Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    Interesting situation.

    I oppose Obamacare for two basic reasons:

    1. It costs too much and we can't afford it given the current state of government finance which is already broken trying to live up to past promises of politicians

    2. It is an overreach of government power into the rights of citizens to make their own decisions regarding their health care.

    So, for fat people like this guy trying to stay in NZ, Obamacare says we have to take care of fat people that abuse themselves. To limit the cost burden of doing that, they will have to impose behavioral restrictions on all of us.

    There is no choice for fat people to be covered by Fat People Insurance company and pay the higher premiums they should because of their behavior. There is no option for people that take care of themselves to avoid being penalized for having to pay for those peolpe that don't take care of themselves. 

    Government involvement is health care is producing the same results as their involvement in funding college tuitions. The never-ending supply of government money just gives the system the excuse to avoid difficult decisions that other businesses make every day to stay viable.

    Yes it is a nightmare. Already businesses are converting fulltime employees to part time. That is a 25% pay cut for them thanks to this collectivist idiocy known as Obamacare. I have heard that there are some restaurants that are working together to keep workers at full time pay. They work 29 hours at one restaurant then they work 11 at the other. 

    Just wait until all the added costs get loaded onto our dysfunctional economy. It will not be pretty.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    New Zealand isn’t letting a South African chef renew his visa because he’s too fat. Albert Buitenhuis and his wife, Marthie, moved to Christchurch, New Zealand, six years ago and their annual work visas were always renewed with “very little problem,” Marthie Buitenhuis tells local newspaper the Press. But this year, immigration officials said Buitenhuis did not have “an acceptable standard of health” and said he could place a strain in the country’s health services.

     

    Hence why universal health care can work in countries like New Zealand. They don't fcuk around....you're fat, you're gone. They have an acceptable standard of health....whereas we don't. The US...land of the fat and lazy.

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    The government has other ways to modify behavior..so I don't think they are going to do it through increased premiums for those considered medically obese. Besides..I think I heard that obesity is now going to be classified as a disease so I doubt any aspect of Obamacare is going to punish people for having a "disease". It seems to do the opposite.

    Listen..I am all for government attempting to modify health behaviors to a certain extent. We have seen great success with this for the smoking rates. Smoking rates and their associated health conditions have decreased dramatically. I have no issue with modifying behavior through so called sin taxes..as long as the proceeds of those sin taxes are targeted towards the increased costs of that health care.

    A great part of Obamacare is the increase in preventative medicine. Preventing diseases and medical conditions is always going to be the least expensive option. Once you get into secondary and tertiary treatment..the costs go up substantially. Obamacare is not perfect..but it many cases it is a step in the right direction. There is a cost associated with it..but the cost of doing nothing would be greater for both our general health and our economic health.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    So, for fat people like this guy trying to stay in NZ, Obamacare says we have to take care of fat people that abuse themselves. To limit the cost burden of doing that, they will have to impose behavioral restrictions on all of us.

    There is no choice for fat people to be covered by Fat People Insurance company and pay the higher premiums they should because of their behavior.

     




     

    This (+ the rest of the post), and other points, are what some/many opponents aim at Obamacare: That these are in fact deliberate claws designed to push us towards universal health care. Then, the claim runs, government will deny people services based on intended social norm control (ie, bad eating, not exercising, smokers, etc).

    I was deliberately cryptic so perhaps I misled... 

     

    Not necessarily saying anyone is right or wrong, but it certainly is an anecdote on the opponents' side.



    Isn't this the conundrum of "universal health care" that in order to control costs, eventually  they are going to have to limit treatments according to an individuals behavior pattern and/or charge more for the coverage absed on same? Then, is it really "universal coverage"?  I guess, if everyone is covered. But if they start chargin more according to your behavior, then they are no different than what we had from private insurers before ObamaCare.

    It is going to be a problem that divides the American population. Why should a person who behaves correctly according to their health end up paying for someone that abuses themselves. It is not fair. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    Already businesses are converting fulltime employees to part time.


    Having spent HS/college summer jobs working for the man, I can certify that companies did this well before anyone other than his pot dealer heard Obama's name...   

     



    Yes, they probably did. Now they are doing it again because of Obamacare. Does that make it OK now? Just asking.

    No doubt if there were no ObamaCare, most business owners are seeking ways to cut their expenses anyway. Does that make them bad people? 

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    The government has other ways to modify behavior..so I don't think they are going to do it through increased premiums for those considered medically obese.

    Besides..I think I heard that obesity is now going to be classified as a disease so I doubt any aspect of Obamacare is going to punish people for having a "disease". It seems to do the opposite.

    How convenient. What a load of cr a p this is. To call being obese a disease is so enabling. If it was a disease then how can simply eating right and exercising help people lose weight to not be obese anymore? Ever watch the show Extreme Weight Loss. It takes morbidly obese people, 300+, 400+ pound people and through eating right and exercising lose hundreds of pounds. 

     

    Listen..I am all for government attempting to modify health behaviors to a certain extent. We have seen great success with this for the smoking rates. Smoking rates and their associated health conditions have decreased dramatically. I have no issue with modifying behavior through so called sin taxes..as long as the proceeds of those sin taxes are targeted towards the increased costs of that health care.

    I would say the humiliation of having to stand outside in the rain, freezing cold and sweltering heat to smoke has had a much greater affect on decrease in smoking. It was the main reason my parents quit. 

    A great part of Obamacare is the increase in preventative medicine. Preventing diseases and medical conditions is always going to be the least expensive option. Once you get into secondary and tertiary treatment..the costs go up substantially. Obamacare is not perfect..but it many cases it is a step in the right direction. There is a cost associated with it..but the cost of doing nothing would be greater for both our general health and our economic health.

    Let's hope people wake the F up and start actually listening to their doctors advice. It's the only way we're going to curb health care costs.

    "Between 2010 and 2020, new cases of Type 2 diabetes could increase tenfold; so could stroke, coronary heart disease, hypertension and arthritis. The number of cases could double again by 2030, the report said. 

    "(If) we stay on the current track, we're going to see unacceptably high rates of obesity, and more importantly, unacceptably high rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, obesity-related cancers, arthritis, that will really place a huge burden on our health care system," said Jeff Levi, executive director of Trust for American Health.

    Other data have also suggested diabetes increases. A 2010 analysis from UnitedHealth Group's Center for Health Reform and Modernization found that more than half of Americans will have diabetes or pre-diabetes by 2020. The researchers said these diseases will account for nearly $500 billion in total health care spending.

    Current estimates suggest that the yearly medical cost of adult obesity today is between $147 billion and $210 billion, the study said. The report found that by 2030, an extra $48 billion to $66 billion per year may be spent treating preventable diseases associated with obesity."

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron



     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    It never ceases to amaze me. With all that is fair game for criticism in Obamacare, so much of the criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance worked before Obamacare......




    Haha...I completely agree!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    The government has other ways to modify behavior..so I don't think they are going to do it through increased premiums for those considered medically obese.

    Besides..I think I heard that obesity is now going to be classified as a disease so I doubt any aspect of Obamacare is going to punish people for having a "disease". It seems to do the opposite.

    How convenient. What a load of cr a p this is. To call being obese a disease is so enabling. If it was a disease then how can simply eating right and exercising help people lose weight to not be obese anymore? Ever watch the show Extreme Weight Loss. It takes morbidly obese people, 300+, 400+ pound people and through eating right and exercising lose hundreds of pounds. 

     

    Listen..I am all for government attempting to modify health behaviors to a certain extent. We have seen great success with this for the smoking rates. Smoking rates and their associated health conditions have decreased dramatically. I have no issue with modifying behavior through so called sin taxes..as long as the proceeds of those sin taxes are targeted towards the increased costs of that health care.

    I would say the humiliation of having to stand outside in the rain, freezing cold and sweltering heat to smoke has had a much greater affect on decrease in smoking. It was the main reason my parents quit. 

    A great part of Obamacare is the increase in preventative medicine. Preventing diseases and medical conditions is always going to be the least expensive option. Once you get into secondary and tertiary treatment..the costs go up substantially. Obamacare is not perfect..but it many cases it is a step in the right direction. There is a cost associated with it..but the cost of doing nothing would be greater for both our general health and our economic health.

    Let's hope people wake the F up and start actually listening to their doctors advice. It's the only way we're going to curb health care costs.

    "Between 2010 and 2020, new cases of Type 2 diabetes could increase tenfold; so could stroke, coronary heart disease, hypertension and arthritis. The number of cases could double again by 2030, the report said. 

    "(If) we stay on the current track, we're going to see unacceptably high rates of obesity, and more importantly, unacceptably high rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, obesity-related cancers, arthritis, that will really place a huge burden on our health care system," said Jeff Levi, executive director of Trust for American Health.

    Other data have also suggested diabetes increases. A 2010 analysis from UnitedHealth Group's Center for Health Reform and Modernization found that more than half of Americans will have diabetes or pre-diabetes by 2020. The researchers said these diseases will account for nearly $500 billion in total health care spending.

    Current estimates suggest that the yearly medical cost of adult obesity today is between $147 billion and $210 billion, the study said. The report found that by 2030, an extra $48 billion to $66 billion per year may be spent treating preventable diseases associated with obesity."

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     



     

     

     




    Pinkie..I hear you. I actually think this classification is going to cost more than the AMA delegates think it is. For sure it's going to cost more than it saves in the long run. Without question..it seems that obesity has replaced smoking as a health risk. Like you stated...look at type2 diabetes. A total lifestyle disease and growing by the day. Part of the problem is that our society has created 2 generations of people who are physically inactive and eat fast food as a staple.

    Not much you can really do to make someone exercise or give up their daily Big Mac...you know with free will and all.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     

     

    The government has other ways to modify behavior..so I don't think they are going to do it through increased premiums for those considered medically obese.

    Besides..I think I heard that obesity is now going to be classified as a disease so I doubt any aspect of Obamacare is going to punish people for having a "disease". It seems to do the opposite.

    How convenient. What a load of cr a p this is. To call being obese a disease is so enabling. If it was a disease then how can simply eating right and exercising help people lose weight to not be obese anymore? Ever watch the show Extreme Weight Loss. It takes morbidly obese people, 300+, 400+ pound people and through eating right and exercising lose hundreds of pounds. 

     

    Listen..I am all for government attempting to modify health behaviors to a certain extent. We have seen great success with this for the smoking rates. Smoking rates and their associated health conditions have decreased dramatically. I have no issue with modifying behavior through so called sin taxes..as long as the proceeds of those sin taxes are targeted towards the increased costs of that health care.

    I would say the humiliation of having to stand outside in the rain, freezing cold and sweltering heat to smoke has had a much greater affect on decrease in smoking. It was the main reason my parents quit. 

    A great part of Obamacare is the increase in preventative medicine. Preventing diseases and medical conditions is always going to be the least expensive option. Once you get into secondary and tertiary treatment..the costs go up substantially. Obamacare is not perfect..but it many cases it is a step in the right direction. There is a cost associated with it..but the cost of doing nothing would be greater for both our general health and our economic health.

    Let's hope people wake the F up and start actually listening to their doctors advice. It's the only way we're going to curb health care costs.

    "Between 2010 and 2020, new cases of Type 2 diabetes could increase tenfold; so could stroke, coronary heart disease, hypertension and arthritis. The number of cases could double again by 2030, the report said. 

    "(If) we stay on the current track, we're going to see unacceptably high rates of obesity, and more importantly, unacceptably high rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, obesity-related cancers, arthritis, that will really place a huge burden on our health care system," said Jeff Levi, executive director of Trust for American Health.

    Other data have also suggested diabetes increases. A 2010 analysis from UnitedHealth Group's Center for Health Reform and Modernization found that more than half of Americans will have diabetes or pre-diabetes by 2020. The researchers said these diseases will account for nearly $500 billion in total health care spending.

    Current estimates suggest that the yearly medical cost of adult obesity today is between $147 billion and $210 billion, the study said. The report found that by 2030, an extra $48 billion to $66 billion per year may be spent treating preventable diseases associated with obesity."

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     

     



     

     

     

     

     




    Pinkie..I hear you. I actually think this classification is going to cost more than the AMA delegates think it is. For sure it's going to cost more than it saves in the long run. Without question..it seems that obesity has replaced smoking as a health risk. Like you stated...look at type2 diabetes. A total lifestyle disease and growing by the day. Part of the problem is that our society has created 2 generations of people who are physically inactive and eat fast food as a staple.

     

    Not much you can really do to make someone exercise or give up their daily Big Mac...you know with free will and all.



    I agree...everyone is free to do what they will. Whether that's living a healthy lifestyle or living an unhealthy lifestyle. I honestly don't know how enjoyable life could be getting out of breath from walking up a flight of stairs but I guess to each his own.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    It never ceases to amaze me. With all that is fair game for criticism in Obamacare, so much of the criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance worked before Obamacare......



    OK, so how is it better and cheaper now?

    We have fewer choices.

    The government basically sets the rules for what they can cover and how they are supposed to charge for their services.

    Just as with education, the more they get involved and throw money at it, the more expensive gets.

    So what is better about Obamacare?? 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    It never ceases to amaze me. With all that is fair game for criticism in Obamacare, so much of the criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance worked before Obamacare......

     



    OK, so how is it better and cheaper now?

     

    We have fewer choices.

    The government basically sets the rules for what they can cover and how they are supposed to charge for their services.

    Just as with education, the more they get involved and throw money at it, the more expensive gets.

    So what is better about Obamacare?? 



    Fewer choices? How so? My company still offered the same number of choices last open enrollment. 

    The govt sets some minimum's for coverage. Health insurers can offer above and beyond that. Similar to medicare advantage products. Medicare offers a set of benefits. Medicare  Advantage plans offered by private insurers offers benefits above and beyond what medicare offers.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    The government has other ways to modify behavior..so I don't think they are going to do it through increased premiums for those considered medically obese. Besides..I think I heard that obesity is now going to be classified as a disease so I doubt any aspect of Obamacare is going to punish people for having a "disease". It seems to do the opposite.

    Listen..I am all for government attempting to modify health behaviors to a certain extent. We have seen great success with this for the smoking rates. Smoking rates and their associated health conditions have decreased dramatically. I have no issue with modifying behavior through so called sin taxes..as long as the proceeds of those sin taxes are targeted towards the increased costs of that health care.

    A great part of Obamacare is the increase in preventative medicine. Preventing diseases and medical conditions is always going to be the least expensive option. Once you get into secondary and tertiary treatment..the costs go up substantially. Obamacare is not perfect..but it many cases it is a step in the right direction. There is a cost associated with it..but the cost of doing nothing would be greater for both our general health and our economic health.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron



    I do not neccessarily disagree with you but where do you draw the line? THere are studies that no doubt show that a certain amount of sleep has some sort of health benefit. Should the government dictate when you go to bed and when you can get up? Yes I am trying to make a point via absurdity, but at some point I would think even the most ardent supporters of Obamcare could have a problem with government dictating their behavior.

    Do you really think there is anything in Obamacare about preventative medicine? It is not really preventative. It is early detection. Preventative medicine for breast cancer might be a prescription calling for a whole food/plant diet. A mammogram is early detection.

    OK, I forgot about birth control. That is definitely preventative medicine.

    For the collective, early detection is MORE expensive than doing nothing. That is because most testing produces negative results by a huge margin. So I get a PSA test every year for 40 years and never get prostate cancer, but I die from bladder cancer or heart failure at an old age. How does the PSA test save any money? It saves ME from getting a cancer that goes untreated too long. I am all for that for sure, but maybe DHHS is not. To heck with them.

    Preventative medicine is good for the individual, bad for the collective. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

    It never ceases to amaze me. With all that is fair game for criticism in Obamacare, so much of the criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance worked before Obamacare......

     

     



    OK, so how is it better and cheaper now?

     

     

    We have fewer choices.

    The government basically sets the rules for what they can cover and how they are supposed to charge for their services.

    Just as with education, the more they get involved and throw money at it, the more expensive gets.

    So what is better about Obamacare?? 

     



    Fewer choices? How so? My company still offered the same number of choices last open enrollment. 

     

    The govt sets some minimum's for coverage. Health insurers can offer above and beyond that. Similar to medicare advantage products. Medicare offers a set of benefits. Medicare  Advantage plans offered by private insurers offers benefits above and beyond what medicare offers.

     



    OK, same choices but costs more. Super.

    Health insurance companies can provide more coverage but at some point the insured gets taxed for a "cadillac" health care plan. And they cannot provide less for people that might want less, can they? Of course not. 

    So you do not have a choice to go uninsured.

    You do not have a choice for less than what the government dictates.

    Your experience does not neccessarily equate to the whole either.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    OK, same choices but costs more. Super.

    Ah but the increased costs are due to richer benefits. Or do you think richer benefits should be free?

    Health insurance companies can provide more coverage but at some point the insured gets taxed for a "cadillac" health care plan. And they cannot provide less for people that might want less, can they? Of course not. 

    First off when it comes to employer based health insurance it's a group plan. Therefore they cannot provide less for people that might want less....and never have been able to do that. A group plan is set for an entire group. People can't pick and choose lesser benefits. Out of curiosity what lesser benefits would you want?

     

    So you do not have a choice to go uninsured.

    Sure you do. You definitely have that choice to go uninsured

    You do not have a choice for less than what the government dictates.

    Like what? What benefits is the govt dictating that you would choose NOT to have?

    Your experience does not neccessarily equate to the whole either.

    Sure it does, in that Obamacare isn't the reason a company may be offering less choices which was my point. 




     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    So, for fat people like this guy trying to stay in NZ, Obamacare says we have to take care of fat people that abuse themselves. To limit the cost burden of doing that, they will have to impose behavioral restrictions on all of us.

    There is no choice for fat people to be covered by Fat People Insurance company and pay the higher premiums they should because of their behavior.

     

     




     

     

    This (+ the rest of the post), and other points, are what some/many opponents aim at Obamacare: That these are in fact deliberate claws designed to push us towards universal health care. Then, the claim runs, government will deny people services based on intended social norm control (ie, bad eating, not exercising, smokers, etc).

    I was deliberately cryptic so perhaps I misled... 

     

    Not necessarily saying anyone is right or wrong, but it certainly is an anecdote on the opponents' side.

     



    Isn't this the conundrum of "universal health care" that in order to control costs, eventually  they are going to have to limit treatments according to an individuals behavior pattern and/or charge more for the coverage absed on same? Then, is it really "universal coverage"?  I guess, if everyone is covered. But if they start chargin more according to your behavior, then they are no different than what we had from private insurers before ObamaCare.

     

    It is going to be a problem that divides the American population. Why should a person who behaves correctly according to their health end up paying for someone that abuses themselves. It is not fair. 



    Universal healthcare is like making bricks.  Al lthe bricks need to be the same size, strength, color, and composition in order for it to be used.  If it fails to meet any of those criteria, then it iis thrown on the scrap heap.

    This is why we have panels determining what is to be covered, for every ailment from a hangnail to heart transplants.  what they say is the treatment, no more, no less.

    This is why we have people like Singer and TRahm Emanuaels brother, educating the government on the concepts of age adjusted outcome, and floating concepts like the only people we care about are between the ages of 14 and 45, you know, the productive years.  The rest get an asprin and measured for a coffin.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    It never ceases to amaze me. With all that is fair game for criticism in Obamacare, so much of the criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance worked before Obamacare......

     

     

     

     



    OK, so how is it better and cheaper now?

     

     

     

     

    We have fewer choices.

    The government basically sets the rules for what they can cover and how they are supposed to charge for their services.

    Just as with education, the more they get involved and throw money at it, the more expensive gets.

    So what is better about Obamacare?? 

     

     

     



    Fewer choices? How so? My company still offered the same number of choices last open enrollment. 

     

     

     

    The govt sets some minimum's for coverage. Health insurers can offer above and beyond that. Similar to medicare advantage products. Medicare offers a set of benefits. Medicare  Advantage plans offered by private insurers offers benefits above and beyond what medicare offers.

     

     

     



    OK, same choices but costs more. Super.

     

     

    Health insurance companies can provide more coverage but at some point the insured gets taxed for a "cadillac" health care plan. And they cannot provide less for people that might want less, can they? Of course not. 

    So you do not have a choice to go uninsured.

    You do not have a choice for less than what the government dictates.

    Your experience does not neccessarily equate to the whole either.

     



     "Choice" is not the right metric, or at least not understood in economic terms.  Scarcity is the right metric, or at least needs to be made part of the conversaiton.

     

    Choice as used here, is the choice between thre government mandated plans:  you must choose one: between a bronze, silver, and gold plan.  This is a restriction of choice, a government induced scarcity in choice, made for the purpose, at least by plan, of lowering costs.

    Real choice includes the choice to choose nothing.  Real choice includes the ability to pick and choose what I want to cover.

    So, when your company offers you plans, they are not in reality the "same" plans.  Government has put restrictions and demands on the plans about what must be covered, what tests will be administered, and have lumped everyone into three categories, that's 350 million people lumped into three categories.  Think about that.  What youu have is a government induced scarcity of choice.  That's going to raise prices dramatically.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    It never ceases to amaze me. With all that is fair game for criticism in Obamacare, so much of the criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance worked before Obamacare......

     

     

     

     



    OK, so how is it better and cheaper now?

     

     

     

     

    We have fewer choices.

    The government basically sets the rules for what they can cover and how they are supposed to charge for their services.

    Just as with education, the more they get involved and throw money at it, the more expensive gets.

    So what is better about Obamacare?? 

     

     

     



    Fewer choices? How so? My company still offered the same number of choices last open enrollment. 

     

     

     

    The govt sets some minimum's for coverage. Health insurers can offer above and beyond that. Similar to medicare advantage products. Medicare offers a set of benefits. Medicare  Advantage plans offered by private insurers offers benefits above and beyond what medicare offers.

     

     

     



    OK, same choices but costs more. Super.

     

     

    Health insurance companies can provide more coverage but at some point the insured gets taxed for a "cadillac" health care plan. And they cannot provide less for people that might want less, can they? Of course not. 

    So you do not have a choice to go uninsured.

    You do not have a choice for less than what the government dictates.

    Your experience does not neccessarily equate to the whole either.

     



     "Choice" is not the right metric, or at least not understood in economic terms.  Scarcity is the right metric, or at least needs to be made part of the conversaiton.

     

    Choice as used here, is the choice between thre government mandated plans:  you must choose one: between a bronze, silver, and gold plan.  This is not a restriction of choice, a government induced scarcity in choice, made for the purpose, at least by plan, of lowering costs.

    Real choice includes the choice to choose nothing.

    Why would you not want health insurance? You do realize that the cost of those who don't have health insurance gets paid for one way or the other...usually by higher insurance premuims  

    Real choice includes the ability to pick and choose what I want to cover.

    Which no one has ever been able to do on an employer based plan. Never.

    So, when your company offers you plans, they are not in reality the "same" plans.  Government has put restrictions and demands on the plans about what must be covered, what tests will be administered, and have lumped everyone into three catagories, that's 350 million people lumped into three categories.  What youu have is a government induced scarcity of choice.  That's going to raise prices dramatically.

    What are you talking about? My company offers different plans from different insurers. I have the option for two different BCBS plans. One from HPHC, one from NHP and there is one other I can't recall. None of which are the same plans. They all vary a bit with copays and deductibles

     




     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    It never ceases to amaze me. With all that is fair game for criticism in Obamacare, so much of the criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how insurance worked before Obamacare......

     

     

     

     

     



    OK, so how is it better and cheaper now?

     

     

     

     

     

    We have fewer choices.

    The government basically sets the rules for what they can cover and how they are supposed to charge for their services.

    Just as with education, the more they get involved and throw money at it, the more expensive gets.

    So what is better about Obamacare?? 

     

     

     

     



    Fewer choices? How so? My company still offered the same number of choices last open enrollment. 

     

     

     

     

    The govt sets some minimum's for coverage. Health insurers can offer above and beyond that. Similar to medicare advantage products. Medicare offers a set of benefits. Medicare  Advantage plans offered by private insurers offers benefits above and beyond what medicare offers.

     

     

     

     



    OK, same choices but costs more. Super.

     

     

     

    Health insurance companies can provide more coverage but at some point the insured gets taxed for a "cadillac" health care plan. And they cannot provide less for people that might want less, can they? Of course not. 

    So you do not have a choice to go uninsured.

    You do not have a choice for less than what the government dictates.

    Your experience does not neccessarily equate to the whole either.

     

     



     "Choice" is not the right metric, or at least not understood in economic terms.  Scarcity is the right metric, or at least needs to be made part of the conversaiton.

     

     

    Choice as used here, is the choice between thre government mandated plans:  you must choose one: between a bronze, silver, and gold plan.  This is not a restriction of choice, a government induced scarcity in choice, made for the purpose, at least by plan, of lowering costs.

    Real choice includes the choice to choose nothing.

    Why would you not want health insurance? You do realize that the cost of those who don't have health insurance gets paid for one way or the other...usually by higher insurance premuims  

    Why would you not want a gun?  We have the 2nd Ammendment.  Maybe we should make gun ownership mandatory.  After all, I don't want to pay for oyur health care as a result of not defending yourself.

    Self-insure is not only a possiblilty, but many self-employed people do just that.  Self-insuered means pay out of pocket, just in case your union bosses didn't clue you in.

    Real choice includes the ability to pick and choose what I want to cover.

    Which no one has ever been able to do on an employer based plan. Never.

    You have always been able to decline insurance, and pay out of pocket.  Always, until now.

    So, when your company offers you plans, they are not in reality the "same" plans.  Government has put restrictions and demands on the plans about what must be covered, what tests will be administered, and have lumped everyone into three catagories, that's 350 million people lumped into three categories.  What youu have is a government induced scarcity of choice.  That's going to raise prices dramatically.

    What are you talking about? My company offers different plans from different insurers. I have the option for two different BCBS plans. One from HPHC, one from NHP and there is one other I can't recall. None of which are the same plans. They all vary a bit with copays and deductibles

     From the ACA:

    (1) IN GENERAL.—A health plan not providing a bronze, silver, gold, or platinum level of coverage shall be treated as 

    meeting the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to any 

    plan year if—

    (A) the only individuals who are eligible to enroll in 

    the plan are individuals described in paragraph (2); and 

    (B) the plan provides—

    (i) except as provided in clause (ii), the essential 

    health benefits determined under subsection (b), except that the plan provides no benefits for any plan 

    year until the individual has incurred cost-sharing expenses in an amount equal to the annual limitation in 

    effect under subsection (c)(1) for the plan year (except 

    as provided for in section 2713); and 

    (ii) coverage for at least three primary care visits. 

    (2) INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR ENROLLMENT.—An individual is described in this paragraph for any plan year if the 

    individual—

    (A) has not attained the age of 30 before the beginning 

    of the plan year; or 

    (B) has a certification in effect for any plan year under 

    this title that the individual is exempt from the requirement under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 

    1986 by reason of—

    (i) section 5000A(e)(1) of such Code (relating to individuals without affordable coverage); or 

    (ii) section 5000A(e)(5) of such Code (relating to 

    individuals with hardships).

     

    The variations you are seeing in the plans offered are in reference to the Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platnum plans.  That these plans are offered by different insurance comapnies is meaningless.  What they offer, how much they charge, all controlled by the ACA.  There is more that goes into defining this, I just grabbed one segment from the hundreds of pages.

    The broader point is that the type of coverage, what coverage contains, how much the insurance company can charge, is all covered under the bill.

    Here's a link:

    http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf




     




     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    a bronze, silver, and gold plan

    If you buy on exchanges.

     

     

    All your flailing is only credible if one already assumes that employer coverage will cease to exist entirely.

     



    Well, yes, employer coverage will cease to exist.  That's the reason we are going through this mess.  From McKinsey:

     

    • Overall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014.

    • Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent, and upward of 60 percent will pursue some alternative to traditional ESI.

    • At least 30 percent of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.

    • Contrary to what many employers assume, more than 85 percent of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employer stopped offering ESI, although about 60 percent would expect increased compensation.

       

      And, that's just the start of it.

      Face it, the majority people who currently get their insurance via their company will not be within a few of years.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share