Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 87

Thread: Health law could ban low-cost plans

  1. #31
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Z3n View Post
    The American people are shockingly apathetic. People would rather bitch about a Health Care Law than go out and protest it. If it is found to be unconstitutional, then it will be repealed. That's called the democratic process if im not mistaken, folks. :P
    I wouldn't put too many eggs in that basket.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #32
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Better care, less cost, more access. That should be our effort and leave the Beckish nonsense at the door.
    And if the law did all of this, I doubt many would have a problem. The only one that will actually happen is more access. Overall spending will increase substantially, even if you pretend that Congress will let all the Doc fixes expire (never gonna happen). There's nothing in the bill that leads me to believe it will increase quality of care, especially in light of recent disclosures.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And if the law did all of this, I doubt many would have a problem. The only one that will actually happen is more access. Overall spending will increase substantially, even if you pretend that Congress will let all the Doc fixes expire (never gonna happen). There's nothing in the bill that leads me to believe it will increase quality of care, especially in light of recent disclosures.
    No, we'd still have a problem. The socialism, death panel nonsense would continue (which is what contributed to watering down the bill to start with). But we can't get there if we don't take the first step.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #34
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, we'd still have a problem. The socialism, death panel nonsense would continue (which is what contributed to watering down the bill to start with). But we can't get there if we don't take the first step.
    Too bad that first step was off a cliff. The fall isn't all that bad but the sudden stop is going to be a bitch.

    BTW, you certainly are a one-trick-pony with all the first stepping

    .

  5. #35
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    Too bad that first step was off a cliff. The fall isn't all that bad but the sudden stop is going to be a bitch.

    BTW, you certainly are a one-trick-pony with all the first stepping

    .
    Taking the first step is important. There is a history here. Health care reform isn't new. People have been trying for decades. And the history shows us that opponents have always hindered reform with the same tired and false arguments used this time (socialism and death panel stuff). Only in the past, they prevented anything from passing. So, the problem continued. And that is what opponents hoped for this time. So, managing to get something is an improvement. But again, more work needs to be done.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #36
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, we'd still have a problem. The socialism, death panel nonsense would continue (which is what contributed to watering down the bill to start with). But we can't get there if we don't take the first step.
    If that "first step" doesn't do anything to put us in a position to reduce costs or improve overall care, is it really a first step?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #37
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If that "first step" doesn't do anything to put us in a position to reduce costs or improve overall care, is it really a first step?
    Yes, it is. It has improved access and that alone improves care. Cost is more iffy, and I personally believe more needs to be done. But doing nothing simply was never acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #38
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yes, it is. It has improved access and that alone improves care. Cost is more iffy, and I personally believe more needs to be done. But doing nothing simply was never acceptable as far as I'm concerned.
    These are not independent factors, they have to be considered in light of one another. If an increase in access of care improves quality of care by a tiny margin, but at a huge cost, then it's not necessarily an improvement.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #39
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yes, it is. It has improved access and that alone improves care. Cost is more iffy, and I personally believe more needs to be done. But doing nothing simply was never acceptable as far as I'm concerned.
    Care to pontificate on how it has inproved access using more than what you hope will occur? If more providers opt out of CMS and like programs, it will actually worsen access.

    .

  10. #40
    Student Civil1z@tion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    12-10-10 @ 02:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    247

    Re: Health law could ban low-cost plans

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Taking the first step is important. There is a history here. Health care reform isn't new. People have been trying for decades. And the history shows us that opponents have always hindered reform with the same tired and false arguments used this time (socialism and death panel stuff). Only in the past, they prevented anything from passing. So, the problem continued. And that is what opponents hoped for this time. So, managing to get something is an improvement. But again, more work needs to be done.
    A step that isn't in the right direction is no better than no step at all. The bill primarily attacks insurance, which the non-medicine related parts (administration, marking, and profits) makes up 12% of the cost of insurance premiums, whereas hospitals and doctors make up 52% of costs and not to mentions the costs associated with already present government regulations and interventions. Break the AMA's ability to limit the number of spots in med schools, drop the government regulations which end up setting prices (typically higher prices), and weaken drug patent laws (drug companies make up another 10% of health care costs) and you'll be attacking prices (and therefore access as lower price=increased access) far more effectively than this bill does. And I think that with the possible exception of weakening the drug patent laws, that law would have been easier to pass. But it would have meant less government intervention which would have gone against the credo of those driving the health care debate (things like death panels were only reactionary, the demands for government intervention is what really controlled the debate as no one really took the idea of reform lessening intervention seriously).

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •