politicartoons | Obamacare simplified for the masses

I'd be going in the opposite direction - removing interstate barriers to allow for a broader competitive atmosphere, deregulating the licensing schemes to get more doctors in play, etc.

Which woudln't work unless you're rich

He doesn't care.

Except it works now without those changes even if you're not rich.

it works now???

i know some poor people you should talk to.
oh wait, you dont believe they exist, or should be having a conversation with the likes of you.

you sicken me when you think things are hunky dory for poor people who lack healthcare.

it works now???

Yes, it clearly works now. The number of people who did not have coverage, could not afford it, and didn't qualify for aid is very small.

you sicken me when you think things are hunky dory for poor people who lack healthcare.

Good thing I didn't say that.

(deleted comment)

He's not paying any attention to you.

THANK YOU

There isn't aid if you are poor and without insurance.

Medicaid.

You know as well as I do that not every poor person can get it.

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2013-01-30 00:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

radioclashed.livejournal.com - 2013-01-30 01:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

farchivist.livejournal.com - 2013-01-30 16:30 (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2013-01-30 21:34 (UTC) - Expand

Wouldn't work for anyone. Open up the competitive market and you get a race to the bottom and most likely a complete collapse of the market via an insurance death spiral

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_%28insurance%29

Ah, so we are on polar opposite ends of the spectrum here.

I'm uncertain broadening the competitive field would substantially benefit consumers overall--because we'd still have insurance companies agreeing as a group that pre-existing conditions are excluded.

And deregulating licensing schemes to get more doctors in play... Your mileage may vary here. Doctors haven't seemed too fond of lowering healthcare costs by making more of themselves. It's a lesson they've learned very well over the years--that scarcity increases revenue.

I'm uncertain broadening the competitive field would substantially benefit consumers overall--because we'd still have insurance companies agreeing as a group that pre-existing conditions are excluded.

Which is a very small number of the overall pool, and can be addressed in other ways that do not operate as a way to sink the insurers the way the public option does.

And deregulating licensing schemes to get more doctors in play... Your mileage may vary here. Doctors haven't seemed too fond of lowering healthcare costs by making more of themselves. It's a lesson they've learned very well over the years--that scarcity increases revenue.

Of course. That's why we need to push away from the way we currently do licensing, to keep them from having that sort of control.

Which is a very small number of the overall pool, and can be addressed in other ways that do not operate as a way to sink the insurers the way the public option does.

I disagree with you on this being a "very small number of the overall pool"--I work in a hospital, nearly every chronically ill person I've met have horror stories about the insurance pre-existing condition nightmare they've been through. And to the other half of your comment, that this pre-existing issue can be addressed in other ways...well, the problem with that is it hasn't been addressed by insurance companies until they were forced to do so by the Obama administration and the PPACA.

Of course. That's why we need to push away from the way we currently do licensing, to keep them from having that sort of control.

I imagine the response from the AMA would be fairly brisk and loud on this matter. But beyond physicians and their financial logic of scarcity, there are more reasons as to why we have so few doctors and surgeons. There is the staggeringly high cost of medical school and the limited number of medical schools for one thing. And reducing the restrictions on licensure will do nothing to alleviate this bottleneck. What reduction of licensure restrictions may well do, however, is make things easier for people of less skill to obtain medical degrees. I'm not sure that's the answer you're looking for when it comes to affordable, quality medical care.

If it makes you feel better, economists are pretty certain that opening up the "competitive field" would kill the market for insurance.

Not to mention, wouldn't this be an egregious infringement on States' rights?

Well thank god for Medicaid! As I'd have no real chance in getting insurance. I either would be denied or I'd have to pay more than I make.

That's doubtful.

Prove it.

No. That's reality for a lot of people your ideas would throw off the cliff.

I don't see how. The issue is a lack of competition. Solving that will open up more avenues for care.

Think about all the stuff that insurers are mandated to carry - we really don't need a lot of that, and it would open the door to low cost insurance, both for general stuff and for catastrophic care. That's a game-changer.

What kind of "stuff"?

And of course doing this without regard for the immense numbers of problems this creates. De-regulation is one of those libertarian talking poins that's utterly worthless in a real world context. Like the Command Economy, the Free Market never has existed in pure and unalloyed form and it never will.

Not to mention, the Tea Party types only favor deregulation and other 'free market capitalism' ideas when it benefits businesses, but never when the same policies benefit consumers.