…will be Barack Obama’s Iraq:
The best medicine for the exchanges? It might involve letting the insurance industry offer pared back, cheap coverage at prices that reflect the risk profile of patients. This would bring back the young invincibles, but jack up prices for sicker patients. That problem could be solved by targeting subsidies on these patients on a strict means-tested basis rather than showering them on everyone up to 400 percent of the poverty level. The crucial upside to this approach is that it would allow the insurance marketplace to function again. However, market pricing based on health is against the religion of liberals. Clinton won’t go there. She could twist the screws on opt-outs by raising their penalty to something close to the price of the coverage they are refusing. But that would require Congress to override the statutory limits on these penalties in ObamaCare. And so long as the House remains in Republican hands, that ain’t going to happen.
Not really fair to compare it to Iraq. Iraq was a bi-partisan project. This disaster is all on the Democrats.
I thought everything was rosy with Americans and Obamacare, at least that’s what some people keep saying.
But the latest Gallup Poll ratings show the opposite is quite true. I’m wondering how this poll will be spun.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/186749/ratings-healthcare-quality-no-better-aca.aspx
Like Voltaire’s supposed comment about the Catholic Church of his day “Crush the infamous thing!”
The sad thing is that this would be front page, GIANT type, on every major city’s newspaper if this were Bush (or another Republican).
The sheer fact that this isn’t being reported at all by the news shows that they do whatever the can to protect Democrats, especially Obama.
If the media had any shred of fairness, they would ask Clinton how she would handle the Obamacare issue.
Actually, they ask that question of “The Bern”, and the answer is Single Payer . . .
By the way, Hot Air has a link to a DNC “cheat sheet” on how to set your Republican uncle straight when the conversation turns to politics at Thanksgiving dinner http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/24/your-republican-uncle-dnc-debuts-new-website-to-help-slow-witted-young-liberals-talk-politics-with-family-on-thanksgiving/
As a benefit to you all on Rand’s fine Web site, I am offering guidance on how to respond to the inevitable, that is, of a committed Barack Obama supporter appearing here with a comment on the topic of health care.
I am recommending a kind of judo strategy, an Ali-esque rope-a-dope strategy of turning your opponents head-long charge.
The question is whether a person is committed to Mr. Obama and his legacy or whether this person is genuinely about Universal Healthcare without concern for defending any one particular person.
My suggestion is to maneuver that person to defending Obamacare as “working” that we don’t need to go further to Single Payer as a means of fixing what is wrong with it.
You see, I am recommending a Liddle-Hart strategy of defending Obamacare as not having anything wrong with it and hence by logical extension opposing Single Payer, or, by supporting Single Payer, which is an admission that Obamacare is seriously broken.
If that commenter attempts to wiggle out with “Obamacare was only intended as a transitional stage towards Single Payer”, gee, that is as much as saying that Social Security was only intended as a transitional stage towards Communism, which is as much as agreeing with the platform of the John Birch Society . . .
Finally, when the dinner table conversation strays to politics, here in ‘Sconsin, all you got to do is blurt out, “How ’bout them Packers!”, which will quickly make everyone family again.
market pricing based on health is against the religion of liberals
Some people, through no fault of their own, can be projected to have higher-than-average medical expenses. They drew a losing ticket in the cosmic health lottery. And the author thinks their bad luck should be further compounded by having them pay more for health insurance?
We sensibly don’t ask that of children, or senior citizens, or veterans, or the employees of companies with group insurance policies and their spouses. Why is it a good idea to insist on the “sucks to be you” approach exclusively for the individuals who don’t fit into any of those categories?
OK, people, I have you a plan — move forward with it . . .
There are certain people, here, who seem unable to engage in debate without it being snark, and I am certainly guilty of offering snark (see above). If there can be an equality-in-the-manner-that-contrasting-ideas-are-offered, I am “game.”
At one level you have the ultra-pure Liberterian “tough luck pal” approach to the most dire circumstances that a particular person may be in. At the other extreme, you have the notion, call it Liberal/Progressive/Democratic Socialist (the later is what Senator Sanders unabashedly labels himself) that any manner of inequality is an outrage.
Then there are those with what could be called Conservative leanings, who accept inequality as part of the human condition and are informed by their moral system that if envy is not labeled a sin, it is at least a waste of one’s time and energy to engage in it. On the other hand, that some individuals suffer the most acute privation and hardship whereas others have the financial resources at hand that they could alleviate some of this suffering in others, that indeed is a moral evil (strong words, but see the second half of Luke Chapter 16 — the first half of Luke 16 I will get to later).
I empathize with those with preexisting medical conditions with respect to the financial ruin that can bring or the prospect of being one major illness away from disaster. Many of us with “good health insurance” are one company “restructuring” away from being in that boat because the older you get, the more likely you suffer from something tagged as a preexisting condition.
The prior system is that if you got the Scarlet P tattooed on your chest, you could often not get health insurance at any price. I think there is a big continuum between not getting “health insurance” (actually, a form of prepaid healthcare) at any price and hoping to not get sick (the Luke 16 situation) and having access to it at a higher premium that “the next guy” who is “lucky at the health lottery” does not (the medieval sin of envy).
Which brings me to the first half of Luke 16. When a person is about to be at the mercy of having people helping him out, cultivating good will with the people in a position to do the helping is a sensible strategy.
If the overarching goal of health care reform is preventing personal ruin of people with preexisting conditions, act like that is the goal and don’t rub the faces “in it” of people you may need to recruit to achieve and maintain that goal. Like Chief of Staff Dailey and Vice President begging the President to show some flexibility on the “birth control mandate.” And the Catholic Bishops, who are pointedly not Libertarian on health care but-you-know-the-rest-of-the-story.
Yeah, yeah, the Catholic Church is this medieval institution seeking to impose its rigid, legalistic morals on e-ver-y-bo-dy like a certain other medieval religion, and war-on-women, blah, blah.
But is health care reform “about” the peril of preexisting medical conditions or is it about the entire Liberal/Progressive/Democratic Socialist agenda? Because if it is about the former, if Mr. Obama and everyone on down would have the slightest inclination to negotiate and compromise, whatever warts there are on the Health Care law could be fixed.
But if it is really about the Liberal/Progressive/Democratic Socialist agenda, the Healthcare law is deficient, and you may as well give up attempting to defend it and “go the whole hog” for Universal Single Payer and accept whatever damage that does.
I am fully guilty of snark when it comes to Jim. The reason for this is that he (and the Democrats in general) never, ever listened to Republicans when it came to the health care debate. Their stubborn, pig-headedness removed any rational debate and left us only with snark.
Now we are seeing the failure of this debacle. Why? Because the Dems never listened to the Republicans and their cautionary messages. They insisted on ad-hominem attacks about not caring about the sick and poor. They said that the Republican plan was, “don’t get sick.” They effused over a gigantic plan stuffed with garbage because they are obsessed with big government.
But is health care reform “about” the peril of preexisting medical conditions or is it about the entire Liberal/Progressive/Democratic Socialist agenda?
The ACA, like any law or public policy, should be about one thing: making the world better than the alternative. The world we have today, with the ACA, is better than what would have had otherwise. If, say, a Republican is elected to the White House next year, and the ACA is repealed in toto in 2017, the world will subsequently be worse than if the law remained on the books.
The only agenda I care about is making things better, and the ACA has made things better. Eliminating discrimination based on projected health status is one way it’s made things better. Mandated coverage for preventative care, including vaccines and contraceptives, is another. Funding for efforts to reduce hospital-acquired infections is another. Expanded availability of Medicaid is yet another. Subsidies for people who can’t afford coverage is still another. The law isn’t perfect, but in its various particulars, and in its overall net effect, it’s made the world a better place.
Now you could propose changes to the law, and those changes should be evaluated the same way: do they, on balance, make things better? The linked author thinks insurance companies should be able to discriminate based on health status. Today the only thing an insurer needs to know about me to quote my premium is my age and whether I smoke; the author proposes letting the insurer require my medical records and a physical, and feed that data into its actuarial formulas in order to calculate my premium (or simply turn me down outright).
Would making that change make things better? I don’t think so. There’s a reason we banned that sort of thing in employer group health plans in the 1990s. There’s a reason you don’t pay a higher Medicare payroll tax if you have a genetic condition that puts you at higher risk for big medical bills in your golden years. The health insurance business should be about paying for care you need, not gouging you for needing it.
“The ACA, like any law or public policy, should be about one thing: making the world better than the alternative. The world we have today, with the ACA, is better than what would have had otherwise.”
A complete lie and repeating it endlessly does not change that.
A world where 20 million more people have health coverage is a better world. A world where 50,000 hospital deaths have been prevented is a better world. A world where health care cost growth has slowed to a 50 year low is a better world. Yes, the ACA has had significant costs: some people are paying higher premiums, and quite well-off people are paying higher taxes. But on net I think it’s clearly been a win.
It’s not a lie, but it is at the crux of the problem.
If the purpose of anything the government does is to make the world “better”, there is no limit to what people will want to make the government do.
Furthermore, why would you ever negotiate or compromise with someone who does not want to make the world “better”? Everything in the ACA, including the provisions some object to as a matter of conscience make the world “better.” Or at least according to a certain value system as those Catholic bishops are a bunch of old men with a mindset from the Middle Ages, don’t you know it.
So my question is answered. This thing was not about a minimalist market intervention to help persons’ of Jim’s family situation of self employment and pre-existing condition avoid medical-financial ruin. This thing was about implementing every . . . last . . . thing . . . on the Liberal/Progressive/Democratic Socialist agenda in health care, and there are no compromises or negotiations to be made.
If the purpose of anything the government does is to make the world “better”, there is no limit to what people will want to make the government do.
Only if unlimited government actually makes the world better, and there’s no reason to believe that. Every new law or regulation has costs, and not every law or regulation has benefits that exceed those costs. [And by cost and benefit I don’t just mean dollars, but also values like liberty.]
“A world where 20 million more people have health coverage is a better world.”
Not if people can’t afford to use their health insurance.
“A world where health care cost growth has slowed to a 50 year low is a better world.”
Costs are not going down. People might be spending less because they can’t afford care but costs are not going down.
“some people are paying higher premiums, and quite well-off people are paying higher taxes.”
All of us now have to pay a new monthly tax in the hundreds of dollars and premiums are being used as subsidies rather than just direct transfers from the government.
The law isn’t perfect, but in its various particulars, and in its overall net effect, it’s made the world a better place.
The world a better place, really?
The only people I know who think Obamacare is great didn’t participate in the private prior to its passage and have zero knowledge about what it was like. They are very happy to get other people to pay for their insurance and view it as some sort of social justice, as punishing people they don’t like, despite the position their lives being in is entirely due to choices they made. Choices like dropping out of school, refusing to get normal jobs, prioritizing alcohol and other entertainment over health care, having premium cable, internet, smart phones, expensive cars, ect ect.
Could we weed out the people who choose to spend their money on bars, casinos, restaurants, and expensive toys? And could we stop pretending that the only people getting subsidies are people with preexisting conditions?
The only people I know who think Obamacare is great didn’t participate in the private prior to its passage and have zero knowledge about what it was like.
I participated in the private health insurance market before the ACA, and I think Obamacare is great. So you know one person for whom that’s true.
And could we stop pretending that the only people getting subsidies are people with preexisting conditions?
The author quoted in Rand’s post specifically argues for letting insurers discriminate on the basis of health status. The ACA is about more than that, but it’s certainly one topic worthy of discussion.
“Eliminating discrimination based on projected health status is one way it’s made things better.”
“Today the only thing an insurer needs to know about me to quote my premium is my age and whether I smoke;”
The two ideas marked in bold are mutually exclusive concepts.
Why is it a moral sin or illegal indignity to use actuarial tables to determine premiums for an individual seeking health care coverage when the same is perfectly legal and ethical when seeking coverage to pay out a lump sum at the end of one’s life (life insurance)?
Alternately, why is it acceptable to discriminate and actuarialize against one form of addiction (nicotine), while all other forms of addiction (alcohol, narcotics, eating disorders, etc) are considered either “pre-existing conditions” or “just bad luck genetics” and worthy of coverage at the same rate as a perfectly healthy individual?
Snark like, Iraq is Obama’s Iraq? Or who would have thought that dictating people buy a product from Obama’s donors wouldn’t lead to lower prices or costs?
Believe it or not, Jim, the market actually works. Saying you need government to subsidize those with serious medical issues is not the same thing as forcing the rest of us into ham-fisted plans cobbled together by people who are more interested in redistribution of wealth rather than a viable health care system.
Idea. Subsidize their insurance, and stop effing the market up for the rest of us.
Subsidize their insurance how? The simplest solution is to charge them the same as anyone else: that’s what we do for everyone else. With Medicare we apply the same tax to everyone. Those with expensive care benefit more than those with cheap care, so we are subsidizing the sick at the expense of the healthy. Same with employer group coverage: everyone pays the same premium for the same coverage, regardless of health status, so the healthy again subsidize the sick. This has been the case for nearly two decades, was passed into law by a GOP Congress, and affects far more people than the ACA exchanges. Why would we take a different approach for individual coverage?
My God man, this isn’t hard.
“And the author thinks their bad luck should be further compounded by having them pay more for health insurance?”
You clearly do not understand how market based insurance really works. If you did you wouldn’t utter inanities like that. The pricing mechanisms are not as trivially simple as you make them out to be.
I’ll give you a hint:
Market based insurance companies charge people, who are higher risk because of their behavior, more. They pay more than your lotto loser. They pay more than your average healthy person.
Now take that fact and please spend a few hours doing some research and thinking it through. The answer to how it really works will surprise you.
Market based insurance companies charge people, who are higher risk because of their behavior, more.
They also charge people who are at higher risk because of their bad luck, more. Do you think they should be allowed to?
This answer proves you haven’t listened to a damned thing all of these years.
Go and actually do some research and you’ll find the answer.
There’ sno point talking to someone as uneducated in the topic as you. You resort only to “feelings” not facts.
“You clearly do not understand how market based insurance really works.”
Really, Gregg? That’s shocking, given Jim’s usual grasp of economics.
Ah, trust Baghdad Jim to check in with the Argument from Pity fallacy to justify forcing Peter to pay for Paul’s medical expenses.
Some people, through no fault of their own, can be projected to have higher-than-average medical expenses.
That sounds bad. Let’s ban it.
Why is it a good idea to insist on the “sucks to be you” approach exclusively for the individuals who don’t fit into any of those categories?
“Sucks to be you” describes every health care system ever. No matter how much you burn on health care or health theater, there will come a time when it sucks to be you.
Similarly, almost every health care system is universal. It’s just a matter of who pays for that health care.
“Sucks to be you” describes every health care system ever.
We have some control over how it will suck to have higher-than-average projected health expenses. If you’re on Medicare it doesn’t change your premiums or eligibility; it doesn’t suck that way. Likewise, if you’re on an employer group health plan it doesn’t change your premiums or eligibility. Why should it change your premiums or eligibility if you’re under 65 and buy insurance as an individual? Why does it have to suck that way?
We have some control over how it will suck to have higher-than-average projected health expenses.
Sure, just like Venezuela could control prices of toilet paper.
Why should it change your premiums or eligibility if you’re under 65 and buy insurance as an individual?
Obamacare does change your premiums when buying on the individual market. It changes deductibles, what things are covered, and interactions between the doctor and patient.
Once again, I feel I need to remind you that people could get insurance with preexisting conditions under the old system.
I feel I need to remind you that people could get insurance with preexisting conditions under the old system.
It was hit-or-miss, and tens of millions were at the mercy of insurers. People were locked into jobs simply because they (or their spouses) had no assurance of being able to get coverage if they left.
No matter how much you burn on health care or health theater, there will come a time when it sucks to be you.
You have stumbled on the ultimate defense of Obamacare. Much like claims that victims of F&F would have died anyway or that it isn’t worth fighting terrorism because more people die in car crashes, Obamacare defenders will say that it sucked to be certain people under the old system and so sucking under Obamacare is relative. And if you say it sucks for you, they will say you deserve it for not being an enthusiastic supporter of Obamacare.
And the author thinks their bad luck should be further compounded by having them pay more for health insurance?
Do they really pay more than other people? I doubt an MRI costs more for them than other people. Or are you saying they use more services and thus spend more?
People who live out in the country spend more on gas, do we offer them special gas subsidies? No, we count on the market lowering the price of gas and work to enact policies that lower the price for everyone knowing that it will help people who use more gas.
The same could be for health care and health insurance but the hard part is getting people to give up the desire to control people and systems.
The cost of care goes up with Obamacare. I have seen this when treating my own preexisting conditions and the perverse incentives to increase prices affect everyone.
Instead, we now have a government controlled system that doesn’t meet the needs of the very people it claims to help. People spend all of their disposable income on premiums and have no money left over to treat illness. Deductibles are becoming so high they are impossible to hit.
You shouldn’t have to live in poverty in order to be able to afford health care, and by afford, I mean that the only people who can get health care are able to do so with government aide or by belonging to the 1%.
If you are truly concerned about the ability of people to get insurance or health care, then you need to re-evaluate Obamacare, which actually makes both of these things harder to pay for.
Do they really pay more than other people?
The author wants to let insurers consider health status when they set premiums. So they could charge 40 year old man A 10 times the premium they charge 40 year old man B for the same policy, because their actuarial data projects that A will cost them 10 times as much. A’s actual claims might exceed B’s, or they might not — projections are only projections. But the author wants A to pay more than B for the same policy.
The cost of care goes up with Obamacare.
Over time the cost of care goes up, period. It’s been going up more slowly since 2010 than in the years before the law. There’s good reason to believe it would have gone up faster were it not for the law.
If you are truly concerned about the ability of people to get insurance or health care, then you need to re-evaluate Obamacare, which actually makes both of these things harder to pay for.
Obamacare has resulted in 20 million more people being able to get insurance that caps their out-of-pocket medical expenses; on that score it’s a clear success.
Over time the cost of care goes up, period.
Uhh, then why did we pass Obamacare? You guys said costs would go down. That was the main selling point. Now, you say costs always go up?
But the author wants A to pay more than B for the same policy.
When you buy tires, everyone gets the same tire but if you drive more, you buy tires more often. How do we separate out people who need help with their cancer treatments from people who make frivolous health care decisions?
Obamacare has resulted in 20 million more people being able to get insurance that caps their out-of-pocket medical expenses; on that score it’s a clear success.
Yes, the lowest bar, that people buy the product they are ordered to or be punished and some people still refuse to get insurance. When it comes to whether or not those plans are better or worse for the 20m or the rest of us compared to plans under the old system, its a failure. The cap isn’t a ceiling, its a floor. When you have to spend $10k before health insurance picks up anything, it really isn’t helping anyone deal with preexisting conditions and even a serious medical condition can still put you in the poor house. Who has an extra $10k just sitting around and how can they save up when they pay a monthly tax for something they can’t use?
Jim
November 25, 2015 At 1:14 PM
wodun
November 25, 2015 At 1:02 PM
Notice that I predicted this defense a full 12 minutes before you employed it.
You guys said costs would go down.
The prediction was that costs would be lower than what was projected to be the case without the law, and indeed they have been substantially lower. The US is spending less on health care including all the Obamacare spending than we were projected to spend without it.
How do we separate out people who need help with their cancer treatments from people who make frivolous health care decisions?
When you consider that people have to spend their own money on deductibles and copays and coinsurance, there are substantial disincentives to frivolous health care decisions. Of course the fact that everyone with legitimate health costs has to pay those deductibles, etc., makes them unpopular, but they’re a price we pay to discourage misuse of health care, and at least they’re capped now.
When you have to spend $10k before health insurance picks up anything, it really isn’t helping anyone
Of course it is — $10k is a lot better than $200k, or more. And there are income-sensitive subsidies for out-of-pocket costs. The ACA makes it much less likely that medical bills will drive someone into bankruptcy; before the ACA there not only wasn’t a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, but your insurer could jack up your premiums or drop you, and no one had to sell you a policy at any price.
“Insurance” is a plan whereby people choose to spread the risk of catastrophic, unexpected events. If you want something to cover expected expenses, what you want is not “insurance”. Use some honest term for it, like “subsidies”.
Calling something an “Iraq” instead of a “Vietnam” — very witty the first time it is used, but it might get stale after while.
So if the ACA is a “Vietnam”, is Bernie Sanders saying the ACA doesn’t go far enough and demanding Single Payer being “Barry Goldwater talking about using nukes?”
“In your guts, you know he’s nuts!”
Who, Goldwater, Sanders, or both?
Contemporary parody of a Goldwater slogan “in your heart you know he’s right”.
Personally, I think Obamacare has been Obama’s best accomplishment.
I also think that Obamacare is an absolute unmitigated disaster that’s now going down in flames.
There is no contradiction inherent in the two above opinions.
Yeah, what about the Libya thing, the Iran deal, and the mass migration into Western Europe?
One thing is for certain, everything that is happening to Obamacare is the fault of the democrats. Republicans weren’t invited to the debate.
Jim, your side has metaphorical blood on its hands. I wish I could enjoy this train wreck, but too many people have suffered from it.
It’s too bad that you’re too partisan to even see that.
It’s too bad that you’re too partisan to even see that.
I can’t count the number of Obamacare supporters that do not pay for their own insurance and didn’t prior to passage who when told of my personal negative outcomes with Obamacare essentially say, “Good, you deserve it for not supporting Obamacare.”
I get the distinct feeling that many of them would love to use the healthcare industry to punish their political opponents.
What Eloi such as Baghdad Jim never realize–until it’s too late–is that when the statist chickens come home to roost, there’s no “Liberal God” who’s going to magically whisk them to his bosom in a kind of Statist Rapture, shielding them from the consequences of their opwn stupid policies. They go into Big Brother’s meat-grinder with everyone else.
Wodun,
The people who voted for Obamacide in Congress will NEVER have to suffer it’s consequences.
And they rejected being forced onto it.
That tells you all you need to know.
Republicans weren’t invited to the debate.
That simply isn’t true. Leaving aside the fact that the ACA was based on a Republican-written law in Massachusetts, Max Baucus spent months working with GOP Senators Grassley, Snowe and Enzi to write a bill they would vote for. Those Senate Finance Committee Republicans were not only invited, they were the guests of honor. Snowe wrote in her memoir that Obama personally met with her eight times, and called more than a dozen times. But the GOP made a strategic political decision to try to make the ACA unpopular by denying it any Republican votes, and they succeeded. As Mitch McConnell explained:
The lack of GOP votes for the ACA wasn’t about the substance of the law, it was a messaging strategy. There was no bill the Democrats could have written that would have gotten GOP votes, because the last thing the GOP wanted was to have Obama run for reelection in 2012 claiming credit for a bipartisan health care reform law.
Ah, doublespeak!
Being invited to a discussion where your ideas don’t matter is quite different than compromise.
Nice try. Democrats are quite good at this “invitation to debate”. In fact, we’re having one right now. Have you ever listened to anyone’s ideas here? Anyone? After six years? Has your opinion changed with the overwhelming evidence pointing to how wrong you were? Nope, not once. Not in six years.
Have you compromised? Hell no you haven’t.
where your ideas don’t matter
GOP ideas did matter. Why does the ACA have state exchanges? Why isn’t there a public option? To quote from the linked piece, “As they near a deal, however, Mr. Baucus is getting resistance from Democrats who think he is giving too much ground.”
The Democrats wanted a bipartisan bill, and were willing to compromise to get it. The Republicans’ top priority was to keep Obama from claiming credit for a bipartisan bill, and there wasn’t anything the Dems could do about that.
The Democratically-controlled House passed its plan in 2009 with nearly zero Republican input. In the Senate, the Gang of Six—Democratic Sens. Baucus (Mont.), Conrad (N.D.), and Bingaman (N.M.), and Republican Sens. Grassley (Iowa), Snowe (Maine), and Enzi (Wyo.)—failed to come to an agreement because the Republicans were concerned about the bill’s dramatic increase in taxes and spending… Simply expanding coverage without raising taxes would have been enough, as contemporaneous reporting makes clear. But the Democratic leadership had no interest in a bipartisan deal.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295357/obamacares-partisan-history-avik-roy
If the overarching goal of health care reform is preventing personal ruin of people with preexisting conditions
The overarching goal of Obamacare is the same as the Russian reset, overcharging. Anyone who spends any amount of time dealing with doctors on a regular basis can see how inflating cost is baked into the system. But who cares, the government or your health insurance pays for it right? Oh wait, while they pay some, everyone pays what they are willing and able to pay on top of what is subsidized.
Its a great racket but one that wouldn’t exist without previous government control, of what was claimed to be an unregulated industry, and making it illegal not to buy products from Democrat’s donors.
The plain facts are – regardless of what the tools say – what we predicted when this abomination was passed.
All these things (below) have come to pass and will continue to come to pass. Things will only get worse. It doesn’t matter what the Jim’s of the world think because they do not think. They have fallen for the largest Broken Glass Fallacy of all time.:
1) We predicted that costs would not come down and they did not.
2) You can’t get something for nothing
3) People will react in their own best interests and these bests interests did not, do not, and never will coincide with the complicated and bubbleheaded notions of the authors.
4) That insurance will not be nearly as good as it was.
5) That you will not be able to keep your insurance
5) That you will not be able to keep your doctor.
6) That it will ruin far more lives than it fixes.
7) That the proper solution to health care issues does not require that you shoot someone in the head (figuratively) in order to help someone else – which is what Obamacide is predicated upon.
And there’s no use arguing with the tools because they simply refuse to see what’s put in front of them.
Things like:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/us/politics/many-say-high-deductibles-make-their-health-law-insurance-all-but-useless.html
Many Say High Deductibles Make Their Health Law Insurance All but Useless
By ROBERT PEARNOV. 14, 2015
…………………
“We could not afford the deductible,” said Kevin Fanning, 59, who lives in North Texas, near Wichita Falls. “Basically I was paying for insurance I could not afford to use.”
He dropped his policy.
………
“When they said affordable, I thought they really meant affordable,” she said. ”
Hahahahahahahaaaaa she is a sucker.
“Affordable” was never the goal. “Coverage” was never the goal.
Federal control over your lives via a single payer system was and remains the goal.
Yeah the deductible on my insurance jumped from $1500 to $3000. And then I found out on my last doctor’s office visit that my co-pay doesn’t kick in until I’ve met my deductible. I used to only have to pay $20 for the office visit, now I have to pay the full exam cost.