Obamacare survives

It's still a kludge, but it's progress.

--
Mark Warner
...lose .inhibitions when replying

Mark Warner <mhwarner.email@anonym; wrote:
It's still a kludge, but it's progress.

Chalk up one for the good guys.

Dan

In article <20120628112804.259$email@anonym;, email@anonym...

Mark Warner <mhwarner.email@anonym; wrote:
> It's still a kludge, but it's progress.

Chalk up one for the good guys.

Dan

The devil is still in the details........We shall see.

In article <a53c7fFaqbUemail@anonym;,
mhwarner.email@anonym...

Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 11:08 AM, Mark Warner wrote:
>>
>> It's still a kludge, but it's progress.
>
> I'm going to make an exception and listen to Lard Ass Rush Limbarf
> today, just this once.

Him and Hannity and Fox News will be in meltdown. Should be fun.

Hannity is an idiot.......Him & sarcasm oozing Rachel Madcow should have
their own show together. Would be very entertaining.

Now they'll say they need to repeal. But to do so, they'll have to get
it through both houses and get the President's signature. Big problem
there, though -- it's inconceivable that the Republicans could gain
enough Senate seats to have a super-majority (60 or more), and the Dems
could play the same obstruction game the Repubs have been playing and
block anything they want from Senate passage. Turnabout is fair play.

And the drummer beats to the same tune & the *games* continue as usual
in our congress these days, we WIN you LOSE.

On 6/28/2012 10:08 AM, Mark Warner wrote:

It's still a kludge, but it's progress.


I'm not so sure.

The major problem is that it will still be cheaper for companies and
healthy individuals to opt out and pay the penalty. Since by law there
can be no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, people will just wait
until something happens before they buy insurance.

For example, let's say you're sailing along healthy, with no insurance,
paying a small tax penalty. Next week you go to the doctor and find out
you have a brain tumor that will cost $300k to treat. You just go out
and buy yourself a policy, and the insurance company is on the hook for
the bill.

It's not a sustainable business model for the private companies at
current rates. Either rates go up, which ends up hurting everybody, or
the companies quit selling insurance and find a more profitable place to
invest their money. When that happens, the only alternative will be a
100% government-run system. And we all know how efficient government is.

Maybe a government-run system is the best way to go when all is said and
done, but this is a bastardized way of getting us there. Ultimately, in
order for us all to have affordable health care when we need it, healthy
people /must/ pay into the system, whether it's through taxes or
premiums. Obamacare partially addresses this through the penalties, but
it doesn't go nearly far enough.

Moreover, the new law scarcely addresses the exorbitant cost of care.
Every study I've looked at puts profit margin in the health insurance
industry at under 5%. Currently, the average insurance company pays out
about 80 cents in claims for every $1 collected, with 20 cents going
towards profit and overhead. If the law farces them to up this to 85
cents, how much of a dent in that $300k brain tumor bill are we really
making? None. All we did was make the insurance 5% cheaper. Small
consolation if you ask me.

On 06/28/2012 11:40 AM, Mark Warner wrote:


Him and Hannity and Fox News will be in meltdown. Should be fun.

Now they'll say they need to repeal. But to do so, they'll have to get
it through both houses and get the President's signature. Big problem
there, though -- it's inconceivable that the Republicans could gain
enough Senate seats to have a super-majority (60 or more), and the Dems
could play the same obstruction game the Repubs have been playing and
block anything they want from Senate passage. Turnabout is fair play.


You should hear Limbarf...He's trying to make light of it, but you can
hear his ass snappin'. :)
--
Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
No appointment needed

On 6/28/2012 11:34 AM, Mark Warner wrote:

Health care is not discretionary spending.

But insurance /IS/ right now, and that's a big part of the problem.

Maybe a government-run system is the best way to go when all is said
and done, but this is a bastardized way of getting us there.
Ultimately, in order for us all to have affordable health care when we
need it, healthy people /must/ pay into the system, whether it's
through taxes or premiums. Obamacare partially addresses this through
the penalties, but it doesn't go nearly far enough.

Using the insurance companies as a middleman is a kludge that skims
money off the top, actually introduces INefficiencies, and preserves the
perverse incentives they have to minimize care.

That sounds good in theory, but think of it this way: 20% of the pie is
currently going to the insurance companies for profit and overhead. Can
the government really do the job for significantly less? Sure, salaries
will be lower, and the big executive bonuses will go away, but when you
factor in the inherent inefficiencies of government bureaucracy, it's
probably a wash at best. Every time government (local, state, or
federal) hires a contractor of any kind, isn't it an admission the
private industry is more efficient?

And as far as incentives to minimize care, won't the same problem exist
with the government running the show? Ask anyone who has ever tried to
apply for social security disability benefits.

A Canadian system of Medicare for all (single payer) is the way to go,
IMO. But I can't imagine there being the political will needed to do it.


When all is said and done, I agree. But even a well-designed, well-run
single payer system is no panacea. And what the Supremes upheld today is
a law I see more as smoke and mirrors than a real step in the right
direction.

mike wrote:
Dan from Boston wrote:
Mark Warner wrote:
It's still a kludge, but it's progress.
Chalk up one for the good guys.

Prepare yourself to be "taxed" for your own good from this point on.

Beats being taxed for someone *elses* good.

--
Mark Warner
...lose .inhibitions when replying