Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: Anyway, if these services were paid for instead of being provided for free, then the doctors would have more income to report and would be paying more taxes. Having that income to tax could potentially offset some of everyone else's tax bills. Given what doctors tend to make and the number of free visits nationwide... that might actually be a significant sum of money.

Yes. and as I said, because they aren't able to report income, others are having to pay higher tax percentages to make up the differences.

PLUS they are able to report non-payments as losses of income or the typical cost of the services as a charitable gift, reducing the amount of income they did receive that they have to pay on; and finally, the government does give out money to some charitable hospitals, etc. (Planned Parenthood is NOT the only medical institution that receives government funding) which means tax dollars are paying for it already.

But remember, not every community has such compassionate docs, either, to agree to treat a patient for free.

A big driver for the rise in cost of insurance isn't for the "poor," it's for covering those with "pre-existing conditions." Yet, most who detest "Obamacare" agree to the part of "Cover pre-existing conditions" - the very part of the plan that's driving insurance costs up.

Cost rises for "everyone" just in case someone later-on develops one of those pre-existing conditions and the insurance company is forced to keep insuring you rather than cancel your coverage; and because so many with pre-existing conditions who could not get any insurance coverage, now can.

But in the long run, covering everyone before a disease progresses to cataclysmic proportions can save the nation money by reducing emergency room care and reducing the need for surgeries before they happen.

Its never been about covering the poor.. they get Medicaid. That is the irony. The people getting pinched are working people, and that means working people of all incomes. In PA, kids with disabilities get full coverage by Medicaid, as long as the parents income is under 250K. If you make over 250K, then your kids don't get covered even if they have disabilities... and in some cases that can mean over a hundred thousand a year in care.

All the arguments about "could have gotten cheaper coverage", etc, etc miss the biggest point of all. Its INSURANCE. Insurance is not about being cost effective for everyone, all the time. Insurers would not be in business if there were no profit involved. Insurance is about making sure that everyone has coverage, in case they are the unlucky ones who wind up with huge bills. The real problem today is that more and more people are winding up with those high bills, and not because of abuses (though, yes, abuses do happen, its just that is not the major reason for medical cost increases), but because the care available and needed is increasing so significantly.

Just take cancer, or organ transplants.. never mind bone and joint replacement surgeries, never mind long term therapy for truly sick children. ALL of that is very, very expensive.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Show examples. Part of the point is that just because you buy something called "insurance" doesn't mean it actually provides real protection. Young, very healthy individuals (very few families, if any) could have bought insurance for cheaper.... but once they got sick, their costs woud skyrocket or they would wind up with no insurance at all because insurers were free to set lifetime limits and dump sick clients.

In other words, they might be able to get something cheaper for a time, but not in the long run. This has never been about the immediate. It has always been about long term costs and for everyone, not just a few people.

CBO and JCT’s projections of health insurance coverage have also changed since last March. Fewer people are now expected to obtain health insurance coverage from their employer or in insurance exchanges; more are now expected to obtain coverage from Medicaid or CHIP or from nongroup or other sources. More are expected to be uninsured. The extent of the changes varies from year to year, but in 2016, for example, the ACA is now estimated to reduce the number of people receiving health insurance coverage through an employer by an additional 4 million enrollees relative to the March 2011 projections. In that year, CBO and JCT now estimate that there will be 2 million fewer enrollees in insurance exchanges. In the other direction, CBO and JCT now estimate that, in 2016, the ACA will increase enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP slightly more than previously estimated (but considerably more in 2014 and 2015), and it will reduce the number of people with nongroup or other coverage by 3 million less and the number of uninsured people by 2 million less than previously estimated.

Compared with prior law, the ACA is now estimated by CBO and JCT to reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years, leaving 26 million to 27 million nonelderly residents uninsured in those years (see Table 3, at the end of this report). The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance is projected to rise from 82 percent in 2012 to 93 percent by 2022. According to the current estimates, from 2016 on, between 20 million and 23 million people will receive coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and 16 million to 17 million people will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. Also, 3 million to 5 million fewer people will have coverage through an employer compared with the number under prior law.5

BigBallinStalin wrote:What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

I wonder how much the heads of the collective agencies that run the ACA provisions will make. I wonder if Player and stahrgazer will be similarly outraged by their salaries.

BigBallinStalin wrote:What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

I don't think you will find anyone who thinks that the ACA is perfect. Even those who support it can find particulars that don't make a ton of sense.

However, you have to look at it as a whole. When you do, THAT is when we think it is a good idea...

It's the whole "I disagree with 1% of it, so I disagree with it entirely". Weigh the benefits. If it is going to cost 1.1 Trillion over 10 years ok... but how much could it save?

The answer is of course that we can't quantify it now, there aren't any crystal balls. However, it does do many things that will end up saving a substantial sum of money in the long term. Hopefully it saves more than 1.1 Trillion and improves health outcomes enough that it is worth it.

It is working in Massachusetts, that's a good, sign... right?

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

I don't think you will find anyone who thinks that the ACA is perfect. Even those who support it can find particulars that don't make a ton of sense.

However, you have to look at it as a whole. When you do, THAT is when we think it is a good idea...

It's the whole "I disagree with 1% of it, so I disagree with it entirely". Weigh the benefits. If it is going to cost 1.1 Trillion over 10 years ok... but how much could it save?

The answer is of course that we can't quantify it now, there aren't any crystal balls. However, it does do many things that will end up saving a substantial sum of money in the long term. Hopefully it saves more than 1.1 Trillion and improves health outcomes enough that it is worth it.

It is working in Massachusetts, that's a good, sign... right?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

I don't think you will find anyone who thinks that the ACA is perfect. Even those who support it can find particulars that don't make a ton of sense.

However, you have to look at it as a whole. When you do, THAT is when we think it is a good idea...

It's the whole "I disagree with 1% of it, so I disagree with it entirely". Weigh the benefits. If it is going to cost 1.1 Trillion over 10 years ok... but how much could it save?

The answer is of course that we can't quantify it now, there aren't any crystal balls. However, it does do many things that will end up saving a substantial sum of money in the long term. Hopefully it saves more than 1.1 Trillion and improves health outcomes enough that it is worth it.

It is working in Massachusetts, that's a good, sign... right?

(a)-(d) > 1%.

$1.1T over 10 years? Expenditures are imagined to be cost-savings? Taxes will dig into your income, no matter how this is twisted... What about the future costs of paying interest on debt? It's not like any of this significantly contributes to lowering deficit spending. Future generations of Americans--especially the young--will be pay much more later than today. Does that "picture taken as a whole" seem enjoyable?

Does the National Healthcare plan = MA's plan? Will there be the same benefits and costs? Doubt it.

Since the government is doing this, then you don't seem to concerned about the outcomes. Any corporation which forces people to pay for its services would be a different story. I'm just pointing out the double standard many seem to apply in such cases. As long as roughly 50% of eligible voters can express their uninformed opinions on "political markets," then they seem to feel good enough about it.

jj3044 wrote:You mean like "corporations" forcing you to buy car insurance if you own a car? If you own a car, you must have car insurance. The true double standard here is that you have to buy car insurance if you want to own a car, but you don't have to buy health insurance in order to utilize it. Everyone WILL utilize the system at some point in their life at the very least in birth or death. And if you never have insurance and never receive preventive care, there will most likely be SIGNIFICANT expenditures in between those two. You get cancer, can't afford treatment, get it anyway, and the TAXPAYERS are forced to carry the burden.

Night Strike wrote:

jj3044 wrote:You mean like "corporations" forcing you to buy car insurance if you own a car? If you own a car, you must have car insurance. The true double standard here is that you have to buy car insurance if you want to own a car, but you don't have to buy health insurance in order to utilize it. Everyone WILL utilize the system at some point in their life at the very least in birth or death. And if you never have insurance and never receive preventive care, there will most likely be SIGNIFICANT expenditures in between those two. You get cancer, can't afford treatment, get it anyway, and the TAXPAYERS are forced to carry the burden.

There's always the option of not getting the treatment (which will happen anyway once the government resorts to rationing).

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jj3044 wrote:You mean like "corporations" forcing you to buy car insurance if you own a car? If you own a car, you must have car insurance. The true double standard here is that you have to buy car insurance if you want to own a car, but you don't have to buy health insurance in order to utilize it. Everyone WILL utilize the system at some point in their life at the very least in birth or death. And if you never have insurance and never receive preventive care, there will most likely be SIGNIFICANT expenditures in between those two. You get cancer, can't afford treatment, get it anyway, and the TAXPAYERS are forced to carry the burden.

There's always the option of not getting the treatment (which will happen anyway once the government resorts to rationing).

Ah, rationing. Conservatives love to talk about spending tax dollars efficiently -- but not when it comes to health care costs!

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

I don't think you will find anyone who thinks that the ACA is perfect. Even those who support it can find particulars that don't make a ton of sense.

However, you have to look at it as a whole. When you do, THAT is when we think it is a good idea...

It's the whole "I disagree with 1% of it, so I disagree with it entirely". Weigh the benefits. If it is going to cost 1.1 Trillion over 10 years ok... but how much could it save?

The answer is of course that we can't quantify it now, there aren't any crystal balls. However, it does do many things that will end up saving a substantial sum of money in the long term. Hopefully it saves more than 1.1 Trillion and improves health outcomes enough that it is worth it.

It is working in Massachusetts, that's a good, sign... right?

(a)-(d) > 1%.

$1.1T over 10 years? Expenditures are imagined to be cost-savings? Taxes will dig into your income, no matter how this is twisted... What about the future costs of paying interest on debt? It's not like any of this significantly contributes to lowering deficit spending. Future generations of Americans--especially the young--will be pay much more later than today. Does that "picture taken as a whole" seem enjoyable?

Does the National Healthcare plan = MA's plan? Will there be the same benefits and costs? Doubt it.

Since the government is doing this, then you don't seem to concerned about the outcomes. Any corporation which forces people to pay for its services would be a different story. I'm just pointing out the double standard many seem to apply in such cases. As long as roughly 50% of eligible voters can express their uninformed opinions on "political markets," then they seem to feel good enough about it.

You mean like "corporations" forcing you to buy car insurance if you own a car? If you own a car, you must have car insurance. The true double standard here is that you have to buy car insurance if you want to own a car, but you don't have to buy health insurance in order to utilize it. Everyone WILL utilize the system at some point in their life at the very least in birth or death. And if you never have insurance and never receive preventive care, there will most likely be SIGNIFICANT expenditures in between those two. You get cancer, can't afford treatment, get it anyway, and the TAXPAYERS are forced to carry the burden.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

I don't think you will find anyone who thinks that the ACA is perfect. Even those who support it can find particulars that don't make a ton of sense.

However, you have to look at it as a whole. When you do, THAT is when we think it is a good idea...

It's the whole "I disagree with 1% of it, so I disagree with it entirely". Weigh the benefits. If it is going to cost 1.1 Trillion over 10 years ok... but how much could it save?

The answer is of course that we can't quantify it now, there aren't any crystal balls. However, it does do many things that will end up saving a substantial sum of money in the long term. Hopefully it saves more than 1.1 Trillion and improves health outcomes enough that it is worth it.

It is working in Massachusetts, that's a good, sign... right?

(a)-(d) > 1%.

$1.1T over 10 years? Expenditures are imagined to be cost-savings? Taxes will dig into your income, no matter how this is twisted... What about the future costs of paying interest on debt? It's not like any of this significantly contributes to lowering deficit spending. Future generations of Americans--especially the young--will be pay much more later than today. Does that "picture taken as a whole" seem enjoyable?

Does the National Healthcare plan = MA's plan? Will there be the same benefits and costs? Doubt it.

Since the government is doing this, then you don't seem to concerned about the outcomes. Any corporation which forces people to pay for its services would be a different story. I'm just pointing out the double standard many seem to apply in such cases. As long as roughly 50% of eligible voters can express their uninformed opinions on "political markets," then they seem to feel good enough about it.

You mean like "corporations" forcing you to buy car insurance if you own a car? If you own a car, you must have car insurance. The true double standard here is that you have to buy car insurance if you want to own a car, but you don't have to buy health insurance in order to utilize it. Everyone WILL utilize the system at some point in their life at the very least in birth or death. And if you never have insurance and never receive preventive care, there will most likely be SIGNIFICANT expenditures in between those two. You get cancer, can't afford treatment, get it anyway, and the TAXPAYERS are forced to carry the burden.

You do realize that you are required by law to have car insurance, right? Do corporations create the laws or do politicians?

Night Strike wrote:Actually, the only health care the government should be buying is for veterans. All other health care funding should be private money, not taxpayer dollars.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jj3044 wrote:You mean like "corporations" forcing you to buy car insurance if you own a car? If you own a car, you must have car insurance. The true double standard here is that you have to buy car insurance if you want to own a car, but you don't have to buy health insurance in order to utilize it. Everyone WILL utilize the system at some point in their life at the very least in birth or death. And if you never have insurance and never receive preventive care, there will most likely be SIGNIFICANT expenditures in between those two. You get cancer, can't afford treatment, get it anyway, and the TAXPAYERS are forced to carry the burden.

There's always the option of not getting the treatment (which will happen anyway once the government resorts to rationing).

Ah, rationing. Conservatives love to talk about spending tax dollars efficiently -- but not when it comes to health care costs!

Actually, the only health care the government should be buying is for veterans. All other health care funding should be private money, not taxpayer dollars.

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jj3044 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:What a weird business model. The government's ACA seems to (a) compel people who don't need insurance into getting insurance, (b) while shifting the costs of others' risks and costs onto those who should be rewarded for having less health risks and costs--thus creating perverse incentives, (c) leave some remainder uninsured yet they must pay the lolfee, and (d) offer select businesses an exemption.

If any corporation did this, people would be outraged. If the government does this, then many don't seem to worry about the outcomes. Maybe voting is only one of those "feel good" moments. I don't see why so many find ACA to be a good idea.

I don't think you will find anyone who thinks that the ACA is perfect. Even those who support it can find particulars that don't make a ton of sense.

However, you have to look at it as a whole. When you do, THAT is when we think it is a good idea...

It's the whole "I disagree with 1% of it, so I disagree with it entirely". Weigh the benefits. If it is going to cost 1.1 Trillion over 10 years ok... but how much could it save?

The answer is of course that we can't quantify it now, there aren't any crystal balls. However, it does do many things that will end up saving a substantial sum of money in the long term. Hopefully it saves more than 1.1 Trillion and improves health outcomes enough that it is worth it.

It is working in Massachusetts, that's a good, sign... right?

(a)-(d) > 1%.

$1.1T over 10 years? Expenditures are imagined to be cost-savings? Taxes will dig into your income, no matter how this is twisted... What about the future costs of paying interest on debt? It's not like any of this significantly contributes to lowering deficit spending. Future generations of Americans--especially the young--will be pay much more later than today. Does that "picture taken as a whole" seem enjoyable?

Does the National Healthcare plan = MA's plan? Will there be the same benefits and costs? Doubt it.

Since the government is doing this, then you don't seem to concerned about the outcomes. Any corporation which forces people to pay for its services would be a different story. I'm just pointing out the double standard many seem to apply in such cases. As long as roughly 50% of eligible voters can express their uninformed opinions on "political markets," then they seem to feel good enough about it.

You mean like "corporations" forcing you to buy car insurance if you own a car? If you own a car, you must have car insurance. The true double standard here is that you have to buy car insurance if you want to own a car, but you don't have to buy health insurance in order to utilize it. Everyone WILL utilize the system at some point in their life at the very least in birth or death. And if you never have insurance and never receive preventive care, there will most likely be SIGNIFICANT expenditures in between those two. You get cancer, can't afford treatment, get it anyway, and the TAXPAYERS are forced to carry the burden.

You do realize that you are required by law to have car insurance, right? Do corporations create the laws or do politicians?

Right. Now you are required by law to have health insurance. I fail to see the point you are trying to make here.

BigBallinStalin wrote: No, they don't; they don't make the laws

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: No, they don't; they don't make the laws

Hi. You may remember me from all of your posts. How's it going? I'm just, um, a little worried that you've forgotten about me given this statement. I hope you haven't forgotten about me. I love you BBS.

Love,

Rent-Seeking

PS Corporate Cronyism says hi too!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: No, they don't; they don't make the laws

Hi. You may remember me from all of your posts. How's it going? I'm just, um, a little worried that you've forgotten about me given this statement. I hope you haven't forgotten about me. I love you BBS.

Love,

Rent-Seeking

PS Corporate Cronyism says hi too!

I'm glad you mentioned it, but select corporations which can effectively use the government still ultimately rely on the government to maintain that arrangement. Thus, the problem lies with government---but here's the kicker: most people don't like reaching that conclusion. They'll rail against corporations while bending over for politicians in expectation of getting a wet gift.

BigBallinStalin wrote:1. People react differently toward the involuntary exchanges of government compared to voluntary exchanges with corporations.
2. There's a double standard here.
3. JJ: Yeah, but corporations force you to buy car insurance.
4. No, they don't; they don't make the laws, they don't have security give you tickets and/or bring you to jail, etc.
5. JJ: I don't get it.
6. BBS summarizes and hopes JJ gets it.

jj3044 wrote:My main point here is that if you choose to drive a car you are forced by the government to buy insurance. So, if we will all use the healthcare system in our lives, shouldn't we be forced to pay for it? You have not yet responded to this question.