Competition is needed to improve health insurance options for Americans

[Peter1469]

Private insurance is gravy. It's a rare doctor who cpould stay in practice without Medicare. Both doctors and hospitals need Medicare to keep the staff needed.

Why do you think companies are slow to cut employees? They want them if they need them. Medicare keeps needed staff and equipment available when needed.

Doctors take Medicare patients because they need them. So do hospitals. They aren't running charities.

https://onradinc.com/health-insuranc...with-medicare/

Around here a lot of doctors' offices have signs stating that they are not accepting new Medicare patients. Their is no money in it.

[John Galt]

When the government tells the insurers that tax payers will bail them out if they lose money you just destroyed the benefits of competition- the incentive to control costs is gone.

Because competition has nothing to do with pricing. You are the one who keeps talking about a 'subsidized' high risk pool. What exactly do you mean by that?

Don't forget. If the govt. is forcing (laughable, since insurance companies wrote the ACA) new risk upon insurers, they should guarantee solvency in the event of a wave of claims.


In theory, the ACA was aimed at creating a healthier society by getting preventive care to everyone who didn't have it. It would take years to stem the tide of catastrophic illness/cancer, but eventually costs would go down because the system wouldn't be taxed as it is now.

I guess we'll never know if the concept works.

[Peter1469]

Competition is very much related to pricing.

States subsidized high risk pools so those in the high risk pools could afford the insurance.

Because competition has nothing to do with pricing. You are the one who keeps talking about a 'subsidized' high risk pool. What exactly do you mean by that?

Don't forget. If the govt. is forcing (laughable, since insurance companies wrote the ACA) new risk upon insurers, they should guarantee solvency in the event of a wave of claims.


In theory, the ACA was aimed at creating a healthier society by getting preventive care to everyone who didn't have it. It would take years to stem the tide of catastrophic illness/cancer, but eventually costs would go down because the system wouldn't be taxed as it is now.

I guess we'll never know if the concept works.

The ACA claimed to increase access. It did.

The ACA claimed to increase quality. I don't think there is any evidence of that. If anything it added more patients to the system and caused wait times to go up.

The ACA claimed it would lower costs- it didn't.

At best any health care system is going to do two of those three things. The ACA did one.

[John Galt]

Competition is very much related to pricing.

Not according to the piece I posted above. You might have missed it.

States subsidized high risk pools so those in the high risk pools could afford the insurance.

Govt getting involved in subsidizing insurance? Didn't you say this:?

When the government tells the insurers that tax payers will bail them out if they lose money you just destroyed the benefits of competition- the incentive to control costs is gone.

The ACA claimed to increase access. It did.

The ACA claimed to increase quality. I don't think there is any evidence of that. If anything it added more patients to the system and caused wait times to go up.

'Wait times' is not a very strong argument. Of course it increased quality. Getting healthcare as opposed to no healthcare is a marked improvement.

The ACA claimed it would lower costs- it didn't.

We can both cite anecdotal evidence, and go in circles for days. Some people already got colonoscopies for free with EPI. Everyone else had to pay. Now everyone can get a list of preventive procedures with no OOP cost.

And...any honest discussion of what ACA did, and didn't do cannot happen until you admit that the ACA was never allowed to exist as designed due to de funding of key aspects.

[carolina73]

Because competition has nothing to do with pricing. You are the one who keeps talking about a 'subsidized' high risk pool. What exactly do you mean by that?

Don't forget. If the govt. is forcing (laughable, since insurance companies wrote the ACA) new risk upon insurers, they should guarantee solvency in the event of a wave of claims.


In theory, the ACA was aimed at creating a healthier society by getting preventive care to everyone who didn't have it. It would take years to stem the tide of catastrophic illness/cancer, but eventually costs would go down because the system wouldn't be taxed as it is now.

I guess we'll never know if the concept works.

Competition certainly keeps prices down. The limit is only when everyone cannot make money and then going OOB becomes the option.

It was the promise of ACA to end lifetime and annual coverage limits.

ACA does not encourage preventative care. It is well known that under the ACA you can go to the ER for free with no co-pay. Obama Care people go to the free clinic that was called the ER instead of their regular doctor and skip the testing. The opposite is true with regular insurers.

[Peter1469]

You and your link are wrong about how competition affects price. We learn this in economics 101 and in life.

Wait times are a quality issue. And the increased burden on the system causes medical staff burnout. That is a quality issue.

Not according to the piece I posted above. You might have missed it.





Govt getting involved in subsidizing insurance? Didn't you say this:?









'Wait times' is not a very strong argument. Of course it increased quality. Getting healthcare as opposed to no healthcare is a marked improvement.

We can both cite anecdotal evidence, and go in circles for days. Some people already got colonoscopies for free with EPI. Everyone else had to pay. Now everyone can get a list of preventive procedures with no OOP cost.

And...any honest discussion of what ACA did, and didn't do cannot happen until you admit that the ACA was never allowed to exist as designed due to de funding of key aspects.

[John Galt]

It was the promise of ACA to end lifetime and annual coverage limits.

It did

ACA does not encourage preventative care.

Sorry buddy...you really are clueless when it comes to ACA. I guess Fox doesn't give you any real info.

Change the channel, ffs.

[John Galt]

You and your link are wrong about how competition affects price. We learn this in economics 101 and in life.

Great. Then maybe you can explain why the states that opened up their borders are getting no takers?

Wait times are a quality issue. And the increased burden on the system causes medical staff burnout. That is a quality issue.

LMAO. Increasing the number of insurance companies is going to lessen the burden on doctor's offices?

LMAO.

No comment about your idea of 'subsidized' high risk exchanges being the same as govt. meddling?

[Chris]

You and your link are wrong about how competition affects price. We learn this in economics 101 and in life....

Great. Then maybe you can explain why the states that opened up their borders are getting no takers?...

Total nonsequitur, as is typical of your responses.

"the states that opened up their borders are getting no takers" has to do with state regulations, consumer protections, and a volatile judicial environment. For those interested, see https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blo...improve-choice or https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#511007ad2dcf

That has absolutely nothing to do with Peter's challenge to you about the basic economics of competition.

Now I know even better why I walked away from your misdirections, earlier strawmen, now nonsequiturs.

Such sophistry!

[Peter1469]

Great. Then maybe you can explain why the states that opened up their borders are getting no takers?

What states have opened up to outside insurance companies. And under what conditions?

LMAO. Increasing the number of insurance companies is going to lessen the burden on doctor's offices?

No, you are confusing two separate issues. Competition affects health insurance prices. Medical staff shortages is an different issue.

LMAO.

No comment about your idea of 'subsidized' high risk exchanges being the same as govt. meddling?

It is government meddling.