More Troubles for Obamacare

I'm not sure what plan you're looking at, but I can't find any information regarding a bronze plan with a 50k deductible. I'm seeing most with a 5K deductible.

Regardless, the point of having a high deductible plan is to keep premium costs as low as possible while still proving coverage for catastrophic costs that could bankrupt. It's all about actuarial risk being spread to the entire pool for a consideration. The more likely members are to use your plan routinely, the higher the average consideration must be to cover the pool's cost.

^

Completely agree.

Troubles with Obamacare indeed. I was just watching CNN and apparently they got some of the numbers for how many people signed up on the website the first week.

The first day they had 6, YES 6, people get signed up!!!

WTF??

Obama is terrible and everything he is responsible for is terrible.

Still better than any GOP member.

I guess I can understand why you might think that if you love socialism and hate freedom.

The two are not mutually exclusive...

You can have both...

Also, please name 1 GOP member who wanted to run for president in 2012 who would be better than Obama.

@deeliman: Cain

Is this guy a GOP member?
He would have gotten the same amount done, yet have been more entertaining.

Ron Paul.

That really wasn't hard at all.

Actually, they are. Socialism is a political manifestation of the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him but rather to society, that the only justification for his existence (as if a man must justify his life) is his service to society, and that society may dispose of his self and the product of his labour in any way "it" pleases for the sake of whatever "it" deems to be its own tribal, collective good. Socialism is democratic tyranny at its only logical conclusion, and it is altogether evil.

LOL

That guy wants the golden standard back. If he gets his way it will have catastrophic consequences for the world economy.

And I assume you believe that fiat currency is working wonders for the world's economy? Please explain the debt crises currently wrecking America, the EU, etc.

lol loving how you instantly go to extremism.

Joke, right?

Well, he said he wouldn't forcefully dismantle the fed; that he would introduce gold as a competing currency, which would be ideal because the gold standard is laughable in a nation with 300+mil population, and people would just go back to the reserve currency.

And I assume you believe the gold standard would work wonders? Please explain the great depression that was wrecking the economies of every country way way worse than the current debt crisis.

Still, that isn't the only reason why his presidency would be a disaster.

There really is no debt crisis in the U.S so ....

Some countries in the EU have problems but only have problems because they are not able to control their own currency. Which would be the same problem if we went back to the gold standard.

Good example of showing how not being able to control monetary policy leads to economic problems!

Your examples help show why the gold standard is a terrible idea.

We really need to teach economics at an earlier level. A widespread grasp of Monetarism, in particular, would do wonders to dispel some of the misinformation and misunderstandings regarding fiat currencies and the gold standard.

We already know what happens when you combine a financial crisis with the gold standard - it's called the Great Depression. Of course Ron Paul and his supporters are effectively economically illiterate so I don't expect any of them to understand this.

ThisWikipedia: This, in the English lang

As opposed to the current presidency? I'm not a Paul supporter but I'd rather have him than Obama.

Obama's performance so far has been vastly superior to anything Ron Paul could have achieved in practically every way. Of course, you're an irrational GOP fanatic who's basically wrong about everything so it's not surprising that you would prefer shitty candidates like Ron "Austerity and Gold" Paul.

Personally, terrible new healthcare system that screws the middle class or not, Obama just needs to go. Going against the second amendment and leaving people defenseless against criminals. But nah.... I'm sure the criminals will turn in their guns. Laws like that sure work on drugs. XD He's a full blown traitor. Arming our enemies, and disarming law abiding citizens. I know this went off topic, but GOD I can't wait for 2016.

Look, Paul is charismatic. Some of his ideas, like his opposition to militarism and the War on Drugs, appeal to many voters, including liberals. Paul's arguments, however, often lack an empirical basis. History has already demonstrated that many of Paul's proposed solutions will never work. Thus, while some of Paul's ideas sound solid in the abstract, they crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.

Because Paul's ideas are faulty and dangerous, he would make a terrible president.

Start there and tweak it. Guys do not need to have insurance coverage of neo-natal care unless something extraordinary happens such as a man all of a sudden gets pregnant. I don't believe in miracles and that would most certainly be one for it to happen. Why should a man have to pay for said coverage of something that he would never use? Also, how do you propose that the R&D that the US medical community does get paid? What other ways can be used to cap prices of procedures? A foot xray can run over $400, but only cost just over $200 if paid without insurance. One might spend $1000s in premiums over the course of a year and still have to pay $25 for a regular office visit and then another $25-$100 for the xrays and another $100 for the radiologist to read it with insurance. Paying cash if one does not have insurance it may cost $300 total compared to $1500 with insurance. What is the incentive to carry insurance other than for emergency medical needs?

You're completely missing the fact that you've given no starting point from which to tweak. You've simply proposed capping the cost of coverage.

One of the reasons this area is so difficult to address is because it's complex and the industry doesn't follow a standard, "agree to pay X dollars for widget Y before the transaction occurs," model. There are numerous factors involved driving up the cost people pay in both premiums and care. Capping the payments without addressing the drivers would only hobble the system even more.

For example, one way in which costs are lowered is by increasing the size of the insurance pool, and yet your most recent post proposes DECREASING the insurance pool for neo-natal care.

Wouldn't it be better for the US to just copy the healthcare system of another country that performs well or to at least base it on that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index

The could, for example, base it off of 1 of these systems, whichever one would work best in the US.

A lot of people thought doing so would be a good idea, at least as a starting point. Republicans decried it as socialism that would lead to government dictated death panels.

Republicans always ruining everything.

One of the many reasons while I'll never vote republican.

I used to do so pretty regularly, but that was back when they were more pragmatic. They've lost so much goodwill with me that there's no way I can vote for a Republican candidate with the party in it's current form.

The current state of affairs is pretty mind-boggling.

People in the US are cost conscience over everything. Lower the cost of something, they are more liable to buy it. Lower the cost of health insurance, more people will buy it. That is the premise behind my idea. Lower the cost of a procedure and people will not object to it. The biggest thing people complain about is that insurance is so expensive, so what does Obamacare do? It jacks up the prices of some insurance policies, the ones people want or already have and the taxpayer will subsidize a portion of others if they fall into a particular income range. What is fair about that? The left talks about making everything fair or equal for everyone, but the AFA does not do that.

pretty much.

that can be reflected just by looking at what he's done in congress. he served twelve terms, proposed 200+ bills, and a whopping 1 has passed..way to "bring people together" ronnie!

That's crazy, I checked out mine and there was a silver one for $190 a month.

I don't think I follow your proposal. It sounds like your saying that you intend to legislatively cap what the plans will cost, everyone will get them because they're cheaper, and that will make the underlying costs of care and administration conform to the caps you set.

I was going to read through this thread but I noticed it was made by WhiteKnight77 (GOP drone) and has Laihendi and nibroc going at it. ewwww

How exactly will you make healthcare costs go down?

Does that mean the U.S now has both a nationalized and a privatized healthcare systems at the same time? Like the government offers healthcare and so does the private sector?

No. That was going to be the public option, but Republicans threw a conniption fit and it was thrown out. All the government does is provide a marketplace where private providers list their services and where they can be compared. The government also has new requirements and standards in healthcare and insurance, as in who can receive it and why, etc. The government doesn't provide health insurance or care (beyond medicaid). Yet.

All the ruckus and the commotion about Obamacare are just for this? I thought it was an attempt of a universal and nationalized healthcare system. Am I missing something here? Aside from what you already mentioned, what is health.gov supposed to achieve?

Health.gov is the marketplace. It answers questions about the affordable care act (I hate calling it "Obamacare," because this bill is Republican-made and was Republican-supported all the way until Obama came along and thought it was a good idea) and it matches you with possible providers based on your income, need, wants, etc.

It is in no way national healthcare, which is a shame, because that's what Obama originally wanted and what liberals still want.

@Nibroc420 said:

@deeliman said:

@Laihendi said:

@deeliman said:

@Laihendi said:

Obama is terrible and everything he is responsible for is terrible.

Still better than any GOP member.

I guess I can understand why you might think that if you love socialism and hate freedom.

You can have both...

Also, please name 1 GOP member who wanted to run for president in 2012 who would be better than Obama.

Is this guy a GOP member?

He would have gotten the same amount done, yet have been more entertaining.

I don't think he's a Republican. I think the name of his party is The "The Rent is Too Damn High Party".

Why you gotta change things? As the saying goes if it ain't broke don't fix it. If things are working fine, why bother changing?

As Agent Phil Coulson says "People tend to confuse the words 'new' and 'improved'".

You have to change things because life and everything that's going on in it is of no static nature. If you're not moving forward then you necessarily moving backwards. The world changes radically by the day, the notion that you're not moving at all means you're moving backwards.

On the level of the state, if its not progressing, even if its institutions and policies are perceived to be beneficial and progressive enough, then stagnation and staleness are making their way on all level of public affairs and social order. It will be left behind while other states lead the way.

Its a shame the U.S doesn't have a national healthcare system like all civil and modern states do. Its even more shameful that all this opposition is just against a small step like this that doesn't live up to being an actual change.

Eh. Our government is designed to make changes very difficult and incremental. The fact that we got this far in the span of a single term is really monumental.