• 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

PhDeac said:
Seems like you partly answered your own. The uncertainty allows all sides to embrace worst case scenarios.
Click to expand...

Yup. And I think both are flawed. Sure, the law has big foundational flaws but its stable, just inherently inflationary. Both sides want it to fail, one to say "see it sucked" and the other "you dumb asses killed it lets get Medicare for all". My broader point is to question the hyperbole on both sides. The pubs likely can't kill it so will chip away at it (most of the bog levers have been pulled) and the left will scream and yell its going to kill p0eo0ple, yet folks remain enrolled. I'll also go on record saying the Hobby Lobby ruling will largely have no impact.

What we should examine is the cost. No one wants to talk about this one.
 
ONW said:
If most of these changes are trivial, was the ACA destroying the healthcare industry in the first place?
Click to expand...

Ive argued it really only impacted 7% of people, most for the good. The issue I have with it is cost. Insurers lost a ton (plusP), thanks in part to a poorly designed risk corridor program and a poor roll out. They've caught up on pricing and will make $ on a go forward basis IMHO. Meanwhile, providers have made a killing+. The poor middle class schmuck who doesn't get a subsidy is the big long term loser here and the tax payer.

The problem is its not sustainable. We simply cant increase subsidies to cover the increased cost of care. That formula doesn't work over the medium term. Its a disaster waiting to happen.
 
CHDeac said:
Ive argued it really only impacted 7% of people, most for the good. The issue I have with it is cost. Insurers lost a ton (plusP), thanks in part to a poorly designed risk corridor program and a poor roll out. They've caught up on pricing and will make $ on a go forward basis IMHO. Meanwhile, providers have made a killing+. The poor middle class schmuck who doesn't get a subsidy is the big long term loser here and the tax payer.

The problem is its not sustainable. We simply cant increase subsidies to cover the increased cost of care. That formula doesn't work over the medium term. Its a disaster waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Does any alternative proposed at this point solve the cost, premium, difficulty in availability problems?
 
ONW said:
Agreed. Does any alternative proposed at this point solve the cost, premium, difficulty in availability problems?
Click to expand...

None that were considered. Im also not sure we have the stomach for it. Controlling costs means that we wont be able to get whatever care we want whenever we want at any place we want it. That needs to change....
 
CHDeac said:
None that were considered. Im also not sure we have the stomach for it. Controlling costs means that we wont be able to get whatever care we want whenever we want at any place we want it. That needs to change....
Click to expand...

End of life care
 
CHDeac said:
None that were considered. Im also not sure we have the stomach for it. Controlling costs means that we wont be able to get whatever care we want whenever we want at any place we want it. That needs to change....
Click to expand...

To control costs we need a better food policy for healthier citizens who don't require as much healthcare (decrease demand), and medical usury laws to stop provider gouging. I think it was already cited in this thread but medical schools are considering accepting students with liberal arts degrees - good to increase supply of providers. This is no mystery - just basic supply and demand - but it would take cojones to gore certain established bulls (various food lobbies, healthcare lobby, etc).
 
It’s pretty impossible to enact meaningful public health policy in a free market economy with a politically charged climate.

Republicans have stood up against common sense practices like healthy school lunches and size limits on soft drinks.
 
PhDeac said:
It’s pretty impossible to enact meaningful public health policy in a free market economy with a politically charged climate.

Republicans have stood up against common sense practices like healthy school lunches and size limits on soft drinks.
Click to expand...

That's because they are ridiculous proposals.
 
The Mangler said:
That's because they are ridiculous proposals.
Click to expand...

Case in point.

What do you think is ridiculous? Providing school lunch or making sure said lunch is healthy?
 
PhDeac said:
Case in point.

What do you think is ridiculous? Providing school lunch or making sure said lunch is healthy?
Click to expand...

I'm all for free lunches although I wish they could be offered in non-school locations in addition to the school offerings.

I teach in a middle school that serves a 100% free and reduced lunch population. Everyday I see large numbers of students getting a tray of food and immediately dumping almost all of it in the trash can. Instead of getting a healthy lunch students are getting no lunch that has the added benefit of costing money. Many other students will simply bring a bag of Takis or some other type of chip and only eat those. I'm guessing that option is less healthy than the options previously available. The limit on soda size is just stupid. If the container can only be 16 ounces and someone wants more they'll just buy two.
 
In case you were curious .... while raisins can be effective carrot sticks are usually preferable as medium range projectiles in the cafeteria and classrooms.
 
We certainly need to include these public health policies in reform. That was a miss. instead of taxing things that drive medical spend, we taxed insurance which insurers just passed on. There was also an exchange fee which you guessed it, got passed onto exchange customers. The govt subsidized something they taxed. Makes great sense. We can criticize the pubs but the dems are equally shameful.

We need to start paying for value and outcomes. So much opportunity there.

Im glad I don't work in a middle school.
 
The Mangler said:
I'm all for free lunches although I wish they could be offered in non-school locations in addition to the school offerings.

I teach in a middle school that serves a 100% free and reduced lunch population. Everyday I see large numbers of students getting a tray of food and immediately dumping almost all of it in the trash can. Instead of getting a healthy lunch students are getting no lunch that has the added benefit of costing money. Many other students will simply bring a bag of Takis or some other type of chip and only eat those. I'm guessing that option is less healthy than the options previously available. The limit on soda size is just stupid. If the container can only be 16 ounces and someone wants more they'll just buy two.
Click to expand...

While I agree that wasted food is a problem, you don't just give kids what they want.
 
Mangler, is your point that you can’t get kids to eat a healthy lunch, so trying is a waste of money?
 
Tobacco Road said:
Mangler, is your point that you can’t get kids to eat a healthy lunch, so trying is a waste of money?
Click to expand...

It's all about liberty. I don't want the government involved in whether an individual buys health insurance, gets an abortion, has a 48 ounce soda or eats a cheeseburger and fries for lunch. Those should be individual choices. If the government wants to provide some healthy options that students can choose if they desire that's great. On the other hand, I believe that forcing people into a particular behavior often makes them more resistant than they otherwise would have been and as a result is counterproductive. Unless we are going to have government controlling adult behaviors kids need to learn to make choices for themselves. What better place to do that than school?
 
The Mangler said:
It's all about liberty. I don't want the government involved in whether an individual buys health insurance, gets an abortion, has a 48 ounce soda or eats a cheeseburger and fries for lunch. Those should be individual choices. If the government wants to provide some healthy options that students can choose if they desire that's great. On the other hand, I believe that forcing people into a particular behavior often makes them more resistant than they otherwise would have been and as a result is counterproductive. Unless we are going to have government controlling adult behaviors kids need to learn to make choices for themselves. What better place to do that than school?
Click to expand...

There’s a reason why no large societies run this way. Because it doesn’t work. It’s pure fantasy land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top