Does anybody actually support ObamaCare?

[paul1454]

I agree. However, I don't have a philosophical problem because you can avoid paying auto insurance (if you don't drive). That may or may not practical, but there is still consumer choice involved. I DO have a philosophical problem for making people purchase health insurance simply for existing.

I am in 100% agreement here. And, thus, why the individual mandate is really unworkable.

I don't think the cost of health services SHOULD be regulated. Medical providers should operate in a competitive market. In my mind, the labor market for doctors and the consumer market for their services are no different than that for, say, an accountant.

I want to clarify, I am not advocating regulating the profits of medical providers in any way. I am only saying that if the insurance industry were deregulated in such a way that more people were paying out of pocket expenses for certain services fully or partially, it would lead to a more competitive market for medical providers. Currently, consumers are oblivious as to the relative prices of medical providers (as an aside, a while back I had a friend in the hospital. After a bitter fight to get an itemized lists of costs, he realized that he had been charged $15 per tylenol pill while in the hospital - absolutely amazing). Making consumers more concious of these costs would encourage price competition. Additionally, tort reform would also reduce costs without regulating the profits or the services of medical providers.

I have a lot simpler solution. Or to say it another way, an experiment. Scrap the entire 8 trillion page healthcare plan. Have the government start a health insurance company, with rates set exactly to meet the required return on capital which will compete with private insurers (in other words, self-sustaining). If the government is as bumbling and inefficient as everyone thinks it is, it won't last very long. However, if economic theory is correct and selling actuarial fair insurance is optimal, then private insurers will be forced by competition to lower their administrative costs to levels seen in other western nations.

Even if it were to fail, it would continue but simply run at a deficit. Stopping a train like that after constituents have come to rely on the insurance provided under this system would be political suicide. What would likely happen is that it would simply operate at a loss (if it could not stay afloat) and the extent of the loss would be subsidized by taxpayers.

 

[shootermcgavin7]

Even if it were to fail, it would continue but simply run at a deficit. Stopping a train like that after constituents have come to rely on the insurance provided under this system would be political suicide. What would likely happen is that it would simply operate at a loss (if it could not stay afloat) and the extent of the loss would be subsidized by taxpayers.

If you require it to break even (after accounting for cost of capital), they would have to raise the price of their insurance if they were running a loss. This should cause consumers to shift to private insurers if the price is actually lower in private markets.

 

[paul1454]

If you require it to break even (after accounting for cost of capital), they would have to raise the price of their insurance if they were running a loss. This should cause consumers to shift to private insurers if the price is actually lower in private markets.

Gotcha. I misunderstood your premise. I agree that might be a good option if it worked as originally drafted. I do, however, believe the break-even requirement migjt later be amended if it was found unable to accomplish the goal of providing more affirdable health insurance while breaking even. That is merely my opinion though. Obviously no one can predict what would happen, but after seeing what happened to Medicare and Medicaid, I would certainly be skeptical if some politician was pitching that plan to me. i find it unfortunate that elected officials have lost so much of the public's trust that such concerns are even valid.

 

[Oldvol75]

Gotcha. I misunderstood your premise. I agree that might be a good option if it worked as originally drafted. I do, however, believe the break-even requirement migjt later be amended if it was found unable to accomplish the goal of providing more affirdable health insurance while breaking even. That is merely my opinion though. Obviously no one can predict what would happen, but after seeing what happened to Medicare and Medicaid, I would certainly be skeptical if some politician was pitching that plan to me. i find it unfortunate that elected officials have lost so much of the public's trust that such concerns are even valid.

From what the bill says there is a part that says it can not be ammended or changed. If it passes we are stuck with it. IIRC there is a post somewhere on the board where the link or the article itself is posted.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Gotcha. I misunderstood your premise. I agree that might be a good option if it worked as originally drafted. I do, however, believe the break-even requirement migjt later be amended if it was found unable to accomplish the goal of providing more affirdable health insurance while breaking even. That is merely my opinion though. Obviously no one can predict what would happen, but after seeing what happened to Medicare and Medicaid, I would certainly be skeptical if some politician was pitching that plan to me. i find it unfortunate that elected officials have lost so much of the public's trust that such concerns are even valid.

WTF????????? Unfortunate?????????

:sick:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

From what the bill says there is a part that says it can not be ammended or changed. If it passes we are stuck with it. IIRC there is a post somewhere on the board where the link or the article itself is posted.

This garbage will go to the supreme court.

We do not live in a dictatorship.

 

[Oldvol75]

This garbage will go to the supreme court.

We do not live in a dictatorship.

Thats what I think will happen too.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The core of our government is checks and balances. I know democrats hate the notion but this garbage will not stand!

 

[paul1454]

WTF????????? Unfortunate?????????

:sick:

You don't think having dishonest representatives is unfortunate? You prefer that over honest ones that we can trust?

 

[paul1454]

From what the bill says there is a part that says it can not be ammended or changed. If it passes we are stuck with it. IIRC there is a post somewhere on the board where the link or the article itself is posted.

Oh I know about that provision, but i was not talking about the senate bill in that quote. I was discussing an option that shooter had put on the table.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

You don't think having dishonest representatives is unfortunate? You prefer that over honest ones that we can trust?

How about choose a stronger word......

:hi:

 

[paul1454]

How about choose a stronger word......

:hi:

Ah, now I see where you were going with that. Yes, a stronger word is in order, but cursing has been banned on the forum

 

[gsvol]

The core of our government is checks and balances. I know democrats hate the notion but this garbage will not stand!

Bad checks and balances based on reading from crooked scales.

 

[shootermcgavin7]

From what the bill says there is a part that says it can not be ammended or changed..

The example which Paul is working off of is a hypothetical which I have constructed, not the actual bill.


In the example I constructed, a part which prohibits future amendment (at least to a break-even clause) is actually beneficial to everyone. Unfortunately, the refined bill is not.

Paul, this serves as a response to you as well. Politics is the outcome of a bargaining game, which by definition is less efficient than markets. I agree with you, so this is one case where a "required profit" requirement may be nice. No matter what, the example is tractable (and a hell of a lot less expensive than the proposal).


As an aside to the above paragraph, political scheming is by definition inefficient (it is a bargaining game).

 

[shootermcgavin7]

The bizarre thing is that the "public option" was the most contested part of the bill by the GOP, not the "mandatory" clause.

This should seem bizarre, but apparently isn't, because Mitt Romney was one of the first governors to mandate insurance coverage. However, a voluntary public insurer should cause a net gain to society as a whole (as long as it is required to operate at a profit)..........at least more so than forcing citizens to buy insurance.

 

[gsvol]

The bizarre thing is that the "public option" was the most contested part of the bill by the GOP, not the "mandatory" clause.

This should seem bizarre, but apparently isn't, because Mitt Romney was one of the first governors to mandate insurance coverage. However, a voluntary public insurer should cause a net gain to society as a whole (as long as it is required to operate at a profit)..........at least more so than forcing citizens to buy insurance.

That's one reason I'd never vote for Romney.

Dems also voted to increase debt ceiling by another $290,000,000,000, meaning the can continue borrowing through Febuary.

The debt ceiling has to be one of the biggest jokes in the history of the world, every time they reach the limit, they just raise the limit.

I predict insurance companies will fail some day just like the housing market did because if citizens are required to buy insurance whether the want to or not, then insurance companies will be required to sell policies whether they want to or not.

ps; our discussion about animal rights issues can presently be found on the last page of the 'gsvol compendium' thread.

 

[kptvol]

Anyone catch Harry Reid accidentally vote against his own f-ing bill? He seems like the kind of guy I want for the architect of US healthcare.

 

[gsvol]

Anyone catch Harry Reid accidentally vote against his own f-ing bill? He seems like the kind of guy I want for the architect of US healthcare.

Yet another last minute provision.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., apparently persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to add a provision to force construction businesses of five or more employees to provide insurance coverage or face hefty fines.

Neither of New Mexico's senators were aware the last-minute construction industry requirement had been included until notified of it by the Journal on Thursday.
These clowns don't even know what the hell they are voting on!

The only good thing about obamacare is that it isn't quite as bad as Canadian and British plans, at least just yet.

 

[jackaro]

Q. Why did President Obama feel it was necessary for him to apologize to the world and to degrade the United States?
A. Jimmy Carter had laryngitis.

I have got to give you credit on this one. That is funny stuff right there.

 

[jackaro]

Would you not say that this bill goes against federalism and states rights? I am a huge proponent of federalism, and that is a major part of why I am opposed to this bill (aside from everything else about it). I think each state should be allowed to decide what is best in healthcare, just as the 10th amendment of the Constitution calls for. It really would not bother me if some of the more leftist states like Vermont decide to take over health care in their state, and tax the productive citizens of their state into poverty.

Ideally yes, the states could each set up different systems, that could be used as experiments to see which ones worked and which ones did not. The good systems would be copied and the bad ones fixed.

Tennessee tried this, and it turned out bad. The Federal Government is the only authority that can take on all the insurance companies and regulate them effectively. I simply love the idea of the exchanges. There are certain things that simply have to be handled at the Federal level, and I believe this is one.

 

[jackaro]

The reason liberals will not allow the states or the people decide what is best for them is because they crave power, and they view the American people almost as animals, and believe they know what is best for us more than we do. They also know what happens when liberal policies are enacted on a state level (see Michigan). They want to make it so businesses and people have nowhere to flee to, rather than allow people to do the mass exodus from liberal rust belt states to the sun belt that has occurred in recent decades (which, by the way, has greatly helped the economy of Tennessee).

It is true that many liberal do-gooders thing they know whats best for others. This is my biggest criticism of liberals. Quite honestly, the conservatives crave power just as much as the liberals do and have no more respect for the American people than liberals (I am speaking of politicians now, not the rank and file).

It is frustrating to me when someone refers to conservatives as freedom lovers and liberals and freedom haters. Every American loves freedom, and they should. American principles and values are built on the bedrock of freedom, liberals and conservatives just have different ideas on how to run the government, but we all agree on the freedom thing.

Try to remember that when the government tries to take away freedoms that the much vilified ACLU is the front line of defense against such actions (this should not be read as an endorsement of the ACLU).

 

[gsvol]

Try to remember that when the government tries to take away freedoms that the much vilified ACLU is the front line of defense against such actions (this should not be read as an endorsement of the ACLU).

The ACLU is and always has been a communist party front group.

 

[jackaro]

The ACLU is and always has been a communist party front group.

While I would say they are more socialist than communist, your point stands.

I have a great respect for the fact that they fight the good fight to protect our civil liberties and freedoms. Civil liberties and freedoms are the core of this liberals belief in America, the greatest nation on earth.

 

[gsvol]

While I would say they are more socialist than communist, your point stands.

I have a great respect for the fact that they fight the good fight to protect our civil liberties and freedoms. Civil liberties and freedoms are the core of this liberals belief in America, the greatest nation on earth.

The ACLU is the enemy.

We are damned well able to stand up for our own rights and we don't need some Soviet funded group to to that for us!!!!

The ACLU is a leech on the body of American freedom.



John Quincy Adams. On July 4, 1837:

"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? ...

Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior?

That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth.

That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?"


The ACLU would forbid that statement being displayed in any publicly owned venue, that and many more statements just like it.

Don't ever try to tell me the ACLU stands up for my rights.

 

[TNvol86]

It is true that many liberal do-gooders thing they know whats best for others. This is my biggest criticism of liberals. Quite honestly, the conservatives crave power just as much as the liberals do and have no more respect for the American people than liberals (I am speaking of politicians now, not the rank and file).

It is frustrating to me when someone refers to conservatives as freedom lovers and liberals and freedom haters. Every American loves freedom, and they should. American principles and values are built on the bedrock of freedom, liberals and conservatives just have different ideas on how to run the government, but we all agree on the freedom thing.

Try to remember that when the government tries to take away freedoms that the much vilified ACLU is the front line of defense against such actions (this should not be read as an endorsement of the ACLU).

I wish this were true. I think there was a time when liberals weren't opposed to freedom, but almost every single policy stance they now have involves taking away freedoms from the people and giving power once possessed by the people to the federal government.

When they say I cannot keep my current health insurance, and then force me to buy insurance that I don't need/want, they are going against freedom.

When they tell me I cannot own guns or defend myself, they are going against freedom.

When they tell me that my taxes aren't high enough already, even though they already take away over a third of my income, they are going against freedom.

When they force me into investment Ponzi schemes like Social Security, they are going against freedom.

With every bill that becomes law, it seems we lose more and more of our freedoms, and certainly liberals are not going to put a stop to this until we have the Marxist authoritarian government they desire.

Obama once criticized our Constitution for going "too far" in limiting government, giving too many freedoms to the American people. I think this leftist belief is now shared by most elected Democrats, given their blatant disregard for the Constitution, especially the 10th amendment.

I really just wish the left would leave me alone and let me run my own life, because I know for certain I am more capable of it than they are. With how bad the government is at running stuff, I still cannot fathom why liberals still want the government to control their lives.