(November 28, 2014 at 2:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, if the state is offering the service then there's no reason not to avail yourself of that service. Sometimes people say "ah, but quality of service" - but that is a tacit approval of the notion that it's okay for the state to offer shitty service.

Just one thing to point out. Most of Europe and certainy my country has dual service and it works. Some countries, like Germany for instance, also have the opportunity to either to buy private of public insurance. In every country there's the possibility to buy additional private insurance but public insurance is mandatory.

Can anyone point out the lie in this pronouncement by Obama?

Quote:If you have a doctor that you like, you can keep that doctor. Nobody is trying to change what works. We’re trying to change what doesn’t work… This is not like Canada.

(November 28, 2014 at 12:39 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 28, 2014 at 10:15 am)Rhythm Wrote: The state can build you whatever you like, comrade. :winks:

Yes and I would rather have them build hospitals and clinics than give billions away to insurance company fat cats.

And how does that solve the problem of people not being able to afford healthcare because they don't have insurance. Insurance is little more than a structured way of distributing risks across a class of people. If you pay for healthcare directly without that buffer, it ends up costing more for, I presume, the taxpayer, because you don't have a whole class of people contributing via insurance. You end up having to pay that cost by raising taxes. I don't see how that is an improvement.

(November 28, 2014 at 4:41 pm)xpastor Wrote: Can anyone point out the lie in this pronouncement by Obama?

Quote:If you have a doctor that you like, you can keep that doctor. Nobody is trying to change what works. We’re trying to change what doesn’t work… This is not like Canada.

He was a Democrat when he said that.

(November 28, 2014 at 4:59 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(November 28, 2014 at 12:39 pm)Heywood Wrote: Yes and I would rather have them build hospitals and clinics than give billions away to insurance company fat cats.

And how does that solve the problem of people not being able to afford healthcare because they don't have insurance. Insurance is little more than a structured way of distributing risks across a class of people. If you pay for healthcare directly without that buffer, it ends up costing more for, I presume, the taxpayer, because you don't have a whole class of people contributing via insurance. You end up having to pay that cost by raising taxes. I don't see how that is an improvement.

Government produced health care would be free or at minimal cost to the recipient of that healthcare. It would drive down the cost of health care because the more there is of something, the cheaper it will be. The price of oil is dropping significantly because the Saudis are increasing their output to make the price so low that it becomes unprofitable to extract it from American shale.

If the price of health care is so high that it is not affordable to the average American the solution is to produce more of it. Obamacare does nothing to lower the cost of health care. It will actually make the cost go up by increasing demand for it. On top of that it will restrict supply because for many of the newly insured(medicaid), re-reimbursement rates are set by the government at artificially low prices.

Insurance is not just a way of distributing risk across a class of people. It is also a gambling transaction. Generally when you make a bet with an insurance company, your bet has a negative expected value and their bet has a positive expectation. The positive expected value ends up being the insurance companies gross margin. Under Obamacare, if an insurance company makes so many bad bets that it loses money, the government will re-reimburse them for their losses. Its like being able to spend a night at the casino and if you win...awesome. If you loose don't sweat it...the government will send you a check to cover your losses.

Obamacare is a shitty law because it does nothing to actually address the problem....health care is expensive. It merely covers it up with a very expensive bandaid. You will see the amount of money spent per capita on health care in the United States rise because of Obamacare.

(November 28, 2014 at 8:22 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 28, 2014 at 4:59 pm)rasetsu Wrote: And how does that solve the problem of people not being able to afford healthcare because they don't have insurance. Insurance is little more than a structured way of distributing risks across a class of people. If you pay for healthcare directly without that buffer, it ends up costing more for, I presume, the taxpayer, because you don't have a whole class of people contributing via insurance. You end up having to pay that cost by raising taxes. I don't see how that is an improvement.

Government produced health care would be free or at minimal cost to the recipient of that healthcare. It would drive down the cost of health care because the more there is of something, the cheaper it will be. The price of oil is dropping significantly because the Saudis are increasing their output to make the price so low that it becomes unprofitable to extract it from American shale.

If the price of health care is so high that it is not affordable to the average American the solution is to produce more of it. Obamacare does nothing to lower the cost of health care. It will actually make the cost go up by increasing demand for it. On top of that it will restrict supply because for many of the newly insured(medicaid), re-reimbursement rates are set by the government at artificially low prices.

Insurance is not just a way of distributing risk across a class of people. It is also a gambling transaction. Generally when you make a bet with an insurance company, your bet has a negative expected value and their bet has a positive expectation. The positive expected value ends up being the insurance companies gross margin. Under Obamacare, if an insurance company makes so many bad bets that it loses money, the government will re-reimburse them for their losses. Its like being able to spend a night at the casino and if you win...awesome. If you loose don't sweat it...the government will send you a check to cover your losses.

Obamacare is a shitty law because it does nothing to actually address the problem....health care is expensive. It merely covers it up with a very expensive bandaid. You will see the amount of money spent per capita on health care in the United States rise because of Obamacare.

You let the truth out once again to blind to see what you yourself typed. So you are fine with health care being a gambling transaction? Only a selfish person would think that.

Ok, we can play that game. If you want to treat health care like making a bet on a roulette wheel, then it is a safe bet everyone will get sick and everyone eventually does. You don't care about anyone but yourself, otherwise you would not equate a human need in the same manor you put gambling. Gambling is a choice, getting sick is not a choice.

The human body is flawed and every human will get something some way at some point. I find your attitude very sick, as sick as saying "no one is entitled to water".

I swear man the way you think, you'd be thrilled if the private sector could control oxygen consumption and charge humans for breathing.

(November 28, 2014 at 10:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You let the truth out once again to blind to see what you yourself typed. So you are fine with health care being a gambling transaction? Only a selfish person would think that.

Ok, we can play that game. If you want to treat health care like making a bet on a roulette wheel, then it is a safe bet everyone will get sick and everyone eventually does. You don't care about anyone but yourself, otherwise you would not equate a human need in the same manor you put gambling. Gambling is a choice, getting sick is not a choice.

I usually don't respond to your post anymore because I have come to the conclusion that you are a moron. But I will this time to take an opportunity to explain why health insurance is a gambling transaction.

It is a gambling transaction because the insurance company is making a bet. The insurace company is betting you will consume less health care than your premium. For instance, if you pay 10,000 dollars a year for health insurance, the insurance company is betting you will consume less than that. Lets say the insurance companies actuaries have figured out that the average joe consumes 9,000 dollars a year of health care. You drop 10,000 dollars a year into the health insurance slot machine. On average the health insurance slot machine cover 9,000 dollars worth of your health care consumption. The expected value of the transaction for the insurance company is 1,000 dollars. Your expected value of the transaction is -1,000 dollars. It is a gambling transaction because both parties are risking a sum of money on the basis of an unknown outcome of some future event.

(November 29, 2014 at 12:25 am)Heywood Wrote:

(November 28, 2014 at 10:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You let the truth out once again to blind to see what you yourself typed. So you are fine with health care being a gambling transaction? Only a selfish person would think that.

Ok, we can play that game. If you want to treat health care like making a bet on a roulette wheel, then it is a safe bet everyone will get sick and everyone eventually does. You don't care about anyone but yourself, otherwise you would not equate a human need in the same manor you put gambling. Gambling is a choice, getting sick is not a choice.

I usually don't respond to your post anymore because I have come to the conclusion that you are a moron. But I will this time to take an opportunity to explain why health insurance is a gambling transaction.

It is a gambling transaction because the insurance company is making a bet. The insurace company is betting you will consume less health care than your premium. For instance, if you pay 10,000 dollars a year for health insurance, the insurance company is betting you will consume less than that. Lets say the insurance companies actuaries have figured out that the average joe consumes 9,000 dollars a year of health care. You drop 10,000 dollars a year into the health insurance slot machine. On average the health insurance slot machine cover 9,000 dollars worth of your health care consumption. The expected value of the transaction for the insurance company is 1,000 dollars. Your expected value of the transaction is -1,000 dollars. It is a gambling transaction because both parties are risking a sum of money on the basis of an unknown outcome of some future event.

Arguing two different things. Brian is agruing about a person betting if he/she will get sick. Insurance companies betting on how often and how bad will the person get sick. Who's betting and what is the bet are completely different.

Plus, you paint the insurance company as just looking to make 10% of the premiums. However, we know that is not how the insurance company actually works. Obamacare has one specific provision called the 80/20 rule. The rule generally requires health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to spend at least 80% of the premium dollars they collect on medical care or activities to improve health care quality. And that increases to 85% for insurance companies in the large group market.

Which is a very, very generous margin, I might add.

"Hey, fellas, slow down on the skullfucking, keep it to within a few bil a year okay?"
- "Socialist!"

(November 29, 2014 at 3:24 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Arguing two different things. Brian is agruing about a person betting if he/she will get sick. Insurance companies betting on how often and how bad will the person get sick. Who's betting and what is the bet are completely different.

Plus, you paint the insurance company as just looking to make 10% of the premiums. However, we know that is not how the insurance company actually works. Obamacare has one specific provision called the 80/20 rule. The rule generally requires health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to spend at least 80% of the premium dollars they collect on medical care or activities to improve health care quality. And that increases to 85% for insurance companies in the large group market.

The parties can have different motivations for engaging in a betting transaction but there is only 1 betting transaction. You are conflating motivations with the actual transaction.

The reason the insurance companies make profits is because their side of the bet usually has a positive expected value. The customer generally has a negative expected value. Obama basically forced most Americans to make a bad bet with an insurance company. I think intuitively people realize this on some level which is why they dislike Obamacare.