rigorousintuition.ca

I say welcome to my world

I have not had health insurance in over 40 years.....those years included having 4 children and raising them ...without health insurance

The lowest priced bronze plan has a $5000 deductible, co-pays of 40%, a $6,350 out-of-pocket maximum, and I think monthly premiums average somewhere around $150, depending on where you live. For example, in NY, I think it's closer to $350.

So, if you want to truly compare 2013 to 2014, in addition to the premiums, you must add the extra cost of deductibles, co-payments, etc., and the narrower networks because the cheaper the plan, the less hospitals/doctors in your network.

Basically it's a one size fits all program that shifts cost from the insurance company to the patient and forces most people to pay premiums for things they will never use. According to Forbes, so far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. I wonder why....

According to Forbes, so far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. I wonder why....

Yes, yes and yes. Exactly. Money never lies.......but people do, even to themselves, to get it and protect those who have it even if they don't have much themselves.

well, the insurance companies aren't THAT likely to make a shit load more money... Remember they are now required to spend most of their cashflow paying claims, administrative costs capped. A lot of dumb money chases the stock of whatever's in the news. Who are the "fools" selling the shares?

well, the insurance companies aren't THAT likely to make a shit load more money...

if there is anyone left literate out there still in cyber whereverthehellweare, please o please drop some shakespeare right about now "o cruel something something something...."

82_28 » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:05 am wrote:Jesus. This "Obamacare" shit is ridiculous. I went to my state's "calculator" thing for what I will be expected to pay and it's around $300 a month I MUST pay and this includes a $51 "credit". Dude, I don't got no $300 a month to send to some private company or else face a "penalty". !

Can I ask you how much you were paying before Obamacare ???
Thanks
By the way I am in Canada .... we have "free" healthcare (no premiums to pay)
What they do is take it off our paychecks as income tax and make us think it is free
about 43% of our federal government budget goes to pay doctors and hospitals
Often there are long lineups for medical care and crappy service
About the equivalent to what an unemployed homeless would get in the USA
Socialism never works

On the other hand--if everyone has "skin" in the game--maybe some serious discussion may start regarding a modern Canadian-style system of health care.

freemason9 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:16 pm wrote:On the other hand--if everyone has "skin" in the game--maybe some serious discussion may start regarding a modern Canadian-style system of health care.

In many ways the private insurance USA system was the best , you are treated more like a "customer" .... and if you have an insurance provider or a doctor you dont like , you can change.

In Canada's system the patient often feels like a beggar , you have very little choice in anything , you take what you get , and in some areas it is impossible to even find a family doctor (not enough doctors)

In an emergency , or serious illness the Canadian system works pretty good but the rest of the time it is not so great.

Some faults with the USA system is there is sometimes a huge profit in healthcare , and your drug prices are crazy expensive ...... I am not against profits , but sometimes it becomes obscene.

The bottom line .... there are drawbacks in both systems ..... but when governments think they can run things best is where everything goes wrong. Most governments can hardly run themselves properly , let alone healthcare systems.

justdrew » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:34 am wrote: In fact ALL insurance schemes would be best run by a single central source, everyone in the same risk pool, operated on a non-profit basis would lead to the most cost-effective coverage in all cases.

Now, now justdrew. That's sounds like socialism. Gasp. And we all know that never works.

brainpanhandler » 10 Oct 2013 00:00 wrote:

justdrew » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:34 am wrote: In fact ALL insurance schemes would be best run by a single central source, everyone in the same risk pool, operated on a non-profit basis would lead to the most cost-effective coverage in all cases.

Now, now justdrew. That's sounds like socialism. Gasp. And we all know that never works.

it'll be fine though when the "market" consolidates down to one company. Or a cartel of three.

Now, now justdrew. That's sounds like socialism. Gasp. And we all know that never works.

I agree with you about decentralization of power and governance. This would not be in keeping with that. Centralization provides significant leverage to power for power seekers. Decentralization prevents the sociopaths/psychopaths from gaining this leverage and creating even more psychopathy/sociopathy because said behavior is rewarded and reinforced. With decentralization you don't necessarily eliminate psychopathy/sociopathy, but you do significantly mitigate its creation and spread. It's much more difficult for psychopaths/sociopaths to gain leverage one community at a time, and with decentralization, they're much easier to spot and manage. With centralization, the psychopaths/sociopaths hide behind institutional walls and insulate themselves from reproach as they go about destroying countless lives.

Carol Newquist » Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:26 am wrote:

Now, now justdrew. That's sounds like socialism. Gasp. And we all know that never works.

I agree with you about decentralization of power and governance. This would not be in keeping with that. Centralization provides significant leverage to power for power seekers. Decentralization prevents the sociopaths/psychopaths from gaining this leverage and creating even more psychopathy/sociopathy because said behavior is rewarded and reinforced. With decentralization you don't necessarily eliminate psychopathy/sociopathy, but you do significantly mitigate its creation and spread. It's much more difficult for psychopaths/sociopaths to gain leverage one community at a time, and with decentralization, they're much easier to spot and manage. With centralization, the psychopaths/sociopaths hide behind institutional walls and insulate themselves from reproach as they go about destroying countless lives.

Does capitalism lead to more or less centralization of power when government is owned and manipulated for profit by private interests? Government should at a minimum regulate capitalism such that the psychopaths/sociopaths cannot treat the populace as cattle and the world as it's ashtray.

I can theorize about what I believe to be an ideal world. But i'd be a fool to think we can get there from here in one leap. We cannot think about how to get to a better place by imaging the starting variables to be other than what they are. We have to deal with the world as it is.

If the goal is to minimize suffering (and I think that has to be a central goal) then intermediate steps between where we are and some form of decentralized self governing society will require that government become more involved, not less. That means some form of of what most brainwashed westerners consider "socialism".

Single payer (the government, but not this government) would be a vast improvement over the current health care system or the one proposed by the Obama administration.

Frankly all medicine should by non-profit by fiat. All insurance should be non-profit. Why in anyone's moral reckoning should corporations and their shareholders be making a profit on the suffering and misfortune of others? IMO it's obscene on the face of it. And yet somehow that is a minority opinion.

It's complicated and I am sure I more than occasionally contradict myself. But again, intervening stages. Theorizing about ideals is useful but not very practical if done in a theoretical vacuum.

Does capitalism lead to more or less centralization of power when government is owned and manipulated for profit by private interests? Government should at a minimum regulate capitalism such that the psychopaths/sociopaths cannot treat the populace as cattle and the world as it's ashtray.

To me, it's irrelevant what leads to or doesn't lead to centralization. Centralization is the issue. And yes, I understand that getting from where we are now, a highly centralized, corporately-controlled government to a highly decentralized, cooperatively-collaborative governance at the local and community level is a tall order and probably impossible without some form of collapse/calamity. Both Socialism and Capitalism do lead, and have led, to centralization and abuse of, and leverage of power by psychopaths/sociopaths. Mao and Stalin were murderous monsters. Centralization greased the skids for the scale of their sadistic brutalization. Same for Nazi Germany....a fusion of corporation and state except from the opposite direction....the state initiated the bond, whereas in the U.S., it was the corporation initiating the covenant...but ultimately the same result...an oppressive tyranny that utilizes the immense leveraging power of centralization to subjugate the earth.

Carol Newquist » Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:01 am wrote:

Mao and Stalin were murderous monsters. Centralization greased the skids for the scale of their sadistic brutalization. Same for Nazi Germany....a fusion of corporation and state except from the opposite direction....

I didn't think I had to say this... That was not socialism. That was totalitarianism. I am not advocating for totalitarianism.

Single payer. A non-profit pool of risk. That's it. Brainwashed westerners consider that "socialism", by which they mean the specter of maoist/stalinist totalitarianism. I just consider it socialism, without the scare quotes.

That was not socialism.

Of course it wasn't, but it was inculcated and implemented under the guise of Socialism, so excuse me if I'm mistrusting of the next banner of it that comes along that says this time we'll do it right......we promise.

In the meantime, I will restate that I was for Single Payer, but that's a moot point. It's not going to happen. Ever. And I have no faith, whatsoever, this sack of crap legislation called the ACA will ever lead to Single Payer or Universal Healthcare.