• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obamacare 5 years later. Crow, anyone?

Here is all I know. First off, California has a program called "Medical". AIU, "Medical" is seperated into two primary groups. One for people on disability and/or who are retired. The name for this program is, "Medical".

The other group is for people who cannot pay for insurance on their own and predates Obamacare. It's called, wait for it, "Medical". This group or division was at the time further subdivided in the Los Angeles region into, "L.A. Care", "Healthy Ways LA and ORSA".

Prior to my being put on disability I had "L.A. Care" through Medical (Medicaid). Now, I have Medicare, Medical, "L.A. Care" and Humana. Why Humana? I don't know. I was given a list of health care proiders to choose from.

In short, I don't know, my kids don't know.

Based on my very limited knowledge of CA, MediCal is essentially Medicaid.

It's possible to be dual eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid serves low-income populations, and Medicare serves both elderly and disabled populations. A person who is both disabled and low-income can qualify for both.

LA Care is not familiar to me, but I would suspect that it's just the county name for Medicaid. In some areas, Medicaid is handled at a more local level, and each of those localities keeps independent budgets. I don't know whether that's a good thing, I just know it happens.

As for Humana - I would guess that CA (or at least LA) uses a "Managed Medicaid" schema. State Medicaid essentially outsources coverage to private carriers, who provide network access, disease and case management, and utilization management on behalf of the state. Generally, the state doesn't pay the insurer any more than they would pay if they were handling it themselves. The upshot of this approach is that customers *usually* get a better overall experience, since the insurance company is handling their claims, customer service, etc. Often the medicaid beneficiary sees the same doctors as any other insured individual would, rather than doctors who have contracted directly to get really low reimbursement rates.
 
Probably. Doesn't necessarily mean it would work better over all, but yes, it would probably be a lot easier to administer.

You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean it would work better. It's just that it works in those countries that have implemented it but then again the current model is so entrenched in the U.S. that single payer would end up being mangled in some uniquely American way.
 
The healthy people get ripped off in this scenario, so guess who dropped their coverage? Yup all the healthy people left and the pool was left with the sick, costs skyrocketed and now NY State doesn't really insure anyone.

The healthy people are paying for the sick ones?!?!!??

Oh Noes!!! That's outrageous.


(Tell me, do you understand how insurance works?)
 
You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean it would work better. It's just that it works in those countries that have implemented it but then again the current model is so entrenched in the U.S. that single payer would end up being mangled in some uniquely American way.

Conceptually, it's a fantastic solution, and there no reason it shouldn't work better. The problem in the US is partly that we're entrenched (and exceptional!) but it's also partly an organic problem.

We've had a private market place since health insurance came into existence - it's pretty much always been private. Because it grew and matured that way, there are spiderwebs of impact to consider. It's not just the insurance industry, but the medical industry as a whole - doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, even how it's sold through agents and brokers. All of those things grew up with private insurance.

All those other countries were just a bit more forward-thinking than we were. They put global solutions into place early on, and that influenced how those other industries developed. We've just been a bit more blind to the future, and now we reap what we've sown.
 
Don't Switzerland and the Netherlands have an Obamacare-like system? Regulated, compulsory insurance provided by private companies? I believe those countries have good outcomes. Single payer may work for the US, but it's not the only solution that has been shown to work.
 
Back in 2009 Mark Hoofnagle of the Denialism Blog @ ScienceBlogs was still a medical student and his analysis strongly pointed to The Netherlands as being most similar to the ACA. See: What is healthcare like in the Netherlands?

The Wikipedia article has quite a bit of information as well.

Now the he's Dr. Mark Hoofnagle he rarely gets to post anything on his blog :(. There was a flurry of posts in February making me hopeful he'll post more in the future.
 
Don't Switzerland and the Netherlands have an Obamacare-like system? Regulated, compulsory insurance provided by private companies? I believe those countries have good outcomes. Single payer may work for the US, but it's not the only solution that has been shown to work.

I am a little bit familiar with Switzerland's system. It's actually more similar to Medicare Advantage in the US than to ACA... but that's a distinction that is probably lost on anyone who doesn't live and breathe health insurance :D

The Swiss use a subsidized private market. I believe that there's a minimum level of coverage that insurers must provide, and they're reimbursed by the government for that level. Insurers can sell richer benefits and charge consumers the difference in premium value. I'm not sure of the details though, and it's Friday and my brain is tired, so I'm not going to double check my recollections for accuracy. I could be wrong on how it works.
 
This clearly demonstrates what you mentioned in your previous post, it's Medicaid that is expanded to cover more poor people. Until I had to help relatives who were disabled or elderly I could never keep the two program names straight in my head either. They really should have named it Social Security Health instead of Medicare then it would be clear it's for people on Social Security (retired or disabled). For some reason Governments and people in general seem to like to name things in the most confusing way possible. I see this all the time from marketing people at work so I've given up trying to impose any sanity on the way the products I design are named.

:D Yeah, Medicaid. That one.

In my experience, marketing people are just a bunch of over-exuberant yes-men who sit around a conference table, enthusiastically proposing more and more rabidly insane ideas with each passing minute. They like to call these ******** sessions "brain storming." They work themselves up to such a frenzy, that they lose complete focus on what the original purpose behind the meeting was to begin with.
 
Last edited:
This clearly demonstrates what you mentioned in your previous post, it's Medicaid that is expanded to cover more poor people. Until I had to help relatives who were disabled or elderly I could never keep the two program names straight in my head either. They really should have named it Social Security Health instead of Medicare then it would be clear it's for people on Social Security (retired or disabled). For some reason Governments and people in general seem to like to name things in the most confusing way possible. I see this all the time from marketing people at work so I've given up trying to impose any sanity on the way the products I design are named.
^^ This
 
One only need look at the rest of the industrialized nation to realize that the GOP is stock full of BS when it comes to health care.
 
The healthy people are paying for the sick ones?!?!!??

Oh Noes!!! That's outrageous.


(Tell me, do you understand how insurance works?)

Sure I work as an actuary and am well qualified to explain to you what is fair and what is not fair.

It is not fair to force people to purchase a product against their will. It is unfair to force someone to purchase insurance that is not a transaction between two willing parties.

If insurance is purchased in the free market this won't happen. I would purchase insurance commensurate with my individual risk.

Insurance is risk pooling with the concept of individual equity, where there is no individual equity you don't have insurance. Obamacare is not insurance and neither is Social Security because there is no individual equity.

Glad I could clear that up for you!

The broader question is why can't you tell the truth? Because the truth contradicts your personal politics.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom