Bricker: Aside from your question, what did you think of the article linked to by 2ManyTacos? It seems evident you disagree with it (or at least with what it implies); why?
It seems in the age of blogs and twitters and eternal leaks it is unwise to pen down your response or plans on paper or email.
In general it is unwise to have a detailed plan as a politician since the press and the opponents will nitpick and distort it. Hillary Care is a great example of how political plan can be killed before they have a chance.
I never said privatized healthcare had any significant support in Europe, only that many European welfare states have scaled back programs in the past decades. If you are unaware of this having happened in Germany, the UK, even France and now almost certainly in Greece and other countries then I don’t know that you’re informed enough on any of these issues.
You’re the man now dawg.
There is no major change projected in Germany, now the private insured make up around 11% by 2030 this will go down by half a percent. The aging population outweighs the increased number of private enterprises in the forecast.
6 days to get a response. That must have been some quickening.
Fourteen minutes to get a response from you, that must be a fascinating life you lead.
I’m disinclined to respond since you obviously didn’t read my post, but I specifically said I was not talking about any country wanting privatized healthcare, but some European countries scaling back some social programs. For example in the UK, council housing has been on the out, replaced with less public ownership and alternatives to that old system of providing for the poor. In Germany, benefits for the unemployed were reduced as part of a system the Germans felt would result in more people getting back to work faster (it appears to have worked a little bit, but no one can say if it had anything to do with their policy changes.) There have been all kinds of changes like this in Europe, the European welfare state as a whole hit a peak some decades ago. Certain core parts of it will certainly never go away, nor should it (at least while Europeans support it), but this idea that once a welfare program goes into effect the people always love it and never want to get rid of it isn’t really true. Sometimes the people (through their representatives) recognize a program’s long term lack of viability and have to change or eliminate it.
Dammit, they’re gonna make us wait until Thrsday.
Fewer people live in council houses since a scheme from Thatcher’s government in the 80s. I’m not going to disagree that she saw “too much government” as a problem, much like too much food resulted in being fat. However, using that as an example of bucking a 40 year trend is specious. The Labour government involved more popular government plans, including EMA (educational maintenance allowance), designed to enable low income students continue their secondary education without pressure to have an occupation instead. Travel costs for students in London were heavily subsidised, with free bus travel and cheaper tube travel. On the flip side, tuition fees were introduced under the Labour government and increased under the Conservative one (not exactly a popular proposition though).
Reform of unemployment benefits in Germany is more recent and thus more valid as a concept.
I’d like to see more examples, though I’m still not sold as to how pertinent this is to the thread. Costs to the taxpayer are lower per capita and results better in the UK, despite the population having similar problems with obesity.
I’m disappointed, but part of me wonders what the big deal is. The mandate was so ‘controversial’ that the government has no mechanism to enforce it other than withholding tax rebates. Part of me wonders why a largely toothless regulation will unravel the whole health care law.
It may or it may not. Some provisions are independent of this, but others depend on funding from broadening the base. The pre-esixisting condition clause is one of the latter type. I’ll be very surprised if the court nullifies the whole law. Maybe the individual mandate, but not he entire law.
So what would happen if Obama vetoed any attempt to fix the remaining parts of the law? Would private insurance companies withdraw from the market?
My understanding is premiums would go up around 25-30% if there was no individual mandate but the rest of the law remained valid. This is because you would assume the prohibition on lifetime maximums, excluding people for preexisting conditions and et cetera would still remain and without a mandatory opt in of all young healthy people the genuine costs of insurance go up. I don’t think there is anything in the law that would prevent insurers from implementing any premium increases that are based on increased cost.
I agree. And that would pretty much doom Obama’s reelection chances if any of this played out between now and November.
It can’t play out until 2014, because the ban on preexisting conditions and lifetime limits don’t kick in until then.
But that doesn’t mean the insurance companies can’t start jacking up the rates in anticipation. Then we’ll see just how popular those elements of the legislation are when people have to actually pay for them.
I suppose ignorant people can be convinced of anything.
What’s ignorant? There are tons of polls out there showing how much everyone just lurves the prohibition on denying insurance for pre-existing conditions. But none of those polls ask how much they are willing to pay for it. I love free shit, too. Don’t you?
To think that such an event would damage the President’s reelection chances is to ignore a vital part of the American psyche, Mace.
To wit:
Insurance companies are universally despised. Everyone has, or knows someone who has, been involved with some dispute with an insurance company and no one ever cuts them some slack. The American public would cheerfully throw every major insurance executive into a fire filled with fire-resistant fire ants and chuckle while do so.
Especially if rates are raised before any of the legislation kicks in. All the President would have to say is, “See? These guys are assholes.” and the blame would transfer in a heartbeat. At least among those who are in play. There are some who wouldn’t vote for Obama is Jesus himself gave him a fist bump on the steps of Carnegie Hall.