BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events

Topic: RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far

Topic: RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far

Author

Message

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,287

Status: Offline

RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far

Posted: 10/8/2013 12:45:32 PM

Robert Fox wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

cc cat wrote:

Shame - Thanks for the insight and professional perspective. This discussion is all too often dominated by the yelling, accusation and attacks. It is good to have the perspective of someone who truly is involved in the equation. Like any law or policy this large, there is room for improvement. Given your depth of knowledge and experience (one of which, the ad agency, I know all too well), I'd appreciate your thoughts on what you, would suggest to those in Washington as improvements going forward. Feel free to either post or pm me. Thanks.

It's really tough to say at this juncture. The success of the ACA is going to rely very, very heavily on this first open enrollment period and how many people sign up. The traffic numbers are obviously very good so far, but how that translates into actual customers remains to be seen. If the CBO's estimates turn out to be right, the ACA should function reasonably well from a revenue/cost perspective. If the actual numbers fall short of that, it's going to be a rocky road fiscally until year 3 or so when the larger mandate fees kick in.

As for advice to Washington, I personally feel that one of the larger mistakes the Democrats have made is one of message. For most, the the term "Obamacare" is synonymous with health insurance and health insurance alone, when in actuality the law is more far reaching than that and several stipulations of the law have already gone into place that I think are going to have positive effects and are being overlooked. For instance:

The FDA can now legally approve more generic pharmaceuticals, which will increase competition and drive prices down. The FDA has always approved generic pharmaceuticals. What specifically has changed?
It places a huge emphasis on preventative care. If you're going for a mammogram or colonoscopy, you no longer will be paying a copay for that visit. Who will be paying then? Is it "free"?
It taxes things like tanning booths, which lead to very high rates of skin cancer. I thought you were an insurance guy, not a doctor. I guess raising taxes should be good for small businesses.
It removes lifetime limits on insurance payouts. These limits were negotiated buy the insurance provider and the customer. Now, that is no longer in the hands of the insurance company. So who pays for this?
Insurers can't drop patients for getting sick or pregnant or otherwise incurring medical costs, which happened far too regularly before. Perhaps it did, but I'm not familiar with many stories to that effect. I question just how "common" it was. I certainly have a personal example where coverage WAS NOT dropped even though insurance companies changed hands several times throughout a pre-existing condition.

As far as more pie in the sky suggestions that aren't directly linked to ACA but I personally would prefer, like I said, a single payer system akin to the system in Canada or England is, I think, the inevitable conclusion of the healthcare debate in the US. The GOP actually finds itself in a really odd place right now, because they are simultaneously the party of small government (true) and the party of big business (not exclusively true--many of the darlings on Wall Street are quite cozy with the Democrats), but can't be both in any debate over a single payer system. The decoupling of health insurance and employers would result in huge cost savings for American businesses, but would also result in a substantial growth in the size of the federal government (It wouldn't have to unless the federal government continues to increase their control of the market, which the "single-payer" model does.) They're going to have to reconcile one of those positions, because I just don't see how "15% of our population shouldn't have access to healthcare" (Define "access to healthcare") is a winning strategy for them. Going forward, any repeal of the ACA is going to have to be accompanied by a solution and as of yet, the GOP haven't presented anything outside of Darrell Issa's plan, which is actually just the ACA all over again.

I'm not interested in comparing Obamacare as it is now configured with a "single-payer" model and completely excluding any discussion of deregulation, which is the biggest problem of all.

It's akin to people who are anti capital punishment because the system "doesn't work," therefore we must eliminate capital punishment. Those same people have no interest in actually fixing the problem with capital punishment. It's just an excuse. If you're anti captial punishment then say so. Don't hide behind some system malfunction.

Same thing here. If you're against the free market, then just say so. Don't say health care is broken without acknowledging that the system is not now (pre Obamacare) free market, and hasn't been a free market for decades. Instead Obamacare fans want to claim "we tried the free market and that failed. So we have to try something else: Obamacare!

That's BS.

Red questions first:

1. It abbreviates the licensing process for generic drug manufacturers allowing them to enter the market sooner. More competitors in the marketplace = lower costs.

2. The insurance company pays the full amount. It's no longer a "co" pay. See?

3. This will be bad for the tanning industry, no doubt. But hopefully good for the larger economy by offsetting the costs of skin cancer treatment that customers of the tanning industry incur. Also: I'm not an insurance guy. This should be clear by now.

4. Insurance company pays for this. Cost is offset by the 25 million new customers they were just handed, many of whom are very healthy.

5. Not a question.

And again: I'm not against the free market, it's just not at all relevant here.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far

Posted: 10/12/2013 11:19:12 AM

Robert...just to make a little conversation...It appears that you favor more competition in the marketplace. If that's so, what do you think about merger, therefore less competition, in such as telecom, banking....espec now that banking in the U.S. is much more concentrated than before the financial crisis?

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far

Posted: 10/13/2013 7:14:54 PM

Monroe,
I'm not a big fan of it. It often hurts competition and drives prices higher. To be fair, I think regulations are difficult to write. But I do think there needs to be a strong restriction of mergers that squash competition or enable collusion. However, the devil is in the details, and regulations need to be written VERY carefully.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far

Posted: 10/13/2013 10:43:56 PM

Agree, Robert...thanks.

Showing Replies:	101 - 104 of 104 Posts
Jump to Page:	< Previous 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5

View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics

There are 272 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

271 Guests
1 Registered User:
	bobcatsquared

There are no other users looking at this page.