• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

sunmaster14 said:
Yes, it is magically bad if the federal government does it. The federal government would automatically have monopsony power and therefore be setting prices. It would be no more a negotiation than the setting of Medicare reimbursement rates. Now, if you're a proponent of single payer, where government bureaucrats frantically try to balance supply and demand in a market encompassing hundreds of millions of people, tens of billions of individual decisions and $2.5T of transactions per year, by tinkering with their spreadsheets while at the same time fending off political pressure from their elected and lobbied bosses, then you'll think that's all well and good. I am a proponent of a more free market approach, which the Medicare Part D program makes some effort to be.
Click to expand...

So "free market" means that the supplier sets prices without negotiation or input from the buyer?
 
sunmaster14 said:
I don't know what these people had and neither do you. Even if the network wasn't broader by some objective measure, it still could have been different. Some of these people may still have been forced to switch doctors. But, hey, maybe their new doctor is even better.
Click to expand...


We're not talking about switching doctors, we're talking about narrower networks than what you find in those antiquated policies called "catastrophic" that sold for $100 a month and covered very little.

The Urban Institute has a study on this, which I just found:

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/41...olicies-Be-Better-Off-in-ACA-Marketplaces.pdf

However, an analysis
of the direct premiums faced by nongroup
policy-holders shows that, of the 7.6
million people most directly affected (4
percent of the nonelderly adult population),
low cost ACA plan options are available for
the majority. Those exposed to the highest
unsubsidized premiums are adults age 55 to
64 with incomes above 400 percent of the
FPL, a subpopulation that accounts for 19.5
percent of this group. Some of these indi
viduals will pay more than they do today, although
this group will also benefit from
the ACA’s limits on age rating, guaranteed
issue in all policies (which will provide
them with plan options they otherwise may
well have been excluded from), and the
requirement that all plans cover essential
health benefits and conform to comprehensive out-of-pocket limits. In addition, the
President’s decision to make those with
cancelled policies eligible for ACA
compliant catastrophic plans implies that premiums
even lower than those shown here for
bronze level coverage will be available to
those individuals seeking alternatives.
Click to expand...
 
sunmaster14 said:
Oh, sure. A very rigorous one too. But I want to leave it as an exercise for you. I can give you some hints if you like.
Click to expand...

You do know that that translates as 'no', don't you?

I'm sure you understand how this works, I don't do your homework for you. You make a claim, you are called upon to show proof.

If you are unable to show proof, perhaps your claim isn't as valid as you first thought and you're suffering from a cognitive dissonance?

So, the good skeptic at this point would either withdraw the claim or attempt to demonstrate it's veracity. Are you going to do either of these?

Me, I think it's waaaay more complicated than that, but that's just me and I can't prove it so I don't go around making wild claims I can't back up or espousing a political philosophy based on those wild claims.


For anybody who doesn't have strong political connections or influence with the government.
Click to expand...

The 'whom' is irrelevant until you can show proof of the initial claim.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Yes, it is magically bad if the federal government does it. The federal government would automatically have monopsony power and therefore be setting prices. It would be no more a negotiation than the setting of Medicare reimbursement rates. Now, if you're a proponent of single payer, where government bureaucrats frantically try to balance supply and demand in a market encompassing hundreds of millions of people, tens of billions of individual decisions and $2.5T of transactions per year, by tinkering with their spreadsheets while at the same time fending off political pressure from their elected and lobbied bosses, then you'll think that's all well and good. I am a proponent of a more free market approach, which the Medicare Part D program makes some effort to be.
Click to expand...

Why? In the UK, private healthcare providers buy drugs; they probably don't manage to get them for as good a price as the NHS, but that's because they aren't big enough.

I presume that you also realise that before the ACA, a smaller proportion of my taxes went to support state healthcare than your taxes did.

So yes I am a proponent of single player. In general, doctors make the decisions not accountants.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
You do know that that translates as 'no', don't you?

I'm sure you understand how this works, I don't do your homework for you. You make a claim, you are called upon to show proof.

If you are unable to show proof, perhaps your claim isn't as valid as you first thought and you're suffering from a cognitive dissonance?

So, the good skeptic at this point would either withdraw the claim or attempt to demonstrate it's veracity. Are you going to do either of these?

Me, I think it's waaaay more complicated than that, but that's just me and I can't prove it so I don't go around making wild claims I can't back up or espousing a political philosophy based on those wild claims.
Click to expand...

It was not a factual claim which can be rigorously proved. It was a rhetorical point and an opinion. Note that the use of a subjective word like "better" is a strong hint that the statement is not a literal claim.

People have written very good and very long books about why free markets generally work better than central planned ones, but some of the conclusions readers will draw about the differences depend upon starting preferences (axioms if you will). Two people of identical cognitive skill and training, starting with the same evidence, might still reach different conclusions, and one might turn out to be more socialist (e.g. if he believes equality and fairness are paramount), and the other might turn out to be more capitalist (e.g. if he believes liberty and efficiency are paramount).

Asking me to prove a rhetorical statement meant to emphasize and clarify my capitalist bona fides is just pedantic silliness.

I see from some of your other recent posts that you do this kind of thing a lot, so I don't take any offense. It's kind of childish though, so I suggest you scale back your "prove it!" shtick.
 
3point14 said:
Do you have a proof of this?
Click to expand...
sunmaster14 said:
Oh, sure. A very rigorous one too.
Click to expand...
sunmaster14 said:
It was not a factual claim which can be rigorously proved.
Click to expand...

Cognitive dissonance for the win!

It's kind of childish though, so I suggest you scale back your "prove it!" shtick.
Click to expand...

Yes, how childish for someone to expect the proof you claimed to have just a few posts earlier.

And to that point, you'll unfortunately find a lot of that childishness on this forum. For some reason, when one makes a claim here, they are expected to substantiate it. If only this forum operated less childishly, and just allowed bloviating gasbags to blather on without challenge so we could all bask in the glow of their superior intellect.

Speaking of which, how's that evidence that Obama lied coming? With the truly breathtaking semantic wizardry you employed to prove Republicans aren't liars, I figured so simple a task would be a walk in the park.
 
jimbob said:
Why? In the UK, private healthcare providers buy drugs; they probably don't manage to get them for as good a price as the NHS, but that's because they aren't big enough.
Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't mean that the government isn't setting prices in the UK. It just means that private insurers might be getting a worse price than the price the government set. It can still cause problems either way (over supply if the price is too high, shortages if the price is too low). A market-based approach is likely to be more responsive to supply-demand inbalances and get the prices right.

I presume that you also realise that before the ACA, a smaller proportion of my taxes went to support state healthcare than your taxes did.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. The UK is very different from the US - culturally, demographically, politically. I'm no fan of the current system. Despite what single payer proponents claim, the US system is not market-based at all. Governmental distortions invade every nook and cranny. Even if you wanted to pay out of pocket for medical services and negotiate a price, it's virtually impossible. There are a few areas which are free markets though: cosmetic surgery, dental care, vision care. For varying reasons, these areas have been neglected by the government. And in those areas, costs have risen at rates far less than in the rest of health care.

So yes I am a proponent of single player. In general, doctors make the decisions not accountants.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the doctors make their decisions within the general constraints imposed by the bean counters, so the layman doesn't really see those constraints. It's pretty much the same in the US.
 
The market works best where there is a plurality of customers and suppliers and there is little imbalance in economic power between them.

I'd say that cartel and other uncompetitive practices are a natural consequence of a truly free market.
 
johnny karate said:
Cognitive dissonance for the win!
Click to expand...

Recognizing sarcasm is apparently not your strong suit. It explains a lot actually.


Speaking of which, how's that evidence that Obama lied coming? With the truly breathtaking semantic wizardry you employed to prove Republicans aren't liars, I figured so simple a task would be a walk in the park.
Click to expand...

Well, according to your definition of "lie," which is a reasonable one I'll admit, it is necessary to show that (1) Obama told a falsehood, (2) he knew he was telling a falsehood, and (3) he told that falsehood with the intention of deceiving his audience.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have conceded (1) already. I believe (3) follows from (2) in this case because he repeated the falsehood on many occasions in front of millions of people, and it was clearly relevant to advancing the cause he was advocating at the time (i.e. rallying political support for Obamacare). So if you stipulate (1) and that (3) follows from (2), all I need to do is prove (2).

Alas, I cannot do it, because even though his own advisors published reports which showed that his "lie" could not possibly be true, and indeed that Obamacare was specifically designed to make it not true, it is possible that his advisors never told him. He may very well have learned that not all people could keep their health plan or their doctor from watching the news in the fall of 2013, just as he has learned so many unpleasant things about his administration.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I figure somebody once told him "sure, being snide and insulting is a great way to make your point" and forgot to add that little eye-rolling emoticon afterwards.
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like he was being insulting. It looks like you were wildly inconsistent and making points all over the place. You made a claim, and when asked for proof, you said you had rigorous proof but didn't want to show it. When pressed, you said that you had no rigorous proof. So either you were wrong or just making stuff up. It's not really Johnny's problem if that's embarrassing for you.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
It doesn't look like he was being insulting. It looks like you were wildly inconsistent and making points all over the place. You made a claim, and when asked for proof, you said you had rigorous proof but didn't want to show it. When pressed, you said that you had no rigorous proof. So either you were wrong or just making stuff up. It's not really Johnny's problem if that's embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...

I suggest you and Johnny get this product immediately. It's a little expensive, but it's probably covered under Obamacare now.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I suggest you and Johnny get this product immediately. It's a little expensive, but it's probably covered under Obamacare now.
Click to expand...

I do like how your smug superiority is based in your belief that we should all just know your opinions are not going to have a factual basis.

Stop calling Republicans "liars for saying stupid things. We really believe those things! Stop asking Republicans to justify our claims. Claims are just opinions, man. Stop trying to make them about the real world!
 
I think I need me some of that sarcasm detector as well. Looked to me like you were asked for proof then responded you had it and didn't have it. I'd say you simply ********** up and forgot what the hell you were talking about but don't have the balls to admit it.

But yeah, it was sarcasm.
 
This discussion:

Hgyo3EU.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom