If he doesn’t sit down and shut up soon, I’ll have to write more.

Dave Says:
July 19th, 2017 at 9:56 pm

If the way to get the lowest premium for each memebet is taking advantage of group rate principle by creating a group of insurers as big as possible， doesn’t grouping the whole country as one gives you the best rate in theory？”

That was just private marketplace package buying power.

It worked while actuarial insurance still assessed individual risk and individual rates were based on that.

Certain people would of course be excluded from the “insurance” paradigm, precisely because there was no insuring them against a possible eventuality when they were already living it. Insurance in that case is a fiction.

They needed ongoing or imminent medical treatment, not insurance.

And in the case of the indigent, emergency rooms were forced to give it. And when they were, they collapsed under the weight of the ever increasing demand and the serene indifference of those who began to use them as a public resource; as I think you noted yourself.

What the hell do you say to a fat guy with diabetes who shoots himself up with a little extra insulin so he can have some donuts.

Do you think that there is any point in engaging in the charade of distributive risk insurance with such a person?

But that is where the government has been driving us.

“By not opposing socialising police, postal service, military or road building means converserives agree that there are certain agencies can be run better by a government than private section, why can’t the health insurance industry be one of it?”

No they don’t because the analogy fails as a result of a conceptual transition to a framework of unequal liabilities and non-distributive benefits.

If the dread Canadians invade the country, we are all at some distributive risk. Military.

If anthrax is deliberately spread, we are all pretty much at risk. Public Health Service.

Read, the “general welfare.” distributively.

We are nor all at equal risk for type two diabetes or AIDS.

The utilitarian “justification” and informing pretense, is that we all do better when some are required to transfer their labor to others who do not in principle reciprocate. An imputed, not logically distributive benefit.

Just how we actually benefit from someone getting fake insurance, rather than just granting these persons medical charity is made less clear. Apparently it preserves their “dignity” or something. Meaning that their feelings are preserved by it being made clear to you that you have no choice as to whether to underwrite their needs or not.

And of course like anything “free”, demand is in potential unlimited. Give away free televisions and sure as the sun rises some sack of will demand enough to build a house out of them. Offer free hospital rooms and some will try to treat them as hotel rooms, as everyone here knows.

And advertise “All the crab legs you can eat for $18.00” and some 400 lb human pig will sit and eat until he vomits them out, and then demand more.

Yeah I know … “Where’s your altruism?”

Because, why gosh darn it, it is just so wonderful to live in a country where we all care so, so much. And if you have to be a kind of slave, well, it is only because we all benefit from caring so, so much.

Katherine Baicker, a professor of health economics at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and co-author of the Oregon study, agreed.

While the data varies a bit from study to study, the findings generally fail to provide any evidence that emergency room use has decreased after the law took effect. Indeed, several studies found increases in emergency room use, though modestly. Price overstated the case slightly, but he’s basically correct. We rate the statement Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/10/tom-price/hhs-chief-tom-price-correct-er-use-obamacare/

By the way, I appreciate your apology. I’m not a member of the Tea Party, though I am a supporter of the effort to reduce the scope of the federal government and the looming debt crisis.

That’s still a stretch to claim “tea b*ggers who believes people with pre-existing conditions should just die without insurance”

As I state previously 18 states already have some form of guaranteed issue– covering pre-existing conditions. That would mean liberals should extend their fight to the other 32 states to do the same.

But even so, your claim is baseless. Public hospitals can’t turn away patients. Even with the passage of the ACA, emergency room use for routine purposes is still way too high.

The argument against this form of healthcare is the cost– that it’s an expensive way to provide healthcare.

As to the expansion of Medicaid, analysis shows that the outcomes of Medicaid patients isn’t any better than not having insurance at all.

For three years, an incredibly nerdy–but consequential–debate has raged among health policy researchers regarding Medicaid, America’s government-run health-care program for the poor. Piles of studies have shown that people on Medicaid have health outcomes that are no better, and often worse, than those with no insurance at all. But supporters of Obamacare were cheered in 2011 when a lone study, out of Oregon, purported to show that Medicaid was better than being uninsured. Yesterday, however, the authors of the Oregon study published their updated, two-year results, finding that Medicaid “generated no significant improvement in measured physical health outcomes.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/02/oregon-study-medicaid-had-no-significant-effect-on-health-outcomes-vs-being-uninsured/#63903e246043

Obviously statistics can be manipulated, but this is a study from a group that wanted to find a benefit from Medicaid coverage. If you drill down, I expect that’s true because going to the doctor versus not going to the doctor doesn’t make much difference to the bodies ability to heal itself.

I don’t want to get sidetracked on this argument, but it does show that we need to get some incentive into the system for people to self-regulate the use of the system. Medicaid doesn’t do that but then neither does most third party pay systems.

Which is why I’m for increased use of catastrophic insurance (high deductible) policies coupled with HSA.

But even given the mis-characterization of their position the use of ‘tea bagger’ is scurrilous.

Still I do not like Rand Paul at all, this man is the Bernie Sanders of the right, just because he is handsome and more presentable doesn’t make his ideas less loony