Aetna signficantly reducing Obamacare participation

[Fanatical Meat]

Funny, I've never experienced the mediocrity or high cost to me since I started working after getting out of the Navy. Right now I pay $45 a week for medical, dental, vision, and a supplemental insurance that covers my deductible and most of my copay. My max out of pocket is $2,500. It comes no where close to the premium of 8% of my salary like the Swiss pay for healthcare premiums.

I'm talking total taxes add 4.8k to the total state & federal taxes paid. I bet its pretty close to the Swedes' tax rate.
Admittedly they have the vat tax that complicates everything but I still say total taxes paid & healthcare expenses we are pretty close to anywhere in Europe

 

[Paratus]

People recognize the value of roads and other common goods exactly because they are common, which healthcare most certainly is not. A rich person doesn't get more miles of road built for his exclusive use than does a poor person and everyone shares the roads equally (special situations like bike lanes, HOV only lanes, etc. being niche exceptions). If you build a new road or resurface an existing one then I'll likely benefit from it as much as you will and so will the Bill Gates and the poorest person in the ghetto.

Now compare a theoretical 'universal' provision of healthcare. Now the paradigm shifts to the exact opposite of roads, where only the exceptions are the ones that provide public benefits but most everything else is a zero-sum game where it only benefits you personally. Beyond the low service/low cost services like primary care and vaccinations that could be public goods, basically every single procedure is bespoke to you and provides me with absolutely no benefit whatsoever. Completely unlike roads where I could drive on the road in front of your house, if you get a heart transplant I can't share the benefit and it's of no use to me at all (apart from maybe ensuring you don't die on my doorstep).

Just to point out the implicit fallacy in your post, the rich person gets an order of magnitude more use out roads than a poor person does.

Most rich people are involved in business. Business generally means producing a good or service.

While you're right both poor and rich personally benefit from traveling on roads to get from point A to B the rich person has a vested interested in:

• his workers getting from point A to point B
• his customers getting from point A to point B
• his goods or services getting from point A to point B
• increasing his profits which generally require increases in all 3 of the above.

Anyway you slice it the rich use more public services than the poor.

 

[glenn1]

Just to point out the implicit fallacy in your post, the rich person gets an order of magnitude more use out roads than a poor person does.

Most rich people are involved in business. Business generally means producing a good or service.

While you're right both poor and rich personally benefit from traveling on roads to get from point A to B the rich person has a vested interested in:

• his workers getting from point A to point B
• his customers getting from point A to point B
• his goods or services getting from point A to point B
• increasing his profits which generally require increases in all 3 of the above.

Anyway you slice it the rich use more public services than the poor.

So then by your logic we shouldn't build roads or have universal healthcare because it's all a scam to benefit the rich. Some of the mental contortions people put themselves into just to justify Santa Claus redistribution really are quite remarkable.

 

[Paratus]

So then by your logic we shouldn't build roads or have universal healthcare because it's all a scam to benefit the rich. Some of the mental contortions people put themselves into just to justify Santa Claus redistribution really are quite remarkable.

Where did I say it was a scam or a bad thing? I was pointing out an error in your argument.

Fundamentally business are allowed to exist to benefit the community they serve and in return they benefit their owners. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have laws limiting the liability of the creators of the business, for example.

Public infrastructure supports all levels of the community. It just supports the ones doing more, more than ones doing less. Not equally as you suggested.

 

[dank69]

So then by your logic we shouldn't build roads or have universal healthcare because it's all a scam to benefit the rich. Some of the mental contortions people put themselves into just to justify Santa Claus redistribution really are quite remarkable.

Jesus Christ you are a bag of shit. The idea that liberals oppose anything solely on the grounds that "it benefits the rich" is such a preposterous straw man. No wonder you think liberals are shit. You have a completely delusional idea of what liberals stand for. Maybe if you took a little bit of time to actually understand our positions you'd gradually evolve into a better human being.

 

[Sonikku]

Maybe the whole world should foot part of the bill of pharmaceuticals instead of the US covering the majority of it all on its own.

 

[glenn1]

Jesus Christ you are a bag of shit. The idea that liberals oppose anything solely on the grounds that "it benefits the rich" is such a preposterous straw man. No wonder you think liberals are shit. You have a completely delusional idea of what liberals stand for. Maybe if you took a little bit of time to actually understand our positions you'd gradually evolve into a better human being.

I'm not the one who made the argument that someone like me being forced to pay higher taxes to give some poor person "free" medical care creates a net benefit for me above costs. Or that I somehow derive more benefit from the road in front of my house than the neighbor a couple doors down whose income is lower. Both are stupid assertions that you arrived at to support your predetermined preferences. Holy crap your side could at least be honest and say "yeah, we want you to sacrifice some of your well-being so we can provide for Citizen X" and debate that policy on the merits. But don't piss on me and tell me it's raining with bullshit like redistributive social welfare policies are somehow better for those who pay the bulk of the costs than those who receive the bulk of benefits. YOU might feel better because you "helped" someone but it's demonstrably false from an economics POV.

 

[dank69]

I'm not the one who made the argument that someone like me being forced to pay higher taxes to give some poor person "free" medical care creates a net benefit for me above costs.

I don't think anyone made that argument, unless you are an employer in which case it does benefit you to have healthy employees. If you aren't an employer, you have got another straw man there. Your taxes would go toward your health care (and your family if you have one).

Or that I somehow derive more benefit from the road in front of my house than the neighbor a couple doors down whose income is lower.

Again, unless you are an employer, this is a straw man.

Both are stupid assertions that you arrived at to support your predetermined preferences. Holy crap your side could at least be honest and say "yeah, we want you to sacrifice some of your well-being so we can provide for Citizen X" and debate that policy on the merits. But don't piss on me and tell me it's raining with bullshit like redistributive social welfare policies are somehow better for those who pay the bulk of the costs than those who receive the bulk of benefits. YOU might feel better because you "helped" someone but it's demonstrably false from an economics POV.

So the rest of this crumbles down once you get past your incorrect interpretations of what our preferred policies are.

 

[UNCjigga]

I'm not the one who made the argument that someone like me being forced to pay higher taxes to give some poor person "free" medical care creates a net benefit for me above costs. Or that I somehow derive more benefit from the road in front of my house than the neighbor a couple doors down whose income is lower. Both are stupid assertions that you arrived at to support your predetermined preferences. Holy crap your side could at least be honest and say "yeah, we want you to sacrifice some of your well-being so we can provide for Citizen X" and debate that policy on the merits. But don't piss on me and tell me it's raining with bullshit like redistributive social welfare policies are somehow better for those who pay the bulk of the costs than those who receive the bulk of benefits. YOU might feel better because you "helped" someone but it's demonstrably false from an economics POV.

It seems that you're against having to pay higher taxes for public goods on principle. That's fine from a theoretical perspective. You seem to be ignoring the fact that anyone earning income is paying roughly the same taxes/costs proportionally to their income. But let's ignore that and go back to the discussion at hand around healthcare costs.

In reality, when Citizen X has health care coverage and greater access to preventive medicine, they are less likely to hit up the ER when they need medical attention. ERs cannot refuse treatment, regardless of a patient's ability to pay their bill. That in turn will drive up costs for any services that ER docs may perform--whether or not an ER doc is performing them or if they occur in an ER. Those costs are already borne by everyone else. In addition, if you ever need to visit an ER for a medical emergency (God forbid) you won't have to deal with uninsured folks driving up wait times, which is better for you in the long run. Hopefully we can find a way to get opioid addicts and mental health patients outta the ER too--would be a good use of tax dollars to address those issues and benefit everyone.

 

[Paratus]

It seems that you're against having to pay higher taxes for public goods on principle. That's fine from a theoretical perspective. You seem to be ignoring the fact that anyone earning income is paying roughly the same taxes/costs proportionally to their income. But let's ignore that and go back to the discussion at hand around healthcare costs.

In reality, when Citizen X has health care coverage and greater access to preventive medicine, they are less likely to hit up the ER when they need medical attention. ERs cannot refuse treatment, regardless of a patient's ability to pay their bill. That in turn will drive up costs for any services that ER docs may perform--whether or not an ER doc is performing them or if they occur in an ER. Those costs are already borne by everyone else. In addition, if you ever need to visit an ER for a medical emergency (God forbid) you won't have to deal with uninsured folks driving up wait times, which is better for you in the long run. Hopefully we can find a way to get opioid addicts and mental health patients outta the ER too--would be a good use of tax dollars to address those issues and benefit everyone.

Unfortunately I don't think Glenn will find this a persuasive argument. If people who can't afford medical care have to die in the streets that's preferable to supporting their care either through taxes or contributing to insurance.

At least that's the way he comes across in these types of threads.

 

[Phynaz]

Sorry, but this is wrong and idiotic. Health ins. certainly does pay for "accidents" via things like, you know, ER visit, follow up MD visits, etc.

Now, if there is another payer required to pay for the hospital visit, the health ins. co. will go after that other provider to attempt to get them to contribute/pay.

But to say health ins. won't cover immediate and follow up care for an accident, that's just ignorance of ins.

He said his Health insurance refused to pay his $23,000 MRI bill. That is a flat out lie.

1. They would pay it and then subrogate the claim to his vehicle insurance.
2. Obamacare requires emergency coverage regardless of netowrk status. It's one of the 10 essential health benefits.

 

[Phynaz]

Anybody that wants a single payer system is free to look up how well the VA cares for people. That's goverment run healthcare.

 

[glenn1]

Unfortunately I don't think Glenn will find this a persuasive argument. If people who can't afford medical care have to die in the streets that's preferable to supporting their care either through taxes or contributing to insurance.

At least that's the way he comes across in these types of threads.

You let them die now by refusing to give charity to help them unless it's forced via the tax code. But "collective action problem". Your side ought to just have that phrase tattooed on your arms.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Anybody that wants a single payer system is free to look up how well the VA cares for people. That's goverment run healthcare.

To my limited understanding its the wait times that drags the VA down. Overall patient satisfaction scores are higher.
I can say the VA cared for my fiancées Dad very well without any effort. I don't think one call or email was ever made.
You have an awesome avatar btw

 

[SMOGZINN]

To my limited understanding its the wait times that drags the VA down. Overall patient satisfaction scores are higher.
I can say the VA cared for my fiancées Dad very well without any effort. I don't think one call or email was ever made.
You have an awesome avatar btw

My father is a disabled vet (Vietnam). I've dealt with the VA since I was a teenager and overall I think they do a pretty good job.

 

[ivwshane]

Anybody that wants a single payer system is free to look up how well the VA cares for people. That's goverment run healthcare.

I know anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence but... My grandparents used the VA and loved it. Problems with the VA didn't really escalate until the Bush admin when their lack of foresight failed to anticipate the influx of incoming veterans from the wars in the middle east.

 

[Phynaz]

Problems with the VA didn't really escalate until the Bush admin when their lack of foresight failed to anticipate the influx of incoming veterans from the wars in the middle east.

Untrue. Poor government healthcare doesn't care what party is in charge at the time.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/23/politics/va-scandals-timeline/
http://www.denverpost.com/2014/07/17/va-problems-have-long-history-in-the-u-s/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/u...tled-department-of-veterans-affairs.html?_r=0

 

[openwheel]

Shouldn't the Republicans cut taxes and reduce (or abolish) the VA? Come on, be fiscally conservative for once.

 

[ivwshane]

Untrue. Poor government healthcare doesn't care what party is in charge at the time.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/23/politics/va-scandals-timeline/
http://www.denverpost.com/2014/07/17/va-problems-have-long-history-in-the-u-s/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/u...tled-department-of-veterans-affairs.html?_r=0

Try responding to what I actually said and not what you think I said.

Your link backs my claim btw.

 

[ivwshane]

Shouldn't the Republicans cut taxes and reduce (or abolish) the VA? Come on, be fiscally conservative for once.

As I'm sure you are aware, the Republicans would like to privatize the VA. What could possibly go wrong with a private health care system? /s

 

[Genx87]

I took it to mean price controls in an 'anti-gouging' way, i.e., no more $55 sponges or $500 pills. Is that not the what you think he meant?

How does one determine gouging? I think the govt could negotiate better pricing under a universal system. But the idea we can price control our way out of this is rather stupid. Those tuition loans for health professionals, capital expenses, debt, R&D, and people not paying their bills wont get paid by the providers with magic.

 

[Genx87]

As I'm sure you are aware, the Republicans would like to privatize the VA. What could possibly go wrong with a private health care system? /s

While I dont support privatizing the VA. What hasnt gone wrong with the VA under govt control?

 

[Paratus]

You let them die now by refusing to give charity to help them unless it's forced via the tax code. But "collective action problem". Your side ought to just have that phrase tattooed on your arms.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you in the military. What's the military but the solution to a "collective action problem"?

Are you now opposed to all collective action solutions including the military on general principle or is it just health care (and MMGW!) in particular?

 

[glenn1]

While I dont support privatizing the VA. What hasnt gone wrong with the VA under govt control?

You don't even need to pick the VA. Look at any public good now like roads, schools, or the justice system and police forces. All should theoretically provide equal value to all citizens yet instead the roads and infrastructure of the poor is neglected, their schools are shit and create more dysfunction than they solve, and the police and criminal justice system have basically been weaponized against the poor and minorities. And you want the same government that conducted the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, profit from HeLa cells taken without consent or compensation from the poor, conducted non-consensual medical tests for chemical and radioactive agents, and tons of other shit to now administer the healthcare for all of us? The same government that spies on our every phone call and kills its own citizens with drone strikes should be the caretakers for all our health needs? Hell no.

 

[glenn1]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you in the military. What's the military but the solution to a "collective action problem"?

Are you now opposed to all collective action solutions including the military on general principle or is it just health care (and MMGW!) in particular?

Again, national defense benefits all of us and relatively equally, medicine does not. How hard is that to understand? If the Chinese invade us we all suffer. OTOH you don't get the government to extort money from me at figurative gunpoint to pay for your heart surgery then you die but I'm also not made a lot poorer.

And why can't you just answer the question? If you big city progressives think it's such a great idea, why are there not public clinics filling your cities ensuring your poorer citizens have their medical needs met? Why wait for a law to be passed to force the mean, greedy ol' red state flyover yokels to participate before you do the right thing as you see it?