1.) Where do you get healthcare as a fundamental purpose of government from?

 

2.) Health care in the US wasn't working under free market conditions before the ACA at all!

- It was government regulation that prevented individuals from purchasing better and more cost effective plans across state borders.

- It was government regulation that required plans offered by insurance companies to offer services that bloated the cost of premiums.

- It was government regulation that drives up the cost of prescriptions and pharmaceuticals though testing and taxiation

 

in almost every way possible government interference caused the mess we where in. Insurance companies make money one way, convincing individuals to purchase their "coverage" the more they insure the more they make. It's also in their interest to keep cost of medical services at a minimum, meaning they would work to ensure doctors and hospitals wouldn't over charge for services provided. You removed the incentive for insurance companies to attract large amounts of people when you make it mandatory everyone has to purchase said product. You removed the incentive for insurance companies to drive down cost when they're compensated by government agencies like Medicaid.

Are you really suggesting that testing new medicines to ensure they don't cause more harm than good is a bad thing?

 

As for the last part; that's why regulation needs to be comprehensive and thorough when it is applied. Like you said, it's not enough to simply make insurance mandatory because the insurance companies will simply hike up prices because they know you have to purchase their plans. So in addition to this the regulation also needs to include rules as to what is covered in the basic plans and how much insurers can charge for these plans. Anything outside of the plans is allowed to be in the free market where insurers can compete with minimal government interference.

 

This basically the Dutch system; a base package which is heavily regulated and an upper segment which is essentially free market. But we use another level which is the risk based pool which actually rewards insurance companies for signing on high risk individuals, as a result people with chronic illnesses who need insurance the most and are normally shunned by insurers are now coveted by those same insurers. And since this whole system is more effective than the US in almost every measurable statistic I'd say it's vastly better.

---

The level of care provided prior to the ACA is going to look like a utopia compared with what is coming.  If you think money isn't a factor now that we've got this wonderful ObamaCare, you've been swimming in the KoolAid.  All this has done is to make healthcare more expensive, and less available.  Rationing will come sooner rather than later.  You'll be pining for the good old days.  I work in the industry, so I know a little something about what ObamaCare has done to the system, and it's not good in any way, shape, or form. 

 

There will still be the haves and have nots.  The only difference now is that when the have nots who still don't have insurance decide they need to seek a doctor's assistance, they're going to be penalized with fines from the IRS.  The ACA was supposed to make healthcare more readily available, and more affordable.  Heck, Affordable is in the name of the law.  Check out the rates people are being charged, then look at the crap coverage they're getting.  All the while, insurance companies that were willing to play ball with Obama are still profiting, and if they do happen to lose money, no worries.  The government is already prepared with a bailout using more borrowed money. 

 

Yeah, ACA is a great thing for this country.  When it's fully implemented, we'll be a third world country. 

I said nothing of the sort. In fact, in another post I even said the ACA was flawed. 

 

I think system needs a full overhaul but that wont happen until money is taken out of politics. I also don't think the above doom and gloom hyperbole helps anyone... It sure does help drive up a fervor though. Again that's just my opinion based on my experiences. My healthcare did not change and my premiums went down 10 bucks a month. I am sure it has effected other people in more positive and in more negative ways. 

---

Oh, and costs of healthcare had little to with gouging.  Remember, we already had a system in place that took care of those without insurance, especially at the catastrophic level.  Was the homeless guy that got hit by the car left in the road to die, or was he taken to the hospital?  And yes, that cost was passed on to the people who could pay.  

Exactly.  Hospitals are required by law to provide medical services to anyone regardless of their ability to pay.  The healthcare system could have been fixed without having to go to the lengths of completely destroying what we had and creating something new.  The funny thing here is that the proponents of socialized healthcare in this country always touted a number.  It was at times 30, 40, or even 50 million people without healthcare.  Go check out the number of uninsured that are projected AFTER ACA is fully implemented (which is never going to happen while this president is in office because then he'd be held accountable for the results).  Nothing changes. 

 

Of the 8 million they supposedly signed up before the deadline, 1/3 of those had errors that the government has not been able to resolve, and may never be able to fix.  And what kind of errors are we talking about?  Illegals signing up despite the fact that they were not supposed to?  People who provided false information?  The list goes on and on for why, and in almost all cases, odds are these people were pressed to apply simply to get the numbers where they needed to be regardless of eligibility.  And once they applied?  It didn't matter what their status was.  Providers are being forced to accept them.  Then they file the claims and it turns out the people aren't covered. 

 

It's amazing just how disastrous this entire thing has been, and what's even more shocking is how little attention is being paid to this by those who should be reporting on the problems. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I said nothing of the sort. In fact, in another post I even said the ACA was flawed. 

 

I think system needs a full overhaul but that wont happen until money is taken out of politics. I also don't think the above doom and gloom hyperbole helps anyone... It sure does help drive up a fervor though. Again that's just my opinion based on my experiences. My healthcare did not change and my premiums went down 10 bucks a month. I am sure it has effected other people in more positive and in more negative ways. 

Hyperbole?  So, rates aren't skyrocketing?  Doctors aren't leaving the system?  Corruption in the system doesn't exist?  Which part is hyperbolic? 

 

The ACA isn't just flawed.  It's an unmitigated disaster that is dragging this country and this economy down the drain. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Oh, and costs of healthcare had little to with gouging.  Remember, we already had a system in place that took care of those without insurance, especially at the catastrophic level.  Was the homeless guy that got hit by the car left in the road to die, or was he taken to the hospital?  And yes, that cost was passed on to the people who could pay.  

The homeless guy wasn't going to have insurance regardless of regulation. But the cost of treatment drops dramatically because preventive care becomes readily available to all. If you feel a lump under your armpit but don't have insurance and can't afford a checkup then you might skip it. If the lump then develops into full blown cancer it won't be detected until treatment will cost much more than the initial checkup you skipped. With insurance you know the checkup won't bankrupt you so you go see your doctor whom sends you off for a relatively simple preventive treatment.

 

Of course this an over simplified example but there is a reason countries with socialized health care systems have lower costs, more doctors and better and more effective treatment. 

---

Something that's always humored me about the left is the contradiction between their zeal for regulation and their contempt for corporations.  It's as if it's not understood that large corporations can withstand regulations more than small businesses.  I can actually picture leaders of large corporations applauding whenever some large sweeping legislation is passed.   

---

Hyperbole?  So, rates aren't skyrocketing?  Doctors aren't leaving the system?  Corruption in the system doesn't exist?  Which part is hyperbolic? 

 

The ACA isn't just flawed.  It's an unmitigated disaster that is dragging this country and this economy down the drain. 

Corruption didn't exist in the system before the ACA? 

 

Third world country, that's hyperbole. 

 

Rates are not going up for everyone but are for some. I even said that in my post but you are implying its across and that's not the case.

 

I don't know about doctor's leaving the system but I would imagine some would, if the reason is they are making less money. That makes sense. 

---

Something that's always humored me about the left is the contradiction between their zeal for regulation and their contempt for corporations.  It's as if it's not understood that large corporations can withstand regulations more than small businesses.  I can actually picture leaders of large corporations applauding whenever some large sweeping legislation is passed.   

I think the issue stems from the fact the regulations that somehow do make it through the process are for all intents and purposes written by the corporations they are intended to reign in. The regulations are effected by the lobbying and massive ammounts of cash of whichever sector is being looked at. 

 

At least that's the perception, I think. 

---

Are you really suggesting that testing new medicines to ensure they don't cause more harm than good is a bad thing?

 

As for the last part; that's why regulation needs to be comprehensive and thorough when it is applied. Like you said, it's not enough to simply make insurance mandatory because the insurance companies will simply hike up prices because they know you have to purchase their plans. So in addition to this the regulation also needs to include rules as to what is covered in the basic plans and how much insurers can charge for these plans. Anything outside of the plans is allowed to be in the free market where insurers can compete with minimal government interference.

 

This basically the Dutch system; a base package which is heavily regulated and an upper segment which is essentially free market. But we use another level which is the risk based pool which actually rewards insurance companies for signing on high risk individuals, as a result people with chronic illnesses who need insurance the most and are normally shunned by insurers are now coveted by those same insurers. And since this whole system is more effective than the US in almost every measurable statistic I'd say it's vastly better.

 

I'm not saying testing is a bad thing at all, I'm saying government interference in that testing drives cost. Pharmaceutical companies stand to gain nothing from making "bad" drugs with negative side effects. In a true free market individuals would absolutely abandon those companies and they would go bankrupt, companies that made good drugs at an affordable cost would thrive.

 

It's like everything else in the free market, the more companies are allowed to fail the faster better companies that do it right will arise.

 

I'm a border line anarcho-capatilist, I don't even want government building roads I think the private sector could do it better.

---

I think the issue stems from the fact the regulations that somehow do make it through the process are for all intents and purposes written by the corporations they are intended to reign in. The regulations are effected by the lobbying and massive ammounts of cash of whichever sector is being looked at. 

 

At least that's the perception, I think. 

I agree, just look at the new law they're trying to pass in Florida that will "regulate" the beer industry. It basically only hit independent microbrews and forces them into wildly unfair distribution deals with the large beer companies. That thing might as well have been written by Anheuser-Busch themselves. 

---

I'm not saying testing is a bad thing at all, I'm saying government interference in that testing drives cost. Pharmaceutical companies stand to gain nothing from making "bad" drugs with negative side effects. In a true free market individuals would absolutely abandon those companies and they would go bankrupt, companies that made good drugs at an affordable cost would thrive.

 

It's like everything else in the free market, the more companies are allowed to fail the faster better companies that do it right will arise.

 

I'm a border line anarcho-capatilist, I don't even want government building roads I think the private sector could do it better.

If that were true cigarette companies wouldn't exist.

 

The free market is a great tool when there is true competition but it always tend towards a monopoly where a single company takes control of most or the entire market. That's why you need at least a base level of regulation so as the at least ensure fair competition and prevent price gouging. 

---

I think the issue stems from the fact the regulations that somehow do make it through the process are for all intents and purposes written by the corporations they are intended to reign in. The regulations are effected by the lobbying and massive ammounts of cash of whichever sector is being looked at. 

 

At least that's the perception, I think. 

 

This is off tangent a bit, but I feel compelled to bring it up.  Lobbyist are much maligned in this country, to the point where they are viewed as a large part of the problem.  But I think most people should understand that members of Congress are not experts on everything.  More often than not, it seems prudent to consult with leaders of industry when their expertise may help better craft regulatory legislation.

---

I agree, just look at the new law they're trying to pass in Florida that will "regulate" the beer industry. It basically only hit independent microbrews and forces them into wildly unfair distribution deals with the large beer companies. That thing might as well have been written by Anheuser-Busch themselves. 

Odds are their lobbyists were deeply involved in writing the legislation.

 

This is off tangent a bit, but I feel compelled to bring it up.  Lobbyist are much maligned in this country, to the point where they are viewed as a large part of the problem.  But I think most people should understand that members of Congress are not experts on everything.  More often than not, it seems prudent to consult with leaders of industry when their expertise may help better craft regulatory legislation.

 

Understood.  Not all lobbyists are bad.  But, they sure do help lead career politicians toward the light of corruption. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

If that were true cigarette companies wouldn't exist.

 

The free market is a great tool when there is true competition but it always tend towards a monopoly where a single company takes control of most or the entire market. That's why you need at least a base level of regulation so as the at least ensure fair competition and prevent price gouging. 

 

I'm not sure how it works in European nations but state side monopolies are supposed to be illegal, what happens is very large companies become contributors to campaigns and find ways to have government endorse their monopolies. That's the problem we don't have true free market capitalism at all anymore, every field has become saturated with crony capitalism or blend of large corporations working with government.

 

it's why I stand to abolish almost all forms of modern government from the Department of Education, to Transportation to the NSA, the Homeland Security, the FBI the CIA and the IRS get ride of them all.

 

Like I said

 

Anarcho-Capitalist.

---

I agree, just look at the new law they're trying to pass in Florida that will "regulate" the beer industry. It basically only hit independent microbrews and forces them into wildly unfair distribution deals with the large beer companies. That thing might as well have been written by Anheuser-Busch themselves. 

 

 

If that were true cigarette companies wouldn't exist.

 

The free market is a great tool when there is true competition but it always tend towards a monopoly where a single company takes control of most or the entire market. That's why you need at least a base level of regulation so as the at least ensure fair competition and prevent price gouging. 

 

You just provided an example as to why regulations help large corporations, then argued that regulations are needed to avoid monopolies. 

---

This is off tangent a bit, but I feel compelled to bring it up.  Lobbyist are much maligned in this country, to the point where they are viewed as a large part of the problem.  But I think most people should understand that members of Congress are not experts on everything.  More often than not, it seems prudent to consult with leaders of industry when their expertise may help better craft regulatory legislation.

Yeah that's fair enough. It's not necessarily the lobbying that is the problem it's promise of legal and illegal bribes that cause the perception of lobbyists being the problem. I'm sure you'd agree they go hand in hand. 

---

I'm not sure how it works in European nations but state side monopolies are supposed to be illegal, what happens is very large companies become contributors to campaigns and find ways to have government endorse their monopolies. That's the problem we don't have true free market capitalism at all anymore, every field has become saturated with crony capitalism or blend of large corporations working with government.

 

it's why I stand to abolish almost all forms of modern government from the Department of Education, to Transportation to the NSA, the Homeland Security, the FBI the CIA and the IRS get ride of them all.

 

Like I said

 

Anarcho-Capitalist.

Extreme Nation Makeover?

 

New hit show!

---

Extreme Nation Makeover?

 

New hit show!

 

One can dream my friend one can dream.......

---

The country is so polarized right now, I can't see it ever getting less polarized, only more polarized. 

 

In light of this, maybe it's time for a divorce.  Let the red states form one country, and let the blue states form another country.    I'm sure there are a lot of details to be worked out, but I'm just sick of the bickering between the two sides.   Split it up and be done with it. 

---

Corruption didn't exist in the system before the ACA? 

 

Third world country, that's hyperbole. 

 

Rates are not going up for everyone but are for some. I even said that in my post but you are implying its across and that's not the case.

 

I don't know about doctor's leaving the system but I would imagine some would, if the reason is they are making less money. That makes sense. 

 

Where did I say that?  Corruption has always been a part of the problem.  Giving a corrupt government even more control over 1/6 of the economy is a recipe for disaster. 

 

Our healthcare system is going to be driven in that direction because of the ACA.  If you can refute the fact that rates are increasing, and that care is starting to suffer, go right ahead and do so.  I'd love to see facts that refute either point.  You focused on the last comment as hyperbole (which it was), but completely ignored the rest.  Good job. 

 

You're fixated on the money.  You say making a profit isn't a bad thing, but clearly you think otherwise based on your comments. 

 

Let me give you one example of a greedy, profit driven doctor who is on the verge of retiring because he can't afford to continue under the guidelines of ACA.  This is a very good friend of mine who is an oncologist here in Florida. 

 

Over the past several years, he has been a provider on Medicaid and Medicare's list.  He has accepted both forms of payment.  As the years have passed, the amount MC pays out has steadily dropped.  They set the bar for usual and acceptable, and it's gotten to the point where this doctor can barely maintain any sort of profit margin.  Now, I know to someone who just thinks he's being greedy, they're just going to stop right here and bash him because he's on the verge of throwing in the towel because he's barely able to break even.  This is a top tier oncologist who has worked for two major cancer centers during his career.  He spent nearly 1/3 of a million on his education.  He started his own practice, and employs a staff of 10.  He has overhead to maintain his offices, and to pay his employees.  When Medicare/Medicaid step in and say they're only going to pay 70% or even less on his billing, that means he's losing money.  You'll say he's greedy, but as a result of their cuts, he's already had to lay off half his staff, and he's taking fewer patients because he can't handle the workload.  He's considering dumping his practice all together because of the ACA.  This guy is an expert on the subject, and the horror stories he tells are epic.  But to you, he's just a rich doctor who is complaining about not making enough money.  Right?

 

FYI, if you don't think rates are going up for the vast majority, you need to do some research on the rates that have been submitted by each state to their insurance commissioners already.  And if the ruling by an appellate court this week holds up, those subsidized rates that are artificially making the prices look lower than they are while taxpayers pick up the tab are going to go away.  Watch what happens then. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.