Unintended Consequences of Citizens United

Teflon Don said:
I don't wish to argue with about the morality of free markets because I realize that it is a useless endeavor and you will not be convinced. What I am asking is why you think your morality should be legislated? Does that mean I can legislate my morality?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a useless endeavor. Markets are amoral. And I think the government should provide access to basic healthcare for everyone just like it does for old people. If you want to construe that as a moral judgment, then, yes, I think my morality should be legisltated becuase it's a good idea. And you can have your morality legislated, too, provided you follow the legislative process and your legislated morality is constitutional.


Teflon Don said:
Health insurance pays for healthcare. To think that one does not impact the other shows a lack of understanding
Click to expand...

Well, it's good thing I haven't said that health insurance does not impact healthcare.


Teflon Don said:
I am on Tapatalk so sometimes the auto spell gets me. The question is how can the government offer you more choices than you can offer yourself?
Click to expand...

That question is still ridiculous given that you don't get to decide what insurance is made available to you.
 
Superfreak said:
No. YOU can choose to accept that portion of your compensation or not. If you choose to accept what they offer, then you can CHOOSE to get a supplemental plan or to pay out of pocket for the condoms. Running around screaming because they don't want to pay for your condoms is pretty fucking ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Seriously? How is how I use my compensation any of their damned business? I am the one paying for it after all. It's my pay. I earned it.
 
aeprga said:
Yes, it is a useless endeavor. Markets are amoral. And I think the government should provide access to basic healthcare for everyone just like it does for old people. If you want to construe that as a moral judgment, then, yes, I think my morality should be legisltated becuase it's a good idea. And you can have your morality legislated, too, provided you follow the legislative process and your legislated morality is constitutional.




Well, it's good thing I haven't said that health insurance does not impact healthcare.




That question is still ridiculous given that you don't get to decide what insurance is made available to you.
Click to expand...

How convenient for you that you think that YOUR morality should be legislated. I notice that you don't even question whether your morality is constitutional or not. But, you slipped that in there when it came to discussing my morality. Cute.

How does medical insurance NOT impact healthcare? If it is determining what gets paid for then it does indeed impact care.

When someone else is paying your bills, you will always have less choice. That has always been so.

Personally, I hope you enjoy it. I am immune from Obamacare.

I refuse to buy their approved insurance and I won't pay the fine because the way the law is written, the IRS can't collect it unless you get a refund. I don't get refunds and they have no mechanism to collect my fine. I have set up a concierge service with a local physician that has opted to not accept insurance or Obamacare. He even makes house calls. It is a great use of money.
 
aeprga said:
No, it's not that I think they should be covered. It's that a panel of medical experts recommended that they be included as part of a minimal essential benefits package for health insurance plans. I defer to their judgment on such things and would advocate for the same under a single-payer system. I'd much rather that then to rely on the whims of individual employers who decide that contraception makes Jesus cry.
Click to expand...
That's why a big part of the ACA, and you don't hear much talk about this, is dedicated to standardized reporting requirements. One of the worst features of our health care system is how can you control costs when you have no idea what #1. Whether a particular modality works or not and to what degree it does work (if it does at all) and #2. What the true costs are. The standardized reporting requirements creates a central database on these procdures with the intent that the data can be used to determine what the actual efficacy of a particular procedure or modality is and what its true costs are. This also applies to new procedures, technologies, drugs, modalities, etc, before being introduced into coverage plans testing and reporting of data will determine efficacy and costs and that will be used to determine whether a particular proceure or modality is covered and at what cost.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's why a big part of the ACA, and you don't hear much talk about this, is dedicated to standardized reporting requirements. One of the worst features of our health care system is how can you control costs when you have no idea what #1. Whether a particular modality works or not and to what degree it does work (if it does at all) and #2. What the true costs are. The standardized reporting requirements creates a central database on these procdures with the intent that the data can be used to determine what the actual efficacy of a particular procedure or modality is and what its true costs are. This also applies to new procedures, technologies, drugs, modalities, etc, before being introduced into coverage plans testing and reporting of data will determine efficacy and costs and that will be used to determine whether a particular proceure or modality is covered and at what cost.
Click to expand...

You don't know what the true costs are because you have been shielded from it. Y don"t want to know as long as you think someone else is footing the bill
 
aeprga said:
Maybe if you cut the baiting shit out you'd get a different response. Just a suggestion. The poor probably couldn't afford supplemental coverage in most instances. But they'd still be better off than the Rube Goldberg system that the ACA created and the various collateral attacks on what employers have to provide and such.
Click to expand...
I think that anyone viewing the issue objectively would agree that a single payer system is the most efficient and cost affective method of providing basic health services though it does have it's drawbacks. Obviously it's not the only method. Market based systmes around the world have worked well too. Around the world the industrialized nations who have adopted market reforms have all adopted three basic reforms and we are headed in that direction.

#1. Every person must have coverage with coverage for the poor subsidized by the government.
#2. Insurance companies/Health Care providers cannot profit from providing basic services.
#3. A basic set of cost controls for health care services are implemented.

The ACA meets basic reform #1 and gets us 80% of the way to #2. #3 is going to be the biggie but that can't be dealt with until the standardized reporting that the ACA requires has collected enough data to make this possible.
 
Teflon Don said:
How convenient for you that you think that YOUR morality should be legislated. I notice that you don't even question whether your morality is constitutional or not. But, you slipped that in there when it came to discussing my morality. Cute.
Click to expand...

There isn't much question that it is constitutional for the government to tax people and give them health insurance. I have no idea what your morality consists of and whether it would be constitution if enacted. Hence, the caveat.


Teflon Don said:
How does medical insurance NOT impact healthcare? If it is determining what gets paid for then it does indeed impact care.
Click to expand...

I've never suggested otherwise.


Teflon Don said:
When someone else is paying your bills, you will always have less choice. That has always been so.
Click to expand...

Not really.


Teflon Don said:
Personally, I hope you enjoy it. I am immune from Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It doesn't really affect me all that much right now. By the way, that's a neat vaccine you got.


Teflon Don said:
I refuse to buy their approved insurance and I won't pay the fine because the way the law is written, the IRS can't collect it unless you get a refund. I don't get refunds and they have no mechanism to collect my fine. I have set up a concierge service with a local physician that has opted to not accept insurance or Obamacare. He even makes house calls. It is a great use of money.
Click to expand...

Good luck.
 
Teflon Don said:
You don't know what the true costs are because you have been shielded from it. Y don"t want to know as long as you think someone else is footing the bill
Click to expand...
What a nonsensical comment. Quit trolling. No one knows what the true costs are, that's why the reporting is required. What a stupid comment.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What a nonsensical comment. Quit trolling. No one knows what the true costs are, that's why the reporting is required. What a stupid comment.
Click to expand...

Nothing nonsensical at all. Remember your little "blip" that the doctor thought was nothing? Yeah, you didn't think twice abour running up a bill because someone else was paying it. Now you complained about it after the fact, but it is a bit late at that point isn't it?

Now if you were paying cash, you would have wanted to know costs up front and the physician would have given them to you to decrease the chance of not getting paid.

Of course you don't think you are part of the problem. You think you are a victim of forces well beyond your control. To think yourself part of the problem would require a measure of self awareness that you do not possess
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Seriously? How is how I use my compensation any of their damned business? I am the one paying for it after all. It's my pay. I earned it.
Click to expand...

How you use your compensation is not their business. However, they are the ones that get to design the compensation package. YOU have the ability to decline it or accept it. YOU do not get to design the healthcare benefits for the firm... THEY do.

To make it simple for you... if that plan was yours... you don't have coverage for contraception as that is not part of your health care benefit, therefore YOU choose how and when to purchase contraception.

If they came to you on your salary and said you get $100k per year with no bonuses and you said 'how dare they tell me how to spend my compensation of $101k'... how stupid would you be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top