Um. Say what?

bravenrace wrote: In reply to mtn: I understand. But universal healthcare would just make things all the worse, IMO. I guess I look at both the as the same (I know the difference) because I personally believe that universal healthcare is where we are headed. I'm admittedly biased. I'd rather have high healthcare costs and be alive than the alternative.

I don't disagree with you. I think it could work, even on a scale as large as the US. But I don't trust the [current] US government to make it work. And when you combine them with the so-called evil insurance companies, you really have an issue.

FWIW, ACA has taken away over half of my FFIL's business, my mom is a nurse, my dad works for a pharmacutical company, and my fiance works in a hospital. So I do have a biased opinion as well.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

oldsaw wrote: And now with the ACA we have economic fascism where corrupt businesses (insurance companies) have become willing agents of government.

Because one group refuses to let the Government provide a service that costs most first world Nations 7-11% of GDP to do a damn good job, but we spend nearly 18% of GPD in this country to do a E36 M3ty job. You want to get rid of the ACA, then let the Government run it, redirect the massive savings to other higher priorities and be done with it then. But of course saving money while providing a better service isn’t the rights goal. Reducing government is, because we all know the private sector always does a better job for less even when evidence to the contrary is starting us in the face!!!!

Political-class proponents of universal healthcare should have the stones to stand by it and nothing else. Make the case and be honest about costs, limitations and the sacrifices necessary to make it work.

It should be able to pass on its' own merit regardless of what the opposition claims, even if it means a two-tier system. Essentially we have that now and the ACA does nothing to change that fact.

dculberson wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: Analogy time…it’s not that there’s less food, it’s just that people have stopped eating. …game over.

Analogy is a poor replacement for proper discussion. I give you numbers on jobs and you respond with something about food, that's helpful. If someone chooses not to work then they did not need the money from the job. Someone that needs that money will step up and take the job, perhaps one of the chronically underemployed. So a person without the need for the job frees it up for someone with the need. Seems like a win/win. "game over" indeed.

Hi dculberson,

Honestly, I’m sorry if you didn’t find my analogy helpful. I’m not interested in making a straw man argument nor am I trying to insult anyone’s intelligence, I truly thought it’d be beneficial.

In term of freeing up jobs, I understand the CBO’s estimate of 2.5 million to be a net loss. In other words, perhaps 4.0 million will hang it up and 1.5 million will fill those vacancies resulting in a net loss of 2.5 million jobs. The definition of FTE is unambiguous…two people working 20 hours per week and one person working forty hours per week both equal one FTE. The current best estimate is that the ACA will remove 100 million labor hours per week (2,500,000 X 40) that’s a E36 M3 load less tax revenue coming in.

Additionally, in terms people no longer “needing” a job, the reason is because someone else will now be contributing to their healthcare expenses for them. From their prospective, the expense is reduced but from a holistic system wide prospective, obviously every penny of it is still there.

The viable, sustainable way to implement healthcare reform would be to attack the sources of inefficiency and then “spend” the surplus on compassion. The process wouldn’t have been fun or glamorous, but the job would have been done correctly.

We didn’t do that.

In reply to mtn:

My wife is a pediatric nurse at a non-profit hospital. She's been there for 28 years. She's seen it all, and for those who think that a key part of the ACA is to insure those who don't have insurance, I need to tell you that people who need healthcare get it, whether they pay for it or not. An enormous amount of the patients at my wife's hospital pay nothing for the care they get. I'll add that my wife lost her job when Obamacare passed because the hospital took pro-active measures to insure that they could stay in business. This meant lowering cost in anticipation of less money coming in. After 4 months she was called back because so many nurses and doctors quit. Doesn't sound like a good system to me.
I'm with anyone that believes everyone should have access to healthcare. I'm with anyone that believes that a healthcare system could potentially be operated efficiently, but I'm with you in the belief that our current government is not the government to do that. I'll add that I'm not limiting that statement to Democrats or Obama. I don't have faith in anyone currently in our government to do that. That's why the government isn't the answer.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

RX Reven' wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: Analogy time…it’s not that there’s less food, it’s just that people have stopped eating.

Oh come on, that’s B.S. and you know it. You have to eat to live. Once you’ve saved up enough you don’t need to work to live. Also by your analogy everyone currently not working is dead too. Piss poor argument.

Hi Adrian, In my analogy, hibernation would represent retirement…get it, storing up calories = storing up money.

BEar a and bear b both have 1,000,000 calories saved up to hibernate in October, meaning they saved the same amount and retired at 60. Bear A is fine and burns through his calories slowly but safely. Bear B is actual more conservative than Bear A and is burning thorough his calories more slowly, but then he gets hit by an uninsured motorist just before he's eligable for medicare, sorry I mean he got hit by a polar vortex in January, and got wiped out even though he did everything right.

Hi Adrian,

Oh, I’m totally calling B.S. on that one…how would you get hit by a car while snuggled up in a cave

I’m sure you didn’t intend to but you’re making an unfounded assumption about my views. I’m 100% on board with changing the system so that what you just described wouldn’t happen.

What’s the fix:

Decouple health insurance from employment. Premiums will go up due to adverse selection meaning that on average, workers are healthier than non workers and on average, people that get insurance as a byproduct of employment are healthier than people that specifically purchase it as many of the later buy it because they know they’re going to have big healthcare expenses.

Stop charging 10X too much when you can get paid to cover all the times that you can’t. In my world as a process engineer, we call this a hidden factory meaning something that imposes a burden on a system but is not measured (at least not publically). This would be quick and easy to do but it would result in throwing light on a subject that many want to keep hidden.

If we just did these two things, no one would be trying to toss you off of insurance and you’d be charged a fair price.

bravenrace wrote: I'll add that I'm not limiting that statement to Democrats or Obama. I don't have faith in anyone currently in our government to do that. That's why the government isn't the answer.

Truer words have never been written.