• 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

ImTheCaptain said:
as in the party that actually expanded availability of health insurance?
Click to expand...

Because it was a reasonable solution that couldn't be repealed and replaced by inflammatory, demagogic, or empty sloganism.
 
PhDeac said:
Because it was a reasonable solution that couldn't be repealed and replaced by inflammatory, demagogic, or empty sloganism.
Click to expand...
The "reasonable" portions of ACA have predictably been it's most unpopular aspects which have enabled conservative state legislatures to undermine it, starve it, and have nearly led to its repeal, save 1 Senate vote. Even to this day, the ACA is much less popular in states that didn't expand medicaid.
 
Well looking back it wasn't "reasonable" to leave it up to the states. Republicans screwed over their states and blamed Obama.
 
Paul Krugman knocks another one out of the park.

Very balanced and informative.
 
Colonel Angus said:
Paul Krugman knocks another one out of the park.

Very balanced and informative.
Click to expand...

Paul Krugman? Wow. Does he suck, or what? The difinitive hack..taken over for the equally dubious Mr Friedman.

Wrong and Wronger, sic
 
Would either of you like to point out exactly what he was wrong about?
 
PhDeac said:
Would either of you like to point out exactly what he was wrong about?
Click to expand...

Where did I say Paul K was wrong? He nailed this one as he usually does.

The ACA was a great plan executed flawlessly that was torpedoed by the racist and rube Republicans out of jealousy over Barack Obama.
 
Colonel Angus said:
Where did I say Paul K was wrong? He nailed this one as he usually does.

The ACA was a great plan executed flawlessly that was torpedoed by the racist and rube Republicans out of jealousy over Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

I assumed you were being sarcastic, but if not...

I don't think it was executed perfectly, but it wasn't an easy process. I'm glad you're so sure.
 
A new study shows that procedure costs vary wildly within individual hospitals, based on the bargaining power of the insurance company.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/po...tal-rates-insurance?__twitter_impression=true

From the conclusion section of the paper:
"...Historically, the prices hospitals negotiate with insurers have been treated as
commercially sensitive and have been largely unavailable to researchers on a national basis. Our
data includes hospitals’ transaction prices and we are able to observe substantial variation in
prices across hospitals, even for plausibly undifferentiated services like lower-limb MRIs.
Moreover, a significant amount of the national variation in prices occurs within hospitals. This suggests that insurers’ bargaining leverage influences the prices they negotiate with hospitals
We also use our data to characterize insurer-hospital contracts. When prices are set as a share of charges (rather than prospectively paid), it offers hospitals weak incentives to lower costs and it transfers the financial risk from idiosyncratically expensive cases to insurers. We find that approximately 23 percent of inpatient cases are paid as a share of charges and estimate that no more than 57 percent of inpatient cases are set as a percentage of Medicare rates..."
 
Interesting. More evidence that free market health care just isn't working for consumers.

The theory that the researchers put forward — and a theory I find compelling — is that these prices likely reflect different insurers’ market clout. An insurance plan with lots of members can demand lower prices; they’re essentially going to Costco and buying in bulk. But a smaller insurance plan with fewer members doesn’t have that kind of leverage, and gets stuck with higher prices as a result.
Click to expand...

If only there could be an "insurance plan" with a whole lot of members. Like a whole country.
 
If only there was an entity to protect its constituents from predatory, price gouging business practices.

Usury laws took care of banks and other money lenders back in the day. We didn't need to nationalize banks to solve that problem. A medical version of those laws would work again today.
 
awaken said:
If only there was an entity to protect its constituents from predatory, price gouging business practices.

Usury laws took care of banks and other money lenders back in the day. We didn't need to nationalize banks to solve that problem. A medical version of those laws would work again today.
Click to expand...

Yes. Thank god we are now protected from the predatory business practices of banks and other money lenders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top