Posted on 02/09/2016 8:55:52 AM PST by Kaslin
Robin Hood was a mythical figure from 12th Century England whose legend became famous for stealing from the rich to help the pool. His legend wasn't lost on Obamacare proponents, who incorporated the idea into health plan regulations. As I've explained in the past, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) had two primary goals: to expand health coverage to the uninsured, and to force everyone into health plans where premiums could not rise or fall based on health status. Purportedly, prior to Obamacare a small segment of the public could not find affordable coverage due to health concerns that made them unprofitable customers or their health plan rather costly. The number was relatively small, about 4 million individuals out of a society of 320 million by some estimates. Most could have gotten coverage, but not on terms they were willing to pay. Obamacare was intended to "fix" that problem by banning discounts to favorable risks or people with healthy lifestyles.
Obamacare is a bad deal for most people by design. Most individuals have few health concerns. For instance, about half the population spends less than $500 annually on medical care. For a decade prior to the ACA I often heard liberal public health advocates chant the imbecilic phrase, "health coverage won't be affordable until everyone has coverage." What they meant by that was if insurers were required to cover money-losing customers at rates that did not reflect their costs, new regulations would have to force healthier individuals to purchase coverage that was overpriced compared to their health costs. Thus, at its core Obamacare is a wealth redistribution scheme. This is true not only because of taxpayer subsidies that decrease with income, but also as a function of health literacy and lifestyle. Uninsured households are more likely to be less educated and have lower-income. Healthy behaviors and health literacy (that is: understanding what a healthy lifestyle is) tends to rise with income and education. Obamacare regulations are designed to transfer some of the wealth (and health) of the healthier, better educated households to poorer, less healthy households.
Allow me to explain. The socioeconomics of health have to do with the study of so-called "health disparities." An article in the policy journal, Health Affairs, explained the effects socioeconomics have on health status. Poorer people spend less on medical care. They may live in areas with more pollution, environmental hazards and often work riskier jobs. Finally, poor people tend to engage in lifestyle behaviors (smoking and obesity being two) that are detrimental to their health. Basically, the poorer you are, the less educated you are, the greater the likelihood of health problems or behaviors that could lead to health problems. Although they are loath to blame lifestyles, liberal health policy folks worry about health disparities. But the reality is most health disparities are due to behavior, not lack of health coverage. Indeed, about 60 percent of medical spending is on conditions linked to lifestyle. This includes diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol.
Obesity and diabetes are more common among the poor. One theory is poor people tend to be fatter because food is a low-cost, enjoyable experience in a life lacking in many other pleasures. Poor people may also discount future costs and benefits at a much higher rate. That's a roundabout way of saying someone may value smoking cigarettes or an extra helping of comfort food at every meal for the next 40 years (more than the health benefits of weighing 80 pounds less 40 years from now).
Some people discount future costs at rates most of us find illogical. Variations in healthy behaviors are quite rational - even within the same income group. Some people like to eat bonbons, while others like to jog. Some people would rather buy a carton of cigarettes than spend a similar amount on a doctor visit. Some of those bonbon-eating cigarette smokers prefer to plop down in front of the television after work and down several beers. Many of them would probably benefit more by hitting the gym and spending their beer money on a daily regimen of generic antihypertensive medications and lipid-lowering drugs. But they choose not to.
Obamacare aims to solve these perverse behaviors and poor lifestyle choices with mandatory health insurance that aims to beat those health disparities into shape with medical intervention. BlueCross of Texas, the BlueCross plan of New York, and a host of other insurers report previously uninsured enrollees getting a volume of care that far exceeds the average. People who probably had not spent their own money on medical care in the past decade now have encouragement to get a decade's worth of care the first year or two they are enrolled. As a result, everyone's premiums are skyrocketing and the state and federal exchanges are descending into an adverse selection death spiral. The more costs escalate, the more healthy people drop out - causing a repeat cycle of healthy people fleeing Obamacare's high costs.
Why do people neglect the fact that Robin Hood stole from the government to give back to the taxpayers?
Obamacare steals from private citizens to fuel the government and subsidize those on the lower end of the economic ladder in order to buy votes.
Those two are hardly compatible viewpoints.
They do not "neglect" - it's the MSM; they studiously avoid - even misrepresent it.
Because Liberalism can't exist with lies.
I think we need a rhetorical font the same as we need a sarcasm font. ;-P
I lost 2K in deductions this year, plus was placed in a higher tax bracket due to the ACA mandates (employer paid portions of “cadillac health plans” being considered income now).
We all know that the PPACA has problems, even Democrats with $6,800 deductibles.
What is going to be done with the massive deductible problem?
The debate on Saturday should have been solely focused on issues.
I have to live on $5,000/year in order to not run out of money sometime in the future. I live in Florida, a state that didn’t expand Medicaid (probably due to existing Medicaid cost overruns).
I simply can’t afford $544/month premiums that aren’t subsidized. Insurers should be encouraged to offer $100/month plans and ($3/$4/$5)*your age per month plans with 90%+ loss ratios.
Why should the federal government be allowed to effectively deny me health care under the existing PPACA law?
What if I was a 39-year old woman with an ectopic pregnancy (for which I would truly need an abortion)?
The PPACA is obviously unconstitutional.
I know and it’s why I couldn’t read any further. Does anyone bother to learn the truth about Robin Hood?! I’ve had to correct countless people on this falsehood. They are shocked!
‘Robin Hood was a mythical figure from 12th Century England whose legend became famous for stealing from the rich to help the poor.’
The standard liberal interpretation which is incorrect - he stole from the tax collectors under a usurping government as enforced by the Sheriff of Nottingham and gave back to the fleeced.
Without lies. Ugh.
The real problem in the US is high costs. We pay 3 or 4 times as they do in Europe for the same procedure. Not surprisingly, the incomes of doctors and other medical professionals are much higher in the US than in Europe.
And I need to proof-read better. My post should have said; "Liberalism can't exist without lies." Not "with"...
“Your destination for affordable health care”
“COVERED”
The only text items I could read from the illustration are just Obama Administration lies with respect to me.
The “Cadillac” health care tax threshold might be made a function of the silver plan subsidy base amount so employer plans in higher cost/income areas of the country aren’t taxed as “Cadillacs” while having “Volkswagon” coverage.
Two other probs from Robin Hood:
“by banning discounts to favorable risks or people with healthy lifestyles”
Not true, the text of commie care allows 30% higher premiums for the “unhealthy” and 50% for “preconditions”.
What it does disallow is denying coverage due to the precondition.
Other prob:
“Poorer people spend less on medical care”
Ok, captain obvious, but take a look in an emergency room and who do you see? The correct statement is that poor don’t spend any of THEIR OWN money on medical care, but they swell the practices of doctors and hospitals through Medicaid & medicare. So much so, in fact, that Drs for a long time have been dropping out of those programs.
In addition, Medicaid/medicare pay the least compared to other insurers.
Keep in mind, when you go to the doc, you’re NOT getting the best treatment available. The doc decides what to offer you based on their perception of what you can afford (via your coverage). So if your insurance doesn’t cover an expensive procedure that can fix you lickity split, they won’t tell you about it.
You would have to proactively tell them that if there’s something else available, uncovered, that you’re willing to pay cash.
Not something the poor are going to do.
“The real problem in the US is high costs. We pay 3 or 4 times as they do in Europe for the same procedure. Not surprisingly, the incomes of doctors and other medical professionals are much higher in the US than in Europe.”
_____________________________________________________________
The cost of liability insurance health professionals are required to carry has a much larger impact on cost of services. As always, follow the money. It’s the lawyers.
Commie “Care” text:
“(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the
particular plan or coverage involved only by -
(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual or family;
(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with paragraph (2);
(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section 2707(c)); and
(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved by any other factor not described in subparagraph (A).”
“The reward for the wellness program, together with the reward for other wellness programs with respect to the plan that requires satisfaction of a standard related to a health status factor, shall not exceed 30 percent of the cost of employee-only coverage under the plan.”
“The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury may increase the reward available under this subparagraph to up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage if the Secretaries determine that such an increase is appropriate.”
Normally healthy people can’t get these discounts/rewards.
The text of commie “care” allows 30%/50% lower premiums for the unhealthy/preconditions.
Eat grapes before some doctor/lab visits, attend a few classes and get your discounts/rebates too.
The writer mistakes the Robin Hood legend. Mr. HOOD robbed the tax collector and returned said funds to those who had their money taken by the tax collector.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
