Q: Democrats are pretty excited about the Supreme Court ruling upholding ACA. Why so?
A: It’s mostly because Obama is president, and he’s a Democrat. It’s victory for their party. They get to chicken dance a little.
Q: That’s it? Party politics?
A: That’s not all of it, of course. But that is most of it. After all, the bill that they got is not at all like what they talked about when Obama was running in 2008.
Q: Isn’t that the hard reality of politics – that you never get all of what you want?
A: They didn’t fight for anything we wanted. This bill is not a result of compromise. I wish that it was.
Q: But there are some good things in it, right? You didn’t lose everything.
A: They have their bullet points. I’ve read them recently.
Q: Such as?
A: Children can stay on parents’ insurance until age 26 now.
Q: Not a good thing?
A: Not a matter of great concern for insurers. One, kids that age are low-risk clients. And two, anyway, they just build the risk into the rate structure. It’s not like they gave something away.
Q: Other bullet points?
A: Elimination of preexisting conditions as a condition for getting a policy. That’s a big one, but again, it’s not like they gave anything up. The only reason they would not insure those people was due to fear of adverse selection – that if one company accepted someone with something like a history of kidney stones, all of those patients would flock to that company. Now that they can force everyone to buy their policies, that problem disappears. And again, it’s all priced into the rate structure.
Q: More?
A: Partial defunding of Medicare Advantage is another. Bit that’s a bit of smoke and mirrors. MA was indeed very profitable, a great subsidy for the insurance cartel. But without it, those clients will simply be bumped back into the Medicare Supplement market, another huge profit center for them. They lost something here, but not much.
Q: OK – I get your drift – smoke and mirrors. But you can’t deny that elimination of caps is important.
A: Agreed, but not as big a deal as they make out. It was rare that anyone ran into a cap, and that usually was merely a means to force an end-of-life decision. It was a death panel device. Nice that it is gone, however.
Q: You cannot deny that expansion of Medicaid is huge.
A: Indeed, probably the best thing to come out of it. But remember, there was a price to pay for it – in the end, hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and forced new customers for the insurance cartel. It would have been much better had the Democrats merely fought for expansion of Medicaid, not that they do that sort of thing. Say for example, you are buying a car, and you tell the sales person than you want a back-up camera or no deal. He says yes, you can have the camera, and in return he’s going to raise the cost of the car by $100,000. You go running home to tell your wife what a good deal you got, you got a back up camera!, but she’s skeptical. I’m skeptical that what they gave up was the proper way to expand Medicaid.
Q: They also are going to control Medicare costs.
A: That is so typical of this administration – just another way to squeeze Medicare. Remember that Medicare does not stand alone. It too works in the private market and is subject to private market pricing, though it pays wholesale. It is not at all part of the rising cost problem. That’s got to do with private insurance and cost shifting, new and better technology, public health crises like obesity, and incredible administrative overhead – 31% in total, according to Harvard. That’s obscene beyond words.
But Medicare is where they decided to ride herd on costs. It’s pretty disingenuous, typical of Obama.
Q: Is there anything you like about this bill?
A: It may be the end of for-profit health care – they may have overplayed their hand. Remember, this bill was not written by Obama or the Democrats or Capital Hill scriveners. It was written by a group of lobbyists and insurance executives, a group headed by Liz Fowler, a swinging door bureaucrat who floated in and out of Max Baucus’s office. The bill that they wrote is the bill that passed, everything in between just for show. They got everything they wanted, gave up just enough to make it look like they gave up things.
But in the end, we are still hamstrung with the underlying basic problem – that private health insurance does not work. It is at odds with itself in that it cannot satisfy the needs of both investors and clients, and clients always come out on the short end of that deal. Since there are no cost controls in the bill, costs will continue to skyrocket, and there will be scofflaws aplenty. It’s going to get much worse, but in the end I hope it gets better.
Q: What about that part of the bill that forces insurance companies to pay out 80% of their premium dollars in medical benefits?
A: Humorous, to say the least. Tough old Obama forced them to do what they were already doing anyway. What a fighter.
Q: Anything good to say about anyone?
A: I almost thought Dennis Kucinich would keep his testicles intact, but he got on Air Force One and caved. I’d like to be a fly on that wall. There were some good Democrats who fought the fight. Citizens United will take them down, of course. We’ve got a long way to go before anything gets better here in the land of TV and beer.
Q: Anything good to say about Democrats?
A: I think it’s the wrong question. Democrats and Republicans do differ in many ways, and I like most Democrats better. But they are similar in that they all get their opinions handed down to them from on high. And up there in the suites, there are not any party differences. All of the public bickering is just for show. They are one party – the money party.
Q: How would you remedy this problem?
A: Get the money out. We could also use another party – I’ve come to believe that the only purpose for a Democratic Party, even though its members are sincere, is to prevent the rise of a second party.
Q: Sounds pretty bleak. This is the end of the interview, and custom is that you end with an optimistic note.
A: No, it’s pretty bleak.
Piece of Mindful 
Better ACA Primer.
LikeLike
Man, that was painful. Now, they deliberately made her look like Sarah Palin, right? But it’s odd, he looks like a young Ralph Nader, white shirt and tie and all, or maybe a Mormon. Oh god – that style will come in vogue!
Anyway, I’ll ask you a simple question: France was rated some time back as the best health care system in the world, and its per capita cost was half of ours even as they offered universal care.
If what the young Mormon Nader says here is true here, why is it also not true in France?
LikeLike
I’ll answer you with another question. Why is Cuba’s HC rated the same or higher than ours?
Who’s doing the rating? Are the judges/data collectors unbiassed?
For instance does fudging global numbers lead to more grants, more power, more attention?
I’ve noticed your lack of confidence lately in our political two party system?
What makes other countries, other political parties, other governmental entices more honest than the ones you trusted before?
LikeLike
It was a straightforward question. Why did you not answer? In fact, as other countries have found out, availability of medical services does not lead to overuse. Just one of many things your cartoon is wrong about. Anyone in France can get medical treatment any time they want, yet they do not overuse it.
I think it was WHO that did that study, obviously subject to debate. The biggest problem that the US has, compared to Cuba, is that people here don’t have access to the system. Their system is universal. They have more doctors per capita, and do a better job of basic care.
I’ve been disaffected by the two party system since 1996. People are people, but other countries have better systems because they do not allow private bribes to influence campaigns. It’s structural more than due to the nature of people, as we are all pretty much alike.
LikeLike
They don’t overuse it? Then how come their HC is billions in the red?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html
And please stop referring to a study/survey done in 2000 or relying on Michael Moore’s movie script. France and your other socialists havens are bankrupt, mostly because of aging pops, generous vacation/pensions, early retirements (being moved back with their new pres.) and a lack of fiscal restraint.
LikeLike
Well lookie here. The “R” word.
“In recent months, France imposed American-style “co-pays” on patients to try to throttle back prescription-drug costs and forced state hospitals to crack down on expenses. “A hospital doesn’t need to be money-losing to provide good-quality treatment,” President Nicolas Sarkozy thundered in a recent speech to doctors.
And service cuts — such as the closure of a maternity ward near Ms. Cuccarolo’s home — are prompting complaints from patients, doctors and nurses that care is being rationed. That concern echos worries among some Americans that the U.S. changes could lead to rationing.
LikeLike
We ration care here, they don’t.
LikeLike
False.
LikeLike
Sorry swede, it was late and I didn’t feel like dealing with you. You’re not one to be swayed by reality.
There is not one country on the face of the earth that wants a health care system like ours. The last one to go public, Taiwan, modeled theirs on Medicare, which is what Canadians call their system. The only system to go from public to our system, Iraq, did so because we held a gun a it’s head.
All health care is rationed including here, where the means are brutal. You do realize that your cartoon clip advocated social Darwinism, right?
Your Michael Moore reference is nonsensical. The study was a serious study done by serious people. Yes, it was done a long time ago, and pissed off a bunch of Americans, which is why they stopped doing it. Other countries’ systems are not problem-free or suffering from cash flow, especially during the US-caused world-wide recession. But again, France’s system costs less than half ours, per capita, and you’re claiming it’s going bankrupt.
Do you ever feel a need to make sense?
LikeLike
Here’s what happening in Canada.
“Reuters reports that each province is scavenging for its own fix. In Ontario, the solution will be severe price controls for generic drugs. British Columbia is looking at a fee-for-service payment system. And Quebec implemented a new flat health tax.
This will just be the beginning of tightened belt straps for Canadians’. According to Derek Burleton, a senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank, “We can’t continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services…At some stage we’re going to hit a breaking point.”
LikeLike
Each system has problems, and they adjust, but certainly not by adopting our system. Harper is doing the usual right wing magic, trying to change the system by deceit and trickery. But Canadians love their health care system, do not want ours.
Focus, Swede, Focus! Their health care spending is about 11% of their GDP. The US was at 18% in June of 2011.
What does that tell you?
LikeLike
We’re treating 12 millions illegals for free?
LikeLike
Different subject. You’re not focusing!
LikeLike
Focused like a laser.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm
LikeLike
Well, Swede, let’s follow this thread. I wrote about ACA, my take of course, and disputable and not persuausive for most. You countered with a propaganda piece using cartoon characters to make a social Darwinist argument that we should not provide health care to anyone but ourselves. I asked you that if the caroon’s arguments were valid, why did they not have universal application, offering France as an example where every one of those arguments is undermined. You responded by attacking Michael Moore, saying his 2007 movie, Sicko, was used as source material for the 2000 study that rated France the best health care system. You also were incredulous that Cuba and the US were ranked somewhat equally, which is in your mind mere evidence of deceitfulness.
You then provided anecdotal evidence that the French and Canadian systems have internal problems, seeming to indicate proof in your mind that those systems have failed, thereby, again only in your mind, validating the US system. I then gave you verifiable statistical information that Canadians spend 61% per capita on health care as us, while at the same time offering basic care to all of its citizens, meaning that if they have financial problems, those problems pale next to ours. You responded that the US has 11,000,000 illegal immigrants, a whole ‘nuther can of worms.
Throughout, you used the words of others as your evidence, and did not verbalize your own thoughts, which appear to be nothing moremthan a hop scotch of Internet links. You now claim you are focused like a laser.
Priceless.
LikeLike
Really? The whole point of the clip was to emphasize the difference between free market purchases ( like buying fruit ) and the consequences of insurance/govt. provided HC where cost is of little or no value.
Tube goes further to say when cost becomes a non issue then demand increases which initiates the vortex of a death spiral.
That storm which we are seeing in Europe and Canada.
You queried me about our high costs I countered. You used France as your example I showed where they’re broke. You globe hopped to Canada I again provided proof.
You’re the one bouncing all over. You’re the one scattered brained. You’re the w/o any thing to back your failed notions up.
Not me.
LikeLike
Ok the, some questions for you. Please answer them without bringing in any further data or links:
1. Are you a Social Darwinist?
2. Do you know the meaning of the word “anecdotal”?
3. if your free market cartoon is correct, should there not be good statistical evidence to support it? Should there not also be large anecdotes – countries our even counties that apply that philosophy that hare having success?
4. If someone in a
portpoor family is born with a congenital defect, should we let that person die if the family cannot fund medical treatment?5. Do you think our society bears any responsibility for illegal immigrants if it an be shown that American policies like NAFTA caused them to lose their sustence, forcing them to migrate? Answer the hypothetical, please.
6. Can you name any country on earth that voluntarily adopted the American system of medical care? Using the saying “if it were good, people would not copy it, they would steal it,” why do we have no imitators?
LikeLike
1. Economic realist.
2. An anecdotal reference is something liberals use to restrict freedom. For example it was 111 degrees in Miles City last week so we have to buy Volts.
3. There tons of evidence that countries that have socialized Medicine are either rationing or considering it. Those countries are also swimming in debt.
4. Poor families should be taken care of by Catholic Charities, Shriners, State funds, or Doctors by giving them tax breaks for donated care. It shouldn’t be funneled thru the US govt. then on to state govt.. then on to Insurance companies then on to some accounting service, then to the patient. Neither should lawyers be able to sue Doctors/Hospitals with out limits or w/o laws reducing frivolous suits or loser pays.
5. I don’t see any evidence of NAFTA causing borders jumpers. In fact seems to me American Companies are leaving the US and building more plants in Mexico. Can’t have both ways Mark. You can’t criticize US manufactures leaving and NAFTA at the same time. In fact I’m thinking that Mexico policies have more to do with illegals than any trade agreements.
6. Power corrupts. Countries with different HC systems like being able to control the masses. They like making life and death decisions. They like holding themselves high on some pedestal. The only problem is when the govt. aristocracy gets sick they go to either some exclusive Hospital or clinic only available to them or they come to America.
And lastly Mark why do foreigners come to America? If our health system is as bad as the “experts” say we wouldn’t be getting them, would we?
LikeLike
Ha! Tricked you. 1 and 4 were the same question. And you have unknowingly answered in the affirmative by saying, in essence, that you’d be a happy dude in the days of Dickens.
2 is your of saying “no,” I guess. Who the hell can figure that answer out.
On 3 all you are saying is that you don’t understand rationing, as it is done everywhere in all systems. the US is more inclined to ration based on wealth and age – those two groups get good health care.
5. NAFTA, as many who have studied it maintain, flooded the Mexican market with cheap subsidized american agricultural products, so that farmers could not compete – could not market their product. Many indeed ended up in the maquiladora zone for sweatshop wages. Millions more headed north.
6 tells me that you attended that school in Billings, MSU, short for “makes shit up.”
Most of our migrants are Mexicans, due to NAFTA. They come here because they are trying to survive.
LikeLike
Ok smart ass, if NAFTA is causing unemployment in Mexico how come their rate is in the low 5 %?
How come it steadily dropped over the last 5 years?
I’m thinking they come here because its just a short swim and a long hike.
LikeLike
Can I link now?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html
LikeLike
Here’s the problem, Swede: You don’t understand why anecdotal evidence, which is your stock in trade, is not useful.
This is why, Swede, every one of the links you scatter all over the blogs are useless, and why people ignore them. For each link you supply, someone else can supply a counter-link making a counter-point, and exactly nothing is achieved.
You did supply one bit of hard data, the statistic on Mexican unemployment. But there you’re making another mistake by inferring that that number means much more than it does, as in validating NAFTA. You provided no data regarding the number of people who have given up finding work, quit looking, and therefore are no longer counted as unemployed. You gave no data on wages levels, which are pitiful in the maquiladora zone on the border where American companies moved their production facilities after NAFTA, and where they pay perhaps $7 a day with no benefits*.
You also ignored an elephant in the room, in that you came in here complaining of 11 million illegal immigrants. If they were still in Mexico, what would the unemployment rate be down there?
This is why I don’t take you seriously, Swede – you’re a Natelsonian, perpetually looking for validation and ignoring all other evidence.
__________
*Fortunately, Mexico has universal health care, so that these people have those needs attended to.
LikeLike
Swede? Swede? Did he leave? Didn’t hear a door slam. He never did explain why all of his free market talking points don’t work in real life.
LikeLike
The claim is made in the cartoon that there will not be enough medical professionals to meet the increased demand, but the ACA provides incentives and many training programs for a wide array of doctors, nurses, medical equipment companies and other health related workers and health facilities because the demand for services will obviously be greater than can now be served.
Also, you predict that people will seek more medical care that they don’t need only because it costs less. What evidence do you have that supports this notion? How about none?
I found other comments that neglected to address the facts. How can you know that no one has read the entire bill? Just because the average reader is put off by long books doesn’t prove that economists, scholars and analysts haven’t read it. I have poured over MANY of the sections of it as well as analyses written by experts in the field, and suggest that opposers are merely assuming that just because it’s a long book that they would never bother to read, that no one else would either, and there must be something bad in there! It’s long because there are a lot of problems to be dealt with.
HR in Florida
LikeLike
As long as our national priority is war and war funding, all comestic programs will suffer lack of priority and funding. No health care system can function with .54 of every dollar spent is earmarked to kill other people in other countries and steal their water, land and freedom. Until priority is given to people’s health, all else is well-calculated deception.
LikeLike
Really I don’t know what your complaining about.
You’ll achieve your goal eventually.
LikeLike
Hi Mark. Hope all is well with you with the fires.
As to your exchange with Swede, sorry ‘ol boy! Swede yanked your pants down and smacked you hard on the bare ass. Oh well. You will heal.
LikeLike
We are far away from fires at this time. As I understand it, Montana is having a very bad time too. It’s only July 2!
Re Swede, you’re going to have to be more specific than just stating general agreement with him. I don’t see where he brought anything to the table except that the unemployment rate in Mexico is 5%.
LikeLike