Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

My experience is that nurses, nurse practioners, physician assistants, and technicians are already doing to much of a doctor's job.

Nurse practitioners seem to have much better people skills than a lot of docs as well. We seem to be paying for a lot of ego in health care, I'd rather pay for competence. My cow-orkers husband is a NP in an Emergency Room and has gotten some good job offers lately.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Griff

Nurse practitioners seem to have much better people skills than a lot of docs as well. We seem to be paying for a lot of ego in health care, I'd rather pay for competence. My cow-orkers husband is a NP in an Emergency Room and has gotten some good job offers lately.

I guess my issue is that we're paying for a doctor's visit, but visiting someone who is not a doctor.

[Shawnee123]

Well, like any profession...

The doctor could be some old dithering codger who hasn't kept up on modern medicine, and the nurse practitioner could be the smartest person on earth and know all the latest.

Doctors sometimes act like gods because people think they ARE gods. You don't want them to think they are god but you think they are better than everyone else in the medical profession.

*shrugs*

[TheMercenary]

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This is a standard libertarian trick: if you can't get a good result in the Real World, where people make and judge and implement laws, just change the argument to the libertarian utopian "philosophy" world that doesn't actually exist and never has existed.

And we reply with the philosophical question And just why shouldn't it? We figure that we've got some insight into a better, small-government road. It's adult thinking, not dependent thinking. Free thinking, not bound.

I for one do not believe in Utopia and never did and thus escape that pitfall. I've put it to Libertarians that "pure libertarianism," however defined, isn't possible. Accepting that, some more libertarian ideas in our political culture would not go amiss among the party of adult thinking however denominated.

[Undertoad]

You were the first to advance Constitutionality. Once Dux met your arguments one for one, at that point - about a week into it! - you said that addressing the legalisms is not the real crux of the argument.

You were losing the game you asked to play, so you demanded to play a different game.

Adult thinking? Childish behavior.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You were the first to advance Constitutionality. Once Dux met your arguments one for one, at that point - about a week into it! - you said that addressing the legalisms is not the real crux of the argument.

You were losing the game you asked to play, so you demanded to play a different game.

Adult thinking? Childish behavior.

He shoots, he scores!

[TheMercenary]

As I stated numerous times...

Health Reform Risk: Young People May Opt For Fine Over ‘Obamacare’

A big unknown in the new national health care reform championed by President Obama is whether the 14 million or so young uninsured young people will choose to pay thousands in premiums or to pay the $95 government fine that begins in 2014.

“If I am 25 years old and relatively healthy, it might be an economically rational decision for me to pay the $95 penalty for the year versus the thousands of dollars in premiums,” Leslie Norwalk, the former acting administrator for the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, was quoted in a CNN report. “But for insurers to pay for more sick people, they also need more healthier people to sign up for coverage.”

The fine goes up to $695 by 2016, or 2.5 percent of an individual’s income, but some experts say that might not be enough to force the “young invincibles,” people under age 30 who haven’t previously been insured, to buy health insurance. Of course, many in this 14 million-strong group of young people are uninsured because they haven’t been able to afford it.

http://indyposted.com/17135/health-r...care%E2%80%99/

[classicman]

I'm interested to see how this plays out. How did the CBO or whoever determine how many of the young healthy group would sign up for insurance? Did they assume all and calculate the saving from there? I really have no idea how many will sign up. Some...most... but certainly not all. Also, since a "child" may now stay on their parents insurance till 26 how will that affect the costs? Being on a parents group policy costs only a fraction of what an individual policy would - especially at that age.

Good read.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm interested to see how this plays out. How did the CBO or whoever determine how many of the young healthy group would sign up for insurance? Did they assume all and calculate the saving from there? I really have no idea how many will sign up. Some...most... but certainly not all. Also, since a "child" may now stay on their parents insurance till 26 how will that affect the costs? Being on a parents group policy costs only a fraction of what an individual policy would - especially at that age.

Good read.

They counted on everyone signing up, that is why the math was fuzzy and the plan would never work as they said it would. If I were a 20 something I would much rather pay the fine even when it gets to the $600 range as it will be cheaper than insurance.

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm interested to see how this plays out. How did the CBO or whoever determine how many of the young healthy group would sign up for insurance? Did they assume all and calculate the saving from there? I really have no idea how many will sign up. Some...most... but certainly not all. Also, since a "child" may now stay on their parents insurance till 26 how will that affect the costs? Being on a parents group policy costs only a fraction of what an individual policy would - especially at that age.

Good read.

Start with some basic numbers.

Of the 40+ million uninsured, about 15 million are under 29 yrs old and 25 million are between 30-65 (ballpark figures)

Of those 15 million under 29 yrs old, a significant number (50%?) would qualify for Medicaid with the expansion to cover all individuals at or below 133% of poverty level.

Of the remaining, some might stay on the parents plan....but those married probably wont since their spouse would not be covered.

If they want to start a family, they will certainly buy into an insurance plan on the Exchange, unless they want to pay $8,000 (ave cost) to have a kid.

As was discussed previously, one can take a risk and pay the fine....but a serious accident, sudden major illness...and you risk bankruptcy at a very young age.

And no, the CBO did not count them all buying into the Exchange.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

And no, the CBO did not count them all buying into the Exchange.

Ok then, how many did they assume would join?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

As was discussed previously, one can take a risk and pay the fine....but a serious accident, sudden major illness...and you risk bankruptcy at a very young age.

And no, the CBO did not count them all buying into the Exchange.

Bullshit....


You will be covered under Obamacare.

Originally Posted by classicman

Ok then, how many did they assume would join?

Try reading the CBO report and the description of the econometric modeling used.

It describes how it determined a range of individual participation rates based on the rate of subsidy...the higher the subsidy, the higher the participation rate.

It also look at other mandates and used other modeling based on experiences of those mandates, including the experience in Mass (an estimated 3% are paying the penalty), experience with other mandates (ie car insurance and factoring in that health insurance is more costly than auto insurance) etc.

added:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bullshit....


You will be covered under Obamacare.

I would be happy to have a moderated discussion with both you guys.,,,where claiming "bullshit" or "failed" does not validate your position.

Until next time.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Try reading the CBO report and the description of the econometric modeling used.

It describes how it determined a range of individual participation rates based on the rate of subsidy...the higher the subsidy, the higher the participation rate.

It also look at other mandates and used other modeling based on experiences of those mandates, including the experience in Mass (an estimated 3% are paying the penalty), experience with other mandates (ie car insurance and factoring in that health insurance is more costly than auto insurance) etc.

You can't back it up with objective data. If you can, present it. I would be glad to tear it apart for you.