Current Events > CBS looked at three families' finances to see if they get a tax cut.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

You guys avoided my question though - why have the middleman at all?

Get rid of insurance and make healthcare single payer.

Do you really want single-payer so much that you would allow Donald Trump to run it?

By the time it's implemented he'll be out

And you're CERTAIN someone like him - or worse - would NEVER be elected again?

If you won't trust your medical care to Donald Trump, you're an idiot to trust it to the government he currently presides over.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

You guys avoided my question though - why have the middleman at all?

Get rid of insurance and make healthcare single payer.

Do you really want single-payer so much that you would allow Donald Trump to run it?

By the time it's implemented he'll be out

And you're CERTAIN someone like him - or worse - would NEVER be elected again?

No, but I am certain the current system is awful and anything else would be an improvement

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

You guys avoided my question though - why have the middleman at all?

Get rid of insurance and make healthcare single payer.

Do you really want single-payer so much that you would allow Donald Trump to run it?

By the time it's implemented he'll be out

And you're CERTAIN someone like him - or worse - would NEVER be elected again?

No, but I am certain the current system is awful and anything else would be an improvement

Even Donald Trump in charge of your health care?
---

For the users who don't understand how business works, or on a deeper level supply and demand, allow me to try and explain:

Let's say I own a company that sells Skub. Skub is a very useful product people use and I charge $20 per can of Skub. But some people need extra-strength Skub so I sell that, too, at a premium of $40 per can.
Down the line I realize the people who need extra-strength Skub really need it and I can still sell it at a higher price of $50/can, but the people who only need regular Skub didn't want to pay $30/can when I raised those prices, so I put it back at $20 - where it sells.

But then the government comes in and decides Skub is a great product everyone should have, and mandates two things - one, that I return Extra Strength Skub to its $40 price point so that the people who need it can have access to it, but to offset that they make it a requirement that everyone in the country purchase Skub - even people who don't want it - so that I can start making my money back by not charging $50 for ES Skub.

Now everyone in the country is buying Skub and business is booming. And because you are required to buy Skub, even if you don't want or need it, I can charge $40 for ES Skub (required by govt), but $60 for regular Skub. By the way, I also only offer the $40 ES Skub to certain people who can prove they require it.

Now I'm making fat stacks, but what happens? This new government administration comes in and axes the mandate. I'm still required to charge only $40 for ES Skub but your average person has no requirement to purchase regular Skub. And because there's no requirement, a lot of people stop paying $60/can because why the heck would they?

Since I'm only making $40/can for the ES Skub and I can't change that, I have two choices - raise the price even higher on regular Skub and risk losing more or the market, or - and this may blow your mind - lower the price of regular Skub so that the people who didn't want to buy in at the $60 price point may decide to purchase again.

And at the end of the day I settle on $25/can for regular Skub and the $40/can for ES Skub. Creating a system that everyone is legally forced to buy into will only raise prices - not lower them.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

You guys avoided my question though - why have the middleman at all?

Get rid of insurance and make healthcare single payer.

Do you really want single-payer so much that you would allow Donald Trump to run it?

By the time it's implemented he'll be out

And you're CERTAIN someone like him - or worse - would NEVER be elected again?

No, but I am certain the current system is awful and anything else would be an improvement

Even Donald Trump in charge of your health care?

What makes him worse than the greedy pharma people?

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

You guys avoided my question though - why have the middleman at all?

Get rid of insurance and make healthcare single payer.

Do you really want single-payer so much that you would allow Donald Trump to run it?

By the time it's implemented he'll be out

And you're CERTAIN someone like him - or worse - would NEVER be elected again?

No, but I am certain the current system is awful and anything else would be an improvement

Even Donald Trump in charge of your health care?

What makes him worse than the greedy pharma people?

Answer the question.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Answer the question.

I already have.

Anything would be better than the current system, including Drumpf being in charge of it.

There's no way it can possibly be worse than the current bullshit that leaves people bankrupt because of medical bills

Darklit_Minuet posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Answer the question.

I already have.

Anything would be better than the current system, including Drumpf being in charge of it.

There's no way it can possibly be worse than the current bullshit that leaves people bankrupt because of medical bills

So, you want 60 percent of your income to go to Donald Trump so he can determine your medical care.

Yeah, that's a REAL improvement.
---

darkjedilink posted...

So, you want 60 percent of your income to go to Donald Trump so he can determine your medical care.

Yeah, that's a REAL improvement.

As opposed to 2000% of my income going to a single surgery?

Yeah, it'd be preferable.

darkjedilink posted...

And you're CERTAIN someone like him - or worse - would NEVER be elected again?

if we end the current anti-democratic institutions that are undermining the spirit of a republic with universal sufferage?

yes, i am certain

what we need to make institutions work are:

1) proportional distribution in the electoral college so OH/PA/FL/VA/MI don't decide the president by simple majority

2) independently drawn districts that are not up to the ruling state legislature in the house

3) overturning of citizens united or nationwide ballot initiatives that destroy the power of PACs
---

You know it's a great "tax reform" when it further complicates the code and people can't be sure if they'll save more or not
---

Doom_Art posted...

You know it's a great "tax reform" when it further complicates the code and people can't be sure if they'll save more or not

Except if news agencies didn't spend months screaming that people will die as a result of tax cuts 'for the rich,' people would know they're getting a tax cut.
---

"Wah wah it's the media's fault."

Market your reforms better or even more simply just write better law to begin with.

Don't complain when people dislike unpopular legislation being rammed through.
---

Doom_Art posted...

"Wah wah it's the media's fault."

Market your reforms better or even more simply just write better law to begin with.

Don't complain when people dislike unpopular legislation being rammed through.

So, don't do what libs did in the aftermath of Obamacare?

Except this is only unpopular because of lies in the media?
---

Did John Oliver confirm?
---

Jorep posted...

For the users who don't understand how business works, or on a deeper level supply and demand, allow me to try and explain:

Not really a good analogy. Insurance doesn't work the same as simply a regular product. If customers buy Skub, you don't expect them to potentially keep costing you money (outside of perhaps making a small allowance for litigation). In insurance, they have to make payouts to people. Where do they get the payouts?
---

Tax cuts for everyone? God bless Trump and God bless America
---

darkjedilink posted...

Doom_Art posted...

"Wah wah it's the media's fault."

Market your reforms better or even more simply just write better law to begin with.

Don't complain when people dislike unpopular legislation being rammed through.

So, don't do what libs did in the aftermath of Obamacare?

Except this is only unpopular because of lies in the media?

in the aftermath of obamacare fox news and all conservative pundits were screaming death panels

git gud at positive marketing or git out of congress

ps i've heard a shit-ton of radio ads by business groups praising the tax bill and they're all ultra-saccharine and really transparent. not a good approach.
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Doom_Art posted...

"Wah wah it's the media's fault."

Market your reforms better or even more simply just write better law to begin with.

Don't complain when people dislike unpopular legislation being rammed through.

So, don't do what libs did in the aftermath of Obamacare?

Except this is only unpopular because of lies in the media?

in the aftermath of obamacare fox news and all conservative pundits were screaming death panels

git gud at positive marketing or git out of congress

ps i've heard a shit-ton of radio ads by business groups praising the tax bill and they're all ultra-saccharine and really transparent. not a good approach.

And Obamacare is, was, and always will be a dumpster fire of legislation that liberals literally needed to lie about to pass, and still continue to lie about. Fox News was the only media outlet speaking negativity on it, while liberal outlets lied about what was in it to make it sound good.
---

darkjedilink posted...

And Obamacare is, was, and always will be a dumpster fire of legislation that liberals literally needed to lie about to pass, and still continue to lie about. Fox News was the only media outlet speaking negativity on it, while liberal outlets lied about what was in it to make it sound good.

fox news and the associated conservative pundit-sphere made up lies about what was in the bill, dude. they lied, they continued to lie, they are continuing to lie.

and they spent way more money on the lie than democrats ever did.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/05/20/314366027/study-obamacare-buried-by-avalanche-of-negative-ads
---

Wow 3 whole families

fenderbender321 posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

OK, but does this factor in the lost deductions? What area of the country were these people in? How much will their health insurance go up?

The accountant factors in the deductions. And without Obamacare their premiums would in all likelihood go down.

How? With less people paying into a pool, premiums are going nowhere but up. This does nothing to actually bring about Healthcare reform, it just stripped the mandate.

More people paying into a pool means more people deciding to go see a doctor so that they can get some use out of it, even when they are perfectly healthy.

I know as soon as I got health insurance I started getting checkups every year, getting my ears cleaned out, tests, etc. I'm always perfectly healthy, so it's probably a waste, but hell I have so might as well use it.

The same amount of people, if not more will end up with serious medical bills without health insurance, and a lot less will be able to pay.

That's less people paying into the pool. Besides, you're a terrible example of anything to go off for anything.
---

Musourenka posted...

Jorep posted...

For the users who don't understand how business works, or on a deeper level supply and demand, allow me to try and explain:

Not really a good analogy. Insurance doesn't work the same as simply a regular product. If customers buy Skub, you don't expect them to potentially keep costing you money (outside of perhaps making a small allowance for litigation). In insurance, they have to make payouts to people. Where do they get the payouts?

To answer your question, with the profits they get from the Skub. Insurance is a bad business altogether and something that never should have been acceptable at the federal level. In nearly all instances you would be better off having that money taken and placed into your own health or auto savings account and not touching it until it was necessary.

Case in point - I've been paying auto insurance for over a decade. And my insurance is expensive - over $1,000 a year. So let's say give or take I've spent $14,000 on car insurance in my lifetime, or essentially the price of a good quality used car.
The one time I had a severe car accident it was not my fault and the other person's insurance ended up paying me, all in, about $7,500. But flip it around and say the accident was my fault, and I was on the hook for that $7,500. That's only half of what I've paid overall, and that number continues multiplying as time goes on.

I know health insurance is a much larger beasts, but if the pool of applicants only had so much they could pay, again, prices would come down. If everyone's average health savings account only had 10 grand in it, procedures wouldn't cost $100,000. Nobody would be paying them. The reason a lot of prices are so ridiculously bloated is because we allowed an unchecked system to run out of control, and that's largely the reason ObamaCare looked good in theory, but in practice only served to exacerbate the issue.

But my point is insurance is a flawed business because it only works under the assumption that you're not going to use the "product" you're paying for.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

itachi15243 posted...

The same amount of people, if not more will end up with serious medical bills without health insurance, and a lot less will be able to pay.

No, most people really don't have major medical problems. Elderly people, sure, but not everyone else.

Major medical problems aren't just things like getting shot. Do you know how much it costs to even just have a baby?

And:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
---

Mal literally uses 'fake news' unironically. let that sink in
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

How? With less people paying into a pool, premiums are going nowhere but up.

Are you serious

Are you unaware that premiums skyrocketed thanks to Obamacare

Why would they go up again without Obamacare

Because Obamacare isn't gone... The individual mandate meant more people paying into the pool. With it gone you have less people paying premiums and thus premiums on everyone else going up.
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

How? With less people paying into a pool, premiums are going nowhere but up.

Are you serious

Are you unaware that premiums skyrocketed thanks to Obamacare

Why would they go up again without Obamacare

Because Obamacare isn't gone... The individual mandate meant more people paying into the pool. With it gone you have less people paying premiums and thus premiums on everyone else going up.

When you are trying to move product but you have less people willing to purchase this product do you

A) Raise your prices in an attempt to recover the lost capital from your more loyal customers in hopes they don't abandon ship
or
B) Lower your prices to entice those lost customers back with a sale and gain more revenue by volume?
---

Jorep posted...

When you are trying to move product but you have less people willing to purchase this product do you

A) Raise your prices in an attempt to recover the lost capital from your more loyal customers in hopes they don't abandon ship
or
B) Lower your prices to entice those lost customers back with a sale and gain more revenue by volume?

I don't think it's financially possible for health insurance companies to just lower their rates. The problem is that they always have claims to pay, especially with like 60% of our country being obese. You lower rates and suddenly you're running out of money to pay on claims.
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

Jorep posted...

When you are trying to move product but you have less people willing to purchase this product do you

A) Raise your prices in an attempt to recover the lost capital from your more loyal customers in hopes they don't abandon ship
or
B) Lower your prices to entice those lost customers back with a sale and gain more revenue by volume?

I don't think it's financially possible for health insurance companies to just lower their rates. The problem is that they always have claims to pay, especially with like 60% of our country being obese. You lower rates and suddenly you're running out of money to pay on claims.

With insurance there's more than just, say, raising or lowering rates. They negotiate deals with hospitals about what's going to be paid for certain practices and procedures - which is part of what makes American healthcare so screwed up. As a non-insured person you could be on the hook for $30,000 when, say, Anthem has negotiated a deal to only pay $12,000 for the exact same procedure.

And that spreads outward. The end user is the consumer who pays their insurance premiums and if they're not going to purchase premiums then the insurance company cannot make money, therefore ceasing to function. What it can do is lower premiums and renegotiate deals with hospitals who, again, cannot get paid unless the end user is buying into the system.
It's not just going to be a fire sale across the board where one company is slashing prices but it is a wave that ends with you.
If you're paying $400 a month and the insurance company is paying an average of $350 out of that to health networks (I know this is a simplified model but bear with me) and the system changes to where you're paying $200 a month and $150 of that is being paid out to health networks, the insurance company is still running the same margin.
You could make an argument about a hospital's potential unwillingness to buy into the lost profits but, really, they're the point of contact with the least bargaining power. If you have no insurance they're still required to treat you and when it comes time to collect that's a crapshoot as to whether they're getting paid or writing off the whole visit.

If the mandate is gone, you have to make the decision to purchase health insurance for a health insurance company to profit (and most providers run a healthy profit margin), therefore as the consumer the price has to be something you're willing to pay from the top level down.
With a mandate that every American has to purchase insurance, companies can charge whatever they damn well please because you're on the hook either way.
---

also--the whole problem with the "skub" analogy is that the "extra skub" customers constitute more than two thirds of the company's operating cost; while forced to subsidize them they'll go out of business if they don't have enough customers buying "regular skub" at inflated prices.
---

Darkman124 posted...

also--the whole problem with the "skub" analogy is that the "extra skub" customers constitute more than two thirds of the company's operating cost; while forced to subsidize them they'll go out of business if they don't have enough customers buying "regular skub" at inflated prices.

Ayyyy this guy gets it.
It's almost like insurance is a poor business model and we should have never let it become an integral part of American culture.
---

We need to get away from the post-WWII idea that people should get healthcare from their employers. We need to completely get away from that. Back in the 2016 Democratic Primary, this is something that came up between Hillary and Bernie. Hillary was just like "oh well it would be too hard to redo 100% of the system, stop railing against Obamacare Bernie!!!"
---

Jorep posted...

Darkman124 posted...

also--the whole problem with the "skub" analogy is that the "extra skub" customers constitute more than two thirds of the company's operating cost; while forced to subsidize them they'll go out of business if they don't have enough customers buying "regular skub" at inflated prices.

Ayyyy this guy gets it.
It's almost like insurance is a poor business model and we should have never let it become an integral part of American culture.

yep

Dems made a huge error using reconciliation to pass obamacare. they should've used it to pass the house bill which had a federal public option. that would've run all other insurers out of business. then they could just merge it with the other existing programs (VA care, Medicare, medicaid, etc) and establish a set level of care provided to all

bernie's "medicare for all" idea is on the right track, although it should be "medicare+medicaid for all, employer insurance tax breaks for none"
---

Darkman124 posted...

Jorep posted...

Darkman124 posted...

also--the whole problem with the "skub" analogy is that the "extra skub" customers constitute more than two thirds of the company's operating cost; while forced to subsidize them they'll go out of business if they don't have enough customers buying "regular skub" at inflated prices.

Ayyyy this guy gets it.
It's almost like insurance is a poor business model and we should have never let it become an integral part of American culture.

yep

Dems made a huge error using reconciliation to pass obamacare. they should've used it to pass the house bill which had a federal public option. that would've run all other insurers out of business. then they could just merge it with the other existing programs (VA care, Medicare, medicaid, etc) and establish a set level of care provided to all

bernie's "medicare for all" idea is on the right track, although it should be "medicare+medicaid for all, employer insurance tax breaks for none"

A lot of the issue comes from the fact that the insurance industry is still big money and big profits. Millions upon millions are spent every year on campaign contributions and kickbacks to ensure that the current system isn't changed. And there is the argument that if we put the insurance companies out of business a lot of people will lose their jobs, but hell, people are going bankrupt either way. It's not like we just stopped producing cars because buggy operators didn't want to learn to drive.

There's a lot of potential solutions, like standardizing the cost of healthcare to ensure that all hospitals, at least on a regional basis, charge a similar price for similar services. It's absurd that one hospital could charge $20,000 for a procedure and a hospital 5 miles away could charge $13,000, while the one down the road charges $25,000.
We really need to go one way or the other but you're absolutely right about the nature of ObamaCare. Instead of attempting to fix any of the major issues, it just added a new layer on top of the problems we already had.

There's a reason most insurance companies fully supported ObamaCare, and it wasn't because they were going to fairly insure people with Diabetes.
---