Health Care Eventuality

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Health Care Eventuality

Originally posted by vonschnapps There is a technique used in difficult or unpopular political situations, or in negotiations where you have a very weak hand, that goes along the lines of "Cause scare and anger at first, then propose what you really wanted in the first place". The concept is that if you put out your unpopular, but desired objective first, it will be rejected and any compromise will be far less than you want. Developers often do this. Instead of proposing an unpopular multi-unit complex in a desirable area (which typically is wealthy and has a good school system), they will propose a Low-Income, Rent-subsidized apartment complex. This shocks the heck out of the existing residents of the area (who are then painted as elitists, snobs,racists, 'not in my neighborhood, etc. by the developer). As the tensions reach the high point, the developer offers the magnanimous offer of just building the standard multi-unit complex. People are so relieved, there is no fight about it. So we have a terrible health care system in the US, no debate there. The rest of the world utilizes some form of national health care. Some may recall that this was initially floated before the ACA. Polls showed it to be very unpopular. So we launch (or try to launch) Obama-care, it's scaring a lot of people, and certainly is making many very angry. It will continue to be pushed, but will be a non-workable disaster (this is not a political comment, but more of a 'new product launch' disaster, sometimes something has such a bad perception that it never achieves the critical mass necessary for survival). Now, national healthcare doesn't look so bad. No health insurance profiteers, no medicaid, no medicare, and health care for all... just don't ever get sick.

I'm 54........I never saw a problem with the system we had before Obamacare. Remind me.......what was the problem again?

Expert

1233

Subject: RE: Health Care Eventuality

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by vonschnapps There is a technique used in difficult or unpopular political situations, or in negotiations where you have a very weak hand, that goes along the lines of "Cause scare and anger at first, then propose what you really wanted in the first place". The concept is that if you put out your unpopular, but desired objective first, it will be rejected and any compromise will be far less than you want. Developers often do this. Instead of proposing an unpopular multi-unit complex in a desirable area (which typically is wealthy and has a good school system), they will propose a Low-Income, Rent-subsidized apartment complex. This shocks the heck out of the existing residents of the area (who are then painted as elitists, snobs,racists, 'not in my neighborhood, etc. by the developer). As the tensions reach the high point, the developer offers the magnanimous offer of just building the standard multi-unit complex. People are so relieved, there is no fight about it. So we have a terrible health care system in the US, no debate there. The rest of the world utilizes some form of national health care. Some may recall that this was initially floated before the ACA. Polls showed it to be very unpopular. So we launch (or try to launch) Obama-care, it's scaring a lot of people, and certainly is making many very angry. It will continue to be pushed, but will be a non-workable disaster (this is not a political comment, but more of a 'new product launch' disaster, sometimes something has such a bad perception that it never achieves the critical mass necessary for survival). Now, national healthcare doesn't look so bad. No health insurance profiteers, no medicaid, no medicare, and health care for all... just don't ever get sick.

I'm 54........I never saw a problem with the system we had before Obamacare. Remind me.......what was the problem again?

One problem that I experienced was that I was responsible for several manufacturing sites with over 1000 employees. Health care expense was my number one, uncontrollable cost. Even when natural gas and fuel surcharges were the norm, the double digit annual increases in medical insurance was killing us. We even went to self-insurance, with a $60k reinsurance kicker. At renewal we could offer our employees a slightly higher premium rate (single digit) as the previous year if we 'lasered' (the insurance company term) two employees. These two employees had potential health needs that likely would have exceeded $300k per employee, 'lasered' meant that they would not get insurance coverage. That was a problem.

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Health Care Eventuality

Originally posted by vonschnapps

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by vonschnapps There is a technique used in difficult or unpopular political situations, or in negotiations where you have a very weak hand, that goes along the lines of "Cause scare and anger at first, then propose what you really wanted in the first place". The concept is that if you put out your unpopular, but desired objective first, it will be rejected and any compromise will be far less than you want. Developers often do this. Instead of proposing an unpopular multi-unit complex in a desirable area (which typically is wealthy and has a good school system), they will propose a Low-Income, Rent-subsidized apartment complex. This shocks the heck out of the existing residents of the area (who are then painted as elitists, snobs,racists, 'not in my neighborhood, etc. by the developer). As the tensions reach the high point, the developer offers the magnanimous offer of just building the standard multi-unit complex. People are so relieved, there is no fight about it. So we have a terrible health care system in the US, no debate there. The rest of the world utilizes some form of national health care. Some may recall that this was initially floated before the ACA. Polls showed it to be very unpopular. So we launch (or try to launch) Obama-care, it's scaring a lot of people, and certainly is making many very angry. It will continue to be pushed, but will be a non-workable disaster (this is not a political comment, but more of a 'new product launch' disaster, sometimes something has such a bad perception that it never achieves the critical mass necessary for survival). Now, national healthcare doesn't look so bad. No health insurance profiteers, no medicaid, no medicare, and health care for all... just don't ever get sick.

I'm 54........I never saw a problem with the system we had before Obamacare. Remind me.......what was the problem again?

One problem that I experienced was that I was responsible for several manufacturing sites with over 1000 employees. Health care expense was my number one, uncontrollable cost. Even when natural gas and fuel surcharges were the norm, the double digit annual increases in medical insurance was killing us. We even went to self-insurance, with a $60k reinsurance kicker. At renewal we could offer our employees a slightly higher premium rate (single digit) as the previous year if we 'lasered' (the insurance company term) two employees. These two employees had potential health needs that likely would have exceeded $300k per employee, 'lasered' meant that they would not get insurance coverage. That was a problem.

Admittedly, I've been lucky in that both my wife and I work for the govt..... me municipal, her federal. We have switched back and forth over the years based on whoever we thought had the best deal. At my work, there are over 800 in the pool.....we have faced some raises over the years, but it hasn't been too crazy compared to others and we had some pretty serious health issues in the gorup...luekemia, near death from gunshot (huge bill), etc. The biggest raise we saw was 4%. Obviously, my wife's insurance, with the huge pool of the federal govt., faced much more stable conditions. Do private firms face bigger increases/problems than govts.? I have never seen the double digit raises that you mention, though I have no reason to doubt it......I'm just trying to learn.

Veteran

244

Ohio

Subject: RE: Health Care Eventuality

Originally posted by vonschnapps

There is a technique used in difficult or unpopular political situations, or in negotiations where you have a very weak hand, that goes along the lines of "Cause scare and anger at first, then propose what you really wanted in the first place". The concept is that if you put out your unpopular, but desired objective first, it will be rejected and any compromise will be far less than you want. Developers often do this. Instead of proposing an unpopular multi-unit complex in a desirable area (which typically is wealthy and has a good school system), they will propose a Low-Income, Rent-subsidized apartment complex. This shocks the heck out of the existing residents of the area (who are then painted as elitists, snobs,racists, 'not in my neighborhood, etc. by the developer). As the tensions reach the high point, the developer offers the magnanimous offer of just building the standard multi-unit complex. People are so relieved, there is no fight about it.

So we have a terrible health care system in the US, no debate there. The rest of the world utilizes some form of national health care. Some may recall that this was initially floated before the ACA. Polls showed it to be very unpopular. So we launch (or try to launch) Obama-care, it's scaring a lot of people, and certainly is making many very angry. It will continue to be pushed, but will be a non-workable disaster (this is not a political comment, but more of a 'new product launch' disaster, sometimes something has such a bad perception that it never achieves the critical mass necessary for survival). Now, national healthcare doesn't look so bad. No health insurance profiteers, no medicaid, no medicare, and health care for all... just don't ever get sick.

This was discussed some in an earlier ACA post. IMHO, it will never happen. The insurance companies will never allow a national health care system. Period.

My Race Log

Elite

6387

Subject: RE: Health Care Eventuality

Originally posted by buck1400

Originally posted by vonschnapps There is a technique used in difficult or unpopular political situations, or in negotiations where you have a very weak hand, that goes along the lines of "Cause scare and anger at first, then propose what you really wanted in the first place". The concept is that if you put out your unpopular, but desired objective first, it will be rejected and any compromise will be far less than you want. Developers often do this. Instead of proposing an unpopular multi-unit complex in a desirable area (which typically is wealthy and has a good school system), they will propose a Low-Income, Rent-subsidized apartment complex. This shocks the heck out of the existing residents of the area (who are then painted as elitists, snobs,racists, 'not in my neighborhood, etc. by the developer). As the tensions reach the high point, the developer offers the magnanimous offer of just building the standard multi-unit complex. People are so relieved, there is no fight about it. So we have a terrible health care system in the US, no debate there. The rest of the world utilizes some form of national health care. Some may recall that this was initially floated before the ACA. Polls showed it to be very unpopular. So we launch (or try to launch) Obama-care, it's scaring a lot of people, and certainly is making many very angry. It will continue to be pushed, but will be a non-workable disaster (this is not a political comment, but more of a 'new product launch' disaster, sometimes something has such a bad perception that it never achieves the critical mass necessary for survival). Now, national healthcare doesn't look so bad. No health insurance profiteers, no medicaid, no medicare, and health care for all... just don't ever get sick.

This was discussed some in an earlier ACA post. IMHO, it will never happen. The insurance companies will never allow a national health care system. Period.

What, they would love it.

The government is nothing but a middle man. Yes, we can have single payer, and the Feds will pay insurance companies. They will become the program managers. They will get their cut, the Feds will get theirs.

The government never ever makes anything cheaper. And they never ever cut out industry giants. All they do is rig the game to make all of them richer... exactly what they have done now. The insurance companies say they have no choice, and raise prices... best thing ever. And single payer will be a boon too... bet on that.

My Race Log

Member

465

Subject: RE: Health Care Eventuality

Originally posted by vonschnapps

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by vonschnapps There is a technique used in difficult or unpopular political situations, or in negotiations where you have a very weak hand, that goes along the lines of "Cause scare and anger at first, then propose what you really wanted in the first place". The concept is that if you put out your unpopular, but desired objective first, it will be rejected and any compromise will be far less than you want. Developers often do this. Instead of proposing an unpopular multi-unit complex in a desirable area (which typically is wealthy and has a good school system), they will propose a Low-Income, Rent-subsidized apartment complex. This shocks the heck out of the existing residents of the area (who are then painted as elitists, snobs,racists, 'not in my neighborhood, etc. by the developer). As the tensions reach the high point, the developer offers the magnanimous offer of just building the standard multi-unit complex. People are so relieved, there is no fight about it. So we have a terrible health care system in the US, no debate there. The rest of the world utilizes some form of national health care. Some may recall that this was initially floated before the ACA. Polls showed it to be very unpopular. So we launch (or try to launch) Obama-care, it's scaring a lot of people, and certainly is making many very angry. It will continue to be pushed, but will be a non-workable disaster (this is not a political comment, but more of a 'new product launch' disaster, sometimes something has such a bad perception that it never achieves the critical mass necessary for survival). Now, national healthcare doesn't look so bad. No health insurance profiteers, no medicaid, no medicare, and health care for all... just don't ever get sick.

I'm 54........I never saw a problem with the system we had before Obamacare. Remind me.......what was the problem again?

One problem that I experienced was that I was responsible for several manufacturing sites with over 1000 employees. Health care expense was my number one, uncontrollable cost. Even when natural gas and fuel surcharges were the norm, the double digit annual increases in medical insurance was killing us. We even went to self-insurance, with a $60k reinsurance kicker. At renewal we could offer our employees a slightly higher premium rate (single digit) as the previous year if we 'lasered' (the insurance company term) two employees. These two employees had potential health needs that likely would have exceeded $300k per employee, 'lasered' meant that they would not get insurance coverage. That was a problem.

So the problem was that the federal government forced the coupling of health insurance with employment back in 50's. The easy fix would have been to change the laws that did that with a one page bill and instead of creating this current mess.

I agree with your assessment of tactics of negotiations with a weak hand but I think the federal government is too inept and cruel to employ that tactic. I think the reality is the government fix for bad federal programs is always a worse federal program than the one it intended to fix.

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: Health Care Eventuality

Originally posted by Jackemy1

Originally posted by vonschnapps

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by vonschnapps There is a technique used in difficult or unpopular political situations, or in negotiations where you have a very weak hand, that goes along the lines of "Cause scare and anger at first, then propose what you really wanted in the first place". The concept is that if you put out your unpopular, but desired objective first, it will be rejected and any compromise will be far less than you want. Developers often do this. Instead of proposing an unpopular multi-unit complex in a desirable area (which typically is wealthy and has a good school system), they will propose a Low-Income, Rent-subsidized apartment complex. This shocks the heck out of the existing residents of the area (who are then painted as elitists, snobs,racists, 'not in my neighborhood, etc. by the developer). As the tensions reach the high point, the developer offers the magnanimous offer of just building the standard multi-unit complex. People are so relieved, there is no fight about it. So we have a terrible health care system in the US, no debate there. The rest of the world utilizes some form of national health care. Some may recall that this was initially floated before the ACA. Polls showed it to be very unpopular. So we launch (or try to launch) Obama-care, it's scaring a lot of people, and certainly is making many very angry. It will continue to be pushed, but will be a non-workable disaster (this is not a political comment, but more of a 'new product launch' disaster, sometimes something has such a bad perception that it never achieves the critical mass necessary for survival). Now, national healthcare doesn't look so bad. No health insurance profiteers, no medicaid, no medicare, and health care for all... just don't ever get sick.

I'm 54........I never saw a problem with the system we had before Obamacare. Remind me.......what was the problem again?

One problem that I experienced was that I was responsible for several manufacturing sites with over 1000 employees. Health care expense was my number one, uncontrollable cost. Even when natural gas and fuel surcharges were the norm, the double digit annual increases in medical insurance was killing us. We even went to self-insurance, with a $60k reinsurance kicker. At renewal we could offer our employees a slightly higher premium rate (single digit) as the previous year if we 'lasered' (the insurance company term) two employees. These two employees had potential health needs that likely would have exceeded $300k per employee, 'lasered' meant that they would not get insurance coverage. That was a problem.

So the problem was that the federal government forced the coupling of health insurance with employment back in 50's. The easy fix would have been to change the laws that did that with a one page bill and instead of creating this current mess. I agree with your assessment of tactics of negotiations with a weak hand but I think the federal government is too inept and cruel to employ that tactic. I think the reality is the government fix for bad federal programs is always a worse federal program than the one it intended to fix.

agree, I think the OP may be giving too much credit to the makers of the ACA. It's been a political disaster for the Democrats, and there's no way they did that on purpose. They certainly wanted to go single payer from the start, but there was not enough support to do that even with a super majority by the Democrats. So, with the House controlled by the Republicans and the Sentate/Whitehouse being in Democratic hands there's no way anything closer to single payer gets through.

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the public support for a single payer solution has likely waned over the past year as well due to the Government proving that they are incapable of running just a portion of healthcare. How is giving them all of it going to be better?

So, I do agree with the OP to an extent about the tactics that can lead to what you really want, I don't think it's really applicable with the healthcare system. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd put the percent at near 0.

Also, one other quick comment. We did not have a terrible healthcare system. We had, and still have, the best healthcare system in the world. The problem was, the demand for our healthcare system was so high that the pricing has gotten out of hand. So, yes our healthcare system is expensive, but it's also the best.

My Race Log

Veteran

244

Ohio

Subject: RE: Health Care Eventuality

Originally posted by powerman

Originally posted by buck1400

Originally posted by vonschnapps There is a technique used in difficult or unpopular political situations, or in negotiations where you have a very weak hand, that goes along the lines of "Cause scare and anger at first, then propose what you really wanted in the first place". The concept is that if you put out your unpopular, but desired objective first, it will be rejected and any compromise will be far less than you want. Developers often do this. Instead of proposing an unpopular multi-unit complex in a desirable area (which typically is wealthy and has a good school system), they will propose a Low-Income, Rent-subsidized apartment complex. This shocks the heck out of the existing residents of the area (who are then painted as elitists, snobs,racists, 'not in my neighborhood, etc. by the developer). As the tensions reach the high point, the developer offers the magnanimous offer of just building the standard multi-unit complex. People are so relieved, there is no fight about it. So we have a terrible health care system in the US, no debate there. The rest of the world utilizes some form of national health care. Some may recall that this was initially floated before the ACA. Polls showed it to be very unpopular. So we launch (or try to launch) Obama-care, it's scaring a lot of people, and certainly is making many very angry. It will continue to be pushed, but will be a non-workable disaster (this is not a political comment, but more of a 'new product launch' disaster, sometimes something has such a bad perception that it never achieves the critical mass necessary for survival). Now, national healthcare doesn't look so bad. No health insurance profiteers, no medicaid, no medicare, and health care for all... just don't ever get sick.

This was discussed some in an earlier ACA post. IMHO, it will never happen. The insurance companies will never allow a national health care system. Period.

What, they would love it.

The government is nothing but a middle man. Yes, we can have single payer, and the Feds will pay insurance companies. They will become the program managers. They will get their cut, the Feds will get theirs.

The government never ever makes anything cheaper. And they never ever cut out industry giants. All they do is rig the game to make all of them richer... exactly what they have done now. The insurance companies say they have no choice, and raise prices... best thing ever. And single payer will be a boon too... bet on that.

When I hear single payer system, I guess I think of Medicare/Medicaid. Although you have Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare supplemental plans, I guess I don't see the health insurance participation in Medicare/Medicaid.

Edit to add: I guess I see the insurance companies in love with the ACA, I mean they are really the reason we have it. Sell a product which people are required to buy, with only a token of competition. Big win for them.

Edited by buck1400 2013-12-19 6:11 PM

My Race Log

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: Health Care Eventuality

I thought this article gave a decent point of view about why we won't be moving closer to a single payer system.

UHLER and FERRARA: Obamacare, the end of the progressive era

There’s an old saw about cooking frogs: Place them in cool water, and then turn up the heat. The frogs fail to respond to gradual temperature change, and by the time the water gets near the boiling point, the frogs are unable to jump out and save themselves.
That is what President Obama and the Democrats have had in mind with Obamacare, which they planned would lead to single-payer, socialized medicine. However, their incompetent “chefs” have placed ordinary citizens directly in a boiling health care caldron. Americans are reacting with extreme reproach, and it is progressivism and the Democratic Party that is getting burned.

My Race Log

Affordable Care Act for dummies version Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6	Started by trigal38 Views: 13208 Posts: 140	2013-11-13 4:25 PM buck1400
On the street interviews 'Obamacare' vs. Affordable Care Act	Started by tolefanjh Views: 1475 Posts: 4	2013-10-02 9:24 AM msteiner
Medical Groups Oppose Gun-Law Change To Share Mental Health Records	Started by DanielG Views: 1991 Posts: 11	2013-06-19 2:04 PM powerman

Health Care Eventuality

REGISTER TODAY