If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AEI Ideas)   How to turn Obamacare into FreeMarketcare in 4 easy(-ish) steps   (aei-ideas.org) divider line 24
    More: Interesting, FreeMarketcare, obamacare, sliding scale, health savings account  
•       •       •

2395 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 11:36 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-03 11:39:56 AM  
5 votes:
Only three viable options:

1. Public option.
2. Single payer.
3. F*ck the f*ck off, you lost. Deal.
2012-12-03 10:23:01 AM  
4 votes:
ObamaCare is already FreeMarketCare. I don't support the idea of putting Medicare into the mix. Leave it alone.
2012-12-03 01:03:01 PM  
2 votes:
Everytime I ask someone from the DERP squat what regulations they want eliminated they can't name one.

Not one.

so they say something stupid like

"All of them. Derp derp."

And I ask, even those that assure safe high quality medications?

They are so frigging dumb that they don't even know what they oppose.
2012-12-03 12:56:01 PM  
2 votes:
I think the most important thing is to make patients aware of actual costs. None of the costs are advertised or rarely stated up front, it's all handled by insurance. You can't have a free market if people are unaware of the economics.
2012-12-03 11:57:04 AM  
2 votes:
All Obama needs to do now is allow Medicare/Medicaid to be sold 'at cost' on the exchanges. It is a back door into single payer.

All insurance companies add is hundreds of thousands of middle men who do nothing but add costs and deny care.
2012-12-03 11:51:46 AM  
2 votes:
The problem with the approach outlined is that it doesn't really address where the costs are coming from:

1) none of the participants other than insurance companies have any incentive to control costs (i.e., buyer isn't paying)

2) Insurance companies do have incentive to control costs to themselves, but not costs to the patient. And in addition they have a profit motive which incentivizes them to retain any savings they force from the providers rather than pass it on to the buyers.

Insurance should be used only for catastrophic heath needs -- sudden onset of rare disease, car accident, complications at childbirth, etc... Not for eldercare or preventative care. Everyone needs those things and insurance for something everyone needs only adds overhead.
2012-12-03 11:47:42 AM  
2 votes:
Let more people buy insurance on their own rather than through their employer.

I was unaware that people were not allowed to buy private insurance. Not able to afford it, sure - but unless this guy has a plan upping the wages of everyone in the country by 25% or so, I don't see how you 'let' more people do this.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 10:26:49 AM  
2 votes:
Deregulation and cuts and get rid of Medicare. I didn't even need to read it.
2012-12-03 02:56:17 PM  
1 votes:

nekom: 1. Deregulate the state exchanges, while capping subsidies.
I understand those words, but what on Earth does that even mean?

2. Slowly shift Medicare patients into the exchanges.
Why? What's wrong with Medicare as it is?

3. Let more people buy insurance on their own rather than through their employer.
Why? Employers can pool insurance and negotiate for much lower rates than an individual can. Part of the reason I still work where I do is because of my awesome benefits package.

4. Move Medicaid patients into the exchanges.
How is this different than #2? Is this idea so novel that it needed mentioned twice?


It means that they want to do to the insurance market what they did to the consumer credit market in 1978.

In 1978, every stte in the union had robust usury laws that capped the maximum rate of interest allowable on consumer loans and made it an actual crime to exceed it, and generally had pretty robust consumer protections for credit cards.

That year the Supreme Court ruled on a jurisdictional question: i cases where the lender was in one state, and the cosumer in another, should the laws of the consumer's state apply or those of where the loan company had its HQ?

They ruled in favor of the latter, the state of lender, and all hell broke loose.

South Dokota essentially went to credit card companies and promised they'd repeal their usury law and most of their consumer protection laws, if the credit card companies would agree to re-locate there. The companies did, and suddenly a "race to the bottom"was touched off among the states to see who could abandon thier consumer protections fast enough to appease and win the business of the big banks. When the race stopped, DE, NVand SD "won" the race, and our consumer lending protections were in tatters and things like 900% interest 'payday" loans became legal

Doing that to the insurance market has been an industry wet dream ever since.
2012-12-03 02:49:31 PM  
1 votes:

entropic_existence: mrshowrules: Conservatives want free-market insurance. Liberals want single-payer. It is like one side wants to go swimming and the other side wants to mountain climbing so the natural compromise is either go swimming in your mountain gear or climb the mountain in a bathing suit.

I think liberals want affordable Universal coverage, but not necessarily single-payer. There is definitely a large-component that prefer single-payer, as the obvious model that they see to compare against is Canada's, but it has never seemed to me that they are generally 100% set on that model.


Literally any other model in the industrialized world would be better than what the US has today.
2012-12-03 02:45:08 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: 1. Deregulate the state exchanges, while capping subsidies.
2. Slowly shift Medicare patients into the exchanges.
3. Let more people buy insurance on their own rather than through their employer.
4. Move Medicaid patients into the exchanges.

It's actually 3 steps, as 2 and 4 are the same. Also, steps 2 and 4 have nothing to do with Obamacare. Medicare existed before Obamacare.

As for #3, does the author think people are prevented from purchasing insurance on their own? Of course not, what the author really meant was "don't force employers to give their workers health insurance." It seems the author thinks an employer who saves $10,000 a year on health insurance costs is just going to pay that person $10,000 more a year. They won't. They'll keep it for themselves.


The author doesn't think that. The author wants you to think that. Two big reasons for 'letting people buy insurance on their own rather than through their employer.' And neither of them has anything to do with better access to or quality of healthcare.
Moving the burden off the employer means more profit for the employer. Having individuals buy insurance instead of groups means higher rates and more profit for insurance companies.

I think, though, that one of the unintended consequences of all this bellyaching from conservatives about employer-offered insurance coverage is that they're making the argument in favor of universal single payer.
2012-12-03 01:28:47 PM  
1 votes:

Zasteva: Insurance should be used only for catastrophic heath needs -- sudden onset of rare disease, car accident, complications at childbirth, etc... Not for eldercare or preventative care.


DEFINE catastrophic a little better, please?

Does my aunt's Multiple Sclerosis count? She's been living with that for years, so it's not some surprise. But, the average annual cost of her care is roughly the most she's ever made in a year (so, yeah, from a financial optimization POV, she'd be better off dead).

Does my nephew-in-law's muscular dystrophy? I mean, it was a surprise when he was diagnosed with it, but not so much now.

Does the fact that I have a genetic 1-in-4 chance of the late-40s kidney cancer my mom had count as catastrophic? Since I can maybe sorta predict it?

The problem is there is no line. You can't divide out 'catastrophic' in any meaningful sense other than saying "okay, we'll set a $10k or $15k annual deductible". Which millions of Americans are already have, to no measurable salutary effect on the nation's health care cost issues.
2012-12-03 01:23:32 PM  
1 votes:

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Zasteva:
Insurance should be used only for catastrophic heath needs -- sudden onset of rare disease, car accident, complications at childbirth, etc... Not for eldercare or preventative care. Everyone needs those things and insurance for something everyone needs only adds overhead.

This is a horrible idea, unless you are coming up with a drastic new definition of what insurance is or should be. Preventative care is absolutely, 100% one of the most important parts of any health plan. And health plan = insurance. Period.


I think what he's saying is that preventative medicine shouldn't be so expensive that you need insurance to get it.
2012-12-03 01:02:21 PM  
1 votes:
I would love for them to put in #3 anyway. My employer plan sucks. Give me the tax benefit directly and let me buy my own plan.
2012-12-03 12:24:12 PM  
1 votes:

Lumpmoose: make me some tea: ObamaCare is already FreeMarketCare. I don't support the idea of putting Medicare into the mix. Leave it alone.

Yeah, if you want universal health care you must pick 1) "a windfall for the insurance companies" via the mandate, 2) competition against a public insurance option or 3) the end of private health insurance as we know it. Obama picked #1.


The Swiss system that they compare to in the article (I'm not sure the author of TFA really understands the Swiss-model, since deregulation isn't in line with how the Swiss do it) doesn't fit any of those three groups and is considered Universal coverage. Residents are mandated to buy insurance by law, the kicker is that in order to provide health insurance a company has to be registered with the proper Swiss authorities, and by law the "basic" coverage, which they must offer, can not have a profit. So many of the insurance companies are actually non-profits in Switzerland. You are allowed to build "premium" packages that offer more amenities, etc. And those can make a profit.

Lawnchair: ex0du5: Anyone who says "deregulate" without specifying what they mean is either trolling or willfully ignorant.

Corollary: Anyone who says "deregulate" while simultaneously extolling the virtue of emulating a decidedly highly-regulated system (Switzerland) is certainly trolling.


Or stupid. I'm going to generally go with stupid.

The Swiss system does work quite well, they do still spend slightly more per capita than other Universal systems (France, the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan) but it is much closer to those than it is the US. Also, the real kicker is the average income and standard of living in Switzerland is WAAAAY higher than it is in the US. Things are expensive there but even with that factored in they tend to be much better off on average.
2012-12-03 11:56:39 AM  
1 votes:
I really don't farking get Americans. You rather have a for-profit pooling system, than a not-for-profit one that cost less and covers all...it's like you are all a bunch of morons.
2012-12-03 11:55:05 AM  
1 votes:

Zasteva: Insurance should be used only for catastrophic heath needs -- sudden onset of rare disease, car accident, complications at childbirth, etc... Not for eldercare or preventative care. Everyone needs those things and insurance for something everyone needs only adds overhead.


So you propose a massive increase in worker pay and Social security payments so that individual can afford all non-catastrophic medical costs out of pocket?
2012-12-03 11:54:51 AM  
1 votes:
1. Deregulate the state exchanges, while capping subsidies.
2. Slowly shift Medicare patients into the exchanges.
3. Let more people buy insurance on their own rather than through their employer.
4. Move Medicaid patients into the exchanges.


It's actually 3 steps, as 2 and 4 are the same. Also, steps 2 and 4 have nothing to do with Obamacare. Medicare existed before Obamacare.

As for #3, does the author think people are prevented from purchasing insurance on their own? Of course not, what the author really meant was "don't force employers to give their workers health insurance." It seems the author thinks an employer who saves $10,000 a year on health insurance costs is just going to pay that person $10,000 more a year. They won't. They'll keep it for themselves.
2012-12-03 11:51:43 AM  
1 votes:
Answer one question. Who benefits from adding a profit motive?
2012-12-03 11:48:38 AM  
1 votes:
3. Let more people buy insurance on their own rather than through their employer.

I didn't realize people were being prevented from buying their own insurance? Damn Obama.
2012-12-03 11:47:04 AM  
1 votes:
yes, i want my 80 year old mother to have to decide amongst various insurance coverages she should buy, that sounds like a brilliant plan. somebody give that CEO a bonus
2012-12-03 11:45:44 AM  
1 votes:

Lumpmoose: make me some tea: ObamaCare is already FreeMarketCare. I don't support the idea of putting Medicare into the mix. Leave it alone.

Yeah, if you want universal health care you must pick 1) "a windfall for the insurance companies" via the mandate, 2) competition against a public insurance option or 3) the end of private health insurance as we know it. Obama picked #1.


A windfall for the insurance companies like the budget negotiations were 98% of what the GOP wanted back in 2010?

Be careful with Obama, that man is wily. It's awesome to watch.
2012-12-03 11:41:23 AM  
1 votes:
Wasn't the whole point to slowly remove health care from the free market? Is there a reason why we are pretending that the free market is going to do good things for health care? (Umm, if it were going to, wouldn't it have done it already?)
2012-12-03 10:27:34 AM  
1 votes:
1. Deregulate the state exchanges, while capping subsidies.
I understand those words, but what on Earth does that even mean?

2. Slowly shift Medicare patients into the exchanges.
Why? What's wrong with Medicare as it is?

3. Let more people buy insurance on their own rather than through their employer.
Why? Employers can pool insurance and negotiate for much lower rates than an individual can. Part of the reason I still work where I do is because of my awesome benefits package.

4. Move Medicaid patients into the exchanges.

How is this different than #2? Is this idea so novel that it needed mentioned twice?
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report