If the right has had a great success, it is in telling people that things that are good for them are evil.
It constantly amazes me that switching to a system that would be cheaper, cover more people, and produce better health results, is controversial.
Well, we shouldn’t.
Reading through the various posts it sounds like what most conservatives on this board would like to see is an expanded national healthcare system (Medicare for All) coupled with aggressive “death panels” to make sure that anyone using the system would only receive a very bare bones level of basic care.
Would that be a fair assessment?
No, it wouldn’t. Unless you cherry pick what you include in your summation. Unless “we should provide what we can afford” equals “death panels.”
You do realize health care costs are also increasing rapidly elsewhere in the industrialized world as in the US, do you not?
Regards,
Shodan
Worse how?
Say Utah wants all the insurance companies to move there. It changes its regulations to say, massively increase the level of people that can be dropped from coverage. Before “Obamacare” people could be dropped or priced out of the market for many reasons, say Utah writes a law saying that those reasons are expanded. Ultimately, insurance companies don’t want people that will use health care on their rolls. If you need care, you cut into their bottom line, so it helps them to say, “Oh, you with the hypertension, get the fuck out.”
The result would be every insurance company flocking to Utah. The same thing happened with credit cards. If a business can operate across state lines and massively increase its profits, it will go to the state with the loosest regulations.
So in 18 years EU healthcare could still 2% of the GDP cheaper than American healthcare is now, with better outcomes?
So, you’re speculating that evil things will occur, there’s not some specific system of state regulations you find lacking? You just know that an individual state government will naturally install laws that screw over people so that companies will do business there?
In your “state governments behave like Bond villains” scenario, would an effect be that people might buy insurance from a different state where denied claims are minimized, thereby defeating the evil plans of the unscrupulous state government? Or is only the “everything tilts to evil” conclusion possible? And, again, just confirming–you’re speculating this is what would occur, correct?
Explain how the “free market” allowed rescission, then.
Oh and WLP(Blue Cross Blue Shield) seems to be doing pretty good in the stocks.
No. I don’t know what it is, but right now, one of the states has the worst regulations for insurance companies operating in its borders. Why wouldn’t all the insurance companies go there? This would inflict the worst regulations on the whole country. This doesn’t need overt action to happen.
As I say, it already happened with regard to credit cards.
You are an insurance company. Explain to me why you sell insurance from a state that requires you to be less profitable. Why don’t you move to the state with the most lax laws. If you’re publicly traded, explain to me why your shareholders think this is a good idea.
Explain it in detail please.
I’m happy with my credit cards. I’m also happy with my insurance. Why wouldn’t I continue to be happy with my insurance, if it became more like my credit cards?
I honestly could not care less if you’re happy. I care if the country, as a whole is running smoothly.
You are falling victim to a common conservative delusion, where if something works for you, it works for everyone. This is simply not the case.
Also, credit cards and insurance are different. Insurance wants to have only healthy people on the rolls, credit cards want people who are struggling on the rolls.
The overwhelming majority of people were happy with their insurance before the latest meddling. Could you care less about them?
No, I’m falling victim to a different conservative delusion: the one where I figure the market that was already handling it just fine for the overwhelming majority of people can probably handle it just fine for the overwhelming majority of people. Except I’m not sure “delusion” is the right word for that.
Then don’t introduce the comparison to make your point. Introduce a better one if you think it’ll make your point.
Explain rescission. Explain the 50 million uninsured.
So you would take away the power of the states to regulate insurance in their state? That is the only thing restricting a person from getting the same insurance in their state that someone else gets in another state. So all the insurance companies would be located in the state with the loosest laws regulating health insurance, and sell it across the country, and the individual states couldn’t so a thing about it. No thanks. Probably unconstitutional as well.
Many people are happy with their insurance because of ignorance. Specifically, ignorance about how other countries to it better, ignorance of the unseen costs (that their wages are flat largely because of health insurance costs paid by their employer) and the ignorance bred of misinformation by right-wing news sources (death panels, that Obamacare will raise the deficit and so on). In any case, as I said, the system we had was broken. We pay much more, get worse results and leave a fifth of the country uncovered.
It is a fact that the other first world nations with some form of UHC, cover their whole population, do it for less money and in general produce much better results. That is a fact.
Why don’t you address that fact?
It’s not just fine, it’s more expensive and produces worse results, and it leaves a fifth of our population off the rolls.
Honestly, the weirdness of your argument is staggering. If health care were widget production we would produce less widgets for twice the money. And the widgets would be of substandard quality. How the hell can you crow about the market when you accept such utter ineptitude as glorious?
Again, you have not understood the central idea. I’ll explain it again, so hopefully you will understand it:
Credit card companies went to the state with the most lax regulations because they could make the most money there. Health insurance companies, if they are allowed to sell across state lines, will do the same.
All companies want to make the most money. A person who invokes the market should understand that. It doesn’t matter if the company is selling widgets or producing SCI-FI TV shows.
So all companies want to make the most money possible, so they will go where they can do it. I said that credit card companies have different market forces acting on them, in that they want struggling people, while insurance wants healthy people.
Hey, I’m the first to say I wanted some changes to health insurance – but, like most people in this country, I didn’t want Obamacare’s changes. You and I both seem to figure rescission is a problem; we should address it, in line with solid conservative reasoning, that informed consent should be facilitated and upheld.
Some of 'em didn’t feel the policies they were offered were worth the price. To paraphrase a certain Supreme Court Justice, some folks don’t feel broccoli is worth the price. Some folks don’t buy cars, either. Some rent a place instead of buying a house; others live in mom’s basement for years. I buy what I want and can afford, and they do likewise.
But I digress. “Some of 'em didn’t feel the policies they were offered were worth the price,” I said; maybe ditching the ban on interstate sales would help with that. Are most folks happy with their car insurance, buying as they often do from one of the chains that compete nationwide? (Is it as big a majority as the one that was satisfied with their health insurance?) It strikes me as a problem which deserves to be addressed exactly as much as rescission.
Rescission is a part of pre-existing conditions. You can’t have pre-existing conditions eliminated without universal coverage. Universal coverage requires a mandate. What in particular do you think Obamacare did wrong?
Not having insurance means that you pay for them when they get sick. So free-riders get health care from you.
In any case, many of the uninsured are either priced out of the market or unable to purchase insurance at any price. The reason being, that insurance companies don’t want to cover sick people.
This ignores that the ban on interstate sales, if removed, would increase the amount of rescission, since it is legal in some states. And no insurance company would be operated in any state that didn’t offer it.
You explicitly don’t care whether I’m happy, so my personal satisfaction is irrelevant; I presumably thus can’t extrapolate from my own satisfaction to justify all the other satisfaction that polls reliably report; you simply assume the rest are ignorant, while telling me you couldn’t care less about my satisfaction – a fantastic description of liberalism, I suppose, but it leaves me unable to imagine what response could satisfy you: not what makes people in general happy, not what makes me in particular happy, certainly not mention of personal freedom; what’s left?
Again, my personal experience has been satisfactory, and so has that of most people; you consider all of that a splendid irrelevance; what else is there?
And I loved the results of the former, and would presumably love the results of the latter…
So? Spell this out for me.