Ray Jay wrote:In the case of ACA, the government has redefined minimum insurance for not just the poor, but for everyone. Insurance requirements for birth control, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc. have all be redefined.

Which does surely mean that people know what they are paying for - with non-standard terms how can you compare policies?

The Gov't has mandated 4 levels of insurance (bronze, gold, etc.); they've created or mandated exchanges where we purchase the insurance (vs. the existing agency system), and they've mandated compliance via the IRS including penalty provisions; they've mandated a new definition for full time employee, and they've mandated employer insurance requirements based on the employer's size.

I think these are among the most problematic parts for me. the exchanges are not mandatory as far as consumers are concerned, I believe. To be honest, though it always strikes me as odd that healthcare insurance is largely an employer-based thing - meaning that the cost increases over the past few decades have increased the cost of having employess across the economy.

The problem in my view is not that the government has defined and regulated what they pay for (i.e. as they do for Medicaid) but they have overly defined and regulated what individuals directly pay for, including individuals who get no subsidy from the state.

'Overly' I get. But there are reasons for having regulation of health insurance - because when people find they are not covered, it has social repercussions.

Going back to SNAP (aka food stamps) which we've talked about before. I'm fine with the government mandating that food stamps are not used to buy potato chips or soda. (Unfortunately there is no such mandate.) However, I'm not okay with the government mandating that I as a free citizen do not buy these products with my own money. (Not a perfect analogy, but a close one.)

Ah, well, I would say if you want to restrict other people's food intake, why object to if being done to you?

it's a whole new topic, but I'm not sure that soda is food. It's certainly not nutritious so shouldn't fall under the definition of SNAP. If people want to buy soda with their own money, they should be able to as far as I am concerned.

danivon wrote:Ah, well, I would say if you want to restrict other people's food intake, why object to if being done to you?

Perhaps people want to have to restrict themselves based upon their own choices and resources?

Sounds good to me.

Some poll results about the ACA. 54% said they think the ACA's flaws are fixable. 40% support it and 14% oppose it because they think it is not liberal enough. Well, I suspect that is pretty soft opposition on the liberal side and it is noteworthy that you add up those who support the law and those who think it is not liberal enough you get the same figure as those who think it is fixable (54%). The ACA is not that unpopular and the young approve it at much higher rates. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... s-fixable/

freeman3 wrote:Some poll results about the ACA. 54% said they think the ACA's flaws are fixable. 40% support it and 14% oppose it because they think it is not liberal enough. Well, I suspect that is pretty soft opposition on the liberal side and it is noteworthy that you add up those who support the law and those who think it is not liberal enough you get the same figure as those who think it is fixable (54%). The ACA is not that unpopular and the young approve it at much higher rates. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... s-fixable/

What I love: you think time is on your side.

The polls are going to get worse.

You failed to note that 45% say it won't be fixed. So, all that has to happen is almost all the others have to believe the fixes are working. Good luck!

By the way, cognitive dissonance is a fancy phrase, but you're the one that quoted an article saying that employer's costs were going to rise 5-7% percent, that those kinds of increases we're a "fixture", but now employers were claiming that their costs were going up because of the ACA. You quoted that article, I simply examined the implications of that. All I have said is that health care increases have slowed, which is not the same as employer's costs. If you quote an article then it is fair game for me to make reasonable inferences based on the article. So I did not simultaneously say that the ACA reduced costs and that it is not responsible for costs that were coming. What I said was that a reasonable inference from your article was that employer's increases were similar to prior years, but that employers were blaming it on the ACA. Growth in health care costs is not the same as the growth in employer's costs. It is not up to me to prove what your article implies--you cited it.
Is that clear enough....or do I need to bold it?

Ray Jay wrote:it's a whole new topic, but I'm not sure that soda is food. It's certainly not nutritious so shouldn't fall under the definition of SNAP. If people want to buy soda with their own money, they should be able to as far as I am concerned.

It may not contain much in the way of vitamins or fibre or protein, but it does contain the two most essential food needs a person has - energy and water. Not the best option, I grant, but perhaps the answer lies in something like the HIP that was being piloted in Massechusetts earlier in the year - making fruit and vegetables more affordable rather than just putting restrictions on what is bought.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Ah, well, I would say if you want to restrict other people's food intake, why object to if being done to you?

Perhaps people want to have to restrict themselves based upon their own choices and resources?

Then let them restrict themselves. That's not the same thing as forcing them, is it? And often people do not 'choose' to end up poor - often the 'choice' that leads them there is made by others. But you ain't poor, so...

Sounds good to me.

Freedom for me but not for thee, based on assumed moral superiority sounds good to a lot of people.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:it's a whole new topic, but I'm not sure that soda is food. It's certainly not nutritious so shouldn't fall under the definition of SNAP. If people want to buy soda with their own money, they should be able to as far as I am concerned.

It may not contain much in the way of vitamins or fibre or protein, but it does contain the two most essential food needs a person has - energy and water. Not the best option, I grant,

The latest estimate I've read is that $4 billion a year of SNAP money is spent on soda. The obesity rates of those on public assistance are off the charts, even more so than the general population. You can pretend it's about energy and water, but there are no shortages of calories or water, and getting back on topic, obesity is clearly an important health factor and part of the reason why the U.S. outspends others on healthcare. Giving poor people e-cards to buy soft drinks that have no nutritional value and create future large medical costs as well as bad health outcomes is not good policy. If you want to pretend that this is about Brad and I being morally challenged, you can, but it's really about the failure of Democratic policy makers.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Ah, well, I would say if you want to restrict other people's food intake, why object to if being done to you?

Perhaps people want to have to restrict themselves based upon their own choices and resources?

Then let them restrict themselves. That's not the same thing as forcing them, is it? And often people do not 'choose' to end up poor - often the 'choice' that leads them there is made by others. But you ain't poor, so...

Sounds good to me.

Freedom for me but not for thee, based on assumed moral superiority sounds good to a lot of people.

Danivon,
I have stated it before, and I will state it again. I grew up DIRT POOR. We had NOTHING! We still had good food, and spent the food stamp coupons (not a faux bank card) on healthy food, because that was all we had. Am I rich now? Not hardly, my friend.

To tie this to the insurance debate, it would be akin to ensuring that everyone had to follow the policies of food stamps, and then paying for the obligation to not get what we want.

If people want to be on food stamps, gov't subsidized insurance, gov't subsidized housing (which I know a great deal about!) or any other gov't subsidized program; fine. Just follow the policies to get the money. If you don't want the policies, don't get on the program. That is the choice I was addressing.

Seems simple.

As a liberal, I have no problem at all with prohibiting food stamp money being on soda--it would be a rational restriction. When you receive financial support from another person (say parents) or the government, you lose the freedom to have complete control over how the money is spent. In fact, the Food Stamp program already is a restriction on the freedom to spend money--you can only spend it on food. And if a person does not like those restrictions, well, maybe that will be a spur for them to go out and find a way to support themselves.

freeman3 wrote:As a liberal, I have no problem at all with prohibiting food stamp money being on soda--it would be a rational restriction. When you receive financial support from another person (say parents) or the government, you lose the freedom to have complete control over how the money is spent. In fact, the Food Stamp program already is a restriction on the freedom to spend money--you can only spend it on food. And if a person does not like those restrictions, well, maybe that will be a spur for them to go out and find a way to support themselves.

Amen!

Do you have a problem with some people not wanting to have to follow the restrictions of a government program if they choose to not participate?

I use the specific example of a person having a healthcare policy that does not provide for mental disorders, abortion, birth control.

Under the law's authorization, Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius issued a set of defined "essential health benefits"[21] that all new insurance plans have to include. Insurers will be prohibited from imposing annual or lifetime coverage caps on these essential benefits.[190][194] These cover: "ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care."[195][196] In determining what would qualify as an essential benefit, the law required that the scope of standard benefits should equal that of a "typical employer plan".[195] States have some discretion in determining what should be considered the benchmark plan within the requirements of the law, and may include services beyond those set out by the Secretary.[197]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Change_in_insurance_standards

Is this a forced restriction that you are talking about, Freeman? Should the buyer of the insurance get to choose what services they would like covered? I understand and agree that a government policy would have restrictions and a "one-size fits all" functionality. They are too big and bulky to be anything else. However, if someone chooses to purchase a policy should they be allowed to buy what they are wanting, and not purchase what they don't want?

I am not so "pollyannish" to believe that there should be no restrictions on insurance, but to say that I need to purchase maternity and birth control care at my age is silly.

Would you agree with that?

freeman3 wrote:As a liberal, I have no problem at all with prohibiting food stamp money being on soda--it would be a rational restriction. When you receive financial support from another person (say parents) or the government, you lose the freedom to have complete control over how the money is spent. In fact, the Food Stamp program already is a restriction on the freedom to spend money--you can only spend it on food. And if a person does not like those restrictions, well, maybe that will be a spur for them to go out and find a way to support themselves.

Thanks; it's always good when we find common ground! Why is it so hard to change this policy?

I agree in principle with the argument that a person should not have to buy coverage they do not need. However, here the government is trying to make sure that with regard to certain coverages that everyone who does need those coverages will get them. And it may be, I don't know, that carving out certain exceptions for those who don't need the coverage would be more expensive than it is worth. It also seems to me that if there is a coverage that is not applicable, then the insured should not have to pay for it (the insurer in calculating the risk should take into account that this particular insured is not subject to that risk resulting from an inapplicable coverage). Finally, to the extent insurers are surcharging insureds who have inapplicable coverages, then that is something that presumably could be fixed by passing a "technical improvement" law (however, we know that is not possible under current political conditions)