(bolding mine)
No they wouldn’t be in danger of prosecution for fraud; that’s ridiculous.
My wife came down with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. She was on my insurance which was through my employer. After treatment her doctor called us in and said, “I have good news and bad news. The good news is that we reduced your tumors and arrested the disease. The bad news is that you’re going to die from something else.”
Three years later the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma returns. I am still employed and my wife is still covered by my insurance through my employer. The good news is that they arrested the disease again. The bad news is that if I wasn’t employed my wife would probably have been denied 3rd party medical insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition. She’d be dead now.
You call it.
Gotta love the right-wing citations. Your first link is to an op-ed from the Fraser Institute, a notoriously far-right think tank which of course gets it wrong – it’s complaining about the cost of health care in Canada, but one need only look at objective OECD data to see that US costs are nearly twice as much per capita, by far the highest in the world, and also rising faster. Meanwhile the Canadian health care system, at half the cost, delivers longer life expectancy than the US, lower infant mortality, and superior quality of life in old age.
The Sweden link is to a site whose motto is “free minds and free markets” which pretty much tells us what we need to know about its political orientation, and of course the point it tries to make is just as misleading as the one from Fraser. Notice that while they show the increase in private health insurance in absolute numbers, they forget to mention that in Sweden, just like in France, the UK, Germany, and everywhere else that I know of, private health insurance is a very small part of the marketplace.
Any comparison with any other industrialized country in the world only highlights the sad state of US health insurance, where basically if you don’t have money, you die. And no, emergency room treatment under EMTALA doesn’t change that. It’s no substitute for proper ongoing medical care, does nothing to deal with chronic conditions, in general it provides nothing more than superficial stabilization of acute ailments, and is the most wasteful and utterly ineffectual way to deliver any kind of health care. Someone already pointed out how ridiculous your statement about this was; it’s nothing more than a feel-good gesture in the only industrialized nation on earth that shamefully lacks universal health care. Obamacare, as inadequate as it is, is a small and flawed step to try to remedy this disgrace. If the public option had been allowed to go through, it would have fundamentally changed its effectiveness.
The link in question is to Huffington Post, not generally considered to be a far-right source, though it is written by Nadeem Esmail from the Fraser Institute. More significantly, the article I linked to says nothing about cost comparisons between Canada and the USA, so it’s hard to see why you think that mentioning that cost comparison shows that Esmail “gets it wrong”.
I’ll hold back any snide comments on the wisdom of linking to Wikipedia while complaining about the accuracy of some other source. The Wikipedia page you linked to says that the Swedish government covers 97% percent of medical costs. Actually it’s 81%. The article I linked to shows that private health insurance is soaring upwards in Sweden, so who knows what the figures will be in a few years.
But the point I was making was a response to you saying that, in other countries, “most private insurers for medically necessary procedures are either extremely tightly regulated non-profits or reduced to irrelevance if not banned altogether”. Sweden proves this to be untrue. So does France. So do many other countries.
I don’t completely disagree, and I do think the comparison is at least worth considering. I didn’t know that the EU already banned basing auto insurance rates on gender. It would be interesting to see what effects that has had on overall rates.
After giving it more consideration, and trying to write up at least three drafts of a rebuttal, I’ll concede the point. The US should follow the EU’s lead and ban gender as a basis for auto-insurance premiums. It’s discriminatory not to.
Its not that people are all actually equal, anyone who has spent time with mouth-breathing, knuckle-walking tighty righty Neandertards knows that just isn’t true. Its that the principle of equality before the law demands that the law, to the extent that it is humanly possible, treat people as it were true.
Perhaps it is true that women inherently confront more health problems than men, perhaps it is simply that they are smart enough to go to a doctor rather than tough it out, the retardive effects of testosterone poisoning have not been adequately studied.
As a practical effect that matters, as a legal one, it should not.
I think it’s okay to base auto insurance on characteristics of the individual because there are always other reasonable options: get a cheaper car, be a better driver, don’t get a car, etc. But what’s the reasonable option if you can’t afford health insurance? Don’t get sick? That’s not possible to manage. Anyone can get a million-dollar illness regardless of how well they manage their health.
It’s hard to see how anyone could talk about the cost of Canadian health care being “too high” without comparing it to other countries. “Too high” relative to what? Whatever it is that Esmail is on about, that chart I linked shows that Canada’s costs are comparable to those of other OECD nations. What makes it doubly ironic is that Esmail seems to think that moving toward private insurance for medically necessary procedures would help control costs, yet it’s the US – the ultimate examplar of entirely private health insurance – that is the outlier with costs that are totally out of the ballbark. And incidentally, one reason that Canada’s costs are slightly higher than those of some other OECD nations is its proximity to the US; physician fee schedules tend to be quite a bit higher than in Europe so that they’re reasonably competitive with the US market right next door, where costs are out of control and gouging is rampant. They’re still lower than in the US, but doctors are willing to settle for it because at least they always get paid, without having to chase down deadbeat insurance companies or getting stiffed by deadbeat patients.
No, it isn’t. The 81% is a completely different number, describing the total government contribution in the total healthcare economy. You said earlier – quite correctly – that Canada has one of the smallest roles for the private sector in health insurance, yet according to that chart the corresponding government contribution to health care in Canada is even smaller – just 71.1%. And this is for a health care system that totally prohibits private insurance for medically necessary procedures, and prohibits any sort of out-of-pocket co-pay or extra billing. Do you understand why this percentage is even lower than in Sweden? It’s because of things like dental, prescription drugs for those under 65, and non-essential and supplementary services that are covered by the patient or by supplementary insurance. It has nothing to do with how medically necessary procedures are covered, which is guaranteed 100% coverage regardless of cost. That’s the true meaning of universal health care.
All those countries have social contracts guaranteeing universal health care and private insurance is indeed tightly regulated and plays a minor role. In Germany I believe only around 10% of the population subscribes to private insurance under very specific rules; in France, only 3.7% of hospitalization costs are covered by private insurance.
I’m convinced,** ITR Champion**. Canada and Europe are socialist bleeding heart liberal morons who couldn’t design an effective healthcare system to save their own lives - literally, according to you.
Now you claim the US is headed down the same wrong path with the ACA.
Based on your repeated criticism, YOU obviously have the answer. So let’s hear your brilliant solution for the RIGHT WAY to do healthcare in the US.
Very true and this points out why a health care is not really suited to insurance concepts used for other risk protections.
I am always puzzled by objections to ‘Community Rating’ where men, women, young and old pay substantially equal amounts.
After all, I have a wife so that averages out. If you are single, you probably have sisters, aunts and a mother - so again, it averages out. Charging them more is just plain selfish.
Likewise, I was once young and invincible and paid for health insurance I rarely needed or used - but we all age. In my mind I did not pay for insurance when I was young for the benefit of my elders, I was paying in advance for my increased medical expenses as I aged. Charging the old strictly by increased risk or denying coverage is inhumane.
Before you didn’t understand science. Now you don’t understand predictions.
A prediction is a statement about the future. As long as the statement is made by someone without a supernatural understanding of the eternal nature of time, the statement is fallible.
A “lie” is when someone knowingly misleads about something. If you want to show that Obama or Pelosi lied, you need to show that they believed one thing would happen and said another thing would happen.
Given CBO evaluations of their claims, you’re going to have a hard time.
This idea–that bad data is better than no data at all–is hideous and gets people in all kinds of trouble. No, ITR, a propaganda piece based on flawed methodology is NOT better than nothing at all.
There are a couple of other factors also. Car insurers have an absolute ceiling on payments - none has ever paid out $500K to keep a car alive. And car insurers do offer personalized good driver discounts, and are beginning to let your driving habits be recorded for further discounts.
Which “CBO evaluations of their claims” are you referring to, specifically?
Good thing no one in this thread has proposed such an idea.
I’ll also note that my prediction that you would not provide any cites of your own has been correct, thus far.
Before I go digging for evaluations, tell me the particular predictions you think are lies, and reassure me that if I show their claims were at least plausible according to CBO projections, you’ll retract the charge. Otherwise I won’t yip at your command.
If I do provide cites, you’ll agree that you were a liar, right, since your prediction didn’t come true? 
Seriously, though, right now I don’t HAVE good cites. Neither do you. The difference is that when I don’t have good cites, I don’t offer terrible cites in their place. I don’t practice cite of the gaps.
Well, since I already quoted them in the OP, that shouldn’t be necessary, but here you go.
Nancy Pelosi: “Everybody will have lower rates.”
Now to compare that to what other sources were saying:
The overall impact of these provisions will be to increase the cost of private insurance coverage for individuals, families, and businesses above what these costs would be in the absence of reform.
On average, the cost of private health insurance coverage will increase:
o 26 percent between 2009 and 2013 under the current system and by 40 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
o 50 percent between 2009 and 2016 under the current system and by 73 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
o 79 percent between 2009 and 2019 under the current system and by 111 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
Eliminating medical underwriting, requiring guaranteed issue and requiring minimum benefit packages with 65 percent actuarial value will increase premiums significantly for the youngest, healthiest 30 percent of members in the market today. Based on our analysis of actual polices, the premium increases will be greater than 50 percent for this cohort in most of the country in the first year of reform.
And since you seem to like the CBO so much, here’s their predictions. From the table on page 5, they expect at best a tiny cut in premiums in the employer-based markets, for both large and small employers. They predict a cut in premiums for those in the individual market receiving subsidies, but a rise for those not receiving subsidies. Needless to say, the actual results have turned out a lot worse than what the CBO predicted, which is what tends to happen.
I wish I could shop on the exchange.
I’m covered through my employer and pay about $400 a month ($4800a year), not including co-pays and deductibles.
But, that’s not the full cost of my insurance. Like most folks, my employer pays the rest. My insurance actually costs about $17,000 a year.
When price shopping on the exchange, a plan similar to the one I have now costs just under $10,000 a year.
So where did that other $7,000 go?
It just magically disappeared. I presume into some CEO’s pocket.
So, is shopping on the exchange cheaper or a better deal? Yes and no.
It would certainly cost me more out of my pocket- about twice as much. But it’s also about 1/3 of the full cost of the insurance I have now.
But being able to buy on the exchange has the added benefit of being portable and having no gaps in coverage if I were to change jobs, and getting my employer out of my personal business. To get insurance at my company now, I have to submit to an annual health assessment that includes a light physical exam and a blood draw.
Cites to Politifact are much more solid cites than cites to propaganda pieces; thanks for upping your game in this way, and I hope you’ll keep it consistent.
So yeah: according to the first cite, Nancy Pelosi would have been on firmer ground if she’d said, “fewer than 10% of people will see higher rates.” And Obama was not right to say that the average family would save “up to” $2500: turns out that he, like you, was cherry-picking stats to put his case in the most favorable light possible. So I’ll concede this point–neither of them appears to have debated in a fashion taht’s significantly more honest and objective than your way of debating.
That said, you can look at other Politifact articles, even ones critical of liberals:
So yeah: jury’s still out, but plenty of experts think the law will take costs down.
That said, we also need to consider that the law is not in place the way Obama wanted it to be: plenty of compromises were put in place trying unsuccessfully to secure Republican votes, and Republicans at every level, from the Supreme Court down to state legislatures and governors, have worked to torpedo key aspects of the law. Any credit or blame for the law can’t fall entirely on Obama therefore, since it’s significantly different from his proposal.
Mine would drop by $7,000 IF I were allowed to shop on the exchange.
Indeed, after 50 years of staring open-mouthed at the biggest con in the history of capitalism, the whole democratic, developed world is scrambling to follow any approximation of the US model.
Why would we think that competitive capitalism is a workable choice to deliver health insurance, or any form of insurance, for that matter. Insurance is mostly actuarial math, no? You take the risk, the proposed benefit to get the prospective payout, you derive the appropriate premium to match the circumstances, add in a modest profit and the expenses of administering, and there you have it.
Which should mean that if you approach two different insurance companies with the exact same conditions, their response is predictable, predetermined by the math of actuarial tables. So, what is there to compete with? If you approach two different insurance companies with yourself and your various conditions, and are totally truthful in revealing them, and ask for precisely the same coverage, your premiums should be pretty much the same, if not exactly the same.
So, what’s to compete with? GreedCo has no mathematical advantage over the Moloch Group, numbers is numbers. If they are offering substantial savings over the other guy, and the coverage is precisely equal, somebody is going out of business.
I can certainly see how competition over price and quality has advantages for the consumer in many instances. But the advantages of the widest possible pool are axiomatic, its Insurance 101. And the widest possible pool is the whole damned country.
Given the inflexible nature of actuarial tables, what can one company offer that another cannot? A nicer desk calender? What is there to compete about?