Average ObamaCare price: $328 per month.

Quote from Tsing Tao:

1. It's not about insuring more people that's going to cost more. If the insurance model stays the same, costs per person shouldn't increase. the problem is you're changing the model. Ie, forcing companies to allow children on their parents plans until 26. Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions (this is huge), etc.

2. If you're going to compare the cost per person, you have to do it apples to apples. You can't take a subsidized amount someone pays and consider that the cost. You have to include the subsidy as well for the total cost of the premium. Makes no difference if the poor person isn't paying it. Someone will be.

3. As for the CBO estimating, well...anything correctly, don't make me laugh.

Costs have to go up. Play all the semantics games you want. It's all just bullshit.
More...

Tao, just wanted to point out that insuring persons with pre-existing conditions at the same premium as everyone else is a feature of group policies.

The thrust of Obamney care is to bring group rates to everyone by expanding the insurance pool. The flaw in it, as of now, is that it mandates employer coverage, this is bad, as we must move to fully transportable policies as quickly as possible. Health insurance must not be tied to an employer. We need group rates but individual ownership of the policy. That is the ideal we should strive for. We can do that. The transition could easily be nearly seamless.

The Swiss approach to health care is very attractive and would suit the American psyche well. Obomney care is somewhat modeled on the Swiss model.

Costs will come down. And this has nothing to do with semantics! The cost per person covered, which is the cost that should concern us all, will come down if Obamney care succeeds as planned.

I am baffled why smart individuals in this thread can't get as far as the difference between per capita cost and total cost.

I am not advocating anything here in particular other than portable insurance not tied to an employer. I'm attempting to be a neutral observer who desires to bring an end to the nonsense.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Lucrum, as you know having read the Cato Institute report, Cato took exception to the WHO category labeled "Fairness". This category includes measures of how cost of care is distributed among the population relative to ability to pay. (The WHO takes the position that everyone no matter how poor should have access to at least routine health care. I realize that some Libertarians might consider this a flaw in WHO reasoning.) Specifically, Cato took exception to the weighting of this factor, which is weighted fairly heavily. I think Cato's criticism in this regard is fair, and I might even agree with it...

The U.S. scored particularly low in the "Fairness" category. Had the weighting of that category been reduced some, something I might agree with, the U.S. would have moved up in the rating, perhaps as high as the top 20 nations or so.
More...
If I'm not mistaken we would have been ranked even higher than that.

Personally I don't think government controlled and or taxpayer subsidized health is a right.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

"I am baffled why" you keep stating this as if it's a known fact.
More...

The rest of the sentence: "will come down if Obamney care succeeds as planned."

You and Tao both have strong, and admirable, libertarian leanings. So do I incidentally, which I think you have suspected from time to time. But I have serious doubts as to whether pure libertarianism would be satisfactory in a large complex country such as the U.S.

Your position on health care is influenced by your libertarianism. I recognize that.

Here is what is going on right now that I find illogical. A bunch of you guys are insisting that Obamney care will be an utter disaster when in fact none of us know yet. To jump to that conclusion and so firmly hold it based on one's political philosophy is a dangerous position to take. Why not wait 18 months, or so, then come out firing with both guns once you have acquired some real ammunition? I know your answer already. It is why not use an extinguisher rather than a flame thrower once you have discovered your house is on fire. But, you see, from my perspective that attitude requires far more certainty of position than I believe the facts warrant. I think it is still possible that Obomney care might be an extinguisher, and you haven't recognized it as such.

The older you get, the less certain are your facts.

_______________________-
"If you believe government is bad, you will create bad government" -- George Soros.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Tao, just wanted to point out that insuring persons with pre-existing conditions at the same premium as everyone else is a feature of group policies.
More...

Many people with supposed pre-existing conditions brought them on through their own CHOICES. it's one thing to be born with some problem. It's a whole different story when someone is fat or obese due to them eating crap, not exercising, doing drugs, smoking, excess drinking ... and then whining that they have a heart ailment, hypertension, diabetes, and so on. Those people CHOSE hat. They should pay higher premiums. If you're a crappy driver (wrecks, speeding tickets) you pay higher rates or some insurers may not even insure you.

As someone who has paid 100% of my health costs the past 18 years it's pathetic that we don't hold people accountable for their choices.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Tao, just wanted to point out that insuring persons with pre-existing conditions at the same premium as everyone else is a feature of group policies.
More...

I understand that. It raises premium for everyone equally because the risk associated with the group has increased significantly.

Quote from piezoe:


Costs will come down. And this has nothing to do with semantics! The cost per person covered, which is the cost that should concern us all, will come down if Obamney care succeeds as planned.
More...

Why should I believe your "should come down" philosophy? We were told we could keep our plan if we liked it. A lie. We were told we would not experience a rise in premiums. Lie. So we're supposed to believe the "just hang tight, and we'll get it right"? Like the government has such a tremendous record on operating well when it sticks its nose into a part of the economy?


Quote from piezoe:


I am baffled why smart individuals in this thread can't get as far as the difference between per capita cost and total cost.

I am not advocating anything here in particular other than portable insurance not tied to an employer. I'm attempting to be a neutral observer who desires to bring an end to the nonsense.
More...

But you ARE advocating the ACA. Instead of admitting the large flaws and suggesting we redo the law in a way that makes sense from the start, you continue to insinuate we should all sit back and let the horrible law run it's course, because you promise it'll be best for everyone.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>BREAKING: WH confirms there is large interest in healthcare exchange from citizens who don&#39;t like being fined $$</p>&mdash; Not Jim Cramer (@Not_Jim_Cramer) <a href="https://twitter.com/Not_Jim_Cramer/statuses/387267352099704832">October 7, 2013</a></blockquote>
******** async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Quote from DHOHHI:

Many people with supposed pre-existing conditions brought them on through their own CHOICES. it's one thing to be born with some problem. It's a whole different story when someone is fat or obese due to them eating crap, not exercising, doing drugs, smoking, excess drinking ... and then whining that they have a heart ailment, hypertension, diabetes, and so on. Those people CHOSE hat. They should pay higher premiums. If you're a crappy driver (wrecks, speeding tickets) you pay higher rates or some insurers may not even insure you.

As someone who has paid 100% of my health costs the past 18 years it's pathetic that we don't hold people accountable for their choices.
More...
Those are often heard arguments. Are they valid? I don't know. If they are valid, should they prevail? I don't know. Are there other considerations that make it impractical for your arguments to prevail? I don't know. Should sometimes, if ever, the practical win out over what is right and true? I don't know. Should stare decisis be the universal law of the land , or are there exceptions? That, I suppose, is one reason for courts.

How will you decide, and what will be the cost to decide? Who has diabetes because they ate too much sugar, and who is diabetic because they were born with the wrong genes? Who drank and smoked excessively? Was it the Prime minister who drank a half bottle of scotch, smoked three cigars everyday, saved a nation, and lived to 87, or was it the the laggard that did the same and died of sclerosis at age 62. I don't know.

Would it be better too educate, hope for the best, and let it go at that, or outlaw everything we know is bad for us? That, I think I know.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Those are often heard arguments. Are they valid? I don't know. If they are valid, should they prevail? I don't know. Are there other considerations that make it impractical for your arguments to prevail? I don't know. Should sometimes, if ever, the practical win out over what is right and true? I don't know. Should stare decisis be the universal law of the land , or are there exceptions? That, I suppose, is one reason for courts.

How will you decide, and what will be the cost to decide? Who has diabetes because they ate too much sugar, and who is diabetic because they were born with the wrong genes? Who drank and smoked excessively? Was it the Prime minister who drank a half bottle of scotch, smoked three cigars everyday, saved a nation, and lived to 87, or was it the the laggard that did the same and died of sclerosis at age 62. I don't know.

Would it be better too educate, hope for the best, and let it go at that, or outlaw everything we know is bad for us? That, I think I know.
More...

Well, right now my wife and I pay $364/month. We can NOT keep our plan contrary to what Obama said. We are FORCED to have coverages we don't want or need. We have been quoted $1000/month. That clearly says we're subsidizing the fat and obese people, many who were uninsured. And what are we so PO'ed? Because we pay everything health related out of our own pockets and thus, we exercise daily, eat healthy and so on. I've yet to see a doctor this year and have only my scheduled physical in November in front of me. And do I really want to pay $1000/month, or $12,000/year for a measly physical where a doctor spends perhaps 15 minutes with me?
 
For some years my wife and I were both covered by had what some would call a "gold plated" plan (I always thought of it as solid gold) from her mid level executive job at a large firm. When she left I knew it would be costly to replace but I was still shocked when the tab for the "cobra" replacement was over $3,000 per month. She left to take a spot elsewhere so we never had to meet a cobra payment yet the new plan covered just her with an option (which I exercised) for me to pay about $1,000 a month for quite good coverage yet not quite as good.

Sure this is NYC yet we are still talking extraordinary numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top