20 replies to this topic

[Nittany Lioness]

http://reason.com/bl...uts-in-speech-d

excerpt:

Quote

In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama declared that the United States “we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits.” He railed against a system that isn’t fair to the “millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day,” positioning himself against special treatment for a favored few: “No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts,” he said. The address, he explained, was intended to move past all that, and “lay out a blueprint” for America’s economy—a blueprint that “begins with American manufacturing.”What might this blueprint hold for all of us? If Obama’s top example of successful policy is any example, more bailouts, more handouts, more special treatment for favored companies and industries, and more phony profits. We're not going back to an economy weakened by all these things; we're just going to keep the one we have. Here's how Obama touted the first item on his economic brag sheet last night:

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse.  Some even said we should let it die.  With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen.  In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility.  We got workers and automakers to settle their differences.  We got the industry to retool and restructure.  Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker.  (Applause.)  Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company.  Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories.  And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.   We bet on American workers.  We bet on American ingenuity.  And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

Sure, it’s back in the sense that General Motors is finally beating Toyota, a Japanese car maker that just saw its supply chain decimated by a Tsunami and a nuclear disaster. And you know what? In a boxing match pitting a lower ranked fighter who's been given brass knuckles by the ref against a higher-ranked fighter who just broke his ankle, I'll probably bet on the one with the brass knuckles. But it's not much of a victory.

Democrats in power scare me, they truly do because it looks like they do not know what they're talking about, and just power through their policy theories regardless of reality.

[Nittany Lioness]

And this is another tidbit I'll just stick in this thread - too simple?  

[Spectacles]

Quote

Democrats in power scare me, they truly do because it looks like they do not know what they're talking about, and just power through their policy theories regardless of reality.

I'm curious: why do you have more faith in Republican governance?

[Nittany Lioness]

I look to what dems and repubs push for, and what they've accomplished.  And what they've accomplished that they tout as good for us, when it's disasterous.
Biggest example right now is ObamaCare and the commitment to repealing it -
I'll hopefully answer more Specs - I'm going through this series at the moment:
http://campaign2012....-welfare/338676

[QueenTiye]

I think repealing the ACA would be disasterous, unless we are replacing it with even MORE comprehensive health coverage, yes, with mandated pay-in.  I'd be much more in favor of government run exchanges and the elimination entirely of employer based health insurance, with mandated minimums and options for premium upgrades.  But I wouldn't want anyone repealing anything before we had a better structure in place.

As to the GM claim, yeah, I was rather surprised by it.  But I think its safe to say that the automobile companies are NOT nationalized, not GONE, and I'm rather glad of both realities, even if the claim of being #1 was jingoistic.  (And, I'm not saying it was - I don't know the real story, but am willing to show a degree of skepticism).

QT

[Palisades]

There would be a massive outcry if the government explicitly tried to eliminate employer-provided health insurance. As it is, employers are going to dump a lot of employees into the health insurance exchanges.

[Omega]

QueenTiye, on 26 January 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

I think repealing the ACA would be disasterous, unless we are replacing it with even MORE comprehensive health coverage, yes, with mandated pay-in.

Concur. All the talk about repealing ACA completely pretends we didn't have a massive healthcare problem without it.

[DarthMarley]

I completely disagree about ACA. It must go.
Health care problems are individual problems, and a collective solutions is a poor solution.

The usual "we cannot go back to the days of..." is standard propaganda.
You know a politician is lying when they make such claims.
It also panders to those who fancy themselves as "progressive."

[Palisades]

^ As soon as insurance gets brought into it, it stops being solely about individuals. Insurance rates are based on actuarial statistics, and group size affects those statistics. That's why small businesses tend to either offer lousy health insurance or have to pay through the nose.

[Nittany Lioness]

Quote

All the talk about repealing ACA completely pretends we didn't have a massive healthcare problem without it.      

    


Nonsense.  The republicans talked long and hard about the problems and offered ideas.  There's record after record of such, interview after interview.  And I've certainly discussed health care hell here.

[Balderdash]

Nittany Lioness, on 26 January 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Quote

All the talk about repealing ACA completely pretends we didn't have a massive healthcare problem without it.      

    


Nonsense.  The republicans talked long and hard about the problems and offered ideas.  There's record after record of such, interview after interview.  And I've certainly discussed health care hell here.

Sure they've discussed it, till they're blue in the face and nuthin'.

[Omega]

The Republicans talked, sure. Shoot, ACA was the Newt Gingrich plan. But they had most of a decade of total control of the government, and did nothing. Clearly it wasn't a problem they were interested in addressing.

[QueenTiye]

^^Well, that's unfair.  In truth, it's been a problem since Nixon, and every President has tried to find a way to address it.  ACA is far from perfect, but it's the first time we're actually doing something.  So - now's the time to fix it, not discard it.

QT

[Palisades]

I doubt the Republicans ever had any intention of the Newt Gingrich plan becoming law. IMO, they thought it looked better to offer a counter-plan rather than just blocking HillaryCare. However, I suspect their goal was for neither plan to become law.

[QueenTiye]

Palisades, on 26 January 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

I doubt the Republicans ever had any intention of the Newt Gingrich plan becoming law. IMO, they thought it looked better to offer a counter-plan rather than just blocking HillaryCare. However, I suspect their goal was for neither plan to become law.

Why?

QT

[DarthMarley]

Palisades, on 26 January 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

^ As soon as insurance gets brought into it, it stops being solely about individuals. Insurance rates are based on actuarial statistics, and group size affects those statistics. That's why small businesses tend to either offer lousy health insurance or have to pay through the nose.

I think you misunderstand.
Of course actuarial data sets rates, except under ACA.
Pre-existing conditions are not "actuarial data" of likelyhood to get sick, it is a person already sick.
Even groups of people get sick one individual at a time.

[Palisades]

^ If you have pre-existing conditions, you often can't get health insurance by yourself. Your only hope is to get it through your employer's group plan -- if your employer offers it. Federal law prohibits employers that offer health insurance from excluding employees based on health.

What solution would you propose for people with pre-existing conditions? ACA takes the route of requiring health insurers to accept individuals with pre-existing conditions and then imposes a mandate to keep people from waiting until they have a health problem to buy the insurance. I have reservations about the specific implementation of ACA, but it addresses a pervasive problem.

[Palisades]

QueenTiye, on 26 January 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

Palisades, on 26 January 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

I doubt the Republicans ever had any intention of the Newt Gingrich plan becoming law. IMO, they thought it looked better to offer a counter-plan rather than just blocking HillaryCare. However, I suspect their goal was for neither plan to become law.

Why?

QT

The Republicans only came up with their plan once Hillary proposed her plan, and then once her plan died, the Republicans took no further action to get their plan enacted.

[DarthMarley]

Palisades, on 27 January 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

^ If you have pre-existing conditions, you often can't get health insurance by yourself. Your only hope is to get it through your employer's group plan -- if your employer offers it. Federal law prohibits employers that offer health insurance from excluding employees based on health.

What solution would you propose for people with pre-existing conditions? ACA takes the route of requiring health insurers to accept individuals with pre-existing conditions and then imposes a mandate to keep people from waiting until they have a health problem to buy the insurance. I have reservations about the specific implementation of ACA, but it addresses a pervasive problem.

Insurance is a bet.
You bet you are going to get sick, and the insurance company consults their actuarial data, computes the odds, and sets the line and bets you are not going to get sick.
If you are more likely to get sick, making the bet is more expensive for you.

Once we depart from that model, what we have is not "insurance" against a risk in the classic sense.

Just like with taxes and tax shelters, people now have a choice to make with their health care expenses.
The Canadian system, as it has been explained to me, requires the payment for the national level insurance, and if you have not paid for years, you either pay for the procedures performed, or pay the back premiums.
People will do whichever is cheaper.

Same will happen here. When the fines are less than either the insurance cost, or the procedure cost, people will pay the lesser amount.

Now what does that do to the overall cost of medicine?
We have required by law that emergency medicine be performed, that insurance companies "cover" people who are already sick, and individuals and companies can use the fines as a "health insurance shelter" but still get treated as if they are fully covered.

What to do about those with pre-existing conditions?
I don't see why the federal government should be involved at all.

I understand that health problems are a bad enough problem, and money problems makes it worse. But I don't have the notion that government should be in the business of solving our personal problems.

Put differently, it isn't much different for the government to bail out GM, Wall Street, or millions of voters with large medical bills.

Whenever the government subsidizes something, prices rise.
It happened with housing, it happened with education, and it has been happening with health care for a few decades.

[Palisades]

^ So your solution for people with pre-existing conditions is to to tell them they're likely screwed. Got it.

Quote

Insurance is a bet.
You bet you are going to get sick, and the insurance company consults their actuarial data, computes the odds, and sets the line and bets you are not going to get sick.
If you are more likely to get sick, making the bet is more expensive for you.

Once we depart from that model, what we have is not "insurance" against a risk in the classic sense.Once we depart from that model, what we have is not "insurance" against a risk in the classic sense.

Individually purchased health insurance works like that except people with pre-existing conditions tend to get denied. And if all health insurance worked like that, people with pre-existing conditions truly would be screwed. Fortunately, federal law requires that group health insurance provided by employers has to cover the people with pre-existing conditions.