Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Can Anyone Still Justify Their Defense of...

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 11:46:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Obamacare?

After we have learned that it is going to cut over 2 MILLION jobs in the coming years, cut hours for hourly workers, it has already caused 5 million Americans to LOSE their healthcare while driving up costs for everyone else.

Insurance companies are up and leaving entire states leaving the people to be at the mercy of the awful system the government has designed. The system which is slow, buggy, prone to malware attack, security breaches etc...

It has done nothing to solve any of the healthcare problems we faced before. All it has done is make it harder for people to keep jobs, insurance and to pay their bills. All of these things are well documented.

So what's the great good that has come out of this garbage? And can you defend it? Does it outweigh all of the awful, awful things it has spawned?

Just like to point out that no Republican voted for this bill. Not a single one.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 12:19:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A few comments...

First of all, sources for your claims would be lovely -- particularly the 5 million figure.

Second, your claim that Obamacare cuts hours is simply a false interpretation of the CBO report. It argued that people will voluntarily cut their hours. For some, it's because they're retiring. Others may not have needed to work as much, but did so because they needed health insurance through their employer, but now can find affordable access elsewhere.

Third, your final argument fails to mention that "ObamaCare" was a Republican idea, championed as the right-wing alternative to single-payer. Created by the Heritage Foundation, championed by the likes of George H. W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, et al, the entire essence of the bill is conservative: eliminating the free-rider problem--the fact that people who are uninsured can go to the emergency room on our dime, and thus drive up health care costs.

Frankly, I don't like the ACA. It's too conservative for me. How about single-payer?

But my question to you is one that my conservative friends have been unable to answer. Perhaps you'll have more like with it. What's your alternative?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 4:32:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I had some spare time and wanted to disabuse you of these myths you're for some reason clinging to. Hopefully this would be helpful for someone. Facts do matter.

At 2/7/2014 11:46:31 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Obamacare?

After we have learned that it is going to cut over 2 MILLION jobs in the coming years, cut hours for hourly workers, it has already caused 5 million Americans to LOSE their healthcare while driving up costs for everyone else.

For the first claim about 2.0 million jobs: http://www.nytimes.com...

And if you don't believe Paul Krugman, let me link you to Doug Elmendorf: http://thinkprogress.org...

The CBO estimated, once again, that people will voluntarily reduce their hours by about 1.5 to 2 percent by 2017 -- largely because some will retire, or will want to spend more time with their families now that they don't need to have a full-time job to access affordable health insurance, etc. The full remark was that this voluntary reduction of hours "represents a decline in the number of full-time equivalent workers of about 2.0 million." That's it: 2.0 million will not be lost.

As for your claim that the ACA has caused 5 million people to lose their healthcare: 4.7 million people received cancellation notices, but that was because the insurance companies refused to meet the minimum standard the ACA set. Many of these policies were utter junk. And, not to mention, insurance companies tend to drop enrollees, anyway, so the notion that the ACA, ipso facto, led to these cancellations is a fallacy. Even if it were true, they can find cheaper, better healthcare through the exchanges.

Next, you said it drives up costs "for everyone.". You're wrong: http://www.politico.com...

Insurance companies are up and leaving entire states leaving the people to be at the mercy of the awful system the government has designed. The system which is slow, buggy, prone to malware attack, security breaches etc...

Malware attack? Security breaches? Burden of proof, please. The government didn't design a system where insurance companies could operate as cartels -- that's your good GOP pals whom they're funding (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Also, what system has the government designed? This isn't single-payer.

Also, where is your evidence that insurance companies are leaving states? From what states are they leaving? That seems a bit foolish given that the plan is federal, and the ACA provides from them a significant benefit -- more than I ever would have liked, anyway.

It has done nothing to solve any of the healthcare problems we faced before. All it has done is make it harder for people to keep jobs, insurance and to pay their bills. All of these things are well documented.

If they're well-documented, then why didn't you document them? Answer: they don't exist. I agree with you that it doesn't address properly the problems in the health care system -- it's a GOP plan, after all. But it does significantly decelerate health care costs and has let millions of Americans receive health care coverage, so for that I think it's been worth it, at least a stepping stone.

So what's the great good that has come out of this garbage? And can you defend it? Does it outweigh all of the awful, awful things it has spawned?

Yes, it does, probably because the "awful things it has spawned" exist only in a right-wing fairy tale -- the same information bubble that led many of your friends to think, up until the last minute, that Mitt Romney was leading in the polls.
Just like to point out that no Republican voted for this bill. Not a single one.

As I said before, this is true, but it's a Republican plan.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 4:34:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't like obamacare...
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2014 5:31:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have a pre-existing condition that slightly increases my risk of colon cancer. Before Obamacare, I got rejected for insurance because my parent's insurance lapsed right prior to my diagnosis. Basically, insurance companies told me: we don't want to insure you because your actuarial tables show that you're not as good a "risk" as someone with no pre-existing conditions. That's a pretty terrifying situation to be in. Luckily, Obamacare was on the cusp of passing.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that Guaranteed Issue is a bad idea. Guaranteed Issue says that insurance companies cannot deny people like me on the basis of pre-existing conditions. For me, no Obamacare would likely mean bankruptcy or a death sentence if I ever got some serious disease, like cancer.

The only possible way to pay for Guaranteed Issue, under a non-single payer system, is the Individual Mandate. While I think there are problems with the Mandate, I see it as a necessary evil to (1) ensure that people pay for emergency room visits and don't free ride, and (2) to pay for Guaranteed Issue.

The other part of Obamacare that is hard to dispute is the cap on profits of insurance companies (80% of premiums must be spent on healthcare). If you want insurance companies to let people die so they can reap massive profits, then I guess it's good to be against Obamacare.

I agree it's not a perfect system. But it's the only one that extremely pro-business Senate Democrats would vote for. So it's what we got. And it's better than nothing.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 12:55:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm still awaiting a response from ConservativePolitico. If he was so adamantly opposed to "ObamaCare" that he was driven to post a topic of this nature, you'd think he wouldn't be deterred by a few sources.
TheJesusParadox
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 6:17:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The bottom line is that due to the Affordable Care Act more people are covered by health insurance in America. There is no ifs or buts about it -- that is fact. The reason that more people are covered is that the Affordable Care Act made health care affordable. Moreover, as time goes on health insurance will become even more affordable and more people will enroll. Per the CBO report " ACA will markedly increase the number of non-elderly people who have health insurance"by about
13 million in 2014, 20 in 2015, and 25 million in each of the subsequent years through 2024." Those merits alone make it easy to justify my defense of the Affordable Care Act.

A more appropriate question considering the circumstances is: can anyone still justify their arguments against the Affordable Care Act enlight of fact?

The following will be a list of facts according to the CBO report. According to the CBO report, in 2024 thirty-one million people will still not have health insurance. Now, play close attention the reasons thirty-one million people will not have insurance: 30 percent will be unauthorized immigrants, 20 percent will be eligible for medicaid but will not enroll, 5 ineligible due to living in states that did not expand medicaid, and 45 percent will choose not to. Of those reasons, 35 percent -- unauthorized immigrants and states not expanding coverage -- are directly due to Republicans. The other 65 percent could be partly due to the smear campaign against the Affordable Care Act. So the long and the short is, according to the CBO -- by 2024 the ACA should only leave 15 million Americans uninsured. In reality, the real number is actually lower as many of those could afford to enroll, but will choose not to.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 6:27:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It was hard to defend obamacare at first because no one signed up. lately though, it has had a massive skyrocket in in popularity.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, Obamacare will increase health coverage which is a good thing.

But, I'm not sure it does it in a very smart way. For example, expanding Medicaid is a big part of increasing coverage in the law. The problem here is that Medicaid is already very low quality coverage. So, more people are insured, but the quality is very low.

I generally prefer approaches to health care that leave more choices to individuals and firms. Competition would be a good thing in health care.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:56:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 8:17:23 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Well, Obamacare will increase health coverage which is a good thing.

But, I'm not sure it does it in a very smart way. For example, expanding Medicaid is a big part of increasing coverage in the law. The problem here is that Medicaid is already very low quality coverage. So, more people are insured, but the quality is very low.

Where's your source that Medicaid is low-quality care? Moreover, where is your source that the quality of insurance on the exchanges--which, mind you, is where the majority of people will be going--is low-quality. It's actually better quality at a cheaper cost, since the government has now set a minimum standard of insurance--the same standard that many of them are refusing to adhere to because profit margins tend to weigh higher on their minds than health and safety (which is the primary argument for single-payer).
I generally prefer approaches to health care that leave more choices to individuals and firms. Competition would be a good thing in health care.

That's anecdotal at best, to be honest. It's a bit difficult to oppose Medicaid--and I'm sure, by extension, you would oppose the public option for the same reason, but correct me if I'm wrong--and yet long for "competition." What's your solution? Competing over state lines--which would be a disaster because companies would no longer need to adhere to even the minimum state regulations on the books? This "free market knows best" approach is, truly, anathema to any semblance of progress, and fails to acknowledge that the US government is not only the only industrialized country not to have single-payer health care, but also the one that spends the most on this area.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 10:00:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 8:56:47 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 8:17:23 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Well, Obamacare will increase health coverage which is a good thing.

But, I'm not sure it does it in a very smart way. For example, expanding Medicaid is a big part of increasing coverage in the law. The problem here is that Medicaid is already very low quality coverage. So, more people are insured, but the quality is very low.

Where's your source that Medicaid is low-quality care? Moreover, where is your source that the quality of insurance on the exchanges--which, mind you, is where the majority of people will be going--is low-quality. It's actually better quality at a cheaper cost, since the government has now set a minimum standard of insurance--the same standard that many of them are refusing to adhere to because profit margins tend to weigh higher on their minds than health and safety (which is the primary argument for single-payer).

I'm not sure the government setting a minimum standard actually improves quality or lowers costs. If anything, that would raise costs.

And, it seems that insurers would get more profit if they sold more comprehensive plans. I mean, the insurance industry seems to be pretty on board for Obamacare. Perhaps it makes it easier for them get large profits?

And, what if someone wants to buy a low cost insurance plan that only offers catastrophic coverage?

Isn't that there choice?

And, is it a bad choice?

I think the catastrophic plan is a good route for a lot of people (maybe even most).

As far as Medicaid goes, there was an RCT earlier this year that found no statistically significant improvement in objective phyisical health resulting from Medicaid. I've also seen studies that people on Medicaid get lower quality care and lack access to doctors.

I generally prefer approaches to health care that leave more choices to individuals and firms. Competition would be a good thing in health care.

That's anecdotal at best, to be honest. It's a bit difficult to oppose Medicaid--and I'm sure, by extension, you would oppose the public option for the same reason, but correct me if I'm wrong--and yet long for "competition." What's your solution? Competing over state lines--which would be a disaster because companies would no longer need to adhere to even the minimum state regulations on the books? This "free market knows best" approach is, truly, anathema to any semblance of progress, and fails to acknowledge that the US government is not only the only industrialized country not to have single-payer health care, but also the one that spends the most on this area.

First, the USA is not the only country to not have single payer health care. Germany doesn't have single payer, for example. They do have universal care but not single payer.

And, yes, I oppose the public option. Public option is the death of competition. You can't have the same entity that makes the rules and has infinite access to taxpayer funds compete with companies that have none of those advantages. That's hardly competition.

Yes, I support competition over state lines and general deregulation of insurance. This whole "once size fits all", standard model has failed in health care. We need consumer choice.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 10:22:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 10:00:26 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 8:56:47 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 8:17:23 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Well, Obamacare will increase health coverage which is a good thing.

But, I'm not sure it does it in a very smart way. For example, expanding Medicaid is a big part of increasing coverage in the law. The problem here is that Medicaid is already very low quality coverage. So, more people are insured, but the quality is very low.

Where's your source that Medicaid is low-quality care? Moreover, where is your source that the quality of insurance on the exchanges--which, mind you, is where the majority of people will be going--is low-quality. It's actually better quality at a cheaper cost, since the government has now set a minimum standard of insurance--the same standard that many of them are refusing to adhere to because profit margins tend to weigh higher on their minds than health and safety (which is the primary argument for single-payer).

I'm not sure the government setting a minimum standard actually improves quality or lowers costs. If anything, that would raise costs.

But it doesn't, and there's plenty of data--some of which I cited on this thread--that disproves that thesis. It's highly neoclassical to suggest that any government intervention will increase cost. Here's a good example: the "contraception" mandate that the GOP rallied against lowers cost because it turns out preventing pregnancy costs less than paying for medical visits following a pregnancy. Who would have thought?

And, it seems that insurers would get more profit if they sold more comprehensive plans. I mean, the insurance industry seems to be pretty on board for Obamacare. Perhaps it makes it easier for them get large profits?

Well, considering that there were restrictions in the ACA--e.g., insurers have to use 80% of your insurance premiums on coverage, rather than profits, they can't jack up costs immensely for preexisting conditions or to cover preventive care, etc--that isn't so. The insurance companies actually came out in droves fundraising against the ACA. But I do think you're right to an extent: they SHOULD be for this bill because the increase in demand brought on by forcing people to buy private health insurance will significantly improve their profit margins.

And, what if someone wants to buy a low cost insurance plan that only offers catastrophic coverage?

Isn't that there choice?

It isn't their choice when their decision negatively impacts everyone else. Not only does it impact the risk pool significantly--a lot of people hate to hear this, but it's common practice in insurance for health people to subsidize sick people--but, if they get sick and go to the emergency room, it jacks up premiums for everyone.

And, is it a bad choice?

Yes, it is.
I think the catastrophic plan is a good route for a lot of people (maybe even most).

Again, the risk pool would be considerably jaded and costs would skyrocket. Study after study has demonstrated that, if you want to lower health care costs, one key step is getting everyone insured.

As far as Medicaid goes, there was an RCT earlier this year that found no statistically significant improvement in objective phyisical health resulting from Medicaid. I've also seen studies that people on Medicaid get lower quality care and lack access to doctors.

I'd love to see this report. If you mean low quality vis-a-vis private insurance, that makes sense. But in this case, we're merely talking about very low-income people who can't afford insurance at all, so clearly something beats nothing. Medicaid and a public option, or Medicaid and single-payer, are wildly different things.

I generally prefer approaches to health care that leave more choices to individuals and firms. Competition would be a good thing in health care.

Then you should be all for the public option.

That's anecdotal at best, to be honest. It's a bit difficult to oppose Medicaid--and I'm sure, by extension, you would oppose the public option for the same reason, but correct me if I'm wrong--and yet long for "competition." What's your solution? Competing over state lines--which would be a disaster because companies would no longer need to adhere to even the minimum state regulations on the books? This "free market knows best" approach is, truly, anathema to any semblance of progress, and fails to acknowledge that the US government is not only the only industrialized country not to have single-payer health care, but also the one that spends the most on this area.

First, the USA is not the only country to not have single payer health care. Germany doesn't have single payer, for example. They do have universal care but not single payer.

You're correct on this one. I misspoke. I meant to say universal, and mind you, I don't consider the ACA to be universal.

And, yes, I oppose the public option. Public option is the death of competition. You can't have the same entity that makes the rules and has infinite access to taxpayer funds compete with companies that have none of those advantages. That's hardly competition.

The federal government hardly has "infinite access to taxpayer funds." In fact, tax rates are at historic lows (as are regulations for that matter, hence the 2008 recession).

Anyway, it'd be fun if your narrative were true, but it isn't. Following your logic, public schools would gobble up profits from private schools, or at least consume a considerable market share. Yet, despite studies demonstrating that they're actually superior in quality (http://www.bostonglobe.com...), private schools still exist, are highly profitable, and are the preferred route by many. In fact, plenty of states have voucher systems that take from public schools and give to the private, which is clearly a deeply flawed system.

Yes, I support competition over state lines and general deregulation of insurance. This whole "once size fits all", standard model has failed in health care. We need consumer choice.

It's difficult to stand for consumer choice when you're against the public option--which actually would significantly reduce health care costs because insurance companies right now can operate a de facto cartel--on a pretense. The problem with your view is, actually, the same problem I have with libertarianism: it's based on ideology rather than fact. There is absolutely no evidence that your plan is plausible. Norway, France, Sweden, etc. allow for universal access, and have better outcomes than the US--in fact, we're ranked about 27 in health care worldwide, which is a travesty.

Also, "one-size-fits-all" is hardly what even a public option would allow. The GOP recently rallied against the fact that "OMG single men will have to pay for maternity care!" It's standard practice in insurance to pay for things even if you don't need them because (1) you may down the road and (2) someone else will need them. Moreover, a public option would allow the government the leverage to refuse to pay for procedures without any medical merit, and thus base decisions almost entirely on academic research and medical testimony. Surely you couldn't be opposed to that. And no, those aren't "death panels."
TheJesusParadox
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 5:58:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 8:17:23 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Well, Obamacare will increase health coverage which is a good thing.

But, I'm not sure it does it in a very smart way. For example, expanding Medicaid is a big part of increasing coverage in the law. The problem here is that Medicaid is already very low quality coverage. So, more people are insured, but the quality is very low.

Believe it or not, Medicaid is one of the best coverage's available in many ways. First, and most importantly to the poor, it is dirt cheap -- everything from visits to prescriptions is free. Secondly, the coverage is viable; as you can see a specialist if needed and fill any prescriptions prescribed. Thirdly, you can see a Medical Board certified doctor when needed. The whole notion that some doctors are better than others is a little misguided. At the end of the day, a patient goes in with problem x and a doctor gives a correct diagnosis. The only time the quality of a doctor really matters is when you see a specialist -- however, the same principal generally applies to specialists also.

I generally prefer approaches to health care that leave more choices to individuals and firms. Competition would be a good thing in health care.

I do not see how choices are cut out by the ACA. The only people who have limited choices are the ones who could not afford health insurance previously. Rest assured, they would tell you limited choices is better than no choices.

As far as competition goes, with the ACA there is still competition between insurance corporations. Nevertheless, I comprehend your dig at a single-payer system. The only problem with the "no-competition argument" is that there would still be competition. Instead of insurance corporations competing, there would be competition between doctors. They would compete to get patients to come to them. That would then drive up quality of care and lower costs. Similarly as what we have now, just at a more micro and manageable level.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 8:03:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 5:58:00 AM, TheJesusParadox wrote:

I do not see how choices are cut out by the ACA. The only people who have limited choices are the ones who could not afford health insurance previously. Rest assured, they would tell you limited choices is better than no choices.

Federal minimum (and maximum) requirements limit competition and choices.

As far as competition goes, with the ACA there is still competition between insurance corporations. Nevertheless, I comprehend your dig at a single-payer system. The only problem with the "no-competition argument" is that there would still be competition. Instead of insurance corporations competing, there would be competition between doctors. They would compete to get patients to come to them. That would then drive up quality of care and lower costs. Similarly as what we have now, just at a more micro and manageable level.

How exactly do doctors compete?
If a doctor advertises and another one doesn't, with single-payer, I assume the two doctors are paid the same for services, so one is less profitable. How were costs lowered?
Similarly, how is quality improved? By paying the better doctors more, which increases the bottom line to the firm?
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 10:17:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 8:03:00 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/9/2014 5:58:00 AM, TheJesusParadox wrote:

I do not see how choices are cut out by the ACA. The only people who have limited choices are the ones who could not afford health insurance previously. Rest assured, they would tell you limited choices is better than no choices.

Federal minimum (and maximum) requirements limit competition and choices.

Not at all. Insurance companies today function such that you can only visit a doctor within your network--that is, they'll only pay for doctors and medical practices that are participating. With single-payer, you can actually choose which doctor you'd prefer, thus expanding competition.

Not to mention, the notion that the federal government setting minimum requirements--and I find it curious that you said "federal" instead of merely "government-imposed"--limits competition is a libertarian myth at best, disingenuous at worst. If the federal government sets standards in such a way that improve quality and lower costs, as many of these requirements do, they're expanding choices.

As far as competition goes, with the ACA there is still competition between insurance corporations. Nevertheless, I comprehend your dig at a single-payer system. The only problem with the "no-competition argument" is that there would still be competition. Instead of insurance corporations competing, there would be competition between doctors. They would compete to get patients to come to them. That would then drive up quality of care and lower costs. Similarly as what we have now, just at a more micro and manageable level.

How exactly do doctors compete?
If a doctor advertises and another one doesn't, with single-payer, I assume the two doctors are paid the same for services, so one is less profitable. How were costs lowered?
Similarly, how is quality improved? By paying the better doctors more, which increases the bottom line to the firm?

See above.

Also, payment under single-payer would be a "pay for healthy outcome" rather than "fee for service," as private insurance today is currently. The best doctors, therefore, would earn significantly more than inferior doctors--and in the process, there is absolutely no incentive to administer extra procedures, tests, et al with the sole intent of raking in profits (which, let's admit, happens today because profit margins tend to take precedence over health care--which is exactly why the profit motive in health care is disastrous).
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 10:26:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 10:17:02 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 8:03:00 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/9/2014 5:58:00 AM, TheJesusParadox wrote:

I do not see how choices are cut out by the ACA. The only people who have limited choices are the ones who could not afford health insurance previously. Rest assured, they would tell you limited choices is better than no choices.

Federal minimum (and maximum) requirements limit competition and choices.

Not at all. Insurance companies today function such that you can only visit a doctor within your network--that is, they'll only pay for doctors and medical practices that are participating. With single-payer, you can actually choose which doctor you'd prefer, thus expanding competition.

Not to mention, the notion that the federal government setting minimum requirements--and I find it curious that you said "federal" instead of merely "government-imposed"--limits competition is a libertarian myth at best, disingenuous at worst. If the federal government sets standards in such a way that improve quality and lower costs, as many of these requirements do, they're expanding choices.

As far as competition goes, with the ACA there is still competition between insurance corporations. Nevertheless, I comprehend your dig at a single-payer system. The only problem with the "no-competition argument" is that there would still be competition. Instead of insurance corporations competing, there would be competition between doctors. They would compete to get patients to come to them. That would then drive up quality of care and lower costs. Similarly as what we have now, just at a more micro and manageable level.

How exactly do doctors compete?
If a doctor advertises and another one doesn't, with single-payer, I assume the two doctors are paid the same for services, so one is less profitable. How were costs lowered?
Similarly, how is quality improved? By paying the better doctors more, which increases the bottom line to the firm?

See above.

Also, payment under single-payer would be a "pay for healthy outcome" rather than "fee for service," as private insurance today is currently. The best doctors, therefore, would earn significantly more than inferior doctors--and in the process, there is absolutely no incentive to administer extra procedures, tests, et al with the sole intent of raking in profits (which, let's admit, happens today because profit margins tend to take precedence over health care--which is exactly why the profit motive in health care is disastrous).

I guess it depends on what you define is the choice.
Since I do not obfuscate insurance with healthcare, government mandates (and since I was talking about ACA, I mentioned federal), inherently limit the choices of insurance products. Single payer is an obvious destruction of said choice.

If you are talking about choosing your doctor, that is another issue, and the current "in-plan" formula would limit choice, where either no insurance or single payer would rectify that choice.
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 10:42:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 10:26:15 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/9/2014 10:17:02 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 8:03:00 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/9/2014 5:58:00 AM, TheJesusParadox wrote:

I do not see how choices are cut out by the ACA. The only people who have limited choices are the ones who could not afford health insurance previously. Rest assured, they would tell you limited choices is better than no choices.

Federal minimum (and maximum) requirements limit competition and choices.

Not at all. Insurance companies today function such that you can only visit a doctor within your network--that is, they'll only pay for doctors and medical practices that are participating. With single-payer, you can actually choose which doctor you'd prefer, thus expanding competition.

Not to mention, the notion that the federal government setting minimum requirements--and I find it curious that you said "federal" instead of merely "government-imposed"--limits competition is a libertarian myth at best, disingenuous at worst. If the federal government sets standards in such a way that improve quality and lower costs, as many of these requirements do, they're expanding choices.

As far as competition goes, with the ACA there is still competition between insurance corporations. Nevertheless, I comprehend your dig at a single-payer system. The only problem with the "no-competition argument" is that there would still be competition. Instead of insurance corporations competing, there would be competition between doctors. They would compete to get patients to come to them. That would then drive up quality of care and lower costs. Similarly as what we have now, just at a more micro and manageable level.

How exactly do doctors compete?
If a doctor advertises and another one doesn't, with single-payer, I assume the two doctors are paid the same for services, so one is less profitable. How were costs lowered?
Similarly, how is quality improved? By paying the better doctors more, which increases the bottom line to the firm?

See above.

Also, payment under single-payer would be a "pay for healthy outcome" rather than "fee for service," as private insurance today is currently. The best doctors, therefore, would earn significantly more than inferior doctors--and in the process, there is absolutely no incentive to administer extra procedures, tests, et al with the sole intent of raking in profits (which, let's admit, happens today because profit margins tend to take precedence over health care--which is exactly why the profit motive in health care is disastrous).

I guess it depends on what you define is the choice.
Since I do not obfuscate insurance with healthcare, government mandates (and since I was talking about ACA, I mentioned federal), inherently limit the choices of insurance products. Single payer is an obvious destruction of said choice.

If you are talking about choosing your doctor, that is another issue, and the current "in-plan" formula would limit choice, where either no insurance or single payer would rectify that choice.

If anyone was obfuscating insurance with health care, it was you. You wrote, "Federal minimum (and maximum) requirements limit competition and choices." That doesn't specify health care or insurance, but rather suggests that aggregate choices will be reduced, which I think is patently false.

If we're talking strictly of insurance, you're right--not bearing in mind that this doesn't apply with preexisting conditions, who previously had virtually no choices (and, pre-ACA, let's not forget that being a woman was considered a preexisting condition). But that's virtually irrelevant from where I stand, because we already know that insurance companies (1) are not covering what they ought to cover and (2) jack up prices enormously, without government government intervention.

Here's an analogy that I often point to when people, such as yourself I presume, express skepticism over a government-run health care system. We trust the government to run the military. Do they use it excessively and spend profligately? Of course. By and large, people in power are center-right--largely because the country has moved significantly to the right following the "Reagan Revolution"--and a key characteristic of conservatives is larger amygdalas (the part of the brain that processes fear). Fear in military intervention leads to unintended consequences. But fear in insurance? All that would lead to is prevention and expansive coverage to things people likely won't ever need--but so long as it reduces costs, which it does, who cares? Sure, people won't be able to "choose" whether they'll have a better health plan at a lower cost, unless of course we consider it a choice between staying in the U.S. and enjoying their good coverage, or moving elsewhere (which by the way, is always on the table).
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 11:20:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 10:42:07 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 10:26:15 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/9/2014 10:17:02 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 8:03:00 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/9/2014 5:58:00 AM, TheJesusParadox wrote:

I do not see how choices are cut out by the ACA. The only people who have limited choices are the ones who could not afford health insurance previously. Rest assured, they would tell you limited choices is better than no choices.

Federal minimum (and maximum) requirements limit competition and choices.

Not at all. Insurance companies today function such that you can only visit a doctor within your network--that is, they'll only pay for doctors and medical practices that are participating. With single-payer, you can actually choose which doctor you'd prefer, thus expanding competition.

Not to mention, the notion that the federal government setting minimum requirements--and I find it curious that you said "federal" instead of merely "government-imposed"--limits competition is a libertarian myth at best, disingenuous at worst. If the federal government sets standards in such a way that improve quality and lower costs, as many of these requirements do, they're expanding choices.

As far as competition goes, with the ACA there is still competition between insurance corporations. Nevertheless, I comprehend your dig at a single-payer system. The only problem with the "no-competition argument" is that there would still be competition. Instead of insurance corporations competing, there would be competition between doctors. They would compete to get patients to come to them. That would then drive up quality of care and lower costs. Similarly as what we have now, just at a more micro and manageable level.

How exactly do doctors compete?
If a doctor advertises and another one doesn't, with single-payer, I assume the two doctors are paid the same for services, so one is less profitable. How were costs lowered?
Similarly, how is quality improved? By paying the better doctors more, which increases the bottom line to the firm?

See above.

Also, payment under single-payer would be a "pay for healthy outcome" rather than "fee for service," as private insurance today is currently. The best doctors, therefore, would earn significantly more than inferior doctors--and in the process, there is absolutely no incentive to administer extra procedures, tests, et al with the sole intent of raking in profits (which, let's admit, happens today because profit margins tend to take precedence over health care--which is exactly why the profit motive in health care is disastrous).

I guess it depends on what you define is the choice.
Since I do not obfuscate insurance with healthcare, government mandates (and since I was talking about ACA, I mentioned federal), inherently limit the choices of insurance products. Single payer is an obvious destruction of said choice.

If you are talking about choosing your doctor, that is another issue, and the current "in-plan" formula would limit choice, where either no insurance or single payer would rectify that choice.

If anyone was obfuscating insurance with health care, it was you. You wrote, "Federal minimum (and maximum) requirements limit competition and choices." That doesn't specify health care or insurance, but rather suggests that aggregate choices will be reduced, which I think is patently false.

You inferred what you wished from it. My suggestion should have been clear, since ACA regulates insurance (i.e. the product), and not so much the health care. Although, they are related. My comment was clearly referencing choice and competition within the insurance products.

If we're talking strictly of insurance, you're right--not bearing in mind that this doesn't apply with preexisting conditions, who previously had virtually no choices (and, pre-ACA, let's not forget that being a woman was considered a preexisting condition).
They still had choices.

But that's virtually irrelevant from where I stand, because we already know that insurance companies (1) are not covering what they ought to cover and (2) jack up prices enormously, without government government intervention.

1. Are they, really? Or are they just not covering what or how you would like?
2. Keep in mind there is still government intervention before ACA, so we don't know that is the case. Also, they have to follow the markets, so if the cost of healthcare goes up, so must the premiums.

Here's an analogy that I often point to when people, such as yourself I presume, express skepticism over a government-run health care system. We trust the government to run the military. Do they use it excessively and spend profligately? Of course. By and large, people in power are center-right--largely because the country has moved significantly to the right following the "Reagan Revolution"--and a key characteristic of conservatives is larger amygdalas (the part of the brain that processes fear). Fear in military intervention leads to unintended consequences. But fear in insurance? All that would lead to is prevention and expansive coverage to things people likely won't ever need--but so long as it reduces costs, which it does, who cares? Sure, people won't be able to "choose" whether they'll have a better health plan at a lower cost, unless of course we consider it a choice between staying in the U.S. and enjoying their good coverage, or moving elsewhere (which by the way, is always on the table).

Good thing you don't understand my outrage over this program, then. ;)
However, does it actually lower costs is the main issue?
It sure as hell increases mine, since I'm forced to either pay a tax or have insurance I can't afford. Multiply that by 30 million Americans add those Americans whose insurance cost has increased and subtract those that actually benefit, and whatever that amount is is the net saving/cost. Regardless, that is a lot of people being forced to pay more for others to save, isn't it?
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 11:40:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 11:20:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/9/2014 10:42:07 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 10:26:15 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/9/2014 10:17:02 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 8:03:00 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/9/2014 5:58:00 AM, TheJesusParadox wrote:

I do not see how choices are cut out by the ACA. The only people who have limited choices are the ones who could not afford health insurance previously. Rest assured, they would tell you limited choices is better than no choices.

Federal minimum (and maximum) requirements limit competition and choices.

Not at all. Insurance companies today function such that you can only visit a doctor within your network--that is, they'll only pay for doctors and medical practices that are participating. With single-payer, you can actually choose which doctor you'd prefer, thus expanding competition.

Not to mention, the notion that the federal government setting minimum requirements--and I find it curious that you said "federal" instead of merely "government-imposed"--limits competition is a libertarian myth at best, disingenuous at worst. If the federal government sets standards in such a way that improve quality and lower costs, as many of these requirements do, they're expanding choices.

As far as competition goes, with the ACA there is still competition between insurance corporations. Nevertheless, I comprehend your dig at a single-payer system. The only problem with the "no-competition argument" is that there would still be competition. Instead of insurance corporations competing, there would be competition between doctors. They would compete to get patients to come to them. That would then drive up quality of care and lower costs. Similarly as what we have now, just at a more micro and manageable level.

How exactly do doctors compete?
If a doctor advertises and another one doesn't, with single-payer, I assume the two doctors are paid the same for services, so one is less profitable. How were costs lowered?
Similarly, how is quality improved? By paying the better doctors more, which increases the bottom line to the firm?

See above.

Also, payment under single-payer would be a "pay for healthy outcome" rather than "fee for service," as private insurance today is currently. The best doctors, therefore, would earn significantly more than inferior doctors--and in the process, there is absolutely no incentive to administer extra procedures, tests, et al with the sole intent of raking in profits (which, let's admit, happens today because profit margins tend to take precedence over health care--which is exactly why the profit motive in health care is disastrous).

I guess it depends on what you define is the choice.
Since I do not obfuscate insurance with healthcare, government mandates (and since I was talking about ACA, I mentioned federal), inherently limit the choices of insurance products. Single payer is an obvious destruction of said choice.

If you are talking about choosing your doctor, that is another issue, and the current "in-plan" formula would limit choice, where either no insurance or single payer would rectify that choice.

If anyone was obfuscating insurance with health care, it was you. You wrote, "Federal minimum (and maximum) requirements limit competition and choices." That doesn't specify health care or insurance, but rather suggests that aggregate choices will be reduced, which I think is patently false.

You inferred what you wished from it. My suggestion should have been clear, since ACA regulates insurance (i.e. the product), and not so much the health care. Although, they are related. My comment was clearly referencing choice and competition within the insurance products.

It wasn't clear, because what I saw was a blanket statement about federal regulation, and I'm sure you would argue that any government intervention reduces choice, raises costs, etc. But this is a matter of semantics that isn't particularly relevant to this debate.

If we're talking strictly of insurance, you're right--not bearing in mind that this doesn't apply with preexisting conditions, who previously had virtually no choices (and, pre-ACA, let's not forget that being a woman was considered a preexisting condition).
They still had choices.

But that's virtually irrelevant from where I stand, because we already know that insurance companies (1) are not covering what they ought to cover and (2) jack up prices enormously, without government government intervention.

1. Are they, really? Or are they just not covering what or how you would like?
2. Keep in mind there is still government intervention before ACA, so we don't know that is the case. Also, they have to follow the markets, so if the cost of healthcare goes up, so must the premiums.

There was government intervention, but not nearly enough. I don't consider an environment where insurance companies can literally place profits before people can deny people for preexisting conditions, or charge women more for their healthcare than men, as regulated.

I don't quite understand your "following the markets" argument, so please elaborate a bit. Yes, you are correct that costs will rise if health care costs increase, and indeed they are still increasing. The point is this plan decelerates already-increasing health care costs, which is at least a step in the right direction.

Here's an analogy that I often point to when people, such as yourself I presume, express skepticism over a government-run health care system. We trust the government to run the military. Do they use it excessively and spend profligately? Of course. By and large, people in power are center-right--largely because the country has moved significantly to the right following the "Reagan Revolution"--and a key characteristic of conservatives is larger amygdalas (the part of the brain that processes fear). Fear in military intervention leads to unintended consequences. But fear in insurance? All that would lead to is prevention and expansive coverage to things people likely won't ever need--but so long as it reduces costs, which it does, who cares? Sure, people won't be able to "choose" whether they'll have a better health plan at a lower cost, unless of course we consider it a choice between staying in the U.S. and enjoying their good coverage, or moving elsewhere (which by the way, is always on the table).

Good thing you don't understand my outrage over this program, then. ;)
However, does it actually lower costs is the main issue?
It sure as hell increases mine, since I'm forced to either pay a tax or have insurance I can't afford. Multiply that by 30 million Americans add those Americans whose insurance cost has increased and subtract those that actually benefit, and whatever that amount is is the net saving/cost. Regardless, that is a lot of people being forced to pay more for others to save, isn't it?

This is largely anecdotal, to be honest. Yes, some people may seem increases in their premiums--of course, we need to consider that factoring in preexisting conditions would raise premiums--but by and large, costs have been reduced. Moreover, the combination of the Medicaid expansion and insurance companies aims to ensure that no one pays more than 8 percent (I think that's the figure) for health insurance.

As for your last comment: I'm sure you're aware of the free-rider problem. Yes, paying into a system, rather than going to the emergency room on everyone else's dime, will raise costs in the short run for those people (provided that we're talking about people who can afford it, but don't purchase it) but it balances
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 11:42:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just wanted to point out my typo. I meant to say that a combination of the Medicaid expansion and *subsidies* were intended to make insurance affordable for people who would otherwise have trouble affording it.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:11:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 10:22:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 10:00:26 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/8/2014 8:56:47 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

I'm not sure the government setting a minimum standard actually improves quality or lowers costs. If anything, that would raise costs.

But it doesn't, and there's plenty of data--some of which I cited on this thread--that disproves that thesis. It's highly neoclassical to suggest that any government intervention will increase cost. Here's a good example: the "contraception" mandate that the GOP rallied against lowers cost because it turns out preventing pregnancy costs less than paying for medical visits following a pregnancy. Who would have thought?

With regards to the contraceptive mandate, do you have any hard evidence that such a mandate actually reduces costs?

And, yes, government interventions often (usually) increase costs. You can call that neoclasssical, but it is true. The entire reason that healcth care costs so much in the first place is because of too much government intervention.


And, it seems that insurers would get more profit if they sold more comprehensive plans. I mean, the insurance industry seems to be pretty on board for Obamacare. Perhaps it makes it easier for them get large profits?

Well, considering that there were restrictions in the ACA--e.g., insurers have to use 80% of your insurance premiums on coverage, rather than profits, they can't jack up costs immensely for preexisting conditions or to cover preventive care, etc--that isn't so. The insurance companies actually came out in droves fundraising against the ACA. But I do think you're right to an extent: they SHOULD be for this bill because the increase in demand brought on by forcing people to buy private health insurance will significantly improve their profit margins.

Evidence? Insurance companies seemed to support the bill. If you have evidence that they came out in droves to oppose, please provide the evidence. And, you say profit as if it is a bad thing. Profit is a good thing. It is necessary for competition.


And, what if someone wants to buy a low cost insurance plan that only offers catastrophic coverage?

Isn't that there choice?

It isn't their choice when their decision negatively impacts everyone else. Not only does it impact the risk pool significantly--a lot of people hate to hear this, but it's common practice in insurance for health people to subsidize sick people--but, if they get sick and go to the emergency room, it jacks up premiums for everyone.

I'm talking about catastrophic coverage. If someone truly needs emergency care, this plan would cover that. But, if they want to go to the dentist, that is there expense. Shouldn't the type of plan they get be their choice.


And, is it a bad choice?

Yes, it is.
I think the catastrophic plan is a good route for a lot of people (maybe even most).

Again, the risk pool would be considerably jaded and costs would skyrocket. Study after study has demonstrated that, if you want to lower health care costs, one key step is getting everyone insured.

I haven't seen any studies to that effect. In fact, the studies I have seen have shown increasing coverage increases cost and increases emergency room utilization.


As far as Medicaid goes, there was an RCT earlier this year that found no statistically significant improvement in objective phyisical health resulting from Medicaid. I've also seen studies that people on Medicaid get lower quality care and lack access to doctors.

I'd love to see this report. If you mean low quality vis-a-vis private insurance, that makes sense. But in this case, we're merely talking about very low-income people who can't afford insurance at all, so clearly something beats nothing. Medicaid and a public option, or Medicaid and single-payer, are wildly different things.

Something doesn't necessarily beat nothing. Especially if nothing doesn't actually mean nothing. Uninsured doesn't mean no health care. You can still get emergency room treatment. ANd, the care for the uninsred is often superior to those on Medicaid.


I generally prefer approaches to health care that leave more choices to individuals and firms. Competition would be a good thing in health care.

Then you should be all for the public option.

Again. I'm for real competition. Not the entity that can tax and regulate monopolize the market because of unfair advantages that the government has. It is absurd to say that the government creating a company to "compete" would actually increase competition.


You're correct on this one. I misspoke. I meant to say universal, and mind you, I don't consider the ACA to be universal.


The federal government hardly has "infinite access to taxpayer funds." In fact, tax rates are at historic lows (as are regulations for that matter, hence the 2008 recession).

I'm calling BS here. First, regulations are quite high by historic standards. They have increased dramatically over the past years.

Tax revenues certainly aren't low either...


Anyway, it'd be fun if your narrative were true, but it isn't. Following your logic, public schools would gobble up profits from private schools, or at least consume a considerable market share. Yet, despite studies demonstrating that they're actually superior in quality (http://www.bostonglobe.com...), private schools still exist, are highly profitable, and are the preferred route by many. In fact, plenty of states have voucher systems that take from public schools and give to the private, which is clearly a deeply flawed system.

First, the evidence suggests private schools are superior: http://marginalrevolution.com...

And, about 90% of people go to public school not because they are superior but because the governmetn FORCES them to pay for the schools regardless of whether or not their kids go to public schools.

Public schools prove my point... a public "option" reduces competition and quality.



It's difficult to stand for consumer choice when you're against the public option--which actually would significantly reduce health care costs because insurance companies right now can operate a de facto cartel--on a pretense. The problem with your view is, actually, the same problem I have with libertarianism: it's based on ideology rather than fact. There is absolutely no evidence that your plan is plausible. Norway, France, Sweden, etc. allow for universal access, and have better outcomes than the US--in fact, we're ranked about 27 in health care worldwide, which is a travesty.

Also, "one-size-fits-all" is hardly what even a public option would allow. The GOP recently rallied against the fact that "OMG single men will have to pay for maternity care!" It's standard practice in insurance to pay for things even if you don't need them because (1) you may down the road and (2) someone else will need them. Moreover, a public option would allow the government the leverage to refuse to pay for procedures without any medical merit, and thus base decisions almost entirely on academic research and medical testimony. Surely you couldn't be opposed to that. And no, those aren't "death panels."

First, as I have explained, a public option is phony competition. It's absurd to suggest that it will actually increase competition.

And second, libertarianism actually has a historic record of bettering lives unlike statism or socialism.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:57:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First, I find it funny that you're asking me for sources, but haven't cited sources for your anecdotal claims.

"With regards to the contraceptive mandate, do you have any hard evidence that such a mandate actually reduces costs?"

http://thinkprogress.org...
http://journals.lww.com...

"And, yes, government interventions often (usually) increase costs. You can call that neoclasssical, but it is true. The entire reason that healcth care costs so much in the first place is because of too much government intervention."

Completely ideological and untrue. Prove to me that government is responsible for high health care costs. The overhead cost of Medicare is 1.4%, relative to 25% in private insurance. Moreover, the US spends more on health care than any other counties that have universal coverage.

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.nbcnews.com...

"Evidence? Insurance companies seemed to support the bill. If you have evidence that they came out in droves to oppose, please provide the evidence. And, you say profit as if it is a bad thing. Profit is a good thing. It is necessary for competition."

http://www.opensecrets.org...

And your last argument is a strawman. Point to where I said profit, ipso facto, is a bad thing. I didn't. I said, when it comes to health care, the goal should not be maximizing profits, but improving outcomes, and denying people who have preexisting conditions--which is what your free market has allowed--is focused on profit over people. But the idea, one, that profit is removed from the equation entirely is asinine. The government would pay for coverage, as it does in Medicare, the the remainder of the system is privatized--private doctors, private profits, etc. As soon as someone suggests that the government should intervene in some way, even though we know it has worked in the US and elsewhere, libertarian heads explode from all the nuance.

"And, what if someone wants to buy a low cost insurance plan that only offers catastrophic coverage? Isn't that there choice?

"I'm talking about catastrophic coverage. If someone truly needs emergency care, this plan would cover that. But, if they want to go to the dentist, that is there expense. Shouldn't the type of plan they get be their choice."

Let me try to explain this again. Insurance covers things before they happen because accidents happen. If people are only paying for "catastrophic coverage," their quality of care is horrible--three visits a year before meeting deductible. Also, they're ineligible for insurance subsidies which will allow them to purchase a better plan at a lower cost, and in the process balance the risk pool. You're completely ignoring, also, that plenty of people cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket for medical care. You're presuming that, as soon as the government gets out of the way, costs will drop. Again, that's a fairy tale.

https://www.healthcare.gov...

"I haven't seen any studies to that effect. In fact, the studies I have seen have shown increasing coverage increases cost and increases emergency room utilization."

Cite one.

Here's mine: http://www.ama-assn.org... from the American Medical Association.

"Something doesn't necessarily beat nothing. Especially if nothing doesn't actually mean nothing. Uninsured doesn't mean no health care. You can still get emergency room treatment. ANd, the care for the uninsred is often superior to those on Medicaid."

Your last comment has no ground to stand on. Prove it.

Something does beat nothing--how can you argue that, if you get sick, you're better off without insurance?

The emergency room case is asinine. That's what the ACA is trying to prevent. People were able to go the emergency room on our dime. That's why it says that people who can afford health insurance should purchase it, and stop free-riding on the system. It's a right-wing plan created by the Heritage Foundation, for goodness' sake.

"Again. I'm for real competition. Not the entity that can tax and regulate monopolize the market because of unfair advantages that the government has. It is absurd to say that the government creating a company to "compete" would actually increase competition."

Government creates monopolies? Actually, anti-trust laws--which I'm sure you oppose--seek to eliminate them. I'm with on the notion that the government provides them unfair advantage. Prior to the ACA, they could deny people for preexisting conditions, which was wrong. Do you oppose that?

It's not absurd, because I've shown you it can work."

"I'm calling BS here. First, regulations are quite high by historic standards. They have increased dramatically over the past years.

Tax revenues certainly aren't low either..."

Now you sound like Rand Paul. Ok, I'll bite. Here you go:

Regs:
Taxes: http://www.politico.com...
Tax Revenue: http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.politifact.com...
Regs: http://www.politifact.com...

"First, the evidence suggests private schools are superior: http://marginalrevolution.com...;

I'd need to look further into that source, but you can't hold up one source and assert that you're correct when mine is perfectly credible and saying quite the contrary.

Here are a few more:
http://press.uchicago.edu...
http://www.bostonreview.net...
http://www.ssireview.org...

"And, about 90% of people go to public school not because they are superior but because the governmetn FORCES them to pay for the schools regardless of whether or not their kids go to public schools."

I'd love if you could cite that figure. Did you ever stop and think that maybe people send their kids to public schools so they don't have to hear that creationism is on par with evolution? Or so they don't have to drop exorbitant sums of money on private schools when their nearby public schools are just as good, if not better? Your cynicism astounds me. Even when presented with the facts, you assert that the government is, essentially, always wrong.

"Public schools prove my point... a public "option" reduces competition and quality."

Nice try, but nope. The facts are not on you side.

"First, as I have explained, a public option is phony competition. It's absurd to suggest that it will actually increase competition.

You can keep repeating it all you'd like, but that doesn't make you correct.

http://www.politifact.com...

"And second, libertarianism actually has a historic record of bettering lives unlike statism or socialism."

I had a good laugh at this one. You know the drill: CITE IT. I'd love to see your libertarian model in action. Many of your buddies can't cite it. Some claim it never existed. Be my guest. There are plenty of examples of my model working; for three decades following WWII, tax rates were between 70-91%, and effective rates were about 56%. The markets were highly regulated, Glassed-Steaggall was in effect, and governments invested heavily. Glassed-Steaggall, actual
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 3:38:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, my post was cut off. Ok, here's the rest of it:

Glassed Steaggall actually prevented financial crises for 50 years. The panics--the five in the 1800s, 1929, 2007, et al--were brought on by lack of regulation. Explain those away.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 3:40:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:57:01 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Okay. I don't have time to respond to all of your claims, but I will make a few points:

1.) You cited evidence from Politifact that regulations didn't quadruple under Obama. That wasn't the disagreement we had. You claimed, quite oddly, that regulations are at an all time low, which is flatly false. Your response is to arbitrarily change the goalposts. You need to either provide evidence that regulations are low historically or admit you were wrong about that (and you were).

2.) Tax revenues are low because of the recession not policy. Marginal tax rates have actually been increased under Obama through tax hikes from Obamacare and earlier this year.

3.) A couple quotes from the source YOU Provided:

"The health sector's position on the law is split"

"Democrats received 55 percent of health sector cash in the 2008 cycle and 51 percent in the 2010 cycle."

Just as I pointed out, the insurance industry and big health care companies were NOT lined up against Obamacare as many in the industry supported it because it actually was in their interest. Obamacare will hurt most Americans, but the insurance companies get captive customers that have no choice but to purchase their product.

4.) You say Medicare has lower overhead. Actually, that's not true. It's supposed to be measured per benificiary instead of as a percentage of total costs. Done correctly Medicare has higher administrative costs: http://www.forbes.com...

Furthermore, low administrative costs don't even necessarily indicate efficiency. For one, Medicare outsources a lot of administrative costs (like revenue collection) to other agencies). Also, some costs, like management and fraud detection are "administrative" but also efficient. Administrative costs can actually be too LOW as they probably are in Medicare's case.

5.) Romneycare increased emergency room utilization: http://www.forbes.com...

So did expanding Medicaid: http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Increasing covergae does NOT reduce emergency room visits... it does the opposite.

6.) Yes, other countries have lower health care costs. But, that is because our market is so deeply distorted by government interventions: http://www.hoover.org...

I know I missed some points. It's because I'm limited on time and I'll try to get back to them later. For now, I'll let these points stand.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 5:11:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 3:40:48 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:57:01 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Okay. I don't have time to respond to all of your claims, but I will make a few points:

1.) You cited evidence from Politifact that regulations didn't quadruple under Obama. That wasn't the disagreement we had. You claimed, quite oddly, that regulations are at an all time low, which is flatly false. Your response is to arbitrarily change the goalposts. You need to either provide evidence that regulations are low historically or admit you were wrong about that (and you were).

2.) Tax revenues are low because of the recession not policy. Marginal tax rates have actually been increased under Obama through tax hikes from Obamacare and earlier this year.

3.) A couple quotes from the source YOU Provided:

"The health sector's position on the law is split"

"Democrats received 55 percent of health sector cash in the 2008 cycle and 51 percent in the 2010 cycle."

Just as I pointed out, the insurance industry and big health care companies were NOT lined up against Obamacare as many in the industry supported it because it actually was in their interest. Obamacare will hurt most Americans, but the insurance companies get captive customers that have no choice but to purchase their product.

4.) You say Medicare has lower overhead. Actually, that's not true. It's supposed to be measured per benificiary instead of as a percentage of total costs. Done correctly Medicare has higher administrative costs: http://www.forbes.com...

Furthermore, low administrative costs don't even necessarily indicate efficiency. For one, Medicare outsources a lot of administrative costs (like revenue collection) to other agencies). Also, some costs, like management and fraud detection are "administrative" but also efficient. Administrative costs can actually be too LOW as they probably are in Medicare's case.

5.) Romneycare increased emergency room utilization: http://www.forbes.com...

So did expanding Medicaid: http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Increasing covergae does NOT reduce emergency room visits... it does the opposite.

6.) Yes, other countries have lower health care costs. But, that is because our market is so deeply distorted by government interventions: http://www.hoover.org...



I know I missed some points. It's because I'm limited on time and I'll try to get back to them later. For now, I'll let these points stand.

First of all, forbes and hoover.org are not credible sources, but right-wing propaganda outlets. Show me a real source--an academic study--rather than an agenda-based organization.

Second, on regulations, look at this line:

"Between 2009 and 2011, the Obama administration approved an average of 297 regulations per year, comparable to yearly figures for the past 18 years. (In 1992 and 1993, the numbers were much higher, exceeding 1,000 regulations both years.)"

The chart on politifact demonstrates that regulations have decelerated under Obama. In fact, they increased at a lower rate under Obama than under Clinton, Bush, etc. As for "all-time low," that referred to the deregulation under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, and the fact that the GOP has refused to fund enforcement of say, the Dodd Frank Act, while Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman-Anti-trust law. All-time low may have been hyperbolic, but the point stands that regulations under Obama--and in fact, over the past 30 years--have decelerated, not accelerated. Moreover, the 1950s, with tight regulation of the financial industry, signified a far more health economy than today.

Next, good job obfuscating on the healthcare sector cash. Look at this following line:

"However, in the 2012 cycle, contributions from the health sector favored Republicans once again, as they had traditionally."

The ACA was passed in 2010. Funding in 2008, is virtually irrelevant. After the bill was passed, the insurance companies overwhelmingly supported Republican candidates.

Also, I love you threw in "this will hurt many Americans?" How? Most doctors overwhelmingly support the bill and say it will improve the quality of health care. You have yet to cite how this will hurt the average American. You know what does hurt Americans? Being denied for preexisting conditions, or being subjected to lifetime caps, or rising health care costs--which this bill addresses.

As for expanding Medicaid/RomneyCare: Krugman addresses similar concerns: http://www.nytimes.com...

The case you're missing is that the expansion of coverage under Medicaid and RomneyCare went to people who didn't access insurance, either because they couldn't afford it or didn't want it. Therefore, it follows logically that they visit the doctor less frequently, and are thus subject to more severe illnesses--and thus would visit the emergency room.

On Medicare overhead: Again, your source is heavily biased, but here's a few more for you--

http://healthaffairs.org...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

Next, you're completely wrong in saying that the ACA raised marginal tax rates. The tax rates under the ACA are negligible vis-a-vis even the Reagan tax hikes, and many of them were placed on investment income--which was taxed previously at a pitiful rate of 15%. Rates are, in fact, near all-time record lows.

Here's a chart on marginal tax rates:
http://www.businessinsider.com...

Every other comment about "government distortion" came from a non-reputable source. Cite specifics.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 5:27:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 5:11:38 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

2.) Tax revenues are low because of the recession not policy. Marginal tax rates have actually been increased under Obama through tax hikes from Obamacare and earlier this year.

3.) A couple quotes from the source YOU Provided:

"The health sector's position on the law is split"

"Democrats received 55 percent of health sector cash in the 2008 cycle and 51 percent in the 2010 cycle."

Just as I pointed out, the insurance industry and big health care companies were NOT lined up against Obamacare as many in the industry supported it because it actually was in their interest. Obamacare will hurt most Americans, but the insurance companies get captive customers that have no choice but to purchase their product.

4.) You say Medicare has lower overhead. Actually, that's not true. It's supposed to be measured per benificiary instead of as a percentage of total costs. Done correctly Medicare has higher administrative costs: http://www.forbes.com...

Furthermore, low administrative costs don't even necessarily indicate efficiency. For one, Medicare outsources a lot of administrative costs (like revenue collection) to other agencies). Also, some costs, like management and fraud detection are "administrative" but also efficient. Administrative costs can actually be too LOW as they probably are in Medicare's case.

5.) Romneycare increased emergency room utilization: http://www.forbes.com...

So did expanding Medicaid: http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Increasing covergae does NOT reduce emergency room visits... it does the opposite.

6.) Yes, other countries have lower health care costs. But, that is because our market is so deeply distorted by government interventions: http://www.hoover.org...



I know I missed some points. It's because I'm limited on time and I'll try to get back to them later. For now, I'll let these points stand.



First of all, forbes and hoover.org are not credible sources, but right-wing propaganda outlets. Show me a real source--an academic study--rather than an agenda-based organization.

You need to pull your think progress articles then because that is heavily biased as well. If you're not going to accept sources with right wing tilts, the same needs to apply for sources with left wing tilts.

Regardless, you are just committing an ad hominem here. You need to deal with the content of the article not the source. If you have no response, just admit you were wrong instead of blaming inconvenient facts on "bias".


Second, on regulations, look at this line:

"Between 2009 and 2011, the Obama administration approved an average of 297 regulations per year, comparable to yearly figures for the past 18 years. (In 1992 and 1993, the numbers were much higher, exceeding 1,000 regulations both years.)"

The chart on politifact demonstrates that regulations have decelerated under Obama. In fact, they increased at a lower rate under Obama than under Clinton, Bush, etc. As for "all-time low," that referred to the deregulation under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, and the fact that the GOP has refused to fund enforcement of say, the Dodd Frank Act, while Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman-Anti-trust law. All-time low may have been hyperbolic, but the point stands that regulations under Obama--and in fact, over the past 30 years--have decelerated, not accelerated. Moreover, the 1950s, with tight regulation of the financial industry, signified a far more health economy than today.

Um, the 1950s featured a lot less regulation in certain respects and a lot more in other respects. I

If you wanna go back to the days of heavily regulated airlines with insanely high prices, then that's fine, but I think deregulation of the 80s and 90s has done a lot of good.


Next, good job obfuscating on the healthcare sector cash. Look at this following line:

"However, in the 2012 cycle, contributions from the health sector favored Republicans once again, as they had traditionally."

The ACA was passed in 2010. Funding in 2008, is virtually irrelevant. After the bill was passed, the insurance companies overwhelmingly supported Republican candidates.

The election right after the health care law was 2010 not 2012...


Also, I love you threw in "this will hurt many Americans?" How? Most doctors overwhelmingly support the bill and say it will improve the quality of health care. You have yet to cite how this will hurt the average American. You know what does hurt Americans? Being denied for preexisting conditions, or being subjected to lifetime caps, or rising health care costs--which this bill addresses.

It raises rates, slows the economy by increasing the regulatory burden on businesses, and decreases the quality of health care by increasing the cartel already existing in health care.


As for expanding Medicaid/RomneyCare: Krugman addresses similar concerns: http://www.nytimes.com...

Quite ironic that you criticize my sources for being "right wing" and then cite very partisan (and unreliable) left wing sources like Krugman and TP. Anyways, Krugman doesn't really address any of the arguments here. As usual, he just attacks anyone who disagrees with him without any solid arguments.


The case you're missing is that the expansion of coverage under Medicaid and RomneyCare went to people who didn't access insurance, either because they couldn't afford it or didn't want it. Therefore, it follows logically that they visit the doctor less frequently, and are thus subject to more severe illnesses--and thus would visit the emergency room.

Well, the evidence shows the exact opposite happened... hmmm.


On Medicare overhead: Again, your source is heavily biased, but here's a few more for you--

http://healthaffairs.org...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

Enough with the bias stuff. I didn't say anything about your biased sources and accusing the opposing sources of bias is a sign of weak arguments in the first place.

And, again, no real addressing of the arguments I made.


Next, you're completely wrong in saying that the ACA raised marginal tax rates. The tax rates under the ACA are negligible vis-a-vis even the Reagan tax hikes, and many of them were placed on investment income--which was taxed previously at a pitiful rate of 15%. Rates are, in fact, near all-time record lows.

Here's a chart on marginal tax rates:
http://www.businessinsider.com...

My claim was that marginal tax rates have increased since Obama got elected. That is undeniably true.


Every other comment about "government distortion" came from a non-reputable source. Cite specifics.

Hoover institute article by a nobel prize winning economist is at least as reputable as thinkprogress. Of course, Krugman won one too which makes the nobel prize lose some credibility.

But, ya, it was a better source than most yours.
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 2:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 11:46:31 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Obamacare?

After we have learned that it is going to cut over 2 MILLION jobs in the coming years, cut hours for hourly workers, it has already caused 5 million Americans to LOSE their healthcare while driving up costs for everyone else.

Insurance companies are up and leaving entire states leaving the people to be at the mercy of the awful system the government has designed. The system which is slow, buggy, prone to malware attack, security breaches etc...

It has done nothing to solve any of the healthcare problems we faced before. All it has done is make it harder for people to keep jobs, insurance and to pay their bills. All of these things are well documented.

So what's the great good that has come out of this garbage? And can you defend it? Does it outweigh all of the awful, awful things it has spawned?

Just like to point out that no Republican voted for this bill. Not a single one.

The best thing about it is that health care will join the ranks of national defense, tort law, property law, and other institutions that Americans are willing to apply collective monies to pay for.

It is not going away, it will just change in how it is executed. Too bad the Repubs were not fully on board and didn't participate in designing a delivery system that will really cut costs and deliver on quality. They eventually will because, like I said, it is not going away.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 2:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do so many think health insurance equates to healthcare? I have had health insurance for decades but have only had it pay a portion of my healthcare bill once. All the rest of the times it was out of pocket. The great deception of Obamacare, now that I have health insurance I will get health care for free!! All I have to do is pay the subsidized premium. No, that isn't the way it works. Sorry to burst your entitlement bubble.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 5:09:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/7/2014 11:46:31 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Just like to point out that no Republican voted for this bill. Not a single one.

That is why, for all their faults I continue to vote republican. If I have to live under that irrational dictates of a mob in other ways, at least I can try and get my hands on economic freedom.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.