Insurance is part of a financial management strategy. For some people, a high deductible, less comprehensive plan is the smartest option. Now the administration comes along and says they have to spend more money for more services. That completely changes what the individual was trying to accomplish by choosing that plan.
As for the chart, it’s absurd on it’s face, since it claims that are really no losers. I don’t care who Gruber worked for, he fails Economics 101: there is no free lunch. Many people have to pay more for the same amount of coverage, or else the math doesn’t add up. In any case, I’ll let the voter reaction to ACA as it actually functions be the deciding factor. 2014 will be a lot more enlightening in that regard than 2010 and 2012 were.
To you, maybe, it is a financial management strategy. From me, and a whole fuck of a lot of other people, it means we can go see a doctor if we have to.
Not sure if I even have a financial management strategy. I have a fair amount of money, but if I spend it all, its gone, so I don’t do that. Is that a financial management strategy?
Sure it is. But what I’m talking about is asset protection, which is what health insurance is, or any other insurance. Each individual decides for themselves what level of insurance is needed based on their finances and risk.
of those that had a high deductible / low coverage plan - how many do you think had it out of some form of “Hobson’s Choice” or because they have another agreement in place the rectifies the plan a bit?
You’re spouting economic theory - not real world situations.
In the world you’re living in, there is no need for any sort of regulation, because we all do our research and make a fully informed and rational decision - unfortunatley that bears no relation to reality
Nonsense, it is simply a study of rational people making rational choices! I’ve met one right here in Minnesota, and I hear the other one lives in Kansas.
Many people have plans like that because it’s what they can afford. Others have it because they have adequate resources to pay for routine health care and need insurance against ruinous medical bills.
In neither case is making them pay more justified.
Let’s see, who is making these decisions inside the government. Ah yes, people! Are they wiser than us? Sure doesn’t look like it so far.
Now of course people make bad decisions. But government ‘experts’ are the last people to lecture the public about financial management. The decisions made on what plans should cover wasn’t based on health, or wise financial management. It was based on politics.
I’m glad we live in a country composed of machines that perform perfect financial and risk analysis as a precursor to any decision. Also, each member of this population possesses equal willingness and capability to perform said analysis. Ah, fairness.
Of course we do not live in such a perfect place. But since our government has no more expertise in these matters than the public, we’re best off trusting the individual.
Keep in mind ACA is supposed to HELP people, not control their financial decisions.
Incentivizing is fine as long as it’s not distorting. Which the subsidies don’t do, I believe. However, ACA crosses the line by basically forcing insurers to cancel non-compliant policies whether or not the consumer likes them.
Most of these consumers weren’t stupid. They either chose the plan that they felt made the most sense if they were well off, or they chose the plan they could afford if they weren’t.
That ship has sailed long before now. Once the ACA was blessed by SCOTUS, the law can pretty much force you to buy anything. Arguing against that power is fruitless. And, according to some here, lying to get to this result would be perfectly acceptable (if in fact it was a lie).
The one that gave Obama four Pinocchios? Seems about right to me.
At this point though, I can’t see how it makes any substantive difference. It’s not like whether or not it was in fact a lie or an innocent misleading, or something in between will matter when talking about implementing the law, or dismantling it. Only tangentially could it affect people’s votes and even more remotely shift the balance of power in congress. I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Can you see any difference in the outcome of the people that are affected, or the overall law itself, or anything in between if the scenario is A.) Obama lied or B.)Obama made his best case believing it to be true?
What is this, a Fox News interview? LOL! If you think you’re gonna get me on some gotcha question, let me disabuse you of that notion by pointing you to the quotation marks. Plus, even if Obama actually lied, what are you gonna do, crow to Fox News? Nobody on this site gives a damn about someone trying to *remove *nuance from the debate, except other Republicans eager to get any point on Obama, even if its a worthless one on an anonymous message board. What Obama said has already been discussed and his “lie” debunked. I’m simply too lazy to refer to it as his error of omission each time.
Most things are GWB’s and the Republicans’ fault. That’s no lie, that’s the whole truth. We could sure use the trillion dollars wasted in the last 10 years right about now, and the 5000 or so lives lost to due to a political gambit. Is there any low Republicans won’t sink to in order to smear Obama with lies? :dubious:
:rolleyes: Just saying its a strawman doesn’t make it so. Its absolute irrefutable evidence that GWB indirectly killed that much Americans with his stupid political blunder and wasted a trillion dollars on an illegal and misleading war. Just accept that as the facts and be less ignorant. Don’t be so snippy just because most conservative ideas are proveably false!
I assume that a lot of people don’t dig down and do their own research when it comes to laws and policy debates. So, they depend either on talking heads on the TV news, or on politicians, to tell them “what does this mean to me?” (if they care at all).
So, IMO, the reason “it matters” in regards to the Presidents mis-statements is: If he was incorrect about “a”, is he also wrong about claim “b”?
The President made several promises about the ACA. One was that you get to keep your plan and your doctor. For that, it appears he earned Four Pinochios.
He also said it would save people/families money on their premiums. He also said the program would help reduce the Federal deficit. So… it’s natural to start to wonder if these promises will also hold true.
Very probably. The question has been studied for many a year now, and we also have many examples in the industrialized world to draw upon. Trouble is, of course, that those examples are real honest-to-goodness single payer plans, which are impossible in America because freedumb.
