We fucked up gun bans by name all over the place but somehow we’ll get drug controls by name? Have you seen the drug name or Pokemon name quiz?
In any event, we probably could figure it out. I suspect it would result in unintended consequences that are bad. Market inefficiencies, reduction in innovation, shortages, reduction in overall liberty, etc. And I wouldn’t expect us to get it right the first time either. What you are referring to I believe is called International Reference Pricing. There are many scholarly articles about the costs and benefits of such a scheme - suffice to say it’s not a simple endeavor.
Agreed, reducing the number of people struggling to pay bills and putting off medical treatment is just like reducing the availability of lavish health care plans.
It interferes with nature’s plan. The number of people struggling with health care issues would be reduced more effectively by a policy of benign neglect. With the added advantage of permanence, let it be noted.
I know the phrasing is from the article itself, but a family plan with costs at $27,500/year is not what I would consider a ‘lavish’ plan. I have no idea if regionality is considered in that figure, but in high cost areas that would be fairly normal to come close to or exceed the individual and family limits. Family limits are about $2300/month and individual limit is 850/month.
Cost shifting from employer to employee negatively impacts a large number of people. Whether that’s worth the tradeoff is debateable.
Furthermore, the important thing to remember is that the $27,500 is not the current cost level. It’s the projected cost level in 2018. A family plan that costs about $23K in 2015 would be expected to cost about $27.5K in 2018.
The other important thing to bear in mind is that the very few of the people with these high cost plans are Fat Cat Rich Guys. The vast vast majority of these plans are the province of lower middle class to middle class union workers.
On balance - what is the argument against plans that cost a high amount of premiums? Is there some adverse impact from having a high cost plan that the penalty is trying to reduce? This is essentially private companies incurring more expense to provide benefits to their employees. What am I missing?
You will no doubt be shortly piled on by numerous outraged liberals who are vehemently opposed to hypocrisy-hunting. I shudder to think …
[BTW, there’s a difference between being opposed to unions and being opposed to people who are members of unions.]
The idea is that if people have to absorb a higher percentage of their medical costs, they will be less prone to frivolous utilization. (I agree with this.)
Let’s take a poll of union workers then. “Person A wants to eliminate your union, or kneecap it to the point where it can’t really represent you or protect you anymore. Do you consider Person A to support you or oppose you? Would you consider them to be ‘on your side’?”
What do you think the results of that poll would be?
My position on unions is not determined by what union members think counts as “their side”. There are many pros and cons of unions. It’s a broad issue. But what’s relevant here is that cutting the “lavish” plans is not primarily impacting a bunch of CEOs as the term might imply, but impacting lower middle class to middle class union members.
Simply put, I think you are posting this to imply that union workers are going to start voting republican now as a result of this. This is laughable considering how much republicans have been attacking everything union related for, well, ever. If that’s not what you were trying to imply, then what is your point?
No, what I am saying - as I’ve been insisting since the OP - is that the arguments in this lawsuit aren’t just incorrect, they are stupid. The Supreme Court, therefore, will become a stupid institution if it sides with the plaintiffs. John Roberts is likely terrified of that.
Cut the crap man.
On the one hand, the steep decline in the number of people worried about medical bills - on top of the record low amount of persons foregoing care - is a broad societal good that is a huge step forward for the country. On the other, the decline in lavish coverage negatively affects a small subset of American workers. The two aren’t even remotely comparable.
And for crying out loud, what the Hell is with all this new-found conservative outrage at the lapses in generous coverage? For years, one of the biggest complaints amongst the GOP is that a huge number of people - namely the indigent on Medicaid & persons with Cadillac plans - didn’t have enough skin in the game when it comes to health care. Now, the ACA has facilitated that outcome for some people, and all of a sudden you’re outraged about it?
It’s actually quite a large subset of American workers. And it will be a growing one, because almost all current employer health plans are projected to hit that threshold, if not when it first hits in 2018, then in subsequent years.
And what I can tell you from personal experience is that virtually every large employer is looking at this closely now. You can’t imagine how many analyses of this sort I’ve done.
Oh my, another hypocrisy-hunter. Why they’re all over the place …
I read the whole thread. I know you were desperately trying to counter the good news coming out about the ACA that was posted in #302. What’s even more laughable is your assumption about my reading history in a post where you begin by criticizing me for assuming things about you. That’s pretty rich right there. Pot, kettle, black.