←back to thread

129 points geox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.33s | source
Show context
brandonb ◴[] No.44604783[source]
The ACA was originally designed as a "three-legged stool" of nondiscrimination (insurance companies can't charge higher rates to sick people), the individual mandate, and subsidies.

If you remove one of legs of the stool, the market becomes unstable and you see price spirals like this.

Jonathan Gruber (MIT econ professor, and one of the designers of the Affordable Care Act) gave a fairly detailed talk about how and why they designed the ACA the way they did, learning from a similar law in Massachusetts: https://youtu.be/2fTHqARiV_Q?si=SRC6Np-rjgUgAe4Z&t=679

replies(3): >>44604870 #>>44604881 #>>44604934 #
mystraline ◴[] No.44604881[source]
Yep, the ACA was originally RomneyCare.

Mitt Romney took the plan from the Heritage foundation (yes, the conservative neocon think tank). Hard low-controls capitalist plan.

Heritage foundation made this plan after Hillary Clinton pushed universal healthcare in 1994, as first lady. Howls of 'death panels' were heard all over republican talking points and radio shows.

(The 'death panels' aka rationing was seen as bad for government to do. However, we see a new type of rationing, based upon how much patients cost, and then denying care. That lead to the UHC execution, then approving more procedures, then getting sued by shareholders for that. Personally, government death panels are preferred to capitalist death panels.)

Put simply: Obama passed republican legislation put forth by a republican governor and a republican thinktank, and was deemed a socialist. And now, the program is basically destroyed.

replies(4): >>44604907 #>>44604935 #>>44605069 #>>44605203 #
bpt3 ◴[] No.44605203[source]
> However, we see a new type of rationing, based upon how much patients cost, and then denying care.

This is not at all new. It's how every other market operates.

For healthcare, which is not a normal market by any means, it might make sense to approach rationing differently because most people refuse to accept that rationing occurs at all, but cost will always be part of the picture.

replies(1): >>44605517 #
1. mystraline ◴[] No.44605517[source]
Its not JUST cost.

Insurance company covers person.

Person gets chronic ill, with covered disease.

Person is now 'less profit' or a cost.

Company, against contract, refuses to cover medication/procedures.

Company waits out patient to die.

The person is demonstrably wronged, but these companies can just wait sick people out. And that's precisely what happened with UHC. You know, Delay Deny Defend.