Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

39 Replies - 3579 Views - Last Post: 28 June 2012 - 06:11 PM

#31 dorknexus  Icon User is offline

  • or something bad...real bad.
  • member icon

Reputation: 1255
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,618
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:08 PM

The requirement-penalty shit is there because, soon, insurance companies will not be able to deny anyone coverage, even for pre-existing conditions. This creates the problem that people won't see a need to purchase medical insurance until they need it.

Using the analogy of a vehicle insurance; you could see how this might become a problem for the insurance companies if the government forced them to pay out to customers no matter what. People would never purchase vehicle insurance until after they crashed. Insurance companies would go out of business.

In the same way, if people know they are guaranteed coverage then nobody in their right mind is going to invest in medical insurance until they get sick/injured.

There was a post on reddit under r/explainlikeimfive that summarized the effects of Obamacare very well. This is that post.

This post has been edited by dorknexus: 28 June 2012 - 01:14 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#32 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7292
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,102
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:18 PM

View PostBenignDesign, on 28 June 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

Because I work for a state-funded college, we were able to squeeze onto the state teachers plan. That's how we get the good insurance and the good pension (though our pensions are kind of sitting on a small shelf of very thin ice right now). Hopefully our insurance will remain stable.



Be careful - the same bastards who are after health care have also been taking shots at pension plans. Actually, they started on that one years ago - wiped out a lot of public pensions in Oregon, basically stole a bunch of working people's life savings.
That was before they started calling themselves the teabaggers, but it was the same rat bastards. Idiots, too - they robbed a bunch of people who never did them any harm, and they didn't even get a cut.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#33 Celerian  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular


Reputation: 144
  • View blog
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 30-March 12

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:41 PM

An alternative to this "mandate" would be to allow people to float along without insurance, but once they sign up, there should be a waiting period. I.E. you have chosen to go without insurance, and then you get sick. If you sign up for insurance, you have to have an active plan for 3 months before the insurance will pay for doctor's visits, hospitalizations, medications...

That seems fair to me, and it prevents the biggest problem that the mandate was trying to solve. It also should appease the people who claim that the mandate isn't fair.

Any thoughts?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#34 BenignDesign  Icon User is offline

  • holy shitin shishkebobs
  • member icon




Reputation: 5753
  • View blog
  • Posts: 10,077
  • Joined: 28-September 07

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:52 PM

That's still unfair. If you haven't had insurance because you can't afford it and you get a raise and can now finally manage to squeeze the payment out of your measly budget, you get penalized for trying to be responsible.

And what happens if you get downsized and lose your insurance? Have you ever had to pay for COBRA? That shit is expensive. Especially for someone without a job. So after months of battling your way back into the work force, you face an insurance penalty because someone in a corporate office 300 miles away stuck a thumbtack on a map and cut your job. And what if you already have a pricey medical condition?

Now we no longer have to simply live in daily fear of economic downturn and the loss of jobs, but also the loss of insurance coupled with government fees for losing the insurance which you only don't have because the government fucked up the ecomony to begin with.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#35 Celerian  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular


Reputation: 144
  • View blog
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 30-March 12

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 02:11 PM

For the first scenario, the person wouldn't have been able to afford healthcare, so would get it for free. Once they cross the gap, they should be given the choice to get health insurance without a waiting period because they're going from government assisted health insurance to self-supported coverage. If they decline this coverage, then they are without insurance, and getting back in will cost them a 3 month wait of paying into the insurance before they see a benefit. I would not suggest penalizing people who are not trying to game the system.

The rest are good points. I would think that a switch of jobs and insurances should allow for instant turnover. COBRA should carry through as well. If the loss of job takes you below the income gap, then you immediately get the free government healthcare until your income status changes and then you choose to purchase insurance or not have it.

Find an appropriate response for the people who lose their jobs/insurance, still don't qualify for the free government health insurance, but find COBRA too expensive and we have ourselves a pretty solid plan, minus the hard numbers.

Also, notice that I'm not saying that anyone should be denied care. Even for the people who don't have active insurance, they should be able to get treatment, but they should be required to pay full cost because they chose not to have coverage.

Under this set of rules, even auto insurance is more forced.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#36 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7292
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,102
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 02:24 PM

Whatever way you rejigger things, we're still subsidizing a bunch of insurance companies. Why not just pay for the damned health care out of taxes, which we already know how to collect, and stop screwing around?
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#37 modi123_1  Icon User is online

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 8371
  • View blog
  • Posts: 31,099
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 02:27 PM

Quote

Why not just pay for the damned health care out of taxes, which we already know how to collect,


Are you sure about that?: IRS struggles to keep up amid surge in tax fraud
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#38 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7292
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,102
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 02:47 PM

If the IRS can't collect taxes, we've got bigger problems to worry about. I'm betting they'll manage. Anyway, developing a new funding system just for health care - which we want to distribute to all members of a geographical region, because anything else is just stupid - is obviously wildly inefficient. That's what we're doing now, and that's why we pay so much for so little.
We have a model for collecting money from people to fund public goods, we should rely on it to fund public goods. Simple, no?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#39 lordofduct  Icon User is online

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2506
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,615
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 04:13 PM

I'm surprised how little I care about this topic...

I feel as if I would have a lot to say on the topic, but when I ask myself... I'm just like, "meh, who gives a shit Dylan, let's play some more Sonic Colors".
Was This Post Helpful? 3
  • +
  • -

#40 macosxnerd101  Icon User is offline

  • Self-Trained Economist
  • member icon




Reputation: 10180
  • View blog
  • Posts: 37,586
  • Joined: 27-December 08

Re: Flame Sink: The Obamacare Ruling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 06:11 PM

I'm not saying I'm thrilled with the uninsured person's tax. However, if the court had to strike down a provision, I'm glad it was the Medicaid provision. This basically prevents the federal government from tying money to forcing states to expand Medicaid coverage. And while the uninsured person's tax is far from appropriate, expanding Medicaid essentially on the federal government's dime has greater reaching consequences economically.

http://www.slate.com..._the_poor_.html
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3