Why are politicians so loathsome?

[moda0306]

I forgot about that.  That was illegal and should have been handled by the courts, assuming we had any courts worth a damn.  But I still maintain that Obama codifying it into our laws is worse that Bush going rogue.  I'll amend my statement of 'Obama is significantly worse' to slightly worse.  But I maintain that he is worse.

I tend to like coercion I can see and understand, rather than stuff that sneaks up on me and is unavoidable.

Maybe that's just me. But I tend to think the worst forms of coercion or confiscation, as an individual, are the ones I can't avoid or can't see coming.

Then I'm sorry to say that you have some real "treats" in store. Unfortunately for all of us.

I probably should know this, but what are those treats in your opinion?

[MediumTex]

I tend to like coercion I can see and understand, rather than stuff that sneaks up on me and is unavoidable.

Maybe that's just me. But I tend to think the worst forms of coercion or confiscation, as an individual, are the ones I can't avoid or can't see coming.

Then I'm sorry to say that you have some real "treats" in store. Unfortunately for all of us.

I probably should know this, but what are those treats in your opinion?

One that comes to mind is the promises that came along with health care reform and the way in which most of them are turning out to have been false.  I think that the scale of this deception for many people is going to be a surprise that they did not see coming.

Imagine how much better the following health care reform structure would have been: (i) All individuals pick up the first $1,000 of their health care costs below $1,000.  The federal government would help out poor people with this deductible; (ii) for health care costs between $1,000 and $50,000, the health insurance industry would write policies.  These policies would have different features within a basic set of parameters such as maximum out of pocket amounts and permitted ranges of coverage percentages (maybe 65% at the bottom and 100% at the top); and (iii) the federal government would pay all expenses for an individual in excess of $50,000 in one year.

The proposal above would protect the insurance industry from catastrophic claims because their exposure for any insured would be capped at $49,000 or less in a given year, it would allow consumer choice, and it would allow the government to throw a lot of money at the problem without screwing up the market too badly.

[moda0306]

MT,

I think liberals would have absolutely loved that plan. I don't think anything that close to single payer heathcare would have been doable due to republican opposition.

I think that is a phenomenal plan. 

[Pointedstick]

MT,

I think liberals would have absolutely loved that plan. I don't think anything that close to single payer heathcare would have been doable due to republican opposition.

I think that is a phenomenal plan.

I wonder what the vote would look like if a bill to repeal Obamacare and replace it with MT's plan were to hit Congress. Politics can make for strange bedfellows.

[MediumTex]

MT,

I think liberals would have absolutely loved that plan. I don't think anything that close to single payer heathcare would have been doable due to republican opposition.

I think that is a phenomenal plan.

I wonder what the vote would look like if a bill to repeal Obamacare and replace it with MT's plan were to hit Congress. Politics can make for strange bedfellows.

To moda's point, that's not really close to a single payer system at all.

A very small percentage of people have annual medical expenses in excess of $50,000.

The general structure, though, of a system that could work would be:

First dollar to something like $1,000 or so ---> Individual pays

$1,000 to some reasonable figure that will capture 90% of all individuals ---> Insurance company pays

90th percentile and up of claims --->  Government pays

Why wouldn't that work?  It would keep the government completely out of the health insurance market for basically 90% of individuals who are above the poverty line.  All the government would be doing for these people would be requiring the health insurance industry to offer what was basically group coverage to individuals based upon age bands such as 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and then Medicare.

Pricing would be simple.  If you were a man between 35 and 44 in Texas, you would pay X for a certain type of policy.  That's it.  You would be required to buy a policy in the same way that you are required to buy car insurance or homeowners insurance, but any individual who wanted to opt out for a year or more could simply set up an HSA type account with a balance that could never dip below $49,000 on the first day of each calendar year, which would demonstrate their ability to basically assume the full risk otherwise assumed by the health insurance companies.  For people who wanted to be outside this new system, all they would have to do would be to show proof of financial responsibility, and they could opt out.  Since few young people would have $49,000 to do this with, this feature wouldn't cause all of the healthy people to leave the insurance pool.

[moda0306]

MT,

What that is is combing a group rating with a mandate for individuals to go buy insurance up to $50k with government as everything above $50k.

Maybe single payer was the wrong word.  Single payer for catastrophic would probably be more precise. 

However, I'm in full agreement with that.  In fact, I think it maybe lets people off too easy who live unhealthy lifestyles. 

A big problem with conservatives (all of a sudden) is the universal mandate.  I don't have much of a problem with it. 

But that would take so much weight off of businesses.

However, I don't think insurance companies would like it.  Individuals are far more likely to "shop" something that they're not underwritten for.  Plus, the government could oh-so-easily lower that $50k and eventually put them out of business.

[Libertarian666]

I tend to like coercion I can see and understand, rather than stuff that sneaks up on me and is unavoidable.

Maybe that's just me. But I tend to think the worst forms of coercion or confiscation, as an individual, are the ones I can't avoid or can't see coming.

Then I'm sorry to say that you have some real "treats" in store. Unfortunately for all of us.

I probably should know this, but what are those treats in your opinion?

I don't have any inside information, of course, but I expect the following:
1. A ban on all external assets (except for those held by their favorites, of course), or alternatively prohibitive taxation on such assets;
2. A prohibition on taking any significant level of assets with you when leaving the country.
3. A wealth tax (again, with their favorites exempted).

Then the really bad stuff starts.

[moda0306]

And the really bad stuff is?

[Libertarian666]

And the really bad stuff is?

Totalitarianism.

[MediumTex]

And the really bad stuff is?

Totalitarianism.

What about the House Republicans?

Why would the U.S. political class want to go full totalitarian?

How would that benefit them?

Isn't the same old creeping, steady, "snail-on-downers" style of incremental tyranny more likely?

[Libertarian666]

And the really bad stuff is?

Totalitarianism.

What about the House Republicans?

I'm sure they will be exactly as effective in preventing it as they have been with all the other recent horrors.

Why would the U.S. political class want to go full totalitarian?

Power. Survival.

How would that benefit them?

Isn't the same old creeping, steady, "snail-on-downers" style of incremental tyranny more likely?

Yes... until we get to the breaking point, where a significant part of the population decides it has had enough.

[rhymenocerous]

I don't have quite the comprehensive understanding of American history that some here seem to have, but I feel like the Internet age has made this one thousand times worse.  It has forced politicians to really be like actors playing a part.  They need to be charismatic, eloquent, look good on TV, and be able to answer difficult questions on the spot.  Since the news cycle is 24hrs, and everything is disseminated online instantly, the slightest mistake by a politician can go viral and seemingly end his career.  What happened to Howard Dean seems to come to mind.  I remember that they even made little action figures that screamed like he did on TV.  Has there ever been this level of intense scrutiny of candidates in the past?  What kind of people can stand up to it?  Those that can play the part become the only choices for our leaders.

[Libertarian666]

I don't have quite the comprehensive understanding of American history that some here seem to have, but I feel like the Internet age has made this one thousand times worse.  It has forced politicians to really be like actors playing a part.  They need to be charismatic, eloquent, look good on TV, and be able to answer difficult questions on the spot.  Since the news cycle is 24hrs, and everything is disseminated online instantly, the slightest mistake by a politician can go viral and seemingly end his career.  What happened to Howard Dean seems to come to mind.  I remember that they even made little action figures that screamed like he did on TV.  Has there ever been this level of intense scrutiny of candidates in the past?  What kind of people can stand up to it?  Those that can play the part become the only choices for our leaders.

I can refute that with one simple name: George W. Bush.

[Mdraf]

Then I'm sorry to say that you have some real "treats" in store. Unfortunately for all of us.

I probably should know this, but what are those treats in your opinion?

One that comes to mind is the promises that came along with health care reform and the way in which most of them are turning out to have been false.  I think that the scale of this deception for many people is going to be a surprise that they did not see coming.

Imagine how much better the following health care reform structure would have been: (i) All individuals pick up the first $1,000 of their health care costs below $1,000.  The federal government would help out poor people with this deductible; (ii) for health care costs between $1,000 and $50,000, the health insurance industry would write policies.  These policies would have different features within a basic set of parameters such as maximum out of pocket amounts and permitted ranges of coverage percentages (maybe 65% at the bottom and 100% at the top); and (iii) the federal government would pay all expenses for an individual in excess of $50,000 in one year.

The proposal above would protect the insurance industry from catastrophic claims because their exposure for any insured would be capped at $49,000 or less in a given year, it would allow consumer choice, and it would allow the government to throw a lot of money at the problem without screwing up the market too badly.

Hmm that's the best plan I've heard in years. Is it yours?

[moda0306]

Amazing how a Marxist like me and some true-blue libertarians can agree on a system like that.

I'm surprised you guys are ok with an individual mandate and gov't run catastrophic coverage. 

[Xan]

Agreeing it's a good idea doesn't make it constitutional. Maybe it's a good idea and maybe it isn't, but it would either need to be implemented at the state level or it would need a constitutional amendment.

[Mdraf]

Amazing how a Marxist like me and some true-blue libertarians can agree on a system like that.

I'm surprised you guys are ok with an individual mandate and gov't run catastrophic coverage.

I'm NOT a true-blue libertarian 
I am against an individual mandate but FOR the gov't catastrophic coverage. If the individual didn't want to insure himself for the $1000-50,000 bracket that would be his problem.

[Pointedstick]

Amazing how a Marxist like me and some true-blue libertarians can agree on a system like that.

I'm surprised you guys are ok with an individual mandate and gov't run catastrophic coverage.

There is a Chinese saying that goes something like this:

"After being struck in the head with an axe, it is a positive pleasure to be beaten about the body with a wooden club."

That's how I feel about Obamacare and MT's plan.

[moda0306]

There's a moda proverb that goes like this:

"If MT's idea was Obama's idea, most republicans and libertarions would be calling it the axe, not the club."



JK... let's let this agreement simmer for a while.

[Pointedstick]

There's a moda proverb that goes like this:

"If MT's idea was Obama's idea, most republicans and libertarions would be calling it the axe, not the club."



JK... let's let this agreement simmer for a while.

I agree with you. That was sort of my point by musing that most Democrats probably wouldn't vote to replace Obamacare with MT's idea. Political realities always cloud our perceptions of whether or not something is actually a good idea.

I'm an incrementalist. Let's say a policy that I judge to be worth 100 "bads" is enacted, I think it would be preferable to replace it with a policy I judge to be worth only 50 bads. Holding out hope for repealing the original policy entirely and jumping all the way back to 0 bads or even 25 goods is an ineffective use of scarce political resources.

Before Obamacare, I might not have wanted to have 50 bads, but after 100, 50 is an improvement.

[MediumTex]

Amazing how a Marxist like me and some true-blue libertarians can agree on a system like that.

I'm surprised you guys are ok with an individual mandate and gov't run catastrophic coverage.

There is a Chinese saying that goes something like this:

"After being struck in the head with an axe, it is a positive pleasure to be beaten about the body with a wooden club."

That's how I feel about Obamacare and MT's plan.

That's exactly what I was getting at.

The problem, of course, is that pre-Obamacare the health care delivery system was also totally screwed up.

When the retail price for a procedure is $1,895 and the contract rate charged to big insurance companies is between $204 and $317, that's a messed up market.

Imagine going into a car dealership and being told that the sticker price of a car was $92,000, but if that you were to go buy a "car buyer policy" from one of the large companies that sold them, the car would only cost $19,000, wouldn't that seem like a pretty stupid arrangement?  Wouldn't it seem even more stupid if you offered them $20,000 on the spot and they said "We would like to take it, but our contract with the car buyer policy companies prohibits us from providing any discounts in excess of 25% from the original sticker price to people who don't have a car buyer policy.  The good news is that I CAN sell you the car for $69,000." 

"Well, what would happen if a person who simply couldn't afford to purchase a car buyer policy came in here and said he desperately needed a car?" I would reply.

"That's a great question.  In that case, we would probably sell him the car for somewhere between $70,000 and $75,000, and our finance department would structure a 720 month payment plan with a balloon payment at the end."

[Mdraf]

I'm going to have lunch with a doctor friend. I'll run MediumTexcare by him see what he thinks 

[MediumTex]

I'm going to have lunch with a doctor friend. I'll run MediumTexcare by him see what he thinks 

A lot of young people in my system would never need to have an insurance claim processed at all because their annual health care expenses wouldn't exceed $1,000.

In other words, the paperwork associated with a lot of the people in the system would simply consist of collecting a payment at the point of service.  For poor people, this payment could be made by using the health care equivalent of a Food Stamps-type debit card.

[Tyler]

MTex for President!

That's a very common sense and well-reasoned idea for meaningful healthcare reform that actually addresses some of the underlying problems with the system.  Which is why no politician has brought it up.

[Benko]

"the federal government would pay all expenses for an individual in excess of $50,000 in one year."

A large amount of money is spent at the extremes of life i.e. infants, especially premature infants, and people who are extremely sick.  People who are extremely sick might be from a car accident or terminal cancer.  If gov't is paying for this, they will decide who does and who does not get money spent on their care.  `You want gov't deciding this???