Started By
Message
locked post

Great article on the Hobby Lobby case and broader ACA implications

Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:17 pm
Posted by GoBigOrange86
Meine sich're Zuflucht
Member since Jun 2008
14486 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:17 pm
From the National Review's Kevin Williamson. Allow me a few quotes:

quote:

In the wake of the Hobby Lobby case, suddenly liberals are wising up to the fact that it’s kind of stupid to have your health insurance tied to your employer who may — get this — have a whole different set of financial incentives and values than you yourself have. That’s not just obvious — it’s John McCain obvious. I myself like Sarah Palin, but I know how you guys feel about her, so sit down for a minute and quietly chew over the fact that the guy who put Sarah Palin on the 2008 Republican ticket figured out that employer-based health insurance was a bad idea a long time before it started dawning on you guys.

And even though it’s slightly salt-in-the-wound for me to point it out, we have employer-based health insurance because of you geniuses. Like a great deal of what’s wrong with American public policy, this largely goes back to the 1930s, the New Deal, and FDR’s update of Wilson’s “war socialism.” Short version: The federal government enacted wage controls, but employers still had to compete over the best employees, so they figured out ways to pay them that would get around the wage controls, and what they came up with was what used to be known as the “fringe benefit,” which today mainly takes the form of health insurance. You guys kind of liked this; “corporation” had not yet become a synonym for “villain” in the progressive vocabulary, and Italian-style corporatism was very much in fashion among progressives, even after Benito Mussolini had gone out of style. Using the private sector to implement public policy must have seemed like a stroke of genius — the welfare state was still a pretty hard sell in 1935.



quote:

Tri-Sprintec birth-control pills run about $12 a month — cash, no insurance. More expensive pills such as Ocella start around $40 — or about half the typical cable bill, and, so far, we haven’t needed a national mandate or a trillion-dollar subsidy for people to see Duck Dynasty and The Biggest Loser. Progressives mad about Hobby Lobby started a campaign under the motto: “Not my boss’s business.” But Obamacare makes it — pardon me for noticing — literally your boss’s business. And I don’t mean “literally” the way Joe Biden uses it; I mean “literally” the way literally literate people use it. The alternative is this: Your money, your pills, your call. If what you care about is access to contraception, then that’s a pretty good model. If what you care about is using the levers of the state to force moral uniformity on the entire country so that atavistic Evangelical types have to knuckle under to your demands — well, you lost.


LINK


This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 1:19 pm
Posted by Holden Caulfield
Hanging with J.D.
Member since May 2008
8308 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:21 pm to
Good article but not likely to resonate with those who should be listening the most.
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 1:22 pm
Posted by BigJim
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2010
14491 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:23 pm to
OMG so much win in that article!!!!!

Edited to add:

quote:

Which brings us to another point that you recently humbled ACA partisans ought to be giving some thought to: We have not yet perfected time travel. Insurance, as understood by people who speak English better than the vice president does, is a future-oriented proposition. It is a financial instrument used to hedge against risks of certain negative events that may happen in the future, e.g., your car getting hit by an uninsured motorist, or your house burning down. Those events are impossible to predict for the individuals but occur at relatively predictable rates in a sufficiently large population. It is — literally — impossible to insure against something that already has happened (“preexisting conditions”) and it is — literally — impossible to insure against an event that is sure to happen within a given time frame. (The variable in life insurance isn’t whether you die but when.) You cannot insure against a birth-control prescription that you pick up on the 22nd day of every month; the prescription is not a surprise, and neither is the circumstance that necessitates it. (Which is not the case for so-called emergency contraception, but even that is less than 50 bucks, and therefore hardly worth insuring against.) Likewise, routine care is not an insurable risk. You can fold that stuff into an insurance plan, and sometimes that might make sense: The people who are insuring you against the expensive proposition of breast cancer have a good incentive to throw breast exams into the “free” column — but surely, surely you sophisticated, self-actualized, read-my-Kristeva ladies don’t think that it’s actually free? The facts are: (1) Mammograms cost money; (2) somebody has to pay for them; (3) your insurance company is not run by people who love you. So, do the math


We have stopped looking at insurance as hedging against unexpected health disasters (cancer, hit by a car, etc)and trying to spread that risk and instead just think in terms of "what do I want and how can I get others to pay for it."
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 1:28 pm
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69289 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:26 pm to
Great read.
Posted by JEAUXBLEAUX
Bayonne, NJ
Member since May 2006
55358 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:27 pm to
so are you calling for Universal health Care that is not run through the employers? Man you are the champion of Obamacare then. Damn! seen it all now
Posted by Tiguar
Montana
Member since Mar 2012
33131 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:29 pm to
of course. The logic string is government intervention failed, clearly more intervention is needed.
Posted by The Spleen
Member since Dec 2010
38865 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:31 pm to
quote:

In the wake of the Hobby Lobby case, suddenly liberals are wising up to the fact that it’s kind of stupid to have your health insurance tied to your employer


A lot of liberals were wise to that all along, but were met with resistance from conservatives on adding a public option to ACA.
Posted by GoBigOrange86
Meine sich're Zuflucht
Member since Jun 2008
14486 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:33 pm to
quote:

A lot of liberals were wise to that all along, but were met with resistance from conservatives on adding a public option to ACA.


A public option is even worse.

But it's clear this was the plan from the beginning, and many conservatives said so (and were, of course, roundly ridiculed for doing it). They said the ACA would fail and the only proposed solution would be universal healthcare. That's exactly where the argument has started to turn.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69289 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:33 pm to
quote:

A lot of liberals were wise to that all along, but were met with resistance from conservatives on adding a public option to ACA.
Ah yes, so only government can solve this issue! I prefer the system we had before FDR. Out of pocket payments. The system was efficient, easily accessible to all, and nobody even thought about getting rid of it.
Posted by Mr.Perfect
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2013
17438 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:35 pm to
as stated... great read
Posted by Y.A. Tittle
Member since Sep 2003
101390 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:36 pm to
How much did MRIs, CT scans, and heart transplants cost before FDR?

I get your basic point, but it's a whole different ball game now.
Posted by Holden Caulfield
Hanging with J.D.
Member since May 2008
8308 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:36 pm to
quote:

A lot of liberals were wise to that all along

And yet they pushed for it. Sorry but I fail to spot the wisdom you refer too.
Posted by NikolaiJakov
Moscow
Member since Mar 2014
2803 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:37 pm to
No. He's calling for insurance to be bought and sold on the open market like auto, home, or life insurance is.

Which is how is SHOULD work.
Posted by GoBigOrange86
Meine sich're Zuflucht
Member since Jun 2008
14486 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:38 pm to
quote:

And yet they pushed for it. Sorry but I fail to spot the wisdom you refer too.


Hence, their support for the bill. The ends justified the means.

Once again though, I am routinely shocked by the logic that government's repeated failures in this and other sectors ought to be corrected by...giving the government even greater control.

You don't keep raising the salary of someone who keeps fricking up their job.
Posted by GoBigOrange86
Meine sich're Zuflucht
Member since Jun 2008
14486 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:39 pm to
quote:

I get your basic point, but it's a whole different ball game now.


Of course, but the reason that these procedures are so absurdly cost-prohibitive is a direct result of the insurance market game that started in the FDR era.
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:39 pm to
Your linked article is laughably fallacious. What most "liberals" wanted was a single-payer government system, call it Medicare for All, that would have eliminated the predominance of employer-provided insurance as the basis of our healthcare. It was the conservative side that sought to keep the status quo.

quote:

But there are more intelligent, market-based, consumer-driven alternatives, and they are ultimately what’s going to end up getting enacted.


Again, that's laughable. Market-based, consumer-driven alternatives won't take care of people who can't afford to participate in the market. No such alternatives will ever be enacted again in this country. Single payer is coming. Prepare yourself for it.


Posted by TROLA
BATON ROUGE
Member since Apr 2004
12327 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:39 pm to
quote:

so are you calling for Universal health Care that is not run through the employers? Man you are the champion of Obamacare then. Damn! seen it all now


I can only assume that whatever part of that article you've read, went straight over your head.
Posted by The Spleen
Member since Dec 2010
38865 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:39 pm to
quote:

A public option is even worse.


I don't disagree, but just pointing out the fallacy in that opening statement of the quoted portion of the article. I'm no ACA supporter, though I do think there are a lot of good things in it. I also think what we had before ACA wasn't working, and nothing was done when conservatives were in power so I don't put much stock in their current belly aching over it.


Me, I've always felt the government should provide every citizen with insurance for catastrophic illnesses/hospitalizations, and let people purchase private insurance on the free market for routine healthcare, dental care, vision care, prescriptions, etc.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67079 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:41 pm to
quote:

You don't keep raising the salary of someone who keeps fricking up their job.


You do in a union shop
Posted by GoBigOrange86
Meine sich're Zuflucht
Member since Jun 2008
14486 posts
Posted on 7/2/14 at 1:43 pm to
quote:

Market-based, consumer-driven alternatives won't take care of people who can't afford to participate in the market.


They can't afford to participate BECAUSE of government intervention. That's the whole point.

Our insurance system masks costs, and heavy-handed government intervention protects large insurance companies, providing them the monopoly they need, as well as the ability to hide costs, that makes services so outlandishly expensive. In a market-driven system these costs are not hidden, there is competition, and prices are driven down as a result.

The flaw in your line of thinking is that nothing would change relative to prices were the market more free and open. It's not free. Government fricked it up. And your solution seems to be to give government even more control so they can frick things up to an even greater extent.
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 2:05 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram