More Obamacare fuckups

[Warriorbird]

Lol...you're serious about this? Damn, man.

Because they were obviously secretly "death panels!" to kill us all...

[Thondalar]

There's a difference between the government saying you can't do something and the government supporting you when you want to.

Correct. The former should only be necessary in the most dire of circumstances, and the latter should only be necessary never.

There's curiously little outcry about erectile dysfunction drugs from these very same people.

lolwhut?

The lack of government also isn't some special fantastic utopia. It's anarchy and the collapse of our society. You think exploitation happens now? Wait till all the rules go.

I've never once been a supporter of ALL the rules going. Really, man, I expected better of you than resorting to obvious logical fallacies.

[Warriorbird]

I've never once been a supporter of ALL the rules going. Really, man, I expected better of you than resorting to obvious logical fallacies.

You cited a fallacy in your post. When you declare that the "slippery slope" is real, everybody else gets to too.

Not exactly death panels.... but lets look at what the HHS has said since Obamacare passed....

Women under 50 don't need a mammogram every year.

Men under 50 don't need a prostate exam.

People only need a general check up every other year.

Sounds like they are really trying to figure out the most "Cost-Efficient" way to keep me alive, huh. These are just "recommendations" for now... but soon they will become the standard for healthcare approved by the Government. Why.. to save money. Which will cost lives.

Already in Chicken Little mode. Doom is coming for us! Doom!

[Jarvan]

You cited a fallacy in your post. When you declare that the "slippery slope" is real, everybody else gets to too.



Already in Chicken Little mode. Doom is coming for us! Doom!

Let me ask you this.. do you think it's a GOOD thing to tell us we shouldn't have "Yearly" Physicals?

Right now it's just a recommendation. How long do you think it will be till it is the standard?

Got to save money somehow, am I right?

OH wait.. I forgot.. you have your head so far up the Democratic Party's ass that not even a proctologist can help you.

[Warriorbird]

Let me ask you this.. do you think it's a GOOD thing to tell us we shouldn't have "Yearly" Physicals?

Right now it's just a recommendation. How long do you think it will be till it is the standard?

Got to save money somehow, am I right?

OH wait.. I forgot.. you have your head so far up the Democratic Party's ass that not even a proctologist can help you.

I'll refer you to what I told Thondalar. When you're performing a logical fallacy why are you so unwilling to believe that you might be the one who has the wrong take? Why do you believe that any of your made up or real provisions are going to effect people not on the ACA?

"Because Obama is the Great Satan!" isn't valid reasoning for your answer.

[crb]

I'll refer you to what I told Thondalar. When you're performing a logical fallacy why are you so unwilling to believe that you might be the one who has the wrong take? Why do you believe that any of your made up or real provisions are going to effect people not on the ACA?

"Because Obama is the Great Satan!" isn't valid reasoning for your answer.

There is a long history of private insurances modeling coverage based on government offerings.

Secondly the Affordable Care Act did far more than establish exchanges and subsidies, it also wrote coverage mandates for every private insurance plan in the country (which is honestly the larger part of my problem with it), and it is a fluid thing where minimum coverage levels get periodically reevaluated. Now, on face value, the idea of "minimum coverage" seems like a good thing. You don't want any customer getting misled thinking they have health insurance only to break their leg and find out only arms are covered. But the problem with it is that special interests get involved, as they always do, and the minimum coverage is the car equivalent of a Cadillac. Theoretically if we forced everyone to buy a Cadillac or not drive at all, we'd see a lot more bicycles, wouldn't we? But that is what we've done with healthcare. There is actually a provision for prayer healing in there, and of course the infamous contraception mandate, maternity coverage, addiction coverage, children up to age 27, etc. These are things not everyone needs. The 50 year old man doesn't need maternity coverage, but he is forced to buy it (feminazis will say this is so they (women) don't need to "unfairly" pay more for health insurance. Note men pay significantly more for life insurance, because of course we die sooner, yay us, if it really is a thing for genders to pay equal amounts for everything why don't we "fix" life insurance?). The 18 year old low wage laborer without parental support doesn't need coverage for his nonexistent 27 year old kids, but he is forced to buy it so 27 year old future-rich graduate students can afford more beer. No one needs prayer healing.

All of these minimum coverage mandates cost money, but insurers have to charge them. Meanwhile customers, as ever, want lower prices. So the government changes one minimum coverage mandate that is actually pretty good, a yearly physical, meanwhile all those other coverage mandates go up in price and more are added (if history is any guide, chiropractors, naturopaths, herbologists, etc etc etc all constantly lobby to be included, and so new minimum coverages happen every once in awhile). Is it really that unbelievable that, in the face of rising costs of things they have to buy but people don't want, and people asking for lower prices, an private insurer might cut where they can, including that yearly physical, or any of the other recent controversial shifts?

What is the solution? Tell the government to fuck off, what an insurance plan covers, as a private contract, should be between the customer and the insurer. The governmental role, if any, would be patient education, the adjudication of disputes through the courts, and regulations for disclosure prior to issuing insurance (truth-in-lending disclosure form equivalent). Just imagine if insurers had flexibility of what they offered, insurance could be sold nationwide across state lines (the big reason for that push is to escape special interest won state coverage mandates), and an exchange was run by Amazon or Google with a full slate of comparison tools and customer reviews? A true marketplace.

[Kembal]

Lol...you're serious about this? Damn, man.

I have a degree in economics, and I look at budget stuff regularly. (federal infrastructure spending drives part of my company's revenue, so I pay attention to it) It's been pretty clear that the thing driving the federal budget deficit up on a long term basis is health care spending, since it's inflation rate is much higher than normal inflation. Bending its cost curve down to more manageable levels will bring the deficit under control on a long term basis.

[Warriorbird]

There is a long history of private insurances modeling coverage based on government offerings.

Secondly the Affordable Care Act did far more than establish exchanges and subsidies, it also wrote coverage mandates for every private insurance plan in the country (which is honestly the larger part of my problem with it), and it is a fluid thing where minimum coverage levels get periodically reevaluated. Now, on face value, the idea of "minimum coverage" seems like a good thing. You don't want any customer getting misled thinking they have health insurance only to break their leg and find out only arms are covered. But the problem with it is that special interests get involved, as they always do, and the minimum coverage is the car equivalent of a Cadillac. Theoretically if we forced everyone to buy a Cadillac or not drive at all, we'd see a lot more bicycles, wouldn't we? But that is what we've done with healthcare. There is actually a provision for prayer healing in there, and of course the infamous contraception mandate, maternity coverage, addiction coverage, children up to age 27, etc. These are things not everyone needs. The 50 year old man doesn't need maternity coverage, but he is forced to buy it (feminazis will say this is so they (women) don't need to "unfairly" pay more for health insurance. Note men pay significantly more for life insurance, because of course we die sooner, yay us, if it really is a thing for genders to pay equal amounts for everything why don't we "fix" life insurance?). The 18 year old low wage laborer without parental support doesn't need coverage for his nonexistent 27 year old kids, but he is forced to buy it so 27 year old future-rich graduate students can afford more beer. No one needs prayer healing.

All of these minimum coverage mandates cost money, but insurers have to charge them. Meanwhile customers, as ever, want lower prices. So the government changes one minimum coverage mandate that is actually pretty good, a yearly physical, meanwhile all those other coverage mandates go up in price and more are added (if history is any guide, chiropractors, naturopaths, herbologists, etc etc etc all constantly lobby to be included, and so new minimum coverages happen every once in awhile). Is it really that unbelievable that, in the face of rising costs of things they have to buy but people don't want, and people asking for lower prices, an private insurer might cut where they can, including that yearly physical, or any of the other recent controversial shifts?

What is the solution? Tell the government to fuck off, what an insurance plan covers, as a private contract, should be between the customer and the insurer. The governmental role, if any, would be patient education, the adjudication of disputes through the courts, and regulations for disclosure prior to issuing insurance (truth-in-lending disclosure form equivalent). Just imagine if insurers had flexibility of what they offered, insurance could be sold nationwide across state lines (the big reason for that push is to escape special interest won state coverage mandates), and an exchange was run by Amazon or Google with a full slate of comparison tools and customer reviews? A true marketplace.

That most certainly isn't the solution to increasing costs.

Your views are heavily colored by your wife and things that are in her interests.

[Atlanteax]

That most certainly isn't the solution to increasing costs.

Your views are heavily colored by your wife and things that are in her interests.

Reducing extraneous coverages down to what would genuinely be considered 'basic coverage' would contribute immensely to reducing healthcare costs.

Your views are heavily colored by your desire for government to be a nanny state.

[Warriorbird]

Reducing extraneous coverages down to what would genuinely be considered 'basic coverage' would contribute immensely to reducing healthcare costs.

Your views are heavily colored by your desire for government to be a nanny state.

I'd just like us to spend less money on healthcare. The rest is your projections. It's fine.