I can see where this might serve to actually put more take home pay into people's pockets. If it does where do you think the system will take it back out again? Maybe it won't and people will be able to save, but given the propensity to consume I doubt that. It is much more likely that if people find more money in a month that they will spend more money in a month.

My guess is that people will find themselves spending it on elective items, like internet connectivity for smartphones. People do tend to look upon certain elective items as necessities, even in down times.

[evilgenius]

Look, the reason for bringing this up is that heretofore the whole of the health care complex has been able to demand whatever it wants in terms of cost increases. To date those increases have been paid by the consumer without fail. If a person could not pay them, they lost their coverage or went broke trying. There has been no way for consumers to say no to increases without dropping out. In order to say no a person has had to rely on a solidarity that has only been dreamed at in the endless tales of health care woe and despair that have been trodden out in the media and amongst people in every day life. It looks like the administration is attempting to give people a concrete means to solidarity, one that is beyond hyperbole.

It is my opinion that it is not insurance companies that are necessarily to blame for the out of control cost of health care. I think it has more to do with the supply and demand equilibrium being disjointed due to a perceived importance that has allowed every aspect of health care, from technologists, to doctors, to pharmacists, to health insurance companies to realize that they can demand more and more and more every year. It also has to do with health care not being taxed as earnings. Shortsighted companies have been more than happy to pay someone a little more if it meant that all of the attached taxes didn't have to be paid as well.

The health care situation has, however, taken disposable income out of wage earner's pockets. Over time the only real increases in wages that have really kept pace have been those centered around health care benefits. This has led to a situation over time where wage earners have had less relative disposable income to spend. They have had to borrow in aggregate to make up the difference. This has more than a little to do with the housing crash. It also has more than a little to say about how much disposable income can be expected to be available to sustain oil price spikes. Under the current regime if Americans cannot borrow they cannot spend very much. That default situation could be changed to a degree (not wholly) with health care reform.

[highlander]

Without getting at the reasons for rising health care costs, regulating increases in costs will only result in decreased service. Without tort reform, health care costs will continue to spiral out of control. Without a congress absent of trial lawyers, tort reform has no chance. So you pay more and get less. That is the bottom line. Go long insurance companies, short health care providers.

[evilgenius]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('highlander', 'W')ithout getting at the reasons for rising health care costs, regulating increases in costs will only result in decreased service. Without tort reform, health care costs will continue to spiral out of control. Without a congress absent of trial lawyers, tort reform has no chance. So you pay more and get less. That is the bottom line. Go long insurance companies, short health care providers.

[Sixstrings]

From what I've read, the "bronze" level plan in Obamacare will have a $10,000 deductible and then pay only 60% after that. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember the cost will be around $5,500 a year for this "insurance." And let's not forget that by law you will be required to at least have this bronze plan.

EDIT:

I found some data.. apparently, the bronze plan is just the same darn thing a person can go out and buy in the private market already. Except now the government will make you buy it (so where's the reform?). Lol, this is such a health insurer giveaway.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Price Of Insurance In Individual Market WITHOUT Reform (2016):
$5,500 Individuals, $13,100 Families

Price of Bronze Plan (2016):
$4,500 – $5,000 Individuals, $12,000 – $12,500 Families
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/25/obama-premiums/

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'a')pparently, the bronze plan is just the same darn thing a person can go out and buy in the private market already. Except now the government will make you buy it (so where's the reform?). Lol, this is such a health insurer giveaway.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'T')hose who voted for Obama and expected "hope and change" were fucking deluded. I tried to make this point to people I knew in 2008 to no effect. They were convinced that because Obama had a measurable level of melanin he was therefore different than all the other bloodsucking corporatists that infest DC. His well documented voting record notwithstanding (not that anyone of his supporters bothered to look at this before casting their vote).

[rangerone314]

What they should do in the case of malpractice in the health system, is instead of monetarily compensating people (and huge sums going to the lawyers), the doctors should have their licence to practice medicine taken away OR relegate them to a lower compensated rung on my idea of a more hierarchal, merit-based health care system.

That would increase competition among doctors to be higher echelon (make doctor compensation be based on what percentile rank they are in terms of merit) so they would not try to cover for each other they way they do now.

If you had a lesser (and lower cost) health care system then you could go to a lower ranked doctor, or worse case scenario you have REALLY cruddy health care plan you go to a doctor that is at the lowest rung just shy of losing license.

I would also scrap the guild-like AMA and get more people to become doctors.

If we can't to this, then we should perhaps scrap the idea of health care being a "product" that you purchase like a car or an IPOD, and more like public education system (although right now, not the greatest example of a great system)

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')But the real kicker is that the insurance you're now able to get may still be so expensive as to be unattainable. Yes, you will have to privilege of buying insurance. BUT the insurance company may charge you THREE TIMES the "prevailing rate" for that insurance.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')But the real kicker is that the insurance you're now able to get may still be so expensive as to be unattainable. Yes, you will have to privilege of buying insurance. BUT the insurance company may charge you THREE TIMES the "prevailing rate" for that insurance.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', 'W')hat they should do in the case of malpractice in the health system, is instead of monetarily compensating people (and huge sums going to the lawyers), the doctors should have their licence to practice medicine taken away OR relegate them to a lower compensated rung on my idea of a more hierarchal, merit-based health care system.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')What I wonder is, will the new national plan set a standard that will actually lower the plan quality for people like you.

[evgeny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hillsidedigger', 'I')t's simple. Forget health insurance. Destroy the health insurance industry as quickly as possible.

Build a public healthcare facility (doctor's office/dentist office/clinic/pharmacy/small hospital) at or as a part of every public school in the United States. This would allow preventive medicine which is much less expensive. It would also create millions of good jobs.

In addition, build a public health clinic/dental clinic/pharmacy/hospital combined with a public 'nursing home' or 'elderly care facility' in every community in America.

This would ultimately be cheaper than allowing the private insurance companies to syphon off and vaporize 10% of America's GDP each year.

Those who can afford to can still go to private healthcare providers for their care.

Qualified, prospective health professionals could not only receive a paid for education but also receive a salary while obtaining their education. There would no longer be a need for malpractice insurance, saving more tens of billions.

Such programs would be better built on the individual state level instead of the federal level so that with 50 different systems, the better methods might become obvious.

Unfortunately, it's about 64 years too late to start building such reform and I doubt the current reforms going on in Washington will even start to address the real issue.

[gnm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A') recent pool showed the majority of Republicans didn't think health care for everyone should be required.

I've talked to a lot of very conservative Republicans here where I live,and they say if the uninsured want health care and can't afford it, "that they should get a better job, so they can."

Seriously.

And how many people are going to like being forced to buy health insurance?

17% of your income or you get a fine or go to jail?

I don't see a bill getting passed. DOA.

[VMarcHart]

I believe it's there. Can't remember. The tally for wrong predictions will go up at this month's tally.

However, pls remember that whereas this bill moves the conversation forward, it's far from being a good bill. Republicans made a mass out of it, and Democrats allowed it.