• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

Which countries have successful free market health care? Like you described, it's a hostage system. Pay their price or die.

Not only that, there is and will always be an issue of a knowledge gap. A consumer of healthcare can never truly be an informed one. The nature of the medical profession will always lead to providers holding all the chips.
 
Which countries have successful free market health care? Like you described, it's a hostage system. Pay their price or die.

i'm not sure that there is an example of a completely free market system (including the American one, which is about 40% or more government paid). Several Euro countries have a mix of public and private systems. Both Italy and Germany for example fairly substantial private health care markets but they exist alongside the publicly funded hospitals and "sickness funds" which is basically government provided insurance for low income people. In Germany you are required to have the public insurance if you are below a certain income, and you can opt into the public system if you are above that income level. Apparently the majority do opt in.
 
I really don't disagree but I couldn't resist busting your chops a little.

It's hard for me to see how to really make the free market work for health care. When your options are "pay me the asking price for chemo or die of cancer" or "you just arrived in an ambulance, to the only hospital in the county, with intense chest pain, now let's talk price!", you really don't have a functioning market. The market can and does work on the optional fringes of health care, like LASIK, and it might work if expanded to other quality of life procedures like joint replacements.

Some form of single payer is probably the only realistic option. It has to be combined with some spending and reforms pointed toward capacity building, as you have said several times.

Many of the countries with single payer are evolving to Single Payer+. Everyone is covered in these countries, but you can buy higher level private insurance as well. It's starting to work well in many places.

We are the perfect country for this type of healthcare. We already have the infrastructure for it. None of the countries had the massive of doctors, hospitals and clinics that we have and they have to build.

If we can get rid of the wasted money that we pay to middlemen, we could implement this in 3-7 years. Patients would get better service. Doctors would have more power. We'd get better results.
 
Many of the countries with single payer are evolving to Single Payer+. Everyone is covered in these countries, but you can buy higher level private insurance as well. It's starting to work well in many places.

We are the perfect country for this type of healthcare. We already have the infrastructure for it. None of the countries had the massive of doctors, hospitals and clinics that we have and they have to build.

If we can get rid of the wasted money that we pay to middlemen, we could implement this in 3-7 years. Patients would get better service. Doctors would have more power. We'd get better results.

I'm really surprised people don't know this. Private health insurance for people who can afford it was a no-brainer when I lived in England a decade ago.
 
Not sure how legit this is. If the actual numbers are even close to this, it was a really rough start.

healthcare-gov-enrollment-funnel.png
 
Anybody else remember when RJ was saying in the midst of the HC debate that he wouldn't support a single payer system?
 
What I said was I wanted the single payer +, but it would never pass.
 
After learning more about the source, it looks like a reasonable effort to estimate traffic given the lack of official statistics, but there is likely a margin of error.

I'm curious how much of the traffic is window shopping, rubbernecking, or perhaps even some operation chaos. All the number mean at this point is not many people have signed up just over two weeks in.
 
What I said was I wanted the single payer +, but it would never pass.

Man I wish I had done a screen shot. The argument was over whether or not ACA would lead to single payer. People were arguing that it would fuck up the current system and cause the government to jump in with a "rescue" of single payer-- essentially using the government to destroy it so it could rebuild it. You said you would not support that. That you would not support a single payer system. You didn't qualify it with any Clinton-esque parsing of "But I'd support single payer plus." You said you wouldn't support it. I LOLed and might have even responded with something like, "We'll see."
 
hat I said was not having ACA would bring on single payer much quicker as more and more people weer priced out of having insurance and CPAs were cutting delivered services to those who could pay.
 
With an average of 1000 posts a month, who the hell could remember what rj said on a particular thread? That said, I believe rj has been pretty consistent in promoting a single payor system with private insurance available to supplement it.
 
Not sure how legit this is. If the actual numbers are even close to this, it was a really rough start.

healthcare-gov-enrollment-funnel.png

The problem is all the people who really aren't looking for insurance but just want to snoop what's there on that crazy obamacare site. Many stop when you have to give some personal info to register, more will stop when you have to give more in the enrollment. So I think of those 9.47 million, a far smaller number are genuine customers.
 
Yep. The rubberneckers.
 
http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2013/10/report-5-2-million-adults-will-fall-into-aca-coverage-gap-next-year/

"5.2 million poor, uninsured adults will fall into the “coverage gap,” created by 26 states choosing not to expand Medicaid under the federal health law next year, according to a study released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation..."

26 states with governors who hate Obama more than they care about their constituents or the financial security of their states.

Turning down free money to help their states become healthier and more productive is not biting off your nose to spite your face. It's biting off your head, heart and lungs to spite your body.
 
26 states with governors who hate Obama more than they care about their constituents or the financial security of their states.

Turning down free money to help their states become healthier and more productive is not biting off your nose to spite your face. It's biting off your head, heart and lungs to spite your body.

I'm definitely on your side, but the bolded is not being entirely honest. I certainly think even reasonable conservatives would take objection to that claim.
 
I'm definitely on your side, but the bolded is not being entirely honest. I certainly think even reasonable conservatives would take objection to that claim.

For most of those states it would be entirely free money as they get far more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. The entire expansion would be paid for three years. If the economy grows at all, it will grow out of them having to the 10% they would be required to contribute after that period.
 
The numbers on that funnel are not that bad considering the press, the glitches, the states that aren't participating and that you can't buy anything for months.
 
The numbers on that funnel are not that bad considering the press, the glitches, the states that aren't participating and that you can't buy anything for months.

remaincalm-01.jpg
 
Back
Top