It seems, for a variety of reasons, the goal of providing affordable access to routine medical care for everyone in the U.S. is a goal that is incompatible with our current, private-sector-government partnership; a partnership which has resulted in Cartel-like, health care delivery. I find this very odd, because one does not think of Cartels as highly regulated; yet in U.S. healthcare we have a Cartel that depends on regulation for its existence! United States' medical care provides a perfect example of what economists refer to as regulatory capture. Would total deregulation along with strongly enforced antitrust laws drastically bring down costs and extend access in exchange for heightened risk. Would this be the ideal capitalist solution to the problem of healthcare in the U.S. Although it seems highly unlikely the country would ever follow such a path, it is an interesting question to contemplate. Fundamentally underlying our medical care difficulties is the nature of the beast, i.e., it is very difficult to create a competitive market, one that can hold down costs, when the market is subjected to a high level of regulatory capture, and the buyer can not walk. And even if it were possible to create a truly competitive market, would we still be saddled with the problem of access? Other countries, actually all other developed countries, have adopted compromise solutions to these problems which, although unsatisfactory from a capitalist viewpoint, nevertheless work better than the current U.S. approach when measured by access, quality and cost benchmarks of the World Health Organization. Objections to these "other countries' " solutions on the basis of waiting times, rationing, and quality are, curiously, all problems also present in United States' health care! So these defects do not provide reliable criteria on which to compare healthcare in the U.S. with other countries. And too, those with substantial financial resources can circumvent these defects and annoyances and access an extraordinarily high standard of care no matter which developed country they reside in. Those advocating the status quo in the U.S. often fall back on an argument couched in the false claim that the quality of healthcare in the U.S. is the "best in the world." Clearly, for those of means the care in the U.S. is no better nor worse, on average, than in many other countries, however the quality and access to care for many millions in the U.S. with only meager financial resources is worse than in any other industrialized country we compare ourselves to. Because of the concerted opposition of vested interests, the problems of universal access along with costs rising much faster than GDP can not be solved in the obvious way by simply copying the healthcare delivery system in one of the other developed countries. The U.S. problem will have to be resolved via crisis. We will have to go through several iterations of which the ACA is the first in a series. An eventual crisis is unlikely to be the result of many not having access to routine care, since these unlucky souls have little political influence. Even if their plight weighs so heavily on our collective, moral conscience that the next iteration provides universal access, the cost problem will still be with us. Most likely, the eventual crisis that brings about the inevitable, sweeping change will be the result of unsustainable cost.
another red herring... We should repeal McCarran Fergusson but it had nothing do with the way Obamacare was drafted. . I can see now you understand that McCarran did not limit Obama and Gruber and the dems ability to create Obamacare. (like I told you many times.) We could grant every amorphous point in your article as true... and it does nothing to support your argument that McCarran prevented Obamacare from doing what it wanted to do. Congress and obama were not in anyway constrained by MF. They had full jurisdictional powers. See -- when you go more than one post deep... you leave the left behind.
now that is first thing you have said about health care that makes sense. the very simple answer for this... is national health insurance competition and health care vouchers. Make the companies compete for everyone.
You are, as always it seems, wrong. The ACA had no chance to succeed as initially intended without repealing MF. The house voted for repeal, or if I remember to make it not apply to health insurance, early in the ACA adoption process. Obviously the House realized it was essential to get the ACA to work as intended. Keeping MF intact was just another way to make sure the ACA didn't work very well. I don't think it can work even if MF is repealed. Several other major changes are needed. If I was Dictator, I could make it work within 24 months, but I'd be assassinated. Here is the minimum that is needed: 1. repeal MF; 2. cut loose all connections between employment and insurance; 3. establish a competitive, world drug market in the U.S. and deregulate access to many drugs. 4. Institute prescribing pharmacists in all 50 states. 5. Establish a paygo public option ; 6. Fully Federalize medicaid, and get the States entirely out of the medicaid business; 7. Forbid the FDA administration from overriding the recommendations of the FDA study panels. Force the FDA to recognize clinical trial results from certain countries in Western Europe, and Scandinavia and Canada.. And their is plenty more deregulation and other things that can be done as necessary to bring down costs and break the back of the Cartel.. A lot of it has to do with Hospitals, their "non-profit" status, and their unbridled ability to pass on to the patient any cost of any kind, without limit, no matter how tenuously related to the patient's interest.
Piezoe, you keep trying to make a point that the exemption from anti trust allows the insurance companies to have an advantage that drives up the cost to a point that the aca couldn't be successful. The article by David Balto that you pasted is allegedly your proof. He states that's it's the only industry that has this exemption and thus it allows them to collude to make outsize profits. But wouldn't that be reflected in health insurance industry financial statements? Wouldn't they have the best profit margins and the best returns on investment among different industries? Surely they would if you and David's argument had any merit. How could they not? But here is a list of the 15 most profitable industries as calculated by Fortune. http://fortune.com/2014/08/06/15-most-profitable-business-sectors/ Whaddyaknow. Health insurance, or any insurance, is not among them. There are a number of health related industries that actually are the most profitable. Doctors, dentists, outpatient care centers, etc, but not health insurance companies that have this exemption from mccarronn ferguson. Here are the Stern's school of business calculations on profit margins by industry. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html Here are the Stern school of business calculations on roe by industry. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/roe.html Guess what? The health insurance industry doesn't show outsized profits or returns when compared with other industries. The Balto article you pasted claims that the exemption allows them to collude and make a killing. Killings that other industries can't make because they don't have this exemption. Without this exemption, things would be all different. You say that it's this lack of competition from this exemption that is killing the aca. So why don't the numbers back up your case? Where are the outsize profit margins and returns in health insurance that are doing all this damage? The truth is that there are all kinds of things wrong with obamacare that make it impossible to work, but they are sacred to the left, so they put for these excuses that have no basis to try and divert attention. Not my fault! When it is your fault.
let me make this so clear even a person with cnn on 24 / 7 could understand.... McCarran Fergusson applies in limited circumstances unless Federal Law regulating insurance states otherwise. Obamacare could have stated otherwise. Had Obamacare chosen to say competition will be across state lines...(as Trump said last night) it could have. If they said there were be no collusion they could have said so and it would be law. Obamacare chose not to state otherwise because the insurance industry wrote the law and told Obama Pelosi and Reid to pass it. Enough of amorphous excuses about why obamacare sucked. It sucked by design because the Pelosi and Reid and Obama were protecting their donors not the vast majority of their constituents. How do we know.... the fact that we did not have single payer. --- Piezoe it does sicken me how many of us republicans admit that establishment republicans sell us out all the time. yet lefties like you will rewrite history rather than admit the democrats sold us out. Why is it so hard to get a lefty to admit his team is working for the cronies instead of the good of the nation? if smart guys like you would tell the truth we could work together to make the country better. it does not have to be all left and all right. We should take the best policies of each side and see what works best. Instead when the left and the media defends democrats we get the worst of the left and the worst of the right. here... odonnell tells you what I have been telling you for years. it was insurance company care. why do you argue against that?
It's not in Obamacare. Could have been. might have been, Should have been. Same way public option should have been. If a pig had wings and was hollow, a pig could fly. The ACA is silent on MF. It is not in there. It is going to require legislation to get around that. An executive order is not the same as a statute, or federal law. You can't repeal a statute or modify it with an executive order unless that is allowed by the statute itself or unless no one objects. Someone will object to repealing MF, like 50 separate States and a whole bunch of insurance companies. Without MF they'd be regulated by DOC. They couldn't do a bunch of stuff they do now to screw the consumer. Got it.. Executive orders are for places where the law is silent. Trump won't be able to do what he says he will do. Same reason he can't increase the Defense budget by 54 Billion. The House will have to do that, and to get around the sequester in the Senate it is going to take 60 votes.
I have always been puzzled by your screwball ideas. Probably came from reading too much Breitbart. The ACA is screwed up because of the Solid Block of Elephants and their resolve to ruin any initiative coming from Obama, even a thoroughly Republican initiative like O'Romneycare.
what kind of juvenile argument is that? You have been blaming obamacare sucking on MF. I told you that is a fake argument because MF did not block the dems in any way. They passed obamacare without a single republican vote. both your arguments are nonsense... the republicans had no say on Obamacare. It was passed on a party line tricky vote. Pelosi said we can read it once its passed...