Obamacare

[Hauldren Collider]

Without benefits, and including taxation + some an additional factor due to the higher income, it would be better to be poverty level than make ~30k per year without benefits.

So, what do you think would happen if the company she worked for suddenly decided to give her benefits? Do you think her salary/wage would stay the same or go down? Perhaps if forced to give her benefits without reducing her wage, they would simply fire her since they can no longer afford to employ her. Now she not only has no health insurance, but no income!

This isn't really the case.

JM

Then perhaps we should stop giving medicare to rich old people and shift some money around to the people who need it?

My question is why we force people to spend welfare in certain ways. Why give them money and say it is for healthcare instead of just giving them money and letting them spend it? We give out food stamps, we give out medicare, we give out child support, we give out all these paternalistic benefits because we think poor people are too stupid to manage their own lives. Well, to tell you the truth I think this is often (not always or even mostly) the case--I'm just surprised that so many Democrats seem to agree.

[dannubis]

General question: would she have gotten access to necessary treatment if she wasn't insured (through obama or not) ?

[giblets]

My question is why we force people to spend welfare in certain ways. Why give them money and say it is for healthcare instead of just giving them money and letting them spend it? We give out food stamps, we give out medicare, we give out child support, we give out all these paternalistic benefits because we think poor people are too stupid to manage their own lives. Well, to tell you the truth I think this is often (not always or even mostly) the case--I'm just surprised that so many Democrats seem to agree.

Seriously? You're "paternalistic" if you offer to pay for something instead of just handing people cash? People who need surgery to remove tumors have a much greater need for money than people who are perfectly healthy, so it makes perfect sense to have a program that will give more aid to the sick than the healthy.

[Jon Miller]

So, what do you think would happen if the company she worked for suddenly decided to give her benefits? Do you think her salary/wage would stay the same or go down? Perhaps if forced to give her benefits without reducing her wage, they would simply fire her since they can no longer afford to employ her. Now she not only has no health insurance, but no income!

But she would have health care (through medicare) and would have other necessities through state support. Much better than 30k without health care.

My entire point is that from your perspective everyone who is making under 30k or so (up to 40k for a family) should quit work so that they are making under the poverty level and will have their catastrophic costs taken care of by medicare.

The cost of health care is the problem, it is too high for people to afford.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

Seriously? You're "paternalistic" if you offer to pay for something instead of just handing people cash? People who need surgery to remove tumors have a much greater need for money than people who are perfectly healthy, so it makes perfect sense to have a program that will give more aid to the sick than the healthy.

That's why you get insurance with the money. You don't use it to directly pay for care. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Hauldren Collider]

But she would have health care (through medicare) and would have other necessities through state support. Much better than 30k without health care.

My entire point is that from your perspective everyone who is making under 30k or so (up to 40k for a family) should quit work so that they are making under the poverty level and will have their catastrophic costs taken care of by medicare.

The cost of health care is the problem, it is too high for people to afford.

JM

No, based on your example, the cost of healthcare is not the problem. The problem is the perverse incentives created by Medicare.

[regexcellent]

Actually, it is. But I don't bother with you.

So then you should explain how it is inconsistent instead of posting worthless passive-agressive attempts at the Socratic method.

[regexcellent]

I think DaShi is just refusing to admit to himself that he has some kind of creepy unrequited e-lust for HC a la that chick from Hey Arnold.

[Jon Miller]

No, based on your example, the cost of healthcare is not the problem. The problem is the perverse incentives created by Medicare.

The problem is that people who make less than 30k (or up to 40k, with a family) can not afford health care unless they are provided benefits.

You are basically blaming her and people like her for not being able to afford healthcare.

JM

[regexcellent]

The problem is that people who make less than 30k (or up to 40k, with a family) can not afford health care unless they are provided benefits.

You are basically blaming her and people like her for not being able to afford healthcare.

JM

Well, if you don't earn enough to get health care how the hell is that anyone else's fault? It's a regrettable circumstance but what you're saying is that people aren't responsible for their own fiscal situation. Almost like that people are just wealthy or poor, period, you're born that way, nothing you can do about it.

Besides, that money for the healthcare comes from somewhere, and requiring the company to provide it is nothing less than mandating an increase in salary. If the company can only afford to pay a guy so much, 9 times out of 10 he'll be fired if you make the company pay more. I'd rather have a job that doesn't cover health than be unemployed.

[Jon Miller]

If we decide that poor people can not have healthcare, I am not arguing about that. I will note that in every other first world country, the poor can acquire healthcare.

I was replying to this though:

See, I don't see why taxpayers (or insurers) should have to foot the bill unconditionally for people's health when they themselves don't seem to care that much about it.

Here HC accuses the poor of not caring about healthcare. It has nothing to do with not caring, and everything to do with being too poor.

JM

[DaShi]

No, based on your example, the cost of healthcare is not the problem. The problem is the perverse incentives created by Medicare.

First, both Jon and you mean Medicaid. Second, medicare isn't alone in creating perverse incentives, the insurance companies are just as much to blame for rising medical costs.

[Jon Miller]

There is a serious problem with our healthcare. It is a problem on both the private and public levels.

It is set up to be inefficient, and for insurance agencies/etc to make a mint off it.

It needs to be discarded completely. Either with national healthcare (like europe), or with capitalistic healthcare (like South Africa).

What we are doing now is not publicly or privately sustainable.

JM

[regexcellent]

Here HC accuses the poor of not caring about healthcare. It has nothing to do with not caring, and everything to do with being too poor.

A lot of people who don't have health insurance can afford it. The concept of this being about getting health care for poor people is misguided. Medicaid actually does cover healthcare for people who genuinely cannot afford it.

Fundamentally what obamacare does is make health care an entitlement for the middle class, when the middle class by definition is not in need of entitlements. It is not and has never been about the poor.

[DaShi]

There is a serious problem with our healthcare. It is a problem on both the private and public levels.

It is set up to be inefficient, and for insurance agencies/etc to make a mint off it.

What we are doing now is not publicly or privately sustainable.

JM

This is correct. The problem wit HC's view is it just seems to be about punishing the poor for some reason. I don't think that is a helpful philosophy.