News As Obamacare goes into effect, new criticisms leveled

[mugaliens]

One of the brightest ladies of my high school, a current PhD, came at me with a simple objection to my complaints. When I got what she was getting at, and replied with 53 objections to her points which she claimed did not exist in the health care plan at all, yet in the first 49 pages of a 1,000 page document, she gave up, dissed me from FB, and I haven't heard from her since.

So much for Valedictorians with respect to being able to read government documentation.

I'm retired. She's not. Somehow, I "evolved" between then and now, or I would have been one of the V's.

Still, the documents rest on their own case. I rest on mine.

 

[Al68]

There are multiple ways to try and do that without granting states the authority to deregulate each other's insurance markets.

What are you referring to? Are people within a state that state's "insurance market"? Does my ability to buy other products from another state constitute the other state deregulating my state's market? Or is it simply an option for consumers to avoid state regulations they determine to be bad ones.

Is it really not obvious why something gets very expensive when government forcefully replaces the decisions of consumers with its own?

The point here is that opening up health insurance markets across state lines need not go hand-in-hand with the shedding of consumer protections.

What "consumer protections" are you referring to? The advantage to being able to buy insurance from other states is that a consumer can avoid the states with burdensome regulations. The cost of regulation would be obvious in the price differences between the states.

Better yet would be a complete prohibition on any state trying to control the contents of a private agreement between private parties. Imagine that. What an extreme and radical notion.

 

[Al68]

I think it would be more productive if the states worked to agree on a reasonable standard for policies to be sold (and used) across state lines. The best way to turn away a bad idea is to have a good idea.

Then what of the consumers that don't consider that standard so reasonable? That's not much better than Obamacare.

How about both the federal government and the states refrain from interfering in private contracts? Or at least give consumers the option of picking a state that does.

 

[WhoWee]

Then what of the consumers that don't consider that standard so reasonable? That's not much better than Obamacare.

How about both the federal government and the states refrain from interfering in private contracts? Or at least give consumers the option of picking a state that does.

The state regulators are closer to the consumers - they hear the problems and deal with insurance issues on a daily basis. I trust the 50 experienced insurance regulators to establish a reasonable set of regulations more than an isolated group of self serving Washington bureaucrats.

 

[Al68]

The state regulators are closer to the consumers - they hear the problems and deal with insurance issues on a daily basis. I trust the 50 experienced insurance regulators to establish a reasonable set of regulations more than an isolated group of self serving Washington bureaucrats.

I agree. My point was that some states are better than others, and would be even more so if consumers were free to choose between them, without some "standard" applying to them all.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree. My point was that some states are better than others, and would be even more so if consumers were free to choose between them, without some "standard" applying to them all.

Insurance regulations are similar to building codes. Some regulations might be more applicable to one region than an another - but everyone can build to the highest standard. If everyone agrees to the same (higher) standards, then all of the (qualified) insurance companies will be able to compete nationwide.

 

[mheslep]

We don't shed all consumer protections in the property and hazzard insurance markets when they operate across the states; I fail to see why that most be so with health insurance.

 

[PhilKravitz]

How about we limit government medical care to a life time cap of $50,000 per person.

 

[WhoWee]

How about we limit government medical care to a life time cap of $50,000 per person.

What would that accomplish? I'll assume you know $50k is a very small amount of medical coverage. In insurance terms, a $50k cash indemnity plan is best sold to someone that doesn't really need coverage - a very healthy 22 year old male that wants to tell his parents he has coverage.

 

[PhilKravitz]

What would that accomplish?.

Lower government spending.

 

[Al68]

Insurance regulations are similar to building codes. Some regulations might be more applicable to one region than an another - but everyone can build to the highest standard. If everyone agrees to the same (higher) standards, then all of the (qualified) insurance companies will be able to compete nationwide.

But unless they are free to offer a non-standard product, it's not really free competition in the sense that the product offered is tailored to consumers instead of government standards.

I have no interest in buying the type of medical insurance that would meet any standard likely to be "agreed on" by third parties. It's my place, not government's, to "agree on" the type of insurance I will buy.

 

[PhilKravitz]

Obamacare is a new tax on the healthy young to pay for medicaid that was bankrupt. It is just a new tax. Nothing more.

So, no freedom for you. You will buy the "insurance" that looks like medicaid for the poor and looks like tax to the working well.

 

[nismaratwork]

Obamacare is a new tax on the healthy young to pay for medicaid that was bankrupt. It is just a new tax. Nothing more.

So, no freedom for you. You will buy the "insurance" that looks like medicaid for the poor and looks like tax to the working well.

So... why would that be bad? If healthcare worked the way you described, it would be an amazing success; this isn't going to pay for medicaid. I could accept a tax to pay for those who are less fortunate, disguised for sale to the public or not. Getting taxed to NOT fix anything... that's what makes this such a seeming wreck.

I for one, like taxes... well... I hate paying them, but I love roads, and schools to keep children from forming roving bands of lovable cockney thieves... and so forth. The problem isn't taxes, or cutting, it's that for all of the arguing, in the end the R, and D s... well.. one cuts programs, the other spends more. It's a perfect synergy which allows for more predictable elections, but the reality is no one philosophy is enough:

We need to squeeze more money out of some people, but mostly we need to close corporate loopholes. (that 5% idea wasn't terrible). We also need to cut social programs that, in addition to killing our economy, retard development and offer poor service. No one will sell it this way, but we need a period of real upheaval before we can expect meaningful change.

I don't mean that fantasy of militias, or group-love chanting by hippies: I'm saying we have to accept that we've ALREADY failed, live amidst the consequences of that failure for a time while we build a new set of systems and standards. If it's done BEFORE we're bankrupt, then it doesn't have to be traumatic except for the hundreds of congressmen who won't get re-elected.

 

[nismaratwork]

If you google 202 trillion there are hundreds of references here is one

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/08/official-us-deficit-put-at-staggering-202-trillion/

But I am happy to use your 40 trillion still way past bankrupt. and what is your reference? please state or retract.

OK... you think I'm trying to play with you, but it's just holding you to the standards you accepted when you registered. Your link actually refutes your point, only citing it as the OPINION of a single professor!

But the situation is actually much, much worse, according to Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff.

“Forget the official debt,” he tells Aaron in this clip. The “real” deficit – including non-budgetary items like unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the defense budget – is actually $202 trillion, the professor and author calculates; or 15 times the “official” numbers.

Bolding is mine... the statistics... you'd have to figure out how he came to those conclusions. As for asking me to cite or retract anything, I'm not making sweeping claims the way you are. As for WhoWee, you ask him if I've ever given him an inch he didn't fight for... he's not in the wrong here AT ALL vis a vis you and your claims.

To your last post, it's not personal; I don't know you. It's targeted in the sense that it seems you have both strong biases, and no real understanding of what you need to do just to get that done. I don't think you're being malicious, I just think you need to take a step back; I've only responded to those few threads where we both post... presumably you're doing this elsewhere (not my job thank you god), and I'm not reporting you, but if you keep it up the mentors WILL have a talk with you.

So... it's personal advice, not a personal grudge.

edit: I don't mind if this is deleted... I took a while typing it, and I didn't realize posts had already been deleted. My apologies.

 

[Al68]

Folks who (presently) benefit least from those rules are likely to opt for the less-inclusive, less-protected out-of-state plans, while those who need them have little choice but to stick with insurance companies licensed in that state and thus still subject to the state's regulations. This is called adverse selection and it's the bane of risk pools.

That's right. My purpose for buying medical insurance is to have insurance against the unexpected, not to "pool" my premiums with higher risk consumers. Contrary to what many claim, the purpose of insurance is not to shift one person's expected cost to another under the guise of insurance.

What you're envisioning ultimately creates pressure for one of two outcomes (assuming no one wants to see these insurers go bankrupt): 1) the state government relaxes the rules governing insurers licensed in-state, i.e. deregulation, or 2) insurers relocate to more loosely regulated states and sell from there (as credit card companies tended to do in the aftermath of the Marquette decision), i.e. deregulation again.

Yep, that's the point.

So yes, your ability to skirt your state's laws..

That would no more be "skirting my state's laws" than not buying any medical insurance.

..undermines and quite possibly ultimately eliminates them. Or at least renders them irrelevant as insurers pack up and move on. You may see that as a good thing but there are several reasons why I don't.

It's not that I see that as a "good thing", I see it as peaceful coexistence among free people instead of some using force against others to get their way. Liberty itself has immeasurable value, whether that value is recognized by all or not.

Making products more similar encourages competition. Allowing them to vary along a small number of dimensions helps consumers make sensible comparisons consistent with individual preference. Isn’t that the point?​

I have no problem with states defining specific standards of coverage. My problem is when they prohibit policies that don't meet those standards.

We're talking about a private transaction between private parties here. Neither the state or the federal government is a party. If someone wants third party interference from the state, they can choose that option via voluntary state standards, while allowing the rest of us to buy what we choose. Peaceful coexistence in other words.​

 

[mugaliens]

That's right. My purpose for buying medical insurance is to have insurance against the unexpected, not to "pool" my premiums with higher risk consumers.

BINGO! This is one of the main reasons I got out of the home-owner "investment" markets. Too many folks out there don't realize their insurance premiums are far higher than they need to be because a small portion of their insurance company's clients live in the paths of annual hurricanes, tornados, and on rampant flood plains. Yes, they may pay a slight premium for that "privelage," but what most people don't realize is that by U.S. law, those living in non-hurricane/tornado/flood areas foot the rest of the bill.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

A good question to ask regarding the implementation of some form of nationalized healthcare is this: What significant improvements in the efficiency of dealing with patients will come from free market competition? To say it a better way: What significant healthcare price reductions are going to come from free market competition, that won't take away from the quality of care?

 

[nismaratwork]

In principle I agree with Mugaliens and Al, but in practice who's going to pay for people without insurance when they get smashed by a tornado? OK, they're homeless now, and eligible for all kinds of assistance from the pool of taxes, rather than a private venture.

The kind of reform based in grading risk pools depends on those who simply "opt out" NOT being saved when their house if flattened or flooded... again. I don't see the US as having the sand to do that in practice, anymore than someone with a gunshot would would be turned away at an ER.

 

[Al68]

In principle I agree with Mugaliens and Al, but in practice who's going to pay for people without insurance when they get smashed by a tornado? OK, they're homeless now, and eligible for all kinds of assistance from the pool of taxes, rather than a private venture.

That's a different issue, but you make a good point. Why would we expect private ventures to cure society's problems? Is a private venture "bad" because it doesn't achieve someone's political agenda?

And why is it that the politicians that say so never have any proposal to (fairly) compete with existing private companies? If they are so bad, they should be easy to compete with fairly, ie without the use of force.

And why is it that many politicians openly advocate a complete monopoly with the ability to use force (law-making power) against its customers? Do they think using the words "single payer" instead of "complete monopoly" is really going to fool people? And who in their right mind thinks a complete monopoly will improve health care?

 

[WhoWee]

That's a different issue, but you make a good point. Why would we expect private ventures to cure society's problems? Is a private venture "bad" because it doesn't achieve someone's political agenda?

And why is it that the politicians that say so never have any proposal to (fairly) compete with existing private companies? If they are so bad, they should be easy to compete with fairly, ie without the use of force.

And why is it that many politicians openly advocate a complete monopoly with the ability to use force (law-making power) against its customers? Do they think using the words "single payer" instead of "complete monopoly" is really going to fool people? And who in their right mind thinks a complete monopoly will improve health care?

Everyone who understands the single payer is the "taxpayer" - further described as the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners.

 

[mugaliens]

...who's going to pay for people without insurance when they get smashed by a tornado?

I have two friends who live in a fairly tornado-proof and very environmentally house. It's low, partially underground, strong, passively solar throughout the winter, and cool throughout the summer.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone in tornado, hurricane, earthquake, or flood country that refuses to build to those standards while sucking my mutually pooled insurance dollars.

By the way, I've actually been in a tornado. It's breathtaking what it does to oak and pine trees 100 feet from you.

 

[nismaratwork]

I have two friends who live in a fairly tornado-proof and very environmentally house. It's low, partially underground, strong, passively solar throughout the winter, and cool throughout the summer.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone in tornado, hurricane, earthquake, or flood country that refuses to build to those standards while sucking my mutually pooled insurance dollars.

By the way, I've actually been in a tornado. It's breathtaking what it does to oak and pine trees 100 feet from you.

I think you misunderstand... you and I might take a very rational view of people who live on floodplains and tornado ally substandard... many won't. That has to be part of any considerations involving public policy.

 

[Al68]

I think you misunderstand... you and I might take a very rational view of people who live on floodplains and tornado ally substandard... many won't. That has to be part of any considerations involving public policy.

Sorry, I have to comment on the phrase "public policy". The basis for most of the objections to Obamacare (and other regulations) is that it prohibits/interferes with private contracts, which are not part of any public or government program or system.

Private agreements between private parties are not part of public policy in a free society.

 

[nismaratwork]

Sorry, I have to comment on the phrase "public policy". The basis for most of the objections to Obamacare (and other regulations) is that it prohibits/interferes with private contracts, which are not part of any public or government program or system.

Private agreements between private parties are not part of public policy in a free society.

I understand, but those private contracts couldn't exist without government assurance and oversight, as we saw with AIG for example. Insurance, like vaccination, does hurt some people, but on the whole it's valuable to economic stability. Insurance is a matter of national security in the extreme I believe, because we end up paying for people one way or another if they're indigent.

You pay for medical, you pay in crime, you pay in a hundred other little ways. I'll say again, there needs to be oversight of private contracts which have such vast implications for a nation.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

I understand, but those private contracts couldn't exist without government assurance and oversight, as we saw with AIG for example. Insurance, like vaccination, does hurt some people, but on the whole it's valuable to economic stability. Insurance is a matter of national security in the extreme I believe, because we end up paying for people one way or another if they're indigent. You pay for medical, you pay in crime, you pay in a hundred other little ways. I'll say again, there needs to be oversight of private contracts which have such vast implications for a nation.

Good point.

AL68:Private agreements between private parties are not part of public policy in a free society.

Is a 'free' society one that is ruled by the free market? What happens when corporations are more powerful than government? Are we still 'free' then? What I see a lot lately is this argument that government is too powerful and that the free market will 'naturally' solve are problems. This is incredibly naive. If you believe in limited government you should also believe in a more regulated free market or those same powers will take over in business rather than politics. Except then you will have no vote. People say you can vote with your dollars, right? Well what happens when the markets are cornered by large corporations and you have no choice but to buy there goods in order to survive?

 

[WhoWee]

Is a 'free' society one that is ruled by the free market? What happens when corporations are more powerful than government? Are we still 'free' then? What I see a lot lately is this argument that government is too powerful and that the free market will 'naturally' solve are problems. This is incredibly naive. If you believe in limited government you should also believe in a more regulated free market or those same powers will take over in business rather than politics. Except then you will have no vote. People say you can vote with your dollars, right? Well what happens when the markets are cornered by large corporations and you have no choice but to buy there goods in order to survive?

We all know that corporations seek profit for it's shareholders - employee compensation is typically designed to reward performance and increase retention. The deviation to this would be a union contract.

Given this, what is the goal of the Government? How are employees compensated? To what extent does the unionization of Government workers dictate policy? How does the Government reduce costs in a market - when it's primary tool is regulation?

 

[nismaratwork]

We all know that corporations seek profit for it's shareholders - employee compensation is typically designed to reward performance and increase retention. The deviation to this would be a union contract.

Given this, what is the goal of the Government? How are employees compensated? To what extent does the unionization of Government workers dictate policy? How does the Government reduce costs in a market - when it's primary tool is regulation?

re bold: In some cases, sure, in many others the strategy is to churn and burn, because there is no shortage of trainable labor. McDonalds is a perfect example of a MASSIVE corporation that really does its employees no favors as as a general rule.

Besides, everyone doesn't hold shares.

I'm reminded of the old 'Bit of Fry and Laurie' sketch in which the UK has been completely privatized (well ahead of Snow Crash ), much to the dismay of Hugh Laurie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k6CkltzGAxY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[WhoWee]

re bold: In some cases, sure, in many others the strategy is to churn and burn, because there is no shortage of trainable labor. McDonalds is a perfect example of a MASSIVE corporation that really does its employees no favors as as a general rule.

Besides, everyone doesn't hold shares.

I'm not aware of any company that engages in a strategy of "churn and burn" when it comes to employees. Time spent hiring and training is substantial - even employment tax credits are time specific. A high turnover can increase insurance costs - including unemployment contributions.

As for "no shortage of trainable labor" - are you certain? How many persons will sacrifice extended unemployment or welfare benefits to work part time at a fast food restaurant?

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not aware of any company that engages in a strategy of "churn and burn" when it comes to employees. Time spent hiring and training is substantial - even employment tax credits are time specific. A high turnover can increase insurance costs - including unemployment contributions.

As for "no shortage of trainable labor" - are you certain? How many persons will sacrifice extended unemployment or welfare benefits to work part time at a fast food restaurant?

I gave you a perfect example: McDonalds... you just ignored it... and the evidence seems to indicate that fast-food isn't exactly paralyzed by a drought of employees. You see all of those old folks with their stunning upward mobility at the checkout counter of your grocery store too, right? You're truly acting as though the core of our labor force was not in fact, underpaid, and simply NOT insured.

Besides, training for a job of the type we're talking about is same-day-as-hire... hardly training a B-2 bomber pilot...

edit: Another factor in the lack of shortage: an endless supply of cheap young labor, and and work by those marginalized due to felony convictions, or whichever is the mark of caine du jour.

 

[WhoWee]

I gave you a perfect example: McDonalds... you just ignored it... and the evidence seems to indicate that fast-food isn't exactly paralyzed by a drought of employees. You see all of those old folks with their stunning upward mobility at the checkout counter of your grocery store too, right? You're truly acting as though the core of our labor force was not in fact, underpaid, and simply NOT insured.

Besides, training for a job of the type we're talking about is same-day-as-hire... hardly training a B-2 bomber pilot...

edit: Another factor in the lack of shortage: an endless supply of cheap young labor, and and work by those marginalized due to felony convictions, or whichever is the mark of caine du jour.

A REAL quick link - I can support further if necessary?
http://jpkc.szpt.edu.cn/english/article/Human%20Resource%20Management.htm

"Employee training at McDonald's is highly structured. Ends-level workers are first taken through the basic Crew Training System. The program consists of on-the job- training and is largely vocational. Each stage of advancement beyond the crew level then entails a new training program, with the skills becoming more complex and generalized.

Training begins immediately with a one-hour orientation on the company. Each restaurant has its own video player and training room. Step--by --step manuals and video tapes cover every detail of the operation, everything from how to make a Big Mao to a shake. Each restaurant has 25 stations from the grill area to the front counter, Trainers use a series of checklists as new crew members move through the restaurant. A level of competency is demonstrated and the activity is checked off on the SOC--Station Observation Checklist. There is a follow-up SOC to get certified on the station.

One a crew trainers has been promoted to swing manager and performed successfully, he or she is eligible for the Management Development Program. It provides technical and functional management skills for employees at the swing manager level and above. The first step is the Basic Operations Course, which takes several months to complete. It is a course Which covers fundamental restaurant opinions. The nab in the sequence is the Basic Management Course, Which teaches leaderships, time planning, and crew recognition. In the intermediate Operations Course, students are trained on crew recruitment and retention, store leadership and decision-making. The final course in this sequence is the Regional Equipment Course.

Once a front-line crew member has progressed to the position of assistant managed, he or she is eligible to attend Hamburger University , the Company's world wide training center for management personnel. Approximately 2,500 managers and potential franchisees take part in the Advanced Operations Course, or AOC. The Management training curriculum at Hamburger University has been altered in scope: almost 80% of the advanced operations Course is now devoted to enhancing communication, interpersonal, and human relations skills. Teaching methods have shifted from lecture format to include role playing with video feedback and small group exercises. All managers are required to receive training from hamburger University at least once every 5 years. New emphases include goal setting, diversity management, team building, and employee development.

The company has plans for a certification program which will govern how employees progress from the crew to the level of restaurant managers. Plans are also in place for a Workplace Skills Certificate. It would be given to crew members who have mastered a set of essential workplace skills, and thus provide a "walkable credential" to enable them to move onto another position within the consumer service industry. McDonald's is a quick service restaurant business committed to 100% satisfaction. Macdonald's independent Franchisees and Company-owned restaurants serve over 22 million customers every day around the world. Each and every one of these customers deserved great services from the moment they approach the counter or drive-thru window until they leave the restaurants. We depend on the employees in the restaurant, whether employed by an independent franchises or by McDonald's Corporation, to provide a fast friendly and courteous experience to all guests so they will visit us again and again. That's why McDonald's Independent Franchisees and McDonald's Corporation look for

individuals who like to have fun While delivering fast accurate and friendly service."

Fast food companies invest heavily in training programs and strive to retain workers - they promote from within to sustain growth.