• 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?

What is your employer's portion of your health care costs? Being an actuary, I assume that you're familiar with the fact that employers pay the bulk of the cost most times, and it is hidden from the employee. I assume you understand that your employee contribution is not the cost of your coverage, right? Because I would expect an actuary of any flavor to understand that.


You could also look at TriCare, or at any military health facility. Of course, that might skew the answers you give. Cherry picking examples is really important for maintaining the illusion.

They don't provide that information

I would guess they pay about $1500 so the total is like $2200 but that's just a guess.

But any way you slice it, I'm young and healthy so my premiums in a private market are going to be less expensive than a group market and much less expensive than some nationalized market.

That is common sense and speaking otherwise is not so much ignorance as much as pur dishonesty.

Let's be honest about the different possible systems of health care coverage!

A private market where everyone pays their own money towards their own health care is much more efficient and will lead to more competition and more innovation.

On the other end of the spectrum you have a single payer system which is both massively expensive, inefficient and uninnovative.
 
A private market where everyone pays their own money towards their own health care is much more efficient and will lead to more competition and more innovation.

And what of those who can't afford to pay their own money towards their own health care? You could give a crap about them. You got yours, screw everybody else.

You're what's wrong with this country not its salvation
 
Everyone's got problems of one type or another. Have I mentioned my mild OCD? The inability to let things go if I feel I haven't been understood? Or the complete insanity that is my need to make the bed exactly right just so... Or how I've banned my husband from loading the dishwasher because he... does... it... wrong... They still get just as clean, but he stacks them wrong!

Through much effort and browbeating, I have gradually learned to begin recognizing cases where the battle gleans nothing. It's painful though :D
I could not agree more. :)
 
And what of those who can't afford to pay their own money towards their own health care? You could give a crap about them. You got yours, screw everybody else.

You're what's wrong with this country not its salvation

Well right now the federal government pays for health care if someone has a life threatening condition. This has been the case since the 70's.

The point is your system is massively flawed. You don't have the right to steal people's liberty.

Your system is a disaster, just look at the VA and the disaster in the UK & Canada
 
Well right now the federal government pays for health care if someone has a life threatening condition. This has been the case since the 70's.

The point is your system is massively flawed. You don't have the right to steal people's liberty.

Your system is a disaster, just look at the VA and the disaster in the UK & Canada

You're being caught in an obvious lie again. You might want to be careful of that.
 
First of all, I don't believe that you want to be fair. You made a sweeping claim yourself a couple of pages ago, which I explained to you was completely wrong, and you refused to believe it (or even try to understand it) until Emily's Cat, showing amazing patience and perseverance, explained it to you in excruciating detail. There was no retraction. No acknowledgment. Nothing. So forgive me if I think you're not objective at all.

Somehow, I don't think you actually read the conversation between me and Emily's Cat.
 
I already have health care and its private and its cheaper than CA or UK

No. YOUR health care is not cheaper than CA or UK. I absolutely guarantee you this. How can I guarantee you this? Because if you spend even $1 in premiums or co-pays out-of-pocket, your health care is ALREADY more expensive than in CA or UK!

I think I pay about $700 a year

Anyway if you want a picture of a free health care system in the US look at the VA hospitals. Its not pretty.

I think you may want to read up on what happened to the VA hospitals, then thank your REPUBLICAN leadership under Bush that screwed it all up to hell and back.
 
Last edited:
And now I'm on the receiving end? I do find the implication in your response to me fairly insulting. Perhaps not an outright breach of the MA... but unnecessary nonetheless.


Most of this forum is NOT dedicated to formal debate. It's a discussion forum. Yes, we are skeptics, and yes, we *should* always be on our best behavior. But the majority of the threads here are conversations. I don't see any reason that I should treat any of the posters here more harshly than I would treat them IRL.

And unless I'm at a lectern involved in a formal debate... I am not inclined to be so inflexible in my dealings with people. I see no utility in it.


I apologise for the 'this might help', that was not supposed to be for you. But as for the rest, I disagree. Most of this forum is devoted to skepticism and critical thinking. If one is hanging out in the member's area, then yes, I'll cut someone some slack if they just make stuff up (which is what happened), but if one is talking in the politics section, advocating a course of action or a policy then yes, in a place called 'the international skeptics forrum', yes, the rules of formal debate apply. It's either that or we all just make up facts and throw them at each other till we're bored.

I'm sorry if this offends you but I simply don't agree that I should allow unsupported facts to be used duuring the debate without challenge. In fact, the whole damn place is dedicated to not letting unsupported facts go without challenge. Where would we be if we all did it?

"
 
Well right now the federal government pays for health care if someone has a life threatening condition. This has been the case since the 70's.

The point is your system is massively flawed. You don't have the right to steal people's liberty.

Your system is a disaster, just look at the VA and the disaster in the UK & Canada

Is that the UK disaster where we pay less, have comparable clinical outcomes, and live longer than the U.S.?
 
I found this Rand study, which I think is very interesting, and, if you trust their model (which is a big "if" of course), dispositive. It basically looks at what the effect of US government controls on drug prices would be, taking into account the long-term effect on R&D from reduced pharmaceutical industry profits. I cannot vouch for the model, but presumably they put some thought into it. Here is a summary of the results (my emphasis added):

In general, price controls reduced life expectancy over time. The price control scenario simulated the effect of a 20-percent reduction in manufacturer revenue while holding consumers' out-of-pocket prices constant. Price controls would have small negative effects on life expectancy for current cohorts, but more significant negative effects in the future. For instance, the researchers' best estimates suggest that life expectancy would fall by somewhere in the range of 0.2 years for Americans age 55–59 in 2010 and by approximately 0.1 years for Europeans in the same cohort and year. By 2060, this effect would increase for both Americans and Europeans to approximately 0.7 years. On the benefit side of the ledger, however, U.S. price regulations would reduce spending on drugs and medical care. Annual per capita spending in 2010 would fall for Americans age 55–59 by an amount in the range of $9,000 annually and for Europeans of the same age by an amount in the range of $400. For those age 55–59 in 2060, the savings would be even larger for both groups and, again, greater for Americans than Europeans. The higher number for Americans is attributable to both reduced spending and reduced life expectancy; for Europeans, the savings come entirely from reduced life expectancy. Overall, as shown in Figure 1, the net value of price controls is positive in the short term (2010) for Americans age 55–59, producing approximately $1,100 in per capita savings, but negative for Europeans in the same cohort and year, who face increased costs in the range of $8,000. For both Americans and Europeans, price controls have higher per capita costs over the longer term: By 2060, reductions in life expectancy, after accounting for medical cost savings, would cost the equivalent of $51,000 and $54,000, to age 55–59 Americans and Europeans, respectively.

Note that the same reasoning should apply to any medical technology, not just drugs. The market in the US leads to Americans being early adopters of new medical technology when the prices are highest, as well as paying the highest prices in general while the technology is still under patent. This provides added incentive to companies to develop new products.
 
Last edited:
This sentence is uncalled for, obnoxious, and is designed to derail this thread. No, taxation is NOT taking away anyone's "liberty."
George Washington lead the charge to steal liberty when he put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Whiskey Rebellion

wiki said:
The Whiskey Rebellion, also known as the Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington

Here's where the special pleading comes in. For these, "I got mine ***** you" types, taxation is not theft if it is used to buy tanks that we will likely never use. Fiscal responsibility has no meaning when it comes to the military.

Lawmakers force Pentagon to buy tanks
 
Well right now the federal government pays for health care if someone has a life threatening condition. This has been the case since the 70's.

The point is your system is massively flawed. You don't have the right to steal people's liberty.

Your system is a disaster, just look at the VA and the disaster in the UK & Canada

Do you enjoy the fact that your health care procedures are dictated by your insurance company? And that they have a financial incentive to provide you with as little as possible?
 
I think it's not a case of whether the companies are incorporated in the US or Europe though - it's a case of where their income comes from. What portion of their revenue is coming from sales in the US? That revenue is what supports R&D.

This is not an important measure for two simple reasons. Firstly, we calculate sales globally (see here: http://www.pmlive.com/top_pharma_list/global_revenues ).

Secondly, R&D expenditure is not dependent on profit margins as firms tend to spend around 10-15% of revenue into R&D on average. However, some of the most profitable companies spend considerably less than others on R&D, Merck is a good example of this, it ranks 4 or 5th on sales globally, but only spends 5% on R&D.
 
This is not an important measure for two simple reasons. Firstly, we calculate sales globally (see here: http://www.pmlive.com/top_pharma_list/global_revenues ).

Secondly, R&D expenditure is not dependent on profit margins as firms tend to spend around 10-15% of revenue into R&D on average. However, some of the most profitable companies spend considerably less than others on R&D, Merck is a good example of this, it ranks 4 or 5th on sales globally, but only spends 5% on R&D.

My goodness this shows appalling economic ignorance. I'm rushing out right now, but I hope to get to this later. Perhaps someone else who knows something about economics can field this?
 
My goodness this shows appalling economic ignorance. I'm rushing out right now, but I hope to get to this later. Perhaps someone else who knows something about economics can field this?

You are wrong about this, and pretty much everything you have ever posted.

I am also unable to offer anything to support my assertion right now, but hope to get back to this later. In the mean time, can someone else do my work for me?
 
You are wrong about this, and pretty much everything you have ever posted.

I am also unable to offer anything to support my assertion right now, but hope to get back to this later. In the mean time, can someone else do my work for me?
This demonstrates appalling ignorance. I'll explain later but right now I need to organize my sock drawer.
 
But any way you slice it, I'm young and healthy so my premiums in a private market are going to be less expensive than a group market and much less expensive than some nationalized market.
And an older or sicker person would end up paying so much that they wouldn't be able to afford to be come not-sick.

A private market where everyone pays their own money towards their own health care is much more efficient and will lead to more competition and more innovation.
More efficient? Maybe. More innovation? I challenge this assumption. Who requires the innovation? I would say that the people who would spur innovation are the people who are sick. It's illness and injury that is being treated, isn't it? So. You need to have illness in order to have something to innovate around.

A purely private market with no subsidization of risk would be a market where the sick people could not afford to have coverage. The pool (hence the source of revenue) would be only healthy people. The sick people would just... die, I guess. The pharma and medical research companies do research for those consumers that will pay their bills - remember that they're not philanthropic endeavors, they're profit-seekers. So when the pool is all comprised of healthy people, what is there to do research on? Orphan conditions that nobody will have, because the people with those orphan conditions can't afford coverage?[/quote]

On the other end of the spectrum you have a single payer system which is both massively expensive, inefficient and uninnovative.
I *can* be very expensive. It can also be less expensive and more efficient in aggregate. It depends entirely on how it's structured. If it includes medical management and bargained pricing for pharma and devices? If it excludes profit, commission, and marketing costs? If it has good fraud controls? It's entirely possible for a single-payer system to be well managed, and thus both less expensive and more efficient.

TriCare and active duty medical are both very efficient, and very cost-effective. Military medical is staff-model - all of the doctors and staff are salaried, so they're not trying to increase their volume of services to make more money. Services are provided using a pretty sophisticated triage system, with a star-schema for provider "teams" radiating out from centralized settings for less frequently used services like advanced radiology, surgery, highly specialized treatments, etc. Pharmaceuticals, supplies, and devices are purchased collectively for all of the military hospitals in the country, and are resourced based on load models. MRIs and other expensive machinery are resourced appropriately, and run at close to full capacity.
 
George Washington lead the charge to steal liberty when he put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Whiskey Rebellion



Here's where the special pleading comes in. For these, "I got mine ***** you" types, taxation is not theft if it is used to buy tanks that we will likely never use. Fiscal responsibility has no meaning when it comes to the military.

Lawmakers force Pentagon to buy tanks

Exactly! Washington had the AUTHORITY to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, because:

"Taxation with Representation!"

That was the key point of the American Revolution. The King George refused to allow the colonists representation in Parliament, and continued to tax the colonies in order to support his wars. (To be fair, those wars benefited the colonies. But the point was, "no taxation without representation.")

We have a Congress and a president, in which you are legible to vote for once you attain the age of 18, regardless of sex, race, creed, or sexual orientation.

The over bloated military budget is beyond the pale.
 
Last edited:

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