We spend a trillion dollars a year to protect us against harm from abroad; we spend hundreds of billions to protect us against domestic crime; why shouldn't we spent trillions to protect Americans from preventable and treatable disease?
We spend a trillion dollars a year to protect us against harm from abroad; we spend hundreds of billions to protect us against domestic crime; why shouldn't we spent trillions to protect Americans from preventable and treatable disease?
Originally posted by: MaxFlavor
Let's not forget that the Republicans did everything they could to gut ACA, to try and make it fail.
It's too bad that conservatives think nothing will work except the status quo. That's pretty sad. Change nothing, I guess that's why they call it "being a conservative".
I remember back when the ACA was passed in the Senate, the Democrats had a supermajority and could have rammed through any version of the bill with any provisions they wanted. That's sure as shit what the Republipigs would do if they were voting on, say, the Kill All Brown People Act or the Trump is Emperor for Life Bill. But the Dems wanted to be nice guys and included the Republipigs in the discussion. Ultimately, they made many unnecessary concessions, which led to the present flaws.
I also recall that Joe Manchin was a potential liability; he demanded a personal payment of $1.5 million for his vote (some tommyrot like a coal lease) and got it. He remained a threat, though.
Insofar as conservatism is concerned, it is indeed, by definition, fear and loathing of change. That's why I consider it a fundamentally flawed philosophy. Humans MUST continually change, adapt, and improve. And a worldview based on fear leads to misery and death--and ironically, more danger, not less.
Originally posted by: Inigo Montoya
Discontinued the subsidies with which it wouldn't work without, right?
Don't do drugs so early in the morning.
The ACA subsidies make care more affordable. Without them, the system would still work, but premiums would be higher.
The fundamental flaw in a corporate for-profit healthcare system is that some people won't be able to afford care. That, in turn, makes EVERYBODY less healthy.
That's why we should have universal free health care. PERIOD.
Originally posted by: Dealer1
We spend a trillion dollars a year to protect us against harm from abroad; we spend hundreds of billions to protect us against domestic crime; why shouldn't we spent trillions to protect Americans from preventable and treatable disease?
Because the people who decide such things are rich enough so that they don't have to worry about medical care.
Polls over the last 20+ years have consistently shown that a strong majority of Americans want universal single-payer goavernment-funded healthcare. The number has been as high as 70%. But corporate America and the corrupt motherfuckers whom they slather with money won't allow it.
Originally posted by: Inigo Montoya
Discontinued the subsidies with which it wouldn't work without, right?
A few things that they have done, I'm not surprised you are only familiar with the latest one, although I'm in favor of the subsidies. Of course, I haven't been a corporate wonk my whole life, so you might not understand what it takes to get health insurance without a corporate subsidy. Are you a corporate wonk? I really don't know, but it seems like it. I will happily apologize if I'm mistaken.
The biggest move the Republicans made was to eliminate the Individual Mandate Penalty as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The SCOTUS ruled that it was legal, so the Republicans quit trying to litigate it and repealed it. I'm not interested in explaining basic insurance principles to you, but it undermined the ACA by not allowing insurance companies to avoid "adverse selection" in writing policies. Look it up if you care to be educated, I don't think you do.
They also reduced the open enrollment period, making it more difficult for people to enroll. The insurance version of the Law of Large Numbers is important in lowering premiums.
Thanks for asking. I would love to hear your take on adverse selection and the Law of Large Numbers.
Hey Max, you snarled at me when I suggested that the Law of Large Numbers doesn't apply to insurance. If you like, look at irmi.com Law of Large Numbers article. It's online, but I can't copy the URL for some reason.
The article states that for a given set of probabilities, or risks in the case of insurance companies, in order for the Law to apply, the risks must be a) identical and b) independent. They note that neither is true with insurance.
For instance, if one person dies in a natural disaster, or succumbs to a pandemic, or dies in an auto wreck, there will be a correlation between that person's death and the risks incurred by other insured. Thus, the risks are not independent.
And it's obvious that the individual risks, no matter what kind of insurance, are not identical.
That's what I meant when I disputed the applicability of the Law and suggested that economy of scale is the real reason why insurance companies want as many customers as possible.
Forcing everybody to buy health insurance, even those who wouldn't voluntarily have done so, does indeed avert adverse selection, as insurance companies want as many low-risk enrollees as possible. The ACA was a huge boon to health insurance companies because suddenly, they had a whole bunch of new customers who were quite unlikely to make a claim. That lowered their overall risk and should have induced them to lower everyone's premiums, but of course, it didn't. The Republicans didn't realize that they had just fucked over the insurance companies they were trying to support.
