You can't make this stuff up...

[Phelonious Ponk]

Problem is that since nobody was ALLOWED to read it, its all conjecture on Tim's part!

A) Who wasn't allowed to read the law? You can go read it anytime you have a month to dedicate to the thing. I guarantee you that small armies of aides to Senators and Congresscritters were pouring over it when it was going through, and writing reports and briefing the aforementioned public servants. Nancy Pelosi had a little army of her own, I'm sure, and the briefings and Cliff Notes that came from it. Foot in mouth moment, yes. If you're not falling for the spin from the guys playing gotcha, and you have a clue how American government works, that one's pretty obvious. Would she really have no idea what's in the bill and just be waiting to see what happens once it's passed? Please. She's not the sharpest pencil in the box, but she ain't that dumb.

B) It is conjecture that ACA preserves private insurance, drug prices and private, corporate healthcare? It's conjecture that ACA delivers a huge new body of customers to private insurance? Weren't we just talking about the mandate? It is conjecture that it preserves a hierarchy that puts insurance and administrators ahead of doctors and nurses? All of the above exists. ACA does nothing to change that. Where's the conjecture?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Then what is happening Tim? Are we not getting screwed?

I guess that depends on what you call "getting screwed," but the government didn't take over private insurance; private insurance is alive and well with a great big portfolio of new customers. And if private insurance charges more than some of the folks in that new portfolio can afford, government will subsidize them.

Yeah, we're getting screwed, ddl, but not by big gummit. We're getting screwed by big healthcare.

Tim

 

[edorr]

Then what is happening Tim? Are we not getting screwed?

We have been getting screwed by the private sector. ACA is a half hearted attempt to mitigate some of the collateral damage of this dysfunctional system, which was and will continue to be largely private.

 

[rockitman]

private insurance is alive and well with a great big portfolio of new customers.

They have a big new portfolio of bad risks....ie: Unhealthy people. Sure the insurance companies will get subsidy's for the indigent, meanwhile those who can pay will be getting huge double digit rate increases going forward. There doesn't appear to be many healthy young people signing up and paying premiums. Therefore Obamacare is unsustainable going forward. Remember when Obama and the democrats lied that the cost of insurance would go down with Obamacare. What a joke !

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If socialist Democrats had wanted to take over the insurance business, the solution would have been simple: Let the privately insured and small businesses buy into Medicare. Then when you have millions more people in America enjoying great healthcare, costs are dropping like a rock, and the system is built up to handle the volume, let big companies buy in. Private insurance would die without a shot being fired. Or it would compete.

But it is worth noting that the Washington socialists didn't do that. They protected big insurance, big pharma and big corporate healthcare. Seems they are capitalists after all.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

They have a big new portfolio of bad risks....ie: Unhealthy people. Sure the insurance companies will get subsidy's for the indigent, meanwhile those who can pay will be getting huge double digit rate increases going forward. There doesn't appear to be many healthy young people signing up and paying premiums. Therefore Obamacare is unsustainable going forward. Remember when Obama and the democrats lied that the cost of insurance would go down with Obamacare. What a joke !

Some of that remains to be seen, to say the least, but the reform is going to have to be reformed. Wasn't hard to see that one coming.

Tim

 

[edorr]

They have a big new portfolio of bad risks....ie: Unhealthy people. Sure the insurance companies will get subsidy's for the indigent, meanwhile those who can pay will be getting huge double digit rate increases going forward. There doesn't appear to be many healthy young people signing up and paying premiums. Therefore Obamacare is unsustainable going forward. Remember when Obama and the democrats lied that the cost of insurance would go down with Obamacare. What a joke !

The system was unsustainable pre Obamacare.

If all develop nations can spread the cost of the "high risks" in the portfolio of its citizens over the pool of its total population, and provide healthcare for around half of what the USA is spending, you'd think the joke is on the USA.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The system was unsustainable pre Obamacare.

If all develop nations can spread the cost of the "high risks" in the portfolio of its citizens over the pool of its total population, and provide healthcare for around half of what the USA is spending, you'd think the joke is on the USA.

The assumption, in America, seems to be that free markets are the cure for all economic ills. Philosophically, we view them as sacred cows and magic bullets, and protect them, rhetorically anyway, with a near religious fervor. But the markets aren't perfect; they aren't the answer to every problem and to believe they are is childishly simplistic. For free markets to be self-correcting, choices have to be free and self-directed all the way down to the consumer's choice. Any manipulation of product availability, the competitive set, consumer awareness, education or choice, etc., and the market is no longer free. Given this complexity, there almost have to be markets in which unfettered, unregulated freedom is a blank canvas for abuse, markets in which unregulated freedom is not only not the best choice, but may be a particularly bad one. Healthcare is high on that list.

It's a long list, which is why pure free market capitalism does not exist, why every developed nation in the world is a hybrid of free market capitalism and socialism. The US occupies one extreme of the curve, the Chinese are at the other extreme. It's actually those Euro-socialists who are the thoughtful, reasoned conservatives in this endeavor.

Now, my conservative friends will point to the financial problems of many European nations (ignoring the successes of others) as evidence that any kind of regulation and social engineering leads to disaster. My answer to all that is very simple: I didn't say it couldn't be done badly.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

Heck, if your main criterion is a vibrant growing economy, just look to China...